Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 03:33:15 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Aaargh bastard ripoff merchants

Started by Famous Mortimer, February 22, 2011, 08:30:44 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Famous Mortimer

There was an argument above that the companies need to keep paying for the online server costs, or whatever. Why, when there aren't any more people actually playing the game? If someone sells me their copy of the game, it's not like EA's servers are having to put up with double the load, is it? If the original purchaser continued playing online for a year, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever to EA if he played it for 6 months then sold it to me, and I played it for 6 months.

That's why I think this is a bullshit argument (and isn't about getting free shit, tagger - I still paid over £20 for the game).

bitesize

it's not a "bullshit argument", server costs vs. average play time are factored into a game's budget - people generally don't play games forever, the budgeting people at the publisher will estimate the average length of time a customer will play online and factor in the cost for that length of time. if they estimate that a player will generally keep playing the online mode for 6 months before giving up, at the end of that time either he puts that game away and doesn't play it again, or he trades it in/sells it to you and you play it for another 6 months. so in the latter case, their server costs have doubled, and they've had no extra income from you. of course, it's all estimates and averages, it's not an exact science, but in general they know what they're doing.

i certainly don't think it costs them as much as the tenner they'll charge you for access to the online mode mind you, that's definitely too much. but i don't think it's an argument that can be just dismissed as bullshit either. i  suspect it's more to do with fighting 2nd hand sales than actually covering costs mind...

i'm all in favour of this approach to tackling the 2nd hand problem - but then, i work in games development so we tend to see things from our own perspective (i gather StillNotGeorge also works in gamedev?). and i certainly agree that it's up to the game retailers to make this sort of thing clear when they sell 2nd hand games on.

Still Not George

Quote from: bitesize on February 25, 2011, 04:38:01 PMi'm all in favour of this approach to tackling the 2nd hand problem - but then, i work in games development so we tend to see things from our own perspective (i gather StillNotGeorge also works in gamedev?). and i certainly agree that it's up to the game retailers to make this sort of thing clear when they sell 2nd hand games on.
Yeah, I do, but I'm an indie dev these days. Still think it's a bit rich to blame EA for GAME et al's malfeasance.

Also, can anyone think of another form of media where reduced-price second hand versions of exactly the same media with virtually no quality reduction are available in the same stores within days of release? I've racked my brain and I can't think of one. DVDs don't really work that way, they take months to come back and generally lack cases, are scratched nastily, etc. Books don't either - second hand bookshops are a very different breed to mainstream bookstores.

Hell, I can't even think of another kind of durable goods that works like that. Most durable goods either lose quality rapidly after sale (white goods), or the retailers operate under stringent rules enforced by the distributors (cars). Games are pretty unique in this respect, especially given their relatively high initial and retained value.

Zetetic

Quote from: Still Not George on February 25, 2011, 05:24:58 PM
DVDs don't really work that way, they take months to come back and generally lack cases, are scratched nastily, etc.
Is this true?
GAME's online store, for example, stocks plenty 'pre-owned' copies of (moderately) recently released Blu-rays and DVDs, with the same guarantees as games.

I would have thought optical-media films are probably the nearest example to games in this respect. Setting aside multiplayer servers for match-making and stats (which, I'm more than prepared to admit probably don't deserve to be included by default with the physical item[nb]With the caveat that it's difficult to see EA's specific approach as anything short of gouging.[/nb]), the two seem very comparable as regards what you might reasonable expect buying the physical item to entail.

Still Not George

Quote from: Zetetic on February 25, 2011, 07:23:07 PM
Is this true?
GAME's online store, for example, stocks plenty 'pre-owned' copies of (moderately) recently released Blu-rays and DVDs, with the same guarantees as games.

I was rather pointedly not mentioning online, as an entirely different ecosystem exists there. Ever seen that in an actual GAME?

Zetetic

I can't remember the last time I saw an actual GAME, so I'll have to defer on that one.

(A fairly large part of the reason why I can't, is because it's been a long time since I've expected the physical item to guarantee me much.)

Still Not George

Quote from: Zetetic on February 25, 2011, 07:23:07 PM
I would have thought optical-media films are probably the nearest example to games in this respect... the two seem very comparable as regards what you might reasonable expect buying the physical item to entail.

Games also have a considerably higher inital and retained value. Second hand DVDs are around a fiver, while sought-after second hand games can be little more than £5-10 cheaper than a new copy.

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: Still Not George on February 25, 2011, 05:24:58 PM
Also, can anyone think of another form of media where reduced-price second hand versions of exactly the same media with virtually no quality reduction are available in the same stores within days of release? I've racked my brain and I can't think of one. DVDs don't really work that way, they take months to come back and generally lack cases, are scratched nastily, etc. Books don't either - second hand bookshops are a very different breed to mainstream bookstores.
I think you're wrong about DVDs, for one (and any scratching issues would presumably be the same for games) - but you'd probably have to check eBay and Amazon for that. Same with books, and the turnaround time is roughly the same.

I think the reason the second hand market is so good for games is because we don't usually have to pay extra to go online, or whatever. If games companies start following EA's lead, then you'll see the bottom drop out of the pre-owned market really fast.

Quoteit's not a "bullshit argument", server costs vs. average play time are factored into a game's budget - people generally don't play games forever, the budgeting people at the publisher will estimate the average length of time a customer will play online and factor in the cost for that length of time.
It's still a bullshit argument. You're justifying the worst possible price gouging of games companies, non-coincidentally because you work in games development. Do you think the way they're organised now, with DLC that should have been part of the game, codes only available to new-game buyers, rushed bug-filled releases is a good way of organising things?

It's the way you're acting like the multi-million dollar EA machine is entirely right to wring every last penny from the people who want to play their games that baffles me. I'm not saying they're not allowed to, but I think they're morally wrong to do so. All they've done in my case is lost a fairly loyal customer - I won't buy any more EA games, ever, because of this. How's that benefiting their business model?

Still Not George

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on February 25, 2011, 07:49:10 PM
I think you're wrong about DVDs, for one (and any scratching issues would presumably be the same for games) - but you'd probably have to check eBay and Amazon for that. Same with books, and the turnaround time is roughly the same.
How many bookshops sell both first- and second-hand books? Quick clue - not many, at all. But that still doesn't address the retained value issue. If games are similar products to books and DVDs, why do they retain so much more of their value between sales?

QuoteI think the reason the second hand market is so good for games is because we don't usually have to pay extra to go online, or whatever. If games companies start following EA's lead, then you'll see the bottom drop out of the pre-owned market really fast.
It's still a bullshit argument. You're justifying the worst possible price gouging of games companies, non-coincidentally because you work in games development. Do you think the way they're organised now, with DLC that should have been part of the game, codes only available to new-game buyers, rushed bug-filled releases is a good way of organising things?
Rushed bug-filled releases have been a fixture of the industry for decades due to the publisher-fronted model forcing developers to release early rather than finish the game; any platform that permits updates is going to be infested with these, it's a simple reality of the current structure of the industry. "DLC that should have been part of the game" is one of those things that gets thrown around a lot but ultimately is a matter of opinion - it could just as easily be said that without that extra projected revenue, the additional features would have been cut anyway (feature cuts happen ALL THE TIME). And the codes, as we've seen here, are not universally considered a bad thing. It's not just me and bitesize disagreeing with you, no matter what you might try to imply, so that would suggest that opinion is not as cut and dried as you might wish it was.

QuoteIt's the way you're acting like the multi-million dollar EA machine is entirely right to wring every last penny from the people who want to play their games that baffles me. I'm not saying they're not allowed to, but I think they're morally wrong to do so. All they've done in my case is lost a fairly loyal customer - I won't buy any more EA games, ever, because of this. How's that benefiting their business model?
Second-hand consumers are second-hand consumers. EA has no responsibility, moral or otherwise, to you. You retailer does, of course, but you've seen fit to absolve them of responsibility in favour of blaming someone you actively sought to deny revenue from your purchase (by buying it second-hand rather from one of the extremely numerous cut-price first-hand avenues). If you don't like it, either don't buy second-hand, or don't buy from EA. But don't go around announcing that the games industry owes you something when you've done nothing (in this case) to support it.

Famous Mortimer

Seriously? Take everything in your house that was purchased second-hand, work out how much money you saved doing it that way then send cheques to the manufacturers / producers that "you actively sought to deny revenue from your purchase".

QuoteHow many bookshops sell both first- and second-hand books?
Amazon.

QuoteBut don't go around announcing that the games industry owes you something
Feel free to quote where I announced the games industry "owed" me anything.

I'm a bit disappointed that people are disagreeing that I've even got the right to be annoyed about it. There's not any industry that works the same way as games, and the sole reason you're defending it is because you work in that industry - just as tedious and blinkered as biggytitbo defending Sky's scumfuck practices.

Still Not George

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on February 25, 2011, 08:17:42 PM
Seriously? Take everything in your house that was purchased second-hand, work out how much money you saved doing it that way then send cheques to the manufacturers / producers that "you actively sought to deny revenue from your purchase".
I had a look around and it seems I actually have surprisingly little that I purchased second-hand, but that's entirely beside the point.  I don't need to care about the manufacturers and producers of the few things I've bought second-hand, but equally I don't expect them to care about me. I am not a part of their market, I am an entirely separate element. I am not their customer. This is what I'm trying to get you to understand.

QuoteAmazon.
Repeat after me: AMAZON IS NOT A BOOKSHOP.
Amazon is an online book retailer. It provides books over the post from stock and secondary retailers. Its business model bears no resemblance whatsoever to a traditional bookshop or store. I mentioned this already.

QuoteFeel free to quote where I announced the games industry "owed" me anything.
You've been declaring that EA are in some way morally responsible for the fact that someone sold you a second-hand copy of a game without a code to use the MP elements. How is saying that EA deprived you of those elements different from saying that they owe you them?

QuoteI'm a bit disappointed that people are disagreeing that I've even got the right to be annoyed about it. There's not any industry that works the same way as games, and the sole reason you're defending it is because you work in that industry - just as tedious and blinkered as biggytitbo defending Sky's scumfuck practices.
No-one is disagreeing that you've got the right to be annoyed about it. We just disagree with you about whether being annoyed about it is reasonable (or indeed remotely meaningful). That happens sometimes, people disagree with each other.

As for "the sole reason you're defending it is because you work in that industry" - way off the mark, I'm afraid. I deal in downloadable games, you can't buy my stuff pre-owned (well, the stuff I do now anyway; some of the stuff I did for the Wii shows up in the pre-owned charts from time to time, which amuses me greatly). Second-hand games are no issue to me. And I have no great love for EA, either, as I've already mentioned. But I don't accept that a company (indeed, industry) for which you aren't even a customer in this case has any responsibility to you for what a retailer does or doesn't make clear when you purchase something second-hand from them.

And again, it's not just me and bitesize, and to my knowledge, we're the only devs on here. Jemble's a stinky games journo, but he hasn't been on here. Other people have disagreed with you too.

Mister Six

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on February 25, 2011, 07:49:10 PMIt's the way you're acting like the multi-million dollar EA machine is entirely right to wring every last penny from the people who want to play their games that baffles me. I'm not saying they're not allowed to, but I think they're morally wrong to do so. All they've done in my case is lost a fairly loyal customer - I won't buy any more EA games, ever, because of this. How's that benefiting their business model?

Since you buy your games second-hand it's not really affecting their business model either way. On account of you not actually directing any of your money towards EA in the first place.

Other than that: what SNG said. You're not directing any money towards EA so they don't owe you a thing. For the record I'm not involved in the games industry in any capacity, aside from having a couple of friends who work in it. I'd kill for a job on a decent games mag, though.

bitesize

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on February 25, 2011, 07:49:10 PM
It's still a bullshit argument. You're justifying the worst possible price gouging of games companies, non-coincidentally because you work in games development. Do you think the way they're organised now, with DLC that should have been part of the game, codes only available to new-game buyers, rushed bug-filled releases is a good way of organising things?

why is it a "bullshit argument"? seems pretty basic to me, people sell games on when they're finished playing them. if someone buys second hand, they're extending the online life of the game, on average probably doubling it, therefore doubling server costs while receiving no more money. care to engage with this, rather than writing it off as "bullshit"? if not, there's not really much point in the debate really...

don't see what DLC or rushed releases have to do with any of this, either.

i do see what you're saying man, and i understand that if you buy 2nd hand games this is gonna seem like a huge kick in the face - but you have to see that this is a big problem for the people that make the games. as has already been said, games are unique in the way they're sold, not only in the fact that 2nd hand is sold alongside new, but the likes of Game + Gamestation actively push 2nd hand copies ahead of new copies. often if you go up to the counter with a new copy they'll say "we got this pre-owned for a fiver less if you want", they'd much rather sell that than the new copy cos they make much more profit on it. this is directly harming the industry. the online pass thing i agree is a clumsy way of addressing this but it's the only way really (unless the game shops agree to pass on some of the profit from 2nd hand to the publishers - which is never gonna happen). thing is, it's a fairly new initiative - i think in the long run, 2nd hand game prices will come down because of it. if a game is sitting on the 2nd hand shelf with a sticker saying "no online code included", you're not gonna want to pay as much for it right? you wouldn't have bought that game for £20 if you'd known it didn't have online, but maybe if they'd priced it at a tenner, you might have bought it, then spent the other tenner on the online pass. that way the money from the 2nd hand sale is divided between the shop, and the makers of the game. i can't see how this could be a bad thing really. there's no "price gouging" or "wringing every last penny" from the consumer there. it's just cos it's a new thing, 2nd hand prices are still largely the same as before but 2nd hand buyers are being locked out of content - i agree this isn't the way things should be done. but it's up to the retailers to adequately warn customers about missing content and price accordingly.

to be honest though, this is an argument i've seen played out on game forums time and time again, and both sides never agree. probably best just to agree to disagree...

Zetetic

I'm not entirely convinced that the response "You've given no money to EA so you deserve fuck-all. Be glad that someone didn't shit the case." is entirely correct. It's not as though the game has been pirated, which would be an entirely different kettle of fish.

My line of thinking is that it's part of the value of the (first-sale) product that it does have resale value. This is complicated by the scumbags GAME (who as middlemen introduce a horrific markup, I'm sure), but I don't think it invalidates it. Whether or not Famous Mortimer has bought from EA, his existence a consumer in the second-hand market has seemingly bolstered the value of the product in the first-hand market.

Sure, obviously not enough for EA to give a shit about him, but it's worth pointing out that it's not like he's obtain an unlicensed copy (that it is a copy that wasn't produced under license, not one missing a EULA or some bollocks along those lines). EA produces a certain number of copies, and traditionally and legally (in many other forms of copyrighted media), they don't get to insert themselves at the point of any other resale. That's a limitation of copyright that we've come to expect, and previously demanded.

(One that I've moderately happily given up, I'll note, in buying games from Steam and the like. Apologies for sounding like a broken record, but I've only done so in exchange for other rights and, more often than not, a decrease in price.)

Of course, given the reaction in this thread, and how upset EA seems to be about the second-hand market perhaps he may as well have pirated the damn thing. I'm curious if people here think that's no worse in this case. Perhaps even morally justifiable, if it goes about bringing the end of the chain high street games retailer.

I'm still not convinced about SNG's thoughts on how games are different to any other media. That is, at the very least I'm not convinced that these are ground in themselves for letting physical copies of games geta way, with, well, no longer being copies of games. I wonder if there are Blu-rays with one-use (per player, I don't know?) codes to let them play the Director's Cut or some such; it wouldn't surprise me, but nor would that be 'right', to my mind. Would this be acceptable, and if so would it still only ever be the second-hand dealer's responsibility to disabuse people of their notions of what buying the object means? I still know that I need to think more on this though, so I'm not going to claim any degree of certainty that SNG's wrong.

(Unfortunately, I think that this issue is really incredibly clouded by precisely the 'missing content' in this case. Because it's not content, it's a secondary service. I still think EA are taking the piss on the price, and that again because of the reasonable expectations of console consumers this practice tends towards the wankerish more than simply unpleasant. While I know that it certainly should be the responsibility of GAME, and other retailers to deal with the expectations, it'd still be the right, nice thing for EA to do to work towards this as well. Indeed, as bitesize points out you might think that's there's incentive for them to do so - but I suspect that they're counting on people who've bought it and been disappointed to cough up more readily.)

Mister Six

Quote from: Zetetic on February 26, 2011, 10:51:34 AM
I'm not entirely convinced that the response "You've given no money to EA so you deserve fuck-all. Be glad that someone didn't shit the case." is entirely correct. It's not as though the game has been pirated, which would be an entirely different kettle of fish.

It's slightly better than pirating because no duplicate copies are being made, but as far as EA or any other publisher is concerned they don't make money off of either.

QuoteMy line of thinking is that it's part of the value of the (first-sale) product that it does have resale value. ... Whether or not Famous Mortimer has bought from EA, his existence a consumer in the second-hand market has seemingly bolstered the value of the product in the first-hand market.

Not sure I get what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that people buy newly minted games because they know that they will be able to trade them in? And that they wouldn't buy games at all if there was no second-hand market? Because that's the only way I can see how a second-hand market might bolster the value of video games.

QuoteI wonder if there are Blu-rays with one-use (per player, I don't know?) codes to let them play the Director's Cut or some such; it wouldn't surprise me, but nor would that be 'right', to my mind.

Using the director's cut on a Blu-Ray doesn't incur any extra cost for the publishers. Logging onto one of their servers for multiplayer content does.

Zetetic

#45
Quote from: Mister Six on February 26, 2011, 11:03:32 AM
It's slightly better than pirating because no duplicate copies are being made, but as far as EA or any other publisher is concerned they don't make money off of either.
Why is this 'better'? All you've done is analyse what 'piracy' simply means. If EA makes no more money off it, relative to it being bought second-hand, why precisely is limiting the number of copies in itself a end?

It seems to me that there is a reason here, I'm trying to bring it out or else dissolve my intuition. I suppose if we subscribe to the idea that all EA actually want to sell you at all is a one-use license to the game (and that the only reason they don't do so is because of the fuss, possibly involving legal difficulties but as has been noted this isn't so clear cut with software in particular), then there really is no difference to them between a second-hand sale and copyright infringement.

QuoteNot sure I get what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that people buy newly minted games because they know that they will be able to trade them in? And that they wouldn't buy games at all if there was no second-hand market? Because that's the only way I can see how a second-hand market might bolster the value of video games.
I don't think that one need to have the extreme example of individual who'd buy no games if they then couldn't sell them off, but rather that (obviously, I would have thought) there are people who buy more games new because they can sell the games off. Even if you don't buy that people see games as more valuable because they sell them on (although I know a few console owners who precisely do take this approach), you can simply look at it as individuals that sell their games on now have money which they will likely spend on another game.

This is also borne out by the number of people decrying the brave new world of online distribution not for preventing them buying second-hand, but being unable to play a game and then recoup some of the cost. (I personally have no great interest in selling on games, more through being a hoarder than rolling in cash.)

(Edit: Such issues are clearly found in other markets, albeit ones quite different to games. The typical one is cars and buyer concern about depreciation. Few games are quite such an investment, and the rate at which people switch games is clearly much higher, so the markets aren't terribly similar. Nevertheless the principle that resale value is incorporated into the buyer's decision, and hence the price of the first-sale, remains.)

QuoteUsing the director's cut on a Blu-Ray doesn't incur any extra cost for the publishers. Logging onto one of their servers for multiplayer content does.
Oh, sure. It's more clouded in this case, so I certainly think that EA are justified in charging something to access Autolog. But I also think that they really could, and should, do more to prevent people like FM not knowing what's "in the case", and beyond that the price that they charge isn't at all commensurate with their server costs (and reflects their position that they are entitled to profit from second-hand sales; this is, of course, arguable but without much chance of resolution.).

The blu-ray example more concords with simple game content being included in first sale, but not in the second. Apologies if I didn't make that clear. I'm still curious what people's position would be on that, intuitively. I just wonder if I'm entirely out-of-whack in sympathising with FM.

HappyTree

In the days of the original Xbox I regularly re-sold my games. It was a bit like rental, in essence. Buy the game from Amazon Marketplace at a cheaper price, play it until finished, sell again on Marketplace, undercutting everyone else to ensure a quick sale. Total cost to me, often less than £10, postage included.

Sometimes I'd keep a game but usually not. I never bought any game at full price from a high street chain, surely you'd have to be extremely thick to voluntarily pay up to £50 for a single game? If I ever buy a game new it's from Amazon at a heavy discount anyway.

I don't know why games are priced so highly in the first place. I am not prepared to spend that much on a game, I wonder how many other people are.

As for splitting the online cost into a separate purchase with a code, I'd welcome such a direction. Let's reduce all games and then everyone who wants to play online can pay for it, leaving the single-player game cheaper for me! I would welcome buying a game "crippled" in that way.

Still Not George

Quote from: HappyTree on February 26, 2011, 03:36:33 PMSometimes I'd keep a game but usually not. I never bought any game at full price from a high street chain, surely you'd have to be extremely thick to voluntarily pay up to £50 for a single game? If I ever buy a game new it's from Amazon at a heavy discount anyway.

I don't know why games are priced so highly in the first place. I am not prepared to spend that much on a game, I wonder how many other people are.

It takes quite a lot of millions of dollars to make a game for modern consoles, and there's a whole lot of parasites in the industry - the publishers, for one, more than double the cost (in return for fronting the cash for the project), with console games the platform charges a license fee, the distributors add another chunk, and the retailer adds another chunk to that. And even a successful game will usually sell less than 10 million copies. You do the maths - much less than £40 or so and it's not a viable prospect.

Why does it work that way? Because those <10 million sales are almost entirely in the first couple of weeks. Opening sales make up more than 70% of the sales of any AAA boxed retail title. There is NO "long tail" - residuals are a trickle, because by that point the game is available for sub-20 quid online or elsewhere. This is another way games are massively different from DVDs, as the film on a DVD has likely already been out in cinemas and will likely see TV license fees for some years to come.

Personally I don't really understand a mentality that will pay £100+ for a boxed set of 50 hours of a TV series, but won't pay £50 for 40+ hours of gameplay.

HappyTree

I wouldn't pay that for a boxed set either, but the difference would be in quality of entertaiment. Usually a TV programme will have decent actors and a proper script. That may be becoming more true for games, but the vast majority of them offer sub-par voice acting and sub-cinematic visuals. Not to mention potentially a poor gameplay mechanic, bugs and the problem that the player has to be somewhat capable to get the maximum out of the game.

Games are getting better all the time, but even I who love playing in RPG worlds have to admit that they are not as convincing a fantasy world as, say, the film trilogy of LOTR. The two entertainment sources are not directly comparable yet. I'm sure they will be, ME2 is great, but not on a par with watching BSG.

I'm sure there are all sorts of issues to do with production costs, development and the reduced market for gaming that mitigate the points I made above. Unfortunately the consumer is not very forgiving in that respect and only wants a good end product. I do see gaming and cinema converging in the future, so as the production and quality of games increases so will its consumer base, so will its budget and revenue stream.

In short, then, I don't think the quality of entertainment you actually get from a game like ME2 is worth £50 from the wallet of a consumer, regardless of all the costs involved. It is a subjective evaluation and perhaps feels unfair to those who work in game development. But there it is.

Still Not George

Quote from: HappyTree on February 26, 2011, 05:59:22 PMIn short, then, I don't think the quality of entertainment you actually get from a game like ME2 is worth £50 from the wallet of a consumer, regardless of all the costs involved. It is a subjective evaluation and perhaps feels unfair to those who work in game development. But there it is.
Considering what 50 quid is actually worth in the current market, I think you're epically off-base.

But then, considering how little of that £50 Bioware themselves will actually see (and they're in a better position to negotiate than the majority of devs), it's neither here nor there. Rising costs, the second-hand market, and idiotic, grasping, risk-averse publishers are going to continue to slowly strangle the industry, leaving it confined to subsidised regions like Canada and cash cows like FarmVille and WoW. There's a reason everyone's haring off wildly towards casual/social games etc - if things continue the way they're going, in 10 years from now there won't be any AAA studios left, cos they'll have all gone broke. Once there aren't any first-hand products left, have fun trying to find second-hand ones.

HappyTree

You said that 70% of sales are made in the opening weeks. Who are the people who buy then? They are the ones who are apparently funding the games industry.

In the old days buying a game on cassette only cost about 10 quid. 10 quid in those days is what now, 20 quid? Still, it was affordable to me back then as a teenager.

Nowadays £50 for a game is simply not affordable to me. But the costs of producing games have gone way up since the platforms on which they're played have evolved beyond all recognition. Perhaps it is just a fact of economic life that the bigger companies who produce the consoles and computers will be the only ones who will be able to sustain game development.

I can see this from your point of view and sympathise, but everyone is having to face harsh realities of the marketplace and economy. Did I just say that? I'm sounding like a Fry & Laurie sketch. Damn and blast and a bucketful of damn. Marjorie!!

Still Not George

Quote from: HappyTree on February 26, 2011, 07:38:43 PM
You said that 70% of sales are made in the opening weeks. Who are the people who buy then? They are the ones who are apparently funding the games industry.
They're fanboys and early adopters. And yes, you're correct when you say they're the entire revenue stream these days.

QuoteIn the old days buying a game on cassette only cost about 10 quid. 10 quid in those days is what now, 20 quid? Still, it was affordable to me back then as a teenager.
A SNES game from 1991 would routinely set you back £20. A PS1 game could easily cost £30. It's easy to pick-and-choose purchasing experiences from your past, but there's absolutely no connection between Spectrum games and modern games. I'd prefer if there was - no real publishers to speak of, inflinite room for creativity, a massively accepting market - but that's simply not where it's gone.

QuoteNowadays £50 for a game is simply not affordable to me. But the costs of producing games have gone way up since the platforms on which they're played have evolved beyond all recognition. Perhaps it is just a fact of economic life that the bigger companies who produce the consoles and computers will be the only ones who will be able to sustain game development.
No, they're the ones losing money, which is why they're putting such effort into finding alternatives. Indies either fail quickly or succeed hugely, since indie channels avoid the publishers like the parasitic plague they are. Thing is, though, indies don't produce AAA or even close. No indie is going to give you Mass Effect 3. You're voting with your pocket for the death of the kind of game you seem to like.

QuoteI can see this from your point of view and sympathise, but everyone is having to face harsh realities of the marketplace and economy. Did I just say that? I'm sounding like a Fry & Laurie sketch. Damn and blast and a bucketful of damn. Marjorie!!
It's nothing to do with the economy; game sales have for the most part continued to grow despite the harsh conditions. The problem is structural. But the only solutions acceptable to the people who really make the decisions (the publishers) are to move away from AAA titles entirely, towards lower-cost titles delivered over the Internet.

jutl

Quote from: Still Not George on February 26, 2011, 07:51:51 PMI'd prefer if there was

were - subjunctive. I agree with eveything else you say though.

Consignia

Quote from: Still Not George on February 26, 2011, 07:51:51 PM
A SNES game from 1991 would routinely set you back £20.

I remeber SNES games cost at least £30 some places even upwards of £60. If anything, I think video game prices have gone against inflation.

HappyTree

Quote from: Still Not George on February 26, 2011, 07:51:51 PM
move away from AAA titles entirely, towards lower-cost titles delivered over the Internet.

That may well be where things are heading if the fanboys and early adopters can't take up the slack. Music has gone that way, I have no idea how groups these days can afford to live and produce the work they do. But then they do have live gigs as a parallel revenue stream. It's clear that the days of the Super Group are over.

Maybe we're reaching a point, then, where the market just cannot sustain the level of technology being developed in gaming systems. If it's so expensive to produce an HD game with all the realism and AI depth then they will have to stop doing it, or persuade gamers that it is worth paying the price required.

So either it will all collapse or games will integrate with films to produce a higher level of entertainment that people will pay for. I'm optimistic, but I can see why you wouldn't be since it affects what you're doing.

Still Not George

Quote from: HappyTree on February 26, 2011, 08:09:40 PMSo either it will all collapse or games will integrate with films to produce a higher level of entertainment that people will pay for. I'm optimistic, but I can see why you wouldn't be since it affects what you're doing.
*shudders* Integrating with films? I can't think of a worse idea. I'm hoping they finally shake off the influence of film and break out on their own as an artform, myself.

HappyTree

Well maybe there will be produced two different types of game: one lower-budget variety that is mostly about puzzles or its own artform and a second variety that is finally worthy of being called an "interactive film". Then the consumer could choose whether they want to play or experience a narrative over which they have some measure of control, and pay different prices accordingly. Whatever happens it will be interesting to see where this leads.


Still Not George

The latter sounds like the least entertaining thing I can possibly imagine. Games give us the opportunity to create entire worlds with their own internal rules and systems. Why on earth would we want to follow in the footsteps of passive visual narrative?

HappyTree

I didn't say the narrative would or should be passive. I said "over which they have some measure of control", alluding to my previous comment about "interactive films". What I'm trying to do is understand your reactions, but frankly you've now completely lost me.

So I don't care what you want or like any more. I like adventure and RPG games that have play, decision-making and narrative and you only seem to like whatever personal definition of gaming you have which I don't quite comprehend. So you are welcome to pursue your gaming and development along any lines you see fit and I'm sure our paths will never cross in the gaming world.

Treguard of Dunshelm

Quote from: HappyTree on February 27, 2011, 01:22:38 AM
I like adventure and RPG games that have play, decision-making and narrative

Not to the extent of paying £50 for them and supporting their development, though.

Not to mention the fact that games can have all those things and not be influenced by films at all.