It's Happened - A Major Publisher (Square Enix) is Considering Using Crowd-Funding (Like Kickstarter) for Games' Localizations

[Nz17]

Basically, they'll bring over the big games, but the small, the niche, the "too Japanese" - they want your dollars up front for that.

And I'm actually OK with this.

At first I was, "Whhhhhhhaaaaattt?!" But then really reading the article instead of just skimming the headlines made it all click for me.

Generally, I don't want the big games. I'm tired of all that. I don't want the "gold" releases that are really the quality of early beta releases. I don't want DLC; please no DRM (but you know the big publishers); I don't want to be nickeled-and-dimed; no in-app purchases, no microtransaction, no "small number of in game turns per day"... and generally, larger small games and medium-sized games are where you avoid all that. Most of it is tied up in the biggest releases and the "free"-to-play ones.

I want the more small, the more slice-of-life, the every day that's magical and neat on a personal scale kind of games and those types of "gaming experiences." I want to try new genres, and things that are more about the gameplay than flashy cut-scenes and lots of voiced dialog.

People always say, "Vote with your dollars." What better way than this? And if they use a crowdfunding platform that is all-or-nothing, then nobody loses out on their cash if the localization's cost isn't met by financing the goal during the crowd-funding.

But they better localize something if any of those goals are met, because even if they underestimate the cost of the localization or they just overshoot the budget, they will get Hell from their fans and from the gaming media if they don't bring over what they said they would.

It's a double-edged sword. It's a fascinating change in the way things are done. And we are living in interesting times. I wonder how all this will pan out.

Source: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/z/1100-6431344/

[kai123]

I hate crowdfunding. It is good for a small project but I won't fund a corporation begging for cash just to localize a game. They could translate it and release it as a digital only download and avoid all the costs of the physical release. Plus the game is already done so how much would they consider enough to get a translation made? I fund these things by purchasing the items. It isn't my fault if they have terrible accounting and can't figure out how to not use all their cash on games we don't want or making them exclusive for no good reason.

Square/Enix is not what they once were and I feel no good will towards them or from them. They are a shell of what they once were. I know that doesn't mean much if you are obsessed with RPGs but I feel other companies have left them in the dust in the genre.

[theclaw]

If a specific audience is able to decide what they want, and pay for it up front, fine with me. The traditional model has companies spend ages developing a product in secret out of their own pocket, then get no money back until preorders open.

[kai123]

If a specific audience is able to decide what they want, and pay for it up front, fine with me. The traditional model has companies spend ages developing a product in secret out of their own pocket, then get no money back until preorders open.

I would assume that these companies have been making money for a very long time and now just want a bigger and bigger cut. I love how these big companies are expecting me to think they are some indie dev just getting their foot in the door. They have tons of weight in the industry and I am kind of tired of big companies treating me like they are a mom and pop place for me to feel sympathy for their plight against the big dogs. I know people will fork up the cash for it but I just don't see me doing it.

[Tanooki]

I personally won't support any crowd funding, and I think it's a hair underhanded a major company is doing it too, but since they're too cowardly on their own to release some amazing games, if people show up front with soft dollars they'd be willing to buy and pay in advance to get a physical release made and I'd like that game, I'd buy it on the back end.

[kupomogli]

I've been saying publishers like Sega, Square Enix, Namco, Falcom, etc should be doing this ever since the launch of Kickstarter. The game is already complete in Japan so if the niche fanbase are looking for reception, then reception could be shown for these games to see whether they're worth getting or not. Preorder without the possibility of cancellation before the localization and I'm fine with that. It's either that or never getting the game at all for how scared some of these publishers are at releasing their games westward.

[The 1 2 P]

I definitely wouldn't mind game localizations for a few select imports but I agree with others who said they wouldn't support this. Huge multinational companies worth tens/hundreds of millions/billions of dollars don't have to go down this avenue like many smaller indie companies do. Obviously SE and other publishers will do what they want(Sony also started a crowd funding initiative earlier this year but that one isn't specifically for games) but I can't put my money behind this. Plus I bet that the majority of these games will be for Sony's systems(with the newer systems favored) so I wouldn't be playing them anyway.

[Gameguy]

I'd only help pay for a translation if I became a part owner of the properly once it's released, as in I would get a cut of the profits from all copies sold. This isn't a small cash strapped company, it's a large one that doesn't need help with financing. It's really only the old games that I would care about getting a translation anyway, most modern games just don't interest me.

[Graham Mitchell]

There aren't many exclusively Japanese modern games that I'd really want to play, other than cave shooters and Darius burst. I'd participate in a crowd funding "pre purchase" of games like that, but not all these half-assed jrpgs they put out nowadays.

Unless there's something I'm missing here...is there some amazing piece of brilliance they're holding hostage here? Or are they just trying to scam us into funding a game that, 3 years ago, they would've localized anyway?

Seems like a scam.

[theclaw]

Who knows. It might just be some bizarre game, whose odds of cataclysmic failure warrant such measures.
The article doesn't specify which games they're considering this for.

[celerystalker]

No chance of me supporting this. I understand that this business model could mean more localized niche games, but it's not my responsibility as a consumer to fund an unfinished product. I rarely purchase newer games in general due to their incomplete nature. This isn't an investment, it's an entertainment expense, and it's no better than demanding a presale quota in exchange for production. This isn't some guy in a garage with a dream to tug at my heartstrings. It's a major content provider hedging its bets at the expense of its most loyal fans.

I know that companies have to adapt and change business models in order to stay relevant. My interest may just be a casualty of the times.

[sfchakan]

Very low chances of me backing anything from a big company like Square Enix. It would have to be a very niche property with no chance in hell of otherwise coming out here.

So many of these asshats never know how to stick to a budget and deliver the promised product on time.

Why would I trust Square Enix to do what so many others cannot?

[kupomogli]

^The games are already complete, just not localized. It's nothing like funding a developer then having no idea how the game is going to turn out. We alteast have a bit of an idea by those who have played the Japanese release. A good example. It's no different than going to Gamestop and preordering Divinity Original Sin for $60. The game is already out on PC so you can look up gameplay videos of it, reviews of it, etc. In this case, the game will be out in Japan so you can still look up gameplay videos of it, import reviews, etc, and it's still a preorder, you just can't cancel and get your money back once you put it down. People didn't mind supporting when Victor Ireland did it for some mediocre dungeon crawler. It didn't succeed, but I know some of the people here tried to back the release of the retail version of Holy Invasion of Privacy Badman. Paying for the copy in advance to get the limited release. The second game received a retail release with the first game unlockable by using a cheat code so we got it at retail anyways.

A recent game that Square Enix has copyrighted for the west is the newest SaGa game for the Vita. Square Enix won't even localize Dragon Quest 7 and 8. Do you really think they're going to localize SaGa, and for the Vita no less? The SaGa series is similar to your regular RPGs but a bit unconventional in how some of the mechanics works, yet aside from Unlimited Saga every game that's released in the west has been fairly good. Who would even want to develop a game in the SaGa franchise or why would Square Enix bring the franchise back other than for the creator, Akitoshi Kawazu? The series is niche as hell. Even though Unlimited Saga is the worst in the series and a bad game, it had a lot of great qualities. Adding the reel system in the game is what really killed it. With the game being copyrighted in the west, if they feel crowdfunding is the only way they'd release it, I'll be one of the people supporting it. Because it's one thing supporting a game from an unproven developer with pretty much no idea how it's going to turn out than a game that's already finished and you have gameplay videos, developer videos, etc to look on and even previews and reviews.

I completely agree there's no reason that these companies should be asking for the western gamers to do this as the cost to localize is practically nothing compared to the development costs. If Sony didn't step in, Sega would still be giving the middle finger to Yakuza fans and while digital only(meaning I'm not going to purchase it until it's dirt cheap despite being a huge fan of the series,) we'd never be able to enjoy the game otherwise. It's definitely better than not getting the game at all, and this certainly isn't as bad as people are making it out to be. Atleast the developers are giving us a chance to get the games they'd never otherwise release.

[celerystalker]

I'd rather not have the game at all. It's a shift in business model that I won't support in any way. I won't preorder either. I will buy a complete, finished product that allows for a fulfilling experience with on-disc/cart content. I'm okay with not getting to experience everything out there; I will support a competently released product that appeals to me. I can live with playing games in Japanese if that's what it needs to be, or just not playing them at all. It's how I'm used to playing most SaGa games anyway. :) Had a lot of fun with Romancing SaGa 3.

The real head scratcher to me is that large-scale translation work and even patches get done for free all the time by fan groups and organizations. A company the size of Square-Enix could easily do this so inexpensively that it's insane, and digital releases cost them next to nothing, and it's even easy to slap out a no manual compilation disc from time to time and sell them like many companies have and scrape up those bucks from us physical copy nerds out there if they so desire.

It's a bad precedent to allow these large producers operate this way, much like concepts such as required online connection for single-player games, on-disc DLC, and day-one patches. Anything we don't reject, they will continue to test the boundaries. It's how they evolve their profit avenues, and it's up to each of us to choose what we are willing to accept. If you believe the reward is worth committing to these sorts of endeavors, it's your valid viewpoint, to be sure. I'm emphatically on the other end.

Edit: I don't mean to imply that this is as bad as those other practices I mentioned, as there is at least potential consumer benefit if this were to be handled properly. I just don't believe it will be.

[bb_hood]

No chance of me supporting this. I understand that this business model could mean more localized niche games, but it's not my responsibility as a consumer to fund an unfinished product. I rarely purchase newer games in general due to their incomplete nature. This isn't an investment, it's an entertainment expense, and it's no better than demanding a presale quota in exchange for production. This isn't some guy in a garage with a dream to tug at my heartstrings. It's a major content provider hedging its bets at the expense of its most loyal fans.

I know that companies have to adapt and change business models in order to stay relevant. My interest may just be a casualty of the times.

Yeah I agree. Its absurd for a large company to ask consumers to pay for development costs when they will be profiting off the final product.

At this point in time square/enix should really understand what consumers outside of Japan want.

[sfchakan]

You act like there's ~20 years of online documentation about fan's wants, desires, and opinions, bb_hood. What if they release a lazy HD remaster of something and it doesn't sell extremely well?

What if Tomb Raider sells millions of copies, yet doesn't meet their expectations and is thus a failure?

Also, budgeting is really hard. Sticking to one is impossibru!

[kupomogli]

I'd rather not have the game at all.

It's not like this is day one DLC with disc locked content and season pass. It's requiring you to "preorder" the game to get it. So you'd ignore a game you're interested in coming to the west just because you don't want to support a larger company who is afraid that it won't make a profit and requires to receive enough preorders to localize?

Also let's be for real here. Sure you've played Romancing SaGa 3 using a translation hack you downloaded on Romhacking.net or downloaded a prehacked rom. So let's go over to Romhacking.net shall we? Search RPGs translated in English and it comes with 316 results. Only 316 results? Oh wait, look here. Five different versions of Arle no Bouken: Mahou no Jewel, all unfinished. Two to four versions of every single Dragon Ball and Dragon Quest. Not counting, but pulling an estimation out of my ass, there's probably around 100 unique RPGs, rarely anything that's on something CD format. So good luck waiting another 15 years for the newest SaGa game to be in playable form in English without having to waste your time and go back and forth consulting a guide, losing pretty much all enjoyment. I'd rather learn to read Japanese than do that, and not really that interested in learning Japanese only to then have to learn how to read Japanese to get any use out of what I want to use it for.

I'd say that if they want you to prepay for a game in order for it to be localized that you're interested in, then just pay for what you're interested in. No one is making you fund every single game that's released, especially if it's not a well reviewed game and looks like it isn't very good. It really is no different than preordering Final Fantasy 15, etc, day one.

[celerystalker]

Nah, I played Romancing SaGa 3 untranslated on the actual cart, and yes, I'd rather not have the game than to have to preorder it in order to get a copy.

This isn't the most insidious, vile thing ever or anything, but I won't be forced to preorder a game in order to get it released. My primary concern in this case is that an increasingly large number of games will get limited print runs and require preorders to get a release.

It's just a business model that I feel is an abuse of fan loyalty to extort preorders. I wouldn't condemn anyone for feeling differently. It's a difficult decision to make corporately to be the first major manufacturer to try this. I happen to think it's too rife with potential for abuse, so I won't support it. I think the strength of conviction in my wording probably makes me sound like I'm pontificating more than I mean to... whatever happens, I hope it works out to fans' benefit, but I just don't see it going down that way.

[Tanooki]

Hell I think at this point no one should feed them a penny. This request coming from a company that whined embarrassingly like little babies to the press how Tomb Raider failed them when it only sold 4M copies. The nerve, 4M people bought a game and that wasn't enough. If you can not profit with that many copies bought across platforms you're doing it wrong and most definitely don't deserve to be propped up by extra gamer money since you can't manage a budget or resources properly.

[Graham Mitchell]

Unfortunately now these big budget publishers have painted themselves into a corner. Now that they've been spending billions of dollars making these high-profile movie/pseudo-games the audience is going to expect them to keep it up, and even exceed previous efforts. At some point, the snake is going to eat it's own tail and they're simply not going to be able to recoup the losses incurred by developing the game, unless they charge over $100 for it.

And maybe they will. It's happened before. Remember when phantasy star four launched at$99.99? All early SNES games or $70 retail. And that's 1990s dollars. That would be a $150 game now.

[Tanooki]

I remember a few SNES games doing that, and oddly enough it's the same clowns -- Square with the FF games and CT being $70-80 which infuriated quite a few people. I never paid full price, I found sales or waited even back then as I would never support a game for over $50 and I rarely still will now though I know the HD budget is higher. For many those games didn't work on people, they just saw overpriced goods and enough waited given how the prices dropped not much after if I recall right.

Let them try. The biggest suckers will fall for it, but also in turn for this awful market they've caused, it has also made people a lot more aware and price sensitive, and those who would buy more up front are well aware most games fall off a cliff after 1-3mo with a good $10+ price drop. They'll ride it out and that'll hurt the publishers too, and if they keep it up, something else will come along and make them irrelevant as a new experience. They're damned if they do or don't. Perhaps the best bet would be the biting of the bullet and firing some people, getting more trim, and stop paying overpaid hollywood types to voice their games or have their faces mapped into them. Given how much love even cheap $5 downloads get now and with android micro consoles/tablets like the Shield that can give a PS3 like experience already they'll have their hand forced far sooner than later.

Let them beg, people will get their game crack addiction rush elsewhere. For every big one around that calls a 4M sold game a financial failure, you have a dozen small developers who can rock out great product at a teeny fraction of the cost because they're not so full of their own bs and bad practices.

[SparTonberry]

"early SNES games retailed at $70" I think it was just where you live. :P
Most games I ever saw were $60 or under.
The only games I recall seeing at the $70 price was the RPGs. And least that was understandable. Cartridges weren't cheap to make, RPGs tended to be the higher-end as well (more ROM, battery-backup RAM) and they had more text than the typical game of that era (more expensive to localize) and weren't nearly as popular as they are today (lower sales), so I'd believe an extra $10 but asking $100 for PS4 does sound excessive.

[Tanooki]

There was one other I failed to mention -- Street Fighter II. Capcom decided with how huge it was in the arcade to troll people by charging $65 for the game if I remember right (or maybe $60, but not $50) which as a kid I felt was very sleazy even then as I was playing it daily at this day camp thing during summer in the real arcade cabinet. Oddly even when MK came out to even more hype it was just $50. I do remember also when FF3 popped up it was $75 at stores everywhere so I avoided it, but by sheer luck (if anyone here remembers them out west) Play Co filed for bankruptcy and was liquidating their games and I went in the day they did it and snapped the game up for $44 while laughing at Square not getting one over on me. :D The SNES real heyday from 1991-95 (really fell off in 96) I was in high school that whole 4 year stretch so I had no job and was on an allowance so I had to squeeze every dollar I got so that's why I refused to fall into it. I saw it as taking away from my ability to buy another game.

I've seen people talking how they often/always paid more than $50 on a game and were in the US, the only thing I could ever chock it up to was local greedy retailers colluding to make more or local economics like how it's more expensive to live/eat in New York City vs other larger cities (other than maybe Seattle.)

[Graham Mitchell]

I'm from Seattle :). And yeah, I specifically remember Drakkhen and ff2 being $69.99 at toys r us. My mom threw a fit when she saw how expensive Drakkhen was. But she bought it for me anyway.

[SparTonberry]

As I said, I'd have excused RPGs for being a little more expensive but even then I'd have said SFII was price-gouging.

But then I also have to wonder how much of that is Nintendo's fault rather than the third-party. I read Nintendo overcharged on N64 carts so much that it sounds like most third-parties were probably upset about the cost, never mind wanting to spend another dollar or whatever it costs to get on-cart saving. So annoying to have to get a memory card because of games that have no good reason to use the memory card (ie exchanging data with other players) except the publisher didn't want to pay.

[Graham Mitchell]

As I said, I'd have excused RPGs for being a little more expensive but even then I'd have said SFII was price-gouging.

But then I also have to wonder how much of that is Nintendo's fault rather than the third-party. I read Nintendo overcharged on N64 carts so much that it sounds like most third-parties were probably upset about the cost, never mind wanting to spend another dollar or whatever it costs to get on-cart saving. So annoying to have to get a memory card because of games that have no good reason to use the memory card (ie exchanging data with other players) except the publisher didn't want to pay.

It's probably largely Nintendo's fault. The manufacturing costs of the cartridges probably didn't help, either. I remember Sega CD games never being much over $49.99 (maybe $59) likely due to the lower manufacturing costs. I didn't see $69 games again until the last gen. When Bioshock first came out I think GameStop was charging that much for it.

I mostly do PC gaming now. The cost of entry is drastic, but the games themselves are cheap. The Witcher 3 is alreaady $30, and Steam has sales all the time.

[Tanooki]

I remember that n64 games cost at least $20 in parts for the smallest when it came out and a battery cost a dollar and like another for a self saving chip so that's why many cut corners to fit smaller chips and no on game saving. SF2 was gouging because well Crapcom enough said here on that.

Truly agree on of saved and sold stuff six months straight for a $2K highest end gaming laptop that'll last me a good five years at least with the gtx 980m in it with 6gb of ram and an i7 inside. But I can run anything and with gog or steam sales and all the non gaming uses its so worth it.

[celerystalker]

I stayed away from PC gaming and gravitated toward arcade gaming. Like with pinball, there's the maintenance part of thehobby that leads toward other interesting projects, and you can always go back and play for score. Unlike a modern game with lengthly tutorials and lots of filler, I can always pull up to my Popeye, Centipede, Time Soldiers, etc., and play as briefly or as long as I'd like and try to put up a score, and they go over great for parties or tournaments. It's part of the reason I feel even more comfortable turning my back toward practices like this crowdfunding garbage, as there are plenty of avenues at other ends of videogaming as a hobby to fill my time.

[Tanooki]

Well said though a good pc can make for a hell of a do it yourself arcade cab or full size digital pinball arcade cabinet too. The PC I think deserves a bit more credit then you give it. Enjoy those old games too and I even have a couple Pinball tables and I totally agree the crowd funding is garbage is as far better things to be wasting money on.

[celerystalker]

It's not that I'd dismiss PC gaming as much as that I don't have a taste for it. I didn't have any sort of computer until I was in college, so the style of western strategy, RPGs, and such have always been a little foreign to me. That made the comparable entry cost for arcade gaming more interesting to me (all five of my cabinets cost me a total of $2400 in good working order). Had I been a lifelong PC player, I'd probably waffle more on which is the better deal. Either way, like you said, it's all viable alternatives to being forced into any of this nonsense in modern console gaming.

[Gentlegamer]

Next, Square-Enix will set up a patreon.

[Tanooki]

It's not that I'd dismiss PC gaming as much as that I don't have a taste for it. I didn't have any sort of computer until I was in college, so the style of western strategy, RPGs, and such have always been a little foreign to me. That made the comparable entry cost for arcade gaming more interesting to me (all five of my cabinets cost me a total of $2400 in good working order). Had I been a lifelong PC player, I'd probably waffle more on which is the better deal. Either way, like you said, it's all viable alternatives to being forced into any of this nonsense in modern console gaming.

Makes sense, mine was 1990 Christmas. Yet what you just said there still fits me too. I can't stand western strategy, western RPGs, and most those point and click mouse games as they're not fun and I just don't get them as the way they're setup make no sense. The stuff I got into were more console like games but stuff a console never could have handled per-say quite at the time so well. Wing Commander, DOOM, Star Control 2, Dune 2 (and C&C), Warcraft, Stunts, Pinball Dreams/Fantasies/Illusions/Mania, EPIC Megagames platformers pinball and space games, Apogee's stuff, iD's games, and so on. I never really got huge into the very PC-thought centric stuff of the text based typing command games, and the other stuff you said, hated them. I'm cool with the first two Civilizations and Sim City titles, but beyond that, tough call...and stuff in the last few years where I kind of started to care again are more console/handheld like still too.

Either way indeed, they are...Pinbot, my laptop, still finding that rare deal on an old game is far more engaging than almost all that modern console abuses with downloads, selling broken games, IAP, spying through internet, digital rental(downloads) and the other bs. I hate sounding like a fossil, but a lot of the fun and original ideas are spent, the few that come now are more artsy fartsy or just nearly non-game stuff like Little Inferno or Flower on PSN.

[sfchakan]

Next, Square-Enix will set up a patreon.

Square Enix makes Cloud and Sephiroth things.

11,113 Patrons

$33,312 / month

[Graham Mitchell]

It's not that I'd dismiss PC gaming as much as that I don't have a taste for it. I didn't have any sort of computer until I was in college, so the style of western strategy, RPGs, and such have always been a little foreign to me. That made the comparable entry cost for arcade gaming more interesting to me (all five of my cabinets cost me a total of $2400 in good working order). Had I been a lifelong PC player, I'd probably waffle more on which is the better deal. Either way, like you said, it's all viable alternatives to being forced into any of this nonsense in modern console gaming.

That's changed. The lion's share of console games these days are also on PC, even Japanese ones. And they're often superior. I'm playing MGSV, TPP right now, in fact. The only console you might be missing out on is what Nintendo's putting out.

[celerystalker]

That's changed. The lion's share of console games these days are also on PC, even Japanese ones. And they're often superior. I'm playing MGSV, TPP right now, in fact. The only console you might be missing out on is what Nintendo's putting out.

Oh, I completely agree. That's just as big a reason that I don't like modern console gaming. They've gone the more complex PC gameplay route with more crafting, building, micromanaging, and simulating, which is just more time sink than I care to indulge in. A lot of my friends are super into MGS V now, but I just don't care to build a base and all that most of the time. I wouldn't call it a flaw, as I know a lot of people truly love it, but for me there's a sweet spot for action vs menus that skews much closer to the action end. If I were into the modern style, though, you guys are completely right. It's a big reason I haven't boughy an Xbox One or PS4. I don't see any advantage over PC at all.

[Tanooki]

Sometimes I wonder why I have my PS4, but I do like it. I just have to remember because of some luck with ebay and selling the crappy (to me) packed in sealed games I got it for $200. For the few games I like and the blu-ray capabilities (damn them for no remote) it's why I still have it and plugged in.

The stuff I have though, other than Godzilla is all on computer though which I could run on this beast far nicer. But in time it will do well as most the stuff I'll end up even bothering to buy will be 1st/2nd party stuff that won't have it ever show up on PC. The main ones out already would be Uncharted and the GoW3 remasters, but I'm cheap, waiting for them to be 50% off their original sales price since I already owned them once.

[kupomogli]

If retail wasn't an option on the PS4, then I'd get most games on the PC and get only the exclusives I'm interested in on the PS4. Most PC retail versions ship with a CD installer and is required to use Steam, Uplay, or Origin in order to play anymore.

Games may be able to run 4k @ 120+ fps on the PC, but I'm fun with 1080p @ 30fps on the PS4 and being able to own the game at retail. The differences in resolution aren't as great as people make them out to be. Fps though is a different story. If they could release a game with 900p running @ 60fps like Battefront 3 is doing, I'd take that over 1080p @ 30fps. The difference is far more noticeable.

[Gentlegamer]

I would definitely take frames over pixels.

[Daria]

I'd throw some crowd funding at Dragon Quest. But that's where I draw my fandom line. Anything else I don't trust SE's hype to match the final product.

[Graham Mitchell]

I would definitely take frames over pixels.

Same. Inconsistent frame rates ruin games.

[Az]

I can almost give SFII a price increase pass due to it being the biggest 16-bit cart release ever at the time; at least I know my few extra bucks gave me something physically under the hood to account for it. Same with PSIV to an extent, Virtua Racing, Starfox, etc. I felt the sting on more on 32x games being $69.99 due to them simply gouging early adopters.

Beyond Steam sales, console digital pricing is a complete joke. Physical overhead was so bad they had to cut manuals and give you half a clamshell case, yet digital pricing remains totally across the board just as high on day one releases and insultingly even higher th physical copies of older(!) releases. Seriously, many older games that have dropped $10-30 in normal, everyday in-store brick & mortar prices still remain original MSRP on digital stores. Who's going to pay $19.99 for Call of Duty 2 (a fucking 360 launch title!) when you can buy a physical CoD triple pack for $10 more?

I find it hilarious to walk in GameStop and see these used titles they're having firesales on, like Gears of War 2 for $1.89 or Rock Revolution for 50 cents, and they still can't move 'em, yet online they're still $49.99. Where's the NX so I can pay $8 American dollars to play Clu-Clu Land again?

[Tanooki]

Good point about Steam, but maybe that's why they leave them up too, or at least their overly convenient excuse to point a finger at. If Steam rolls around to every game and gives it a 33-50+% off deal a few times a year or more, those greedy big game publishers will play along but not really like it, even if it generates a lot more income. They'll see that $50 digital game doing $30 and blindly hate it despite they sell maybe 20 copies at that price to 1 at full price. They care about the margin not as much with the sale perhaps. I refuse to ever buy a console port on computer unless it's at least 1/2 off because of that pricing game they play. I saw Namco finally clued in and got one of their Tales of... games up on Steam this month, for $50. Zestiria is $60 new, $55 used (gamestop), and $50 on steam. At least they're knocking it down $10 since you are stuck with DRM and no physical version.

[Graham Mitchell]

I sort of think of it as a convenience fee. I don't have to go somewhere to get it, I don't have to wait for it to come through the mail (after shipping fees you wouldn't be saving much money anyway), and it's not taking up space.

Listen, guys I have shelves and shelves and shelves full of games, and boxes and boxes full of PCBs. That's the physical media I care about.

Modern games are so huge, I'll probably only play them once. This system makes sense for me. Probably not for everybody, but I know there's other people like this out there too.

[SparTonberry]

Browsing eShop on my Japanese 3DS.
I see Square-Enix still listing the 3DS Bust-A-Move at original MSRP (that's like over 5,000 yen or about $50). I guess I'd like some puzzle games digitally for convenience but damn that price. It's looking like the Japanese card version is maybe $30 used, and the US version is only about a $10-15 game. I'd have given SE that latter figure considering it's a launch game (4 1/2 years ago) that I don't think is even printed anymore.
But then the kicker: it's not even actually for sale anymore. Apparently Nintendo is pretty dumb and still lists games, with prices, that aren't even for sale digitally anymore. And then there's some that ARE for sale that don't have the price listed on the main page (can only see by attempting to buy).
I noticed that only after seeing another bad thing about going digital: the publisher can not only control price but availability as well. I see what Sega's doing there: Puyo-puyo 20th Anniversary (2011) is listed for about 3000 yen but not available, nope they want to sell the newer Puyopuyo-Tetris (from last year?) for around 5000 yen, so they took down the older one.
(there's a "mini" version of the 20th, as well as a few Game Gear games, but that's besides the main point)

[Tanooki]

Very good observation, I can't remember if I mentioned it, but the US does this too. TMNT went from Konami to Ubisoft in the WII era. TMNT1 NES was up on there early on as a $5 download, but when Konami lost the license they flipped the switch and removed all existence of it. Licensing agreements screwed everyone there too. Ubisoft didn't want to put it back so it stayed gone for whatever reason they had, other than perhaps the game booting up with the Ultra(Konami) logo on it not that most would even know who Ultra was as that fake front is long dead. And as I said I had a Loco Roco game pulled away from me and erased after paying for it on a mobile phone, a T-Mobile download and then Sony wanted to in-house their stuff with their line and I got robbed. The Kindle story I mentioned of the licensing over Orwells 1984 that Amazon erased off peoples kindles and from the site, which got them successfully sued over it.

THe thing is as tempting as Zestiria is on Steam, do I (a) want to put up with bullshit DRM forcing an online connection to use a 1P game and (b) do I want to support non-ownership of the games I buy when some of the stuff hits GoG and you do get to own it and make a physical version of it if one so chooses. ...I choose B in every case possible. Steam is when there is no choice and when there's at least a 50% off sale if not more, usually I'm cheap and wait for the 66%+ off holiday/season change runs they do.


Graham I'd agree with you on the convenience fee if it were setup on Steam where you could actually own what you pay for, it's just a slightly less scummy version of how consoles do it. There's no convenience in being at the game maker or makers publishers whims on if I can have a game, how long I can have it, and how I may use it or not -- that's not convenient, it's a lie wrapped in it. With GoG you don't have to keep the downloads, they have the same locker system Steam has more or less. Just download when you want it, run install, play. Steam is the same it just auto-downloads is all.

[kupomogli]

With how profitable Steam is, unless there's licensing issues, I don't think you have to worry about losing any games, but one thing Steam has over GOG is the amazing OS.

[Tanooki]

Question is though, why should someone care about Steam OS in a Windows environment? I'd rather the game run on its own without layered overhead and nagging community popups. GoG has created their own setup too, I've avoided it.

[RP2A03]

Question is though, why should someone care about Steam OS in a Windows environment? I'd rather the game run on its own without layered overhead and nagging community popups. GoG has created their own setup too, I've avoided it.

SteamOS doesn't run on top of Windows; it is an operating system based on Debian GNU/Linux.

[Graham Mitchell]

@Tanooki--Steam runs in Offline Mode for me. I can still boot games without a connection. Don't know why. I haven't tinkered with it much.

[Tanooki]

Graham it's very hit and miss and it depends on the developer unfortunately. Google steam offline mode and you'll find this wiki type page people keep updated with all the stuff that will or won't run. NO surprise but usually the console based people are scumbags about having a connection while the smaller fish don't bother.

I think when I was thinking of SteamOS when I wrote that, it's that weird frontend they made awhile back where you can almost consolize your system with that goofy GUI they created for it, can't stand the thing.

[kupomogli]

SteamOS doesn't run on top of Windows; it is an operating system based on Debian GNU/Linux.

He was replying to my reply about the Steam program which I called it an OS since I don't know what else to call it as it's an operating system for the games it runs. Not the SteamOS that's Linux based.

[Gentlegamer]

He was replying to my reply about the Steam program which I called it an OS since I don't know what else to call it as it's an operating system for the games it runs. Not the SteamOS that's Linux based.

Client.