Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 233

Thread: Edge reports durango to block used games!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  1. #151
    Insert Coin (Level 0) danawhitaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    88
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Griking View Post
    I don't see it that way. The way I see it is that I have the choice to buy a Xbox or PS4 that won't play used games or buy a Nintendo console that will play used games but generally doesn't have any games that I enjoy playing. Personally I never trade in my used games so my decision would likely be to purchase the Xbox though I wouldn't do so until I saw how much they were going to charge for the games. If the games are still in the $50-$60 range then I probably wouldn't purchase any console and will continue to be an almost 100% PC gamer.



    It's greed to not want a single copy of a game that you might have spent a year making pirated a million times? Personally I see nothing wrong with developers wanting to get paid for their product.
    Except used goods aren't piracy. Seriously, that attitude needs to end. It is greed to expect people to pay $60 for your product and not be able to do what they want with it when they're finished. If I buy a book and resell it, the author doesn't track me down and yell at me. ALL industries that produce physical non-consumable goods are affected by this, across the board - the game industry is *not* special.

  2. #152
    ServBot (Level 11) kedawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    But you could lend it to a million friends!

  3. #153
    Bell (Level 8)
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Winooski, VT
    Posts
    1,770
    Xbox LIVE
    captaindoom666
    Steam
    captaindoom666
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danawhitaker View Post
    Except used goods aren't piracy. Seriously, that attitude needs to end. It is greed to expect people to pay $60 for your product and not be able to do what they want with it when they're finished. If I buy a book and resell it, the author doesn't track me down and yell at me. ALL industries that produce physical non-consumable goods are affected by this, across the board - the game industry is *not* special.
    been like that for hundreds if not 1000s of years too! Thats just how it is.

  4. #154
    Peach (Level 3)
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    663
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    ALL industries that produce physical non-consumable goods
    Which is why the video game industry is trying so desperately to turn games into non-physical, consumable goods. Every time you hear some CEO talk about "games as a service" this is what they mean.
    If you can't do it with 8 bits, you don't need to do it!

  5. #155
    Great Puma (Level 12)
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    4,271
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danawhitaker View Post
    Except used goods aren't piracy. Seriously, that attitude needs to end. It is greed to expect people to pay $60 for your product and not be able to do what they want with it when they're finished. If I buy a book and resell it, the author doesn't track me down and yell at me. ALL industries that produce physical non-consumable goods are affected by this, across the board - the game industry is *not* special.
    So what? Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time that is no longer working doesn't mean it can't be changed. I personally think it's greed to expect that you can pay for a game once and then do whatever you want with it. You're also ignoring the fact that software has been sold under a license model for many, many years and your copy of Windows 7 on a disc is also a physical non-consumable good but cannot be resold or lent to others.

    I don't have a problem with some type of model akin to the movie industry where first run games are licensed to specific consoles/users and months later games are released on disc at a purchase price point and then that disc can be resold or lent to others. I just don't think the sale price of that unrestricted copy can be as cheap as the individual user license since it can be resold multiple times and none of that revenue will flow back to the publisher.

  6. #156
    Insert Coin (Level 0) danawhitaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    88
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bojay1997 View Post
    So what? Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time that is no longer working doesn't mean it can't be changed. I personally think it's greed to expect that you can pay for a game once and then do whatever you want with it. You're also ignoring the fact that software has been sold under a license model for many, many years and your copy of Windows 7 on a disc is also a physical non-consumable good but cannot be resold or lent to others.

    I don't have a problem with some type of model akin to the movie industry where first run games are licensed to specific consoles/users and months later games are released on disc at a purchase price point and then that disc can be resold or lent to others. I just don't think the sale price of that unrestricted copy can be as cheap as the individual user license since it can be resold multiple times and none of that revenue will flow back to the publisher.
    Why is that greed? It's *my* money. I spent my hard-earned money on something, and if I decide I'm done with it, and choose to sell it, give it away, etc., why should any corporation have the right to tell me I can't? I could understand if it meant I still retained the ability to play the game once I got rid of it - but that's not the case. Do you think all goods should be like this? You mention the movie industry - but you can still buy DVDs and Blu-ray discs and resell them the way the used game market currently works. They aren't locked to your player. You can loan them out, rent them, borrow them, etc, pretty much without restriction. The same goes for books. You can buy them, loan them, trade them, sell them, borrow them from the library. If I buy a shirt from the Gap and decide I don't like the way it looks, the Gap doesn't prohibit me from giving it to a friend, or donating it to Goodwill. I'm sure they'd prefer that I'd send my friend in to buy a brand new shirt from them instead. Every industry would love it if we all patronized their establishments more and paid full price for everything, and never shared or traded. Cars manufacturers would be thrilled if everyone had to buy new cars. Do you think any of these moves would actually be good for the economy? Prohibiting people from being able to purchase things second-hand (and more affordably) is a slippery slope that I'm just not willing to go down. It's bad enough we've gotten to the point we have with software licensing. I wish I could sell my copy of Diablo 3 because it's garbage and not worth the $60 someone has to pay. Unfortunately it's tied to my Battle.net account for eternity, where maybe I could allow my daughter to play it. But only while she's a minor. Then Blizzard restricts you from sharing your Battle.net account. I love corporations telling me what I can and can't let other family members play on the computer I paid for, with the software I paid for.

    Even with licensed software, if I give away or sell my entire computer, with all the software installed, Microsoft has no idea that I've transferred my copy of Windows to someone else. They have no way to stop it. The only way they'd be able to is if they take the Steam, Origin, or Blizzard model and require you to tie your software keys to a single-user account. Why are you so willing to sign away your rights to use products you buy? Do you really hate gaming the way it was in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s so much that you want to see all our rights as collectors out the window? I'm absolutely at a loss I guess as to how people in the gaming community can be so willing to roll over and let the corporations trample all over us. Or maybe there are just some industry shills here pushing the agenda. I can't fathom people choosing to be anti-consumer-rights.

    Why is it for a few decades many companies have been able to do just fine in this industry, yet all of a sudden it's a problem? I saw yesterday the 360 has sold 76 million units worldwide? Cry me a river about lack of profits. Even if the slim profit margin on hardware, that's a lot of money by itself. No one is advocating a model where all games are free and cost no money. Show me ten game companies that went out of business because people were buying used games instead of new ones. I bet you'll find significantly more went of business due to mis-management, failing to understand the demands of the market, and developing or publishing games that were sub-par on a consistent basis. In fact, I bet you won't find one that went out of business because of used games.

  7. #157
    Great Puma (Level 12)
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    4,271
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danawhitaker View Post
    Why is that greed? It's *my* money. I spent my hard-earned money on something, and if I decide I'm done with it, and choose to sell it, give it away, etc., why should any corporation have the right to tell me I can't? I could understand if it meant I still retained the ability to play the game once I got rid of it - but that's not the case. Do you think all goods should be like this? You mention the movie industry - but you can still buy DVDs and Blu-ray discs and resell them the way the used game market currently works. They aren't locked to your player. You can loan them out, rent them, borrow them, etc, pretty much without restriction. The same goes for books. You can buy them, loan them, trade them, sell them, borrow them from the library. If I buy a shirt from the Gap and decide I don't like the way it looks, the Gap doesn't prohibit me from giving it to a friend, or donating it to Goodwill. I'm sure they'd prefer that I'd send my friend in to buy a brand new shirt from them instead. Every industry would love it if we all patronized their establishments more and paid full price for everything, and never shared or traded. Cars manufacturers would be thrilled if everyone had to buy new cars. Do you think any of these moves would actually be good for the economy? Prohibiting people from being able to purchase things second-hand (and more affordably) is a slippery slope that I'm just not willing to go down. It's bad enough we've gotten to the point we have with software licensing. I wish I could sell my copy of Diablo 3 because it's garbage and not worth the $60 someone has to pay. Unfortunately it's tied to my Battle.net account for eternity, where maybe I could allow my daughter to play it. But only while she's a minor. Then Blizzard restricts you from sharing your Battle.net account. I love corporations telling me what I can and can't let other family members play on the computer I paid for, with the software I paid for.

    Even with licensed software, if I give away or sell my entire computer, with all the software installed, Microsoft has no idea that I've transferred my copy of Windows to someone else. They have no way to stop it. The only way they'd be able to is if they take the Steam, Origin, or Blizzard model and require you to tie your software keys to a single-user account. Why are you so willing to sign away your rights to use products you buy? Do you really hate gaming the way it was in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s so much that you want to see all our rights as collectors out the window? I'm absolutely at a loss I guess as to how people in the gaming community can be so willing to roll over and let the corporations trample all over us. Or maybe there are just some industry shills here pushing the agenda. I can't fathom people choosing to be anti-consumer-rights.

    Why is it for a few decades many companies have been able to do just fine in this industry, yet all of a sudden it's a problem? I saw yesterday the 360 has sold 76 million units worldwide? Cry me a river about lack of profits. Even if the slim profit margin on hardware, that's a lot of money by itself. No one is advocating a model where all games are free and cost no money. Show me ten game companies that went out of business because people were buying used games instead of new ones. I bet you'll find significantly more went of business due to mis-management, failing to understand the demands of the market, and developing or publishing games that were sub-par on a consistent basis. In fact, I bet you won't find one that went out of business because of used games.
    I don't hate old games at all, in fact, I've been collecting for more than two decades now. Having said that, I also love modern games and many big budget games. I don't want those to go away and I certainly don't want to go back to playing simple games programmed by one or two people as the only alternative. As such, I understand that the pay once do whatever you want model doesn't work for big budget modern games. You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that financially it's not a stable model.

    I would disagree with your premise that everything has always been great in the video game industry. All of the big players in the pre-Nintendo era collapsed and no longer make consoles or games. Sega is software only. Panasonic, Philips, 3do, and countless other companies saw their video game divisions shutter in the 90s or early 2000s. There are actually a relatively small number of publishers remaining and even fewer hardware manufacturers. Did used games kill all these companies? Of course not. Did it have an impact on their profitability and their ability to stay in business? Absolutely.

    I'm pro consumer, but I'm also someone who makes a living in the entertainment industry, so I understand the underlying economics. There are some types of media where used resale is not a big part of the bottom line. There are others where a pure direct, unrestricted resale model doesn't work. If there was no pay cable, no VOD, no pay per view, no broadcast release and no theatrical release, there would be no profitability in the movie industry. In fact, the physical disc based model of movie sales has collapsed despite the fact that prices have come down significantly. You can't have it both ways. You either have to accept much less elaborate games or accept being nickeled and dimed on DLC or accept a single user/licensed model. Personally, I buy my games new, so I would much rather have more and more elaborate games without worrying about DLC. Does it suck as a collector? Sure, but I haven't bought a DVD or Blu Ray in months and the last physical CD I bought was literally years ago. Frankly, it means less clutter and it's the way all media is going.

  8. #158
    ServBot (Level 11) kedawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    The current model would work fine if companies stopped wasting money on doomed projects and using the few games that make it to retail to subsidize their failures.

  9. #159
    Great Puma (Level 12)
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    4,271
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kedawa View Post
    The current model would work fine if companies stopped wasting money on doomed projects and using the few games that make it to retail to subsidize their failures.
    That's the nature of creative endeavors unfortunately. You really never know if something is going to be both good and financially successful until you put it out there. Frankly, that's a big reason we get so many sequels nowadays and publishers are very hesitant to take risks. Eliminating used sales won't correct that problem, but it will give developers and publishers a much larger buffer and the ability to take more risks.

  10. #160
    Don't do it...or,do. (shrugs) Custom rank graphic
    Frankie_Says_Relax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    On permanent vacation from this bullshit.
    Posts
    7,824
    Xbox LIVE
    FlyingBurrito76
    PSN
    FlyingBurrito76
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bojay1997 View Post
    I don't hate old games at all, in fact, I've been collecting for more than two decades now. Having said that, I also love modern games and many big budget games. I don't want those to go away and I certainly don't want to go back to playing simple games programmed by one or two people as the only alternative. As such, I understand that the pay once do whatever you want model doesn't work for big budget modern games. You can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that financially it's not a stable model.

    I would disagree with your premise that everything has always been great in the video game industry. All of the big players in the pre-Nintendo era collapsed and no longer make consoles or games. Sega is software only. Panasonic, Philips, 3do, and countless other companies saw their video game divisions shutter in the 90s or early 2000s. There are actually a relatively small number of publishers remaining and even fewer hardware manufacturers. Did used games kill all these companies? Of course not. Did it have an impact on their profitability and their ability to stay in business? Absolutely.

    I'm pro consumer, but I'm also someone who makes a living in the entertainment industry, so I understand the underlying economics. There are some types of media where used resale is not a big part of the bottom line. There are others where a pure direct, unrestricted resale model doesn't work. If there was no pay cable, no VOD, no pay per view, no broadcast release and no theatrical release, there would be no profitability in the movie industry. In fact, the physical disc based model of movie sales has collapsed despite the fact that prices have come down significantly. You can't have it both ways. You either have to accept much less elaborate games or accept being nickeled and dimed on DLC or accept a single user/licensed model. Personally, I buy my games new, so I would much rather have more and more elaborate games without worrying about DLC. Does it suck as a collector? Sure, but I haven't bought a DVD or Blu Ray in months and the last physical CD I bought was literally years ago. Frankly, it means less clutter and it's the way all media is going.
    WAIT.

    WAIT.

    WAIT.

    WAIT.

    WAIT.

    GUYS.

    WAIT.

    ...

    ...

    ...

    ...

    Did somebody just say something that made sense in this fucking thread?
    "And the book says: 'We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us.'"


  11. #161
    ServBot (Level 11) kedawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    I'm not just talking about games that sell poorly, though. There are developers that cancel more than half of all projects, and it's often in the later stages of development that they pull the plug. I was speaking with someone who worked for either Gantz or Gameloft, I don't recall which, who told me that he had been working there for several years and not a single project he has worked on has made it to market.
    That isn't the fault of piracy or used game sales, it's the result of fickle and/or negligent management.
    If a company can't make money selling a plastic disc for over a hundred times what it costs to make, then they have only themselves to blame.

  12. #162
    Insert Coin (Level 0) danawhitaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    88
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bojay1997 View Post
    I would disagree with your premise that everything has always been great in the video game industry. All of the big players in the pre-Nintendo era collapsed and no longer make consoles or games. Sega is software only. Panasonic, Philips, 3do, and countless other companies saw their video game divisions shutter in the 90s or early 2000s. There are actually a relatively small number of publishers remaining and even fewer hardware manufacturers. Did used games kill all these companies? Of course not. Did it have an impact on their profitability and their ability to stay in business? Absolutely.
    This is the part where I need other people's commentary, because while I gamed as a child and teen, it wasn't until the very late 90s/early 2000s when I started getting into gaming the way I am now and I was born in 1981 so I missed out on most of the pre-NES stuff. Gamestop didn't exist in its current incarnation in the late 90s, at least in my area. It still went by Software Etc., and didn't push used content nearly as hard was they do now, and we had a FuncoLand in a part of town that no one ever went to that was eventually acquired by them.

    How much of an impact did used games actually have on the companies that went out of business in the 80s (pre-NES stuff) and early 90s? I don't even remember seeing used games anywhere except rarely at video rental stores, well after the games had been popular. There was no selection, it wasn't like you could say, "I want to buy X used" and go find it (again, at least where I lived). You might stumble onto a game you wanted, but I found that was rare. Your mileage may have varied with this when it came to larger cities. If I wanted a game back then, new was pretty much the only option. Or rental. But that was no guarantee either.

    I always got the impression that the failures of the 3DO and CDI were due more to the cost of hardware and lack of availability of worthwhile titles than anything to do with the used market. I don't think I've ever seen that cited as a reason for either one. And while I could see where the Dreamcast might have issues with piracy, and used games were becoming more prevalent where I live then, if the used market was the problem why did Sega stop making hardware and choose to focus on software (which would seem to be there the issue would lie if it were related to second-hand sales, right?) Isn't one of the prices of having a free market system the fact that inevitably some things *will* fail? It seems unlikely that a lot more game companies would have been able to thrive if not for second hand sales.

    I guess I'll issue an easier challenge than I posed in my last post - name the one company that you think was most significantly impacted by the used game market on its road to failure, and why that was the case.

    I also didn't say that everything has been "great" in the industry. I said things were fine. Some companies have thrived, and done amazingly well. Others were not so lucky. That's pretty much the way things work. Not every company will ultimately be a success. That's true out of the game industry and within it.
    Last edited by danawhitaker; 02-14-2013 at 08:35 PM.

  13. #163
    Ghostbuster
    Greg2600's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Soprano Land, NJ
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    14 Posts

    Default

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2679696.html

    This been discussed yet? Founder of Xbox says Apple will rule because MS/Sony suck to deal with. They need to get their act together because if nothing else, I do not want Apple to be the video game destination of the future. Though if it were just Apple, they would start gouging the small time devs with fees as well. Wall Street......
    The Paunch Stevenson Show free Internet podcast - www.paunchstevenson.com - DP FEEDBACK

  14. #164
    Banned
    IHatedSega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    635
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Yeah, games, without actual controllers area bad idea to me. I really dont want consoles to die, but the way they were this last generation with the PS3 and 360 theyre just cheap crappy computers. Steambox and Wii U are probably my next 2 consoles.

  15. #165
    ServBot (Level 11) TonyTheTiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    3,537
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bojay1997 View Post
    If there was no pay cable, no VOD, no pay per view, no broadcast release and no theatrical release, there would be no profitability in the movie industry. In fact, the physical disc based model of movie sales has collapsed despite the fact that prices have come down significantly. You can't have it both ways. You either have to accept much less elaborate games or accept being nickeled and dimed on DLC or accept a single user/licensed model.
    I think less elaborate games (or, rather, games with more conservative budgets which isn't necessarily the same thing) is the more sensible option in the long run. The games industry screwed up by trying to compete with Hollywood. You said it yourself, the only reason movies can get away with insane budgets is because they have a perpetual revenue stream. A film studio's library is worth it's weight in gold. Back to the Future still makes money for Universal. But how much has Nintendo really made off of the original Super Mario Bros. lately outside of a handful of low cost rereleases? The inherent value isn't in the individual title. What's valuable is the IP, which puts publishers at a noticeable disadvantage compared to film studios because it means that Square Enix has to get off its ass and make a brand new Final Fantasy every so often. MMOs can last longer but they're also expensive to maintain.

    But here's the catch, no pricing scheme can fix this. You can't magically make these fucktarded budgets make sense by raising prices or nickel and diming. The numbers are so whacked out that you'd have to price your games right out of the market to insulate yourself enough so that one major flop doesn't lead to catastrophe. Concocting schemes that risk confusing, annoying, or otherwise complicating the process for people can only help so much. It's like reinforcing a house of cards. No matter what you do, it's still a house of cards. It's all just band-aids meant to avoid acknowledging the real problem. It's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about because it's uncomfortable to think about. But we have to face it because it isn't going away. Everyone expects more. Every sequel has to be bigger and better. It used to be that a fighting game could dazzle with a cast of 15. These days if you release one with even 20 characters you get lambasted for your "tiny" roster. Every one of them now needs a highly cinematic story mode or it's "missing something." Our standards keep going up and budgets grow to match but at some point it's just not sustainable no matter what pricing shenanigans you pull. As much as people like to say gaming is growing and more people are playing now than ever before, it isn't growing fast enough and there are way too many alternatives vying for attention.

    Curt Schilling should be the poster boy for this problem and is one hell of a cautionary tale. The man lost his company because Kingdoms of Almur: Reckoning (a perfectly competent game, mind you) sold "only" 1.2 million copies in three months. It needed to sell about three times that to break even. To put that into perspective, it needed to match Final Fantasy VII's total North American sales just to break even. When your million seller puts you out on your ass something is really fucking wrong. And, let's be real here, it's not because of used games, DLC, piracy or some other smoke and mirrors.

    When the games industry pulls these kinds of shenanigans (be it this used games issue, bizarre nickel and diming, etc.) it's not that I find it morally wrong, unethical, or some other sensationalist nonsense. I just think it's flat out stupid or willfully ignorant. Go right ahead, get rid of all used games, jack all prices to $70, nickel and dime for all the DLC you can think of and I guarantee that five or six years from now we'll be right back where we are hearing once more how publishers can't sustain themselves and how we should feel bad for them when some new scheme devised to "fix" it shows up. But you know, I don't feel bad for bad business. And these budgets are bad business. If anything is hurting the industry it's people acting like the problem is everything except bloated budgets and making excuses for why all these other things need to be done. Because all these other things? They're not going to help. But it's a lot easier to make excuses than to find solutions to make games that are just as impressive but cost less to make.

  16. #166
    Great Puma (Level 12)
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    4,271
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger View Post
    I think less elaborate games (or, rather, games with more conservative budgets which isn't necessarily the same thing) is the more sensible option in the long run. The games industry screwed up by trying to compete with Hollywood. You said it yourself, the only reason movies can get away with insane budgets is because they have a perpetual revenue stream. A film studio's library is worth it's weight in gold. Back to the Future still makes money for Universal. But how much has Nintendo really made off of the original Super Mario Bros. lately outside of a handful of low cost rereleases? The inherent value isn't in the individual title. What's valuable is the IP, which puts publishers at a noticeable disadvantage compared to film studios because it means that Square Enix has to get off its ass and make a brand new Final Fantasy every so often. MMOs can last longer but they're also expensive to maintain.

    But here's the catch, no pricing scheme can fix this. You can't magically make these fucktarded budgets make sense by raising prices or nickel and diming. The numbers are so whacked out that you'd have to price your games right out of the market to insulate yourself enough so that one major flop doesn't lead to catastrophe. Concocting schemes that risk confusing, annoying, or otherwise complicating the process for people can only help so much. It's like reinforcing a house of cards. No matter what you do, it's still a house of cards. It's all just band-aids meant to avoid acknowledging the real problem. It's the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about because it's uncomfortable to think about. But we have to face it because it isn't going away. Everyone expects more. Every sequel has to be bigger and better. It used to be that a fighting game could dazzle with a cast of 15. These days if you release one with even 20 characters you get lambasted for your "tiny" roster. Every one of them now needs a highly cinematic story mode or it's "missing something." Our standards keep going up and budgets grow to match but at some point it's just not sustainable no matter what pricing shenanigans you pull. As much as people like to say gaming is growing and more people are playing now than ever before, it isn't growing fast enough and there are way too many alternatives vying for attention.

    Curt Schilling should be the poster boy for this problem and is one hell of a cautionary tale. The man lost his company because Kingdoms of Almur: Reckoning (a perfectly competent game, mind you) sold "only" 1.2 million copies in three months. It needed to sell about three times that to break even. To put that into perspective, it needed to match Final Fantasy VII's total North American sales just to break even. When your million seller puts you out on your ass something is really fucking wrong. And, let's be real here, it's not because of used games, DLC, piracy or some other smoke and mirrors.

    When the games industry pulls these kinds of shenanigans (be it this used games issue, bizarre nickel and diming, etc.) it's not that I find it morally wrong, unethical, or some other sensationalist nonsense. I just think it's flat out stupid or willfully ignorant. Go right ahead, get rid of all used games, jack all prices to $70, nickel and dime for all the DLC you can think of and I guarantee that five or six years from now we'll be right back where we are hearing once more how publishers can't sustain themselves and how we should feel bad for them when some new scheme devised to "fix" it shows up. But you know, I don't feel bad for bad business. And these budgets are bad business. If anything is hurting the industry it's people acting like the problem is everything except bloated budgets and making excuses for why all these other things need to be done. Because all these other things? They're not going to help. But it's a lot easier to make excuses than to find solutions to make games that are just as impressive but cost less to make.
    I agree with most of the points that you made, but it doesn't change the fact that the gaming public, including many of us here, want these games to be bigger and better with each iteration. The sad truth is that like most forms of older media, there aren't a whole lot of new ways to tell a story (in this case play mechanics) available to developers and at this point, it's really a continuing race to tell those same basic stories in new and interesting ways. There are lots of really well constructed indie and lower budget games out there, but frankly, they don't keep me interested for very long, if at all, because many of them rely on gimmicks to harness the same exact gameplay that arcade and console programmers developed in the 1970s.

    You're right, long term it is a very unsustainable financial model, just like the music industry was in the 90s and movies seem destined to be again in the coming decade. In fact, one of the major reasons the movie business has continued to return record profits despite sharp declines in home video sales and lower cable and broadcast licensing fees is that ticket prices have sharply climbed over the past decade. The number of movie goers and tickets sold has remained pretty stable over the past decade or so and in some markets has actually declined somewhat. Back to the Future might continue to generate licensing and retransmission revenue, but it sure isn't the gold mine it was a decade ago when there were far fewer cable channels and far less original programming being pumped at out faster and cheaper rates.

    Frankly, the busines model behind the games industry has been broken since at least the late 90s when Sony decided that it would sell the PS2 at a significant loss and Microsoft followed suit with the Xbox, both foolishly counting on a high software attach rate to make up for the deficit. Maybe the solution is to charge actual cost plus reasonable profit on consoles so that used buyers won't essentially cause a continuing loss by first getting a subsidized console and then never buying any of the software in a way that some of those revenues return to the manufacturers. I'm sure used buyers will balk at that as well and new users like myself won't be too happy to pay more for our hardware. I will say that what may delay the inevitable a little longer is the emergence of a growing international middle class in places like China and India where console gaming is really just starting to be introduced. Maybe it is short sighted, but if getting rid of used sales buys me another five years of great games, I'm perfectly happy to take that bargain.

  17. #167
    Insert Coin (Level 0)
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    3
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger View Post
    But here's the catch, no pricing scheme can fix this. You can't magically make these fucktarded budgets make sense by raising prices or nickel and diming. The numbers are so whacked out that you'd have to price your games right out of the market to insulate yourself enough so that one major flop doesn't lead to catastrophe. ....
    right here is a big problem i have. games are priced to a point these days where my disposable income cannot keep up with the amount of titles that come out. now...that being said, i said "titles coming out", i never said GOOD titles. lately i noticed that a good 1/4 of the games i see that are $60 are games that are terrible. i got suckered into the hype of "titles" too many times lately. i was the idiot that LOVED resident evil and when i heard RE6 was coming out with a MASSIVE pre-order bonus, i didnt flinch at the $90 price tag, i ordered it, paid in full, and went on my way. fast forward to release day, i actually left my job early so i could get the game. i rushed home, threw it in my xbox and went to town.....for about 10min and realized that the game was TERRIBLE. now who is to blame? the fanboy (me) who shelled out the $90 or the game devel team that brought out a button smash versus an actual horror game? i read reviews now and the game is flamed BADLY about terrible game play. so here i am with a $90 game that most game stores will buy for $20 MAX....yeah, nope, im stuck with it

    Quote Originally Posted by TonyTheTiger View Post
    When the games industry pulls these kinds of shenanigans (be it this used games issue, bizarre nickel and diming, etc.) it's not that I find it morally wrong, unethical, or some other sensationalist nonsense. I just think it's flat out stupid or willfully ignorant. Go right ahead, get rid of all used games, jack all prices to $70, nickel and dime for all the DLC you can think of and I guarantee that five or six years from now we'll be right back where we are hearing once more how publishers can't sustain themselves and how we should feel bad for them when some
    they pull this crap cause sadly there are people that dont pay attention to the prices of games, they buy the game for the game, and that hurts a lot of us gamers. there are people who will buy a game/title on name alone and spend $60/$70/$100 on a subpar game. when people do that it shows the studios "hey....people WILL pay for this crap, lets make another!". i personally am VERY much against DLC costing or 0day DLC. why do i need to be nickle and dimed to death once i get a game? why couldnt that have been implemented into the game beforehand? i dont think the problem will be back in 5 or 6 years like you think. i think its going to hit us HARD with the next gen of consoles coming into play

  18. #168
    Banana (Level 7) WCP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,411
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danawhitaker View Post
    Why is that greed? It's *my* money. I spent my hard-earned money on something, and if I decide I'm done with it, and choose to sell it, give it away, etc., why should any corporation have the right to tell me I can't? I could understand if it meant I still retained the ability to play the game once I got rid of it - but that's not the case. Do you think all goods should be like this? You mention the movie industry - but you can still buy DVDs and Blu-ray discs and resell them the way the used game market currently works. They aren't locked to your player. You can loan them out, rent them, borrow them, etc, pretty much without restriction. The same goes for books. You can buy them, loan them, trade them, sell them, borrow them from the library. If I buy a shirt from the Gap and decide I don't like the way it looks, the Gap doesn't prohibit me from giving it to a friend, or donating it to Goodwill. I'm sure they'd prefer that I'd send my friend in to buy a brand new shirt from them instead. Every industry would love it if we all patronized their establishments more and paid full price for everything, and never shared or traded. Cars manufacturers would be thrilled if everyone had to buy new cars. Do you think any of these moves would actually be good for the economy? Prohibiting people from being able to purchase things second-hand (and more affordably) is a slippery slope that I'm just not willing to go down. It's bad enough we've gotten to the point we have with software licensing. I wish I could sell my copy of Diablo 3 because it's garbage and not worth the $60 someone has to pay. Unfortunately it's tied to my Battle.net account for eternity, where maybe I could allow my daughter to play it. But only while she's a minor. Then Blizzard restricts you from sharing your Battle.net account. I love corporations telling me what I can and can't let other family members play on the computer I paid for, with the software I paid for.

    Even with licensed software, if I give away or sell my entire computer, with all the software installed, Microsoft has no idea that I've transferred my copy of Windows to someone else. They have no way to stop it. The only way they'd be able to is if they take the Steam, Origin, or Blizzard model and require you to tie your software keys to a single-user account. Why are you so willing to sign away your rights to use products you buy? Do you really hate gaming the way it was in the 80s and 90s and early 2000s so much that you want to see all our rights as collectors out the window? I'm absolutely at a loss I guess as to how people in the gaming community can be so willing to roll over and let the corporations trample all over us. Or maybe there are just some industry shills here pushing the agenda. I can't fathom people choosing to be anti-consumer-rights.

    Why is it for a few decades many companies have been able to do just fine in this industry, yet all of a sudden it's a problem? I saw yesterday the 360 has sold 76 million units worldwide? Cry me a river about lack of profits. Even if the slim profit margin on hardware, that's a lot of money by itself. No one is advocating a model where all games are free and cost no money. Show me ten game companies that went out of business because people were buying used games instead of new ones. I bet you'll find significantly more went of business due to mis-management, failing to understand the demands of the market, and developing or publishing games that were sub-par on a consistent basis. In fact, I bet you won't find one that went out of business because of used games.




    I agree with most of what you're saying. Certainly, we as consumers are enjoying certain rights with our physical games, and those rights are in danger.


    However.... You're saying that all the game devs that went out of business was because of mismanagement and stuff like that, but I think I'd have to disagree on that. All it takes to go out of business nowadays is one poor selling game. Key word is "selling". There are plenty of games that didn't sell well, that are still excellent games. The console business right now is in this weird place where only the megahits make any money. Megahits and low budget downloadable games. There is no middle ground. This business model is unsustainable, so I see why Sony and Microsoft are going in the direction that they are going.


    Still, does that give them the right, to take away all of our rights as consumers ? Not really. But the alternative is going to be Halo 5 and Uncharted 4 ad naseum, until we can't stand it anymore. The huge flagpole releases will be the only games that get budgets over 20 million. Nobody is going to spend 20 million making a mid-tier game. Instead, they will spend 10 million, and cut corners. The only games that will get the full treatment, are the proven blockbusters. So get ready to play the same old shit, over and over.

  19. #169
    Insert Coin (Level 0) danawhitaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    88
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WCP View Post
    I agree with most of what you're saying. Certainly, we as consumers are enjoying certain rights with our physical games, and those rights are in danger.


    However.... You're saying that all the game devs that went out of business was because of mismanagement and stuff like that, but I think I'd have to disagree on that. All it takes to go out of business nowadays is one poor selling game. Key word is "selling". There are plenty of games that didn't sell well, that are still excellent games. The console business right now is in this weird place where only the megahits make any money. Megahits and low budget downloadable games. There is no middle ground. This business model is unsustainable, so I see why Sony and Microsoft are going in the direction that they are going.


    Still, does that give them the right, to take away all of our rights as consumers ? Not really. But the alternative is going to be Halo 5 and Uncharted 4 ad naseum, until we can't stand it anymore. The huge flagpole releases will be the only games that get budgets over 20 million. Nobody is going to spend 20 million making a mid-tier game. Instead, they will spend 10 million, and cut corners. The only games that will get the full treatment, are the proven blockbusters. So get ready to play the same old shit, over and over.
    I think mismanagement can encompass a lot of things. That includes releasing or allotting development and large amounts of money and time to games that aren't likely going to sell well, that you don't market or promote well, or that are just flat-out bad games. Those will all lead to a game that, ultimately, will not sell well. Personally, I think one of the scourges on the game industry today is the whole movie/TV show tie in. Many of those games are so *bad*. Make the ones that have the potential to be good and to translate well into game-form, but it's like any remotely popular franchise in movies or TV has to end up becoming a game. I mean for crying out loud, someone made a Grey's Anatomy game. I adore that show, but really? Even I haven't bought that yet, and I tune in religiously every week and have for about six years. Desperate Housewives never made it to the console, but there's another one that had me scratching my head. I watched the show for a while, and I'm a woman, but I didn't even consider buying that. Garbage in, garbage out. If the concept and design of the game are bad at the core, the release isn't going to magically be good, no matter what IP it's tied to. Just because a lot of people watch it on TV or go to the theater to see it doesn't mean that will translate into game sales. Games like those exist because of the path of least resistance - there's existing story, throw it all together, release it, and hope suckers will buy it because they saw "X".

    It's okay to make smaller, niche games that don't appeal to the broad base of players - but then the budget needs to be reined in to account for that fact, rather than letting it balloon out of control to the point where the game will be considered utter failure even when it sells by what would be considered reasonable standards. Or the budget needs to be balanced in a way that makes sure the game gets marketed properly so that people will know it exists. I do research almost every day for my console database, and at least 3-4 times a day I will stumble onto a game that's been released within the past few years that I never heard about. I think game stores can be a bit at fault in this department too - not ordering many copies of game, or, as some people have said about Gamestop as of late, not ordering any copies at all unless someone preorders. If I don't see it on the shelf, I don't know it exists. I'm starting to become more proactive in paying attention to the release schedule so that I can make sure to try and support games that I would have missed in the past. Part of me wants to get a PS3 just to play Ni no Kuni, after reading about that one. That one ended up being the #11th selling game (in terms of physical copies) in January I think? I looked at everything above it on the list, and everything else was part of some massive franchise - Madden, Halo, Call of Duty, Just Dance, etc. I think in a way we've already hit that dreaded point of having most games be rehashes of the same franchises. And some of that's okay - I loved the Super Mario for the Wii U. No one's saying those games should go away. But I think that maybe the industry could look at more balance when it comes to how often they're released, so that the market doesn't feel quite so saturated.

    I don't want to see the game industry continue to be the same stuff over and over with no real alternatives either. But I do think that there are things they could do to try and bolster sales of lesser-known games, and get people excited about the games, before they launch. And really, with social media playing such a significant role today, companies can try to take the bull by the horns and do more about that without spending large amounts of money.

  20. #170
    Banned
    IHatedSega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    635
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    If games cost less, theyd sell more, thats the key to used games, theyre cheaper. But, even then, the used games would be less still so then people would really buy them up. I hope the next consoles arent too expensive, thats the most expensive thing involved in gaming.
    Last edited by IHatedSega; 02-15-2013 at 04:12 AM.

  21. #171
    ServBot (Level 11) Rob2600's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    3,601
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by WCP View Post
    The huge flagpole releases will be the only games that get budgets over 20 million.
    Do you mean flagship?

  22. #172
    Strawberry (Level 2) retroguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    The Middle of Nowhere
    Posts
    402
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IHatedSega View Post
    If games cost less, theyd sell more, thats the key to used games, theyre cheaper. But, even then, the used games would be less still so then people would really buy them up.
    It depends. When I got my PS1 in high school, brand new games cost $40 and Greatest Hits or games that had been out for awhile were $20 and at the time, even with only making $6 an hour at my job, I thought that was reasonable and bought most of my games new from Walmart. These days, though, if I have a choice between paying $60 for a new game or $25-30 for used, I'll go with used every time. I think game companies need to reduce the cost of new games across the board and if that means reducing budgets on the more niche titles to have a better chance of making a profit, I can't see where that would be a bad thing.
    Social Justice Warrior and proud of it!

  23. #173
    Banned
    IHatedSega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    635
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by retroguy View Post
    if that means reducing budgets on the more niche titles to have a better chance of making a profit, I can't see where that would be a bad thing.
    The "realistic graphics" whores would throw a fit.

  24. #174
    ServBot (Level 11) kedawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    3,429
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    I'm more of a playable framerate/logical physics whore, and current tech does not cut it.

  25. #175
    Banned
    IHatedSega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    635
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kedawa View Post
    I'm more of a playable framerate/logical physics whore, and current tech does not cut it.
    Framerates? And what about physics? Do you hate Dead or Alive with a burning passion?

    Oh yeah, I played Dodonpachi Resurrection , and there was a LOT of slow down, I said it needed blast processing for the game, no one got the joke.

Similar Threads

  1. New Edge Magazine Special 'EDGE Definitive Top 100 Magazine'
    By Windy Miller in forum Modern Gaming
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-04-2007, 12:05 AM
  2. 2006 IIPA Piracy reports (Counterfeit GameCube games?)
    By DDCecil in forum Modern Gaming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-19-2006, 12:01 AM
  3. WTB Edge issues (61-150) Games TM (35) Gamers Republic (all)
    By gamenthusiast in forum Buying and Selling
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-09-2005, 04:23 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •