Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

Op Ed

Kotaku - Gaming's Biggest Problem Is That Nobody Wants To Talk.
The biggest problem in gaming today is that the gaming industry thinks we're all out to get them. They think gamers are the enemy, a group that needs to be treated with disdain and avoided whenever possible. They think the only way to fool us into buying their products is to cover everything in a shroud of secrecy, only drip-feeding us pretty trailers and juicy soundbites during carefully-tailored marketing campaigns. They think we should just sit there and lap it up.

View
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

33. Re: Op Ed Aug 5, 2012, 07:47 Prez
 
Max Payne 3 for me was a fail.

Off topic but I saw you say that about Max Payne 3 and thought I'd add my two cents. Considering that they fattened ole Max up and aged him quite a bit, and set it in a Brazilian country during mostly the daylight hours, I was surprised at just how well the signature Max Payne moody contemplative, melancholy 'noir' theme still held up. The shoot-dodging action is still as awesome as always, and even the much-maligned frequent cutscenes didn't bother me at all, and in fact I felt they really added some flavor to what otherwise have become a repetitive shooter. What really soured my experience were 2 big negatives:

1) the over-reliance on cover shooter mechanics - 'Max Payne' is not 'Gears of War' and I shouldn't be forced to play it as such, and
2) The utterly ridiculous difficulty spikes that made me have to replay certain sections thirty times to advance ( making matters worse you had to watch the sequence's introductory cutscene every time. ). I may not be the most adept shooter gamer out there, but I was able to finish both Max Payne games on 'Hardcore' mode with less trouble than I had finishing Max Payne 3 on 'Normal".

All in all it was a very good shooter and deserves the Max Payne name, but it isn't as good as Max Payne 2.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Op Ed Aug 4, 2012, 17:10 Tumbler
 
I'm not sure the extra sales at a 40-dollar price point justify a 25% price cut.

I think I forgot to mention an important part of my example. Max Payne 3 for me was a fail. I didn't like it. I paid $40 and quit playing after an hour or two because it wasn't holding my attention. Never went back. There have been many other games that have done this and if I paid $60 for them I was pissed. Furious in fact.

$40 doesn't get me as mad. I bought BF3 on pc for $35 shortly after launch and ended up in a very similar situation and again...it sucks I dont' like it but at $40 or less price point I can move on.

The whole "one price fits all" solution they expect consumers to play along with is a joke. $60 is not an amount of money I can just laugh off and say, "Oh well, no biggie."

The original article was trying to discuss the whole angry gamer / developer cycle that seems to be getting worse. The problem is that not everyone is going to like your game and offering only one price to everyone regardless if they end up liking your game and playing it 80 hours or hate it and quit after an hour is creating this rage.

The industry standard of no returns ever is fueling this because as publishers desperately try and get more money out of gamers it's pissing more and more people off.

Lowering prices would counter some of this tsunami of rage that seems to be always building. Offer a return policy. Give some sign that you appreciate people spending money on your products. The companies that do this seem to be having none of these problems. It's not rocket science. The devs / pubs who are getting shouted down anytime they come up to say anything have been acting like a bunch of assholes.

Quit being assholes and gamers will treat you more like Valve.
 
99gamers.com-Game trading site, PC digital trading!
Kickstarter "Game Developer"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Op Ed Aug 4, 2012, 16:43 yonder
 
Flatline wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 18:05:
Tumbler wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 16:14:
Funny thing happened recently for me.

I bought max payne 3 for $40. When it came out at $60 I thought that was a rip off. When it hit $40 it was ok.

I bought diablo 3 at launch more out of morbid curiosity than anything else and feel like that was a bad purchase. (Paid $0, all trade in credit)

I recently purchased Borderlands 2 PC via green man gaming. I'd decided to pass on the game recently and pulled my pre-orders. The game looked interesting but not for $60. But $40? Ok. I'm even willing to cut you some slack if I end up not liking it.

But $60? You better deliver something that knocks my sock. Most companies don't and I think that is where the problem is.

$60 is no longer a realistic price to expect for games. Some companies, the so called self made brands:

Tim Schafer, Notch, Cliff Bleszinski, and Gabe Newell can afford to be frank because they either own their companies or are brands in and off themselves, functionally unfirable.

Those guys are successful because the games they make have continually met expectations of gamers. (not sure how Bleszinski is in there...) If you make games that meet expectations gamers will be happy with you. If you don't and you expect everyone to pay the same price as if you did then people will (and do) feel ripped off.

Lower prices. $40 should be the norm. $50-$60 for the biggest games. Don't and you're only signing your own pink slip. Enjoy!

Considering that the price of making games just keeps going up and up and up, this is a goddamn pipe dream. Not to mention it'll slit the indie scene's throat pretty much entirely. They're finally creeping up to 30 dollar price points with some indie games, and dropping A and AA titles down to 40 bucks is going to force indies back down to the 15 dollar point to be competitive.

There's two sides to a capitalist transaction. Yes, companies want to maximize profits, and consumers want the cheapest price possible, but at a certain level, companies need to at least break even. I'm not sure the extra sales at a 40-dollar price point justify a 25% price cut.

Hell, I'll say it here. By the end of the next generation of consoles, you'll see 70 bucks MSRP on AAA titles. And games like CoD will be at the forefront of this shearing.

33% cut.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Op Ed Aug 4, 2012, 16:38 yonder
 
Graham wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 12:06:
The biggest problem in the gaming industry are the responses of anonymous gamers. This year we've seen the community managers and developers for SWToR, Mass Effect 3, and Diablo 3 light up like roman candles because they didn't deliver what some gamers considered to be the products they should have delivered.

"Who cares about a game no one plays anymore?"
"**DEVNAME** is dead to me"
"I hope they fucking fold up shop"

Blizzard posts a picture on their Diablo 3 facebook page and the response is over 2000 comments, more than half of which are "fix your fucking game". People are wondering why blue posts went silent, or why the Mass Effect 3 team has gone dark for everything except multiplayer (and the recently announced Leviathan)... is it surprising? When everything you do is met with loud, boisterous hate, eventually you stop wanting to talk. You try to control the message through your silence. It doesn't work, but it seems like a brilliant alternative to dealing with every word you spit out being twisted into a weapon against you.

I wrote part of a book on MMO community management in 2004 and I thought it was bad then. It's slid off the deep end, you honestly couldn't pay me to deal with people like us anymore.

Gee, so you're saying EA and EA and Activision are unpopular? Let's take a look at the problems that EA and EA and Activision are being bitched at about and, oh wait, let's not, cuz everyone knows what they are and there's no need to repeat the fact that they treat their customers like the enemy. If you want to complain about asshat consumers at least pick non-horrible publishers to defend. Good job.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Op Ed Aug 4, 2012, 12:42 Agent.X7
 
I'm not sure how dropping prices would decreased used game sales. You'd have to drop your used prices as well, so they'd just continue to buy used. Like you said, some people buy whatever is cheapest. Especially when there is no otherwise redeeming value in buying new.

Well, it's simple, really. Customers wouldn't factor into it so much as my bottom line.

I'm an independent game store in a small town, surrounded by other small towns. The closest Gamestop is 35 minutes to the West, or 45 minutes to the East, and the small towns to the South of me have an even longer drive to get there. So I rely on the fact that I am more convenient, and cheaper, than Gamestop.

However, I do not have the bottomless pockets of Gamestop. New games generally cost me $5 less than they cost customers. When you factor in shipping, I don't make much at all on a new game. I don't have the volume of customers necessary to sustain my business based on new item sales. Even if it was the full $5 profit on each item, I couldn't pay my lease, let alone every other bill.

Used games? That's where my profit margin lies. Generally I pay out 40 to 50% of what I can sell an item for. Now, that rocks the profit for used games going at $49.99. (An example, as most used games are cheaper.) However, if NEW games sold at $40? The most I could charge for a used copy would be $39.99, and most games would fall well below that. The smaller the profit for each used game, the less incentive for me to remain open. I mean, making $20 on a used game that just came out? Great! Making $5? Urg. I'm right back to the crap profit that new games bring, and it's not enough to keep my doors open.

I mean, that's just my take on it. I have a degree in business, so it's a pretty educated guess, but still just a guess. Keep in mind that I also run a game store because of my love for games and my desire to not work for other people, so others may have different motivations. I could certainly make a lot more money doing something else, but I like this. And liek I said, Gamestop is a major force in the industry, so they have different numbers and could probably still turn a profit. (25 cents for my week old copy of Dragons Dogma 6? Sweet!)
 
Avatar 23400
 
Origin - JStarX7
STEAM - Agent.X7
PSN - JStar_X7
Xbox Live - Agent X7
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Op Ed Aug 4, 2012, 02:17 Jerykk
 
eunichron wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 16:29:
I think Kotaku is confusing "disdain" and "aversion" with game developers doing their jobs. Developers make the games they want to make, yeah there are some exceptions when publishers begin to force themselves into the process, but in the end game design is not up to the gamers. As I read through the beta forums for a few upcoming, highly anticipated, games I realize that the communities have some truly awful ideas. It's not the developers job to make the games the communities wants, their job is to make the game that the designers want within the means that they are able. If the community does not like that, they can make their own studio and make the game they want. If the designers decide that they want community input and involvement in the design and development of the game, well that's entirely up to them.

That's not really accurate. Unless you're an indie or a big developer with a lot of leverage (like Blizzard or Bungie), publishers ultimately decide the direction a game takes. If they don't like a certain design choice, it's going to get cut. Doesn't matter what the designers want. They can try and explain why having the player losing limbs and being forced to collect them is a bad idea (see Neverdead) but if the publisher wants it in the game, it's going to stay.

Here's how it typically works:

1) You pitch a game concept to a publisher.
2) Someone at the publisher likes the general concept and decides to back it, provided that you make some changes in accordance with the publisher's vision for the game.
3) You agree to make the changes and the publisher gives you money to develop a prototype.
4) If the prototype satisfies the publisher's vision, you sign a contract to develop the full game.
5) Throughout development, every design choice you make has to be signed off by the publisher. If you refuse to abide by the publisher's demands, you lose the project.

Take Neverdead, for example. I'm 99% sure that Rebellion knew that the whole limb-loss mechanic was retarded. However, some suit at Konami really loved the idea so it had to stay. The game is released, bombs and Rebellion takes all the heat for such a stupid mechanic. If they openly admit that the mechanic was Konami's idea, they're essentially guaranteeing that they won't ever work with Konami again. When you're a developer that relies on publisher funding, burning bridges is a bad idea.

In the modern game industry, you aren't making games for the public or for yourself. You're making games for publishers.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 21:08 NKD
 
Agent.X7 wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 19:05:

Null argument used by the media, analysts, and people who have an interest in the company making more money.

Games = Entertainment. No entertainment industry ever keeps up with inflation. They can't, or they'd go out of business. Entertainment is worth what you can get consumers to pay for it. Inflation works best for things people need, or at least think they need. Cars, food, homes, clothing, etc.

Look at home movies.

VHS was at the highest install base when decks were cheap and movies cost $20.

DVD - highest install base when players were cheap and movies cost $20.

Blu-Ray - new movies starting to come out at $20 and players prices continually falling.

Meanwhile the cost to make movies has continually risen and producers and studios have had to find creative ways to turn a profit.

Yes, movies release to theaters. Guess what? Ticket prices at theaters have also not kept up with inflation.

Concerts? They tried, but once ticket prices got really high, people stopped going. Not keeping up with inflation.

Yup, and now they find myriad ways to make more money. Entertainment products that are watered down and stupid to appeal to the LCD. DLC and cash shops. Add-on packages, overpriced food and drink, whatever. That's precisely the point I'm making.

Developers can bitch about how much they lose to used sales, but if they simply dropped prices people would have more incentive to pay the developer and not stores like mine. I have dozens of customers who won't even touch a game until it comes in used so they can save a few bucks. They don't care about who gets the money, they just want to save their own money.

Hell, I have customers still playing PS2 and Xbox games because they aren't willing to invest in a new system until they can get every game for less than $20 and the system for less than a hundred. All of that money and the developers don't get any of it. Sometimes it makes a lot more sense to sell more for less.

I'm not sure how dropping prices would decreased used game sales. You'd have to drop your used prices as well, so they'd just continue to buy used. Like you said, some people buy whatever is cheapest. Especially when there is no otherwise redeeming value in buying new.

But here's the bottom line: You'll never convince the industry it needs less money. Contrary to popular belief, most developers aren't rolling in dough. Some are, most aren't. They are one flopped game away from being shuttered for good.

So, if the industry wants to keep profits the same or better, and you want box sales to be cheaper, what happens? They find "creative ways to make money" as you called it. Creative ways that around here we don't like too much.

And not every title can compensate the lost per unit revenue with additional units sold. Especially very popular titles where the ratio of early adopters to wait-for-a-salers is likely more skewed. (A higher I NEED IT NOW/Western Impatience factor for things that are more exciting or more anticipated.)

If they were to lower box price and the additional sales from penny-pinchers didn't cover the price drop, they'd find other ways to make it up, ways that traditionally the Blue's News crowd has found distasteful.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 19:28 Beamer
 
Tumbler wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 17:59:
Why change what's working right now and go straight to $40? You were only willing to pay $40 for Max Payne 3, and within a few weeks you could.

I don't think it is working. I don't look at new games coming out and see one that I want to spend $60 on. They're just not good enough. Or maybe I've just seen to many. I don't know why more and more games seem to be just taking older mechanics and throwing new paint on them and trying to pass it off as new and innovative.

My time is being continually pulled away from games because the quality of entertainment I get seems to be waning. I often prefer reading reddit, watching youtube video's, listing to books on tape via audible.com or just watching movies. Hell, I like watching many games on Let's Play videos on youtube over playing them.

Maybe it's the story driven narrative that so many games try to copy. Be like a movie and people will love it! Well it just ends up feeling like an awful movie because you end up "watching" the same scene play out a dozen times before you get to see the story advance. (a dozen waves of enemies)

I don't know what's wrong exactly. I just know I'm not going to pay for it anymore. (Pay a premium)

But it is working. You still bought Max Payne 3 at $40, you just waited. Other people bought it at $60.

If you weren't buying any games it wouldn't be working. It's especially telling that YOU bought a game as you're the one that's most commonly discussing how you never buy games at retail.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 19:05 Agent.X7
 
Game prices haven't kept up with inflation.

Null argument used by the media, analysts, and people who have an interest in the company making more money.

Games = Entertainment. No entertainment industry ever keeps up with inflation. They can't, or they'd go out of business. Entertainment is worth what you can get consumers to pay for it. Inflation works best for things people need, or at least think they need. Cars, food, homes, clothing, etc.

Look at home movies.

VHS was at the highest install base when decks were cheap and movies cost $20.

DVD - highest install base when players were cheap and movies cost $20.

Blu-Ray - new movies starting to come out at $20 and players prices continually falling.

Meanwhile the cost to make movies has continually risen and producers and studios have had to find creative ways to turn a profit.

Yes, movies release to theaters. Guess what? Ticket prices at theaters have also not kept up with inflation.

Concerts? They tried, but once ticket prices got really high, people stopped going. Not keeping up with inflation.


Developers can bitch about how much they lose to used sales, but if they simply dropped prices people would have more incentive to pay the developer and not stores like mine. I have dozens of customers who won't even touch a game until it comes in used so they can save a few bucks. They don't care about who gets the money, they just want to save their own money.

Hell, I have customers still playing PS2 and Xbox games because they aren't willing to invest in a new system until they can get every game for less than $20 and the system for less than a hundred. All of that money and the developers don't get any of it. Sometimes it makes a lot more sense to sell more for less.
 
Avatar 23400
 
Origin - JStarX7
STEAM - Agent.X7
PSN - JStar_X7
Xbox Live - Agent X7
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 18:05 Flatline
 
Tumbler wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 16:14:
Funny thing happened recently for me.

I bought max payne 3 for $40. When it came out at $60 I thought that was a rip off. When it hit $40 it was ok.

I bought diablo 3 at launch more out of morbid curiosity than anything else and feel like that was a bad purchase. (Paid $0, all trade in credit)

I recently purchased Borderlands 2 PC via green man gaming. I'd decided to pass on the game recently and pulled my pre-orders. The game looked interesting but not for $60. But $40? Ok. I'm even willing to cut you some slack if I end up not liking it.

But $60? You better deliver something that knocks my sock. Most companies don't and I think that is where the problem is.

$60 is no longer a realistic price to expect for games. Some companies, the so called self made brands:

Tim Schafer, Notch, Cliff Bleszinski, and Gabe Newell can afford to be frank because they either own their companies or are brands in and off themselves, functionally unfirable.

Those guys are successful because the games they make have continually met expectations of gamers. (not sure how Bleszinski is in there...) If you make games that meet expectations gamers will be happy with you. If you don't and you expect everyone to pay the same price as if you did then people will (and do) feel ripped off.

Lower prices. $40 should be the norm. $50-$60 for the biggest games. Don't and you're only signing your own pink slip. Enjoy!

Considering that the price of making games just keeps going up and up and up, this is a goddamn pipe dream. Not to mention it'll slit the indie scene's throat pretty much entirely. They're finally creeping up to 30 dollar price points with some indie games, and dropping A and AA titles down to 40 bucks is going to force indies back down to the 15 dollar point to be competitive.

There's two sides to a capitalist transaction. Yes, companies want to maximize profits, and consumers want the cheapest price possible, but at a certain level, companies need to at least break even. I'm not sure the extra sales at a 40-dollar price point justify a 25% price cut.

Hell, I'll say it here. By the end of the next generation of consoles, you'll see 70 bucks MSRP on AAA titles. And games like CoD will be at the forefront of this shearing.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 18:03 Ray Ban
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 17:17:
NegaDeath wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 12:38:
I could see it being an issue with the bigger studios and publishers but smaller devs and indies seem to do just fine with community interaction. Hell look at kickstarters, just about the exact opposite of what Kotaku describes. Maybe it's a console problem, I'm mostly PC. Or maybe it's the older studios and they've become cynical in their old age.
Kickstarters only allow posts from people who've contributed right? I would imagine that those would be overwhelmingly positive.


Most of them are, but not all. It's actually hard to believe what some people will get worked up over.

You should check out the comments on the recent Larry Laffer kickstarter. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy ...
 
"The future's so bright I gotta wear shades!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 17:59 Tumbler
 
Why change what's working right now and go straight to $40? You were only willing to pay $40 for Max Payne 3, and within a few weeks you could.

I don't think it is working. I don't look at new games coming out and see one that I want to spend $60 on. They're just not good enough. Or maybe I've just seen to many. I don't know why more and more games seem to be just taking older mechanics and throwing new paint on them and trying to pass it off as new and innovative.

My time is being continually pulled away from games because the quality of entertainment I get seems to be waning. I often prefer reading reddit, watching youtube video's, listing to books on tape via audible.com or just watching movies. Hell, I like watching many games on Let's Play videos on youtube over playing them.

Maybe it's the story driven narrative that so many games try to copy. Be like a movie and people will love it! Well it just ends up feeling like an awful movie because you end up "watching" the same scene play out a dozen times before you get to see the story advance. (a dozen waves of enemies)

I don't know what's wrong exactly. I just know I'm not going to pay for it anymore. (Pay a premium)
 
99gamers.com-Game trading site, PC digital trading!
Kickstarter "Game Developer"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 17:17 Wowbagger_TIP
 
NegaDeath wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 12:38:
I could see it being an issue with the bigger studios and publishers but smaller devs and indies seem to do just fine with community interaction. Hell look at kickstarters, just about the exact opposite of what Kotaku describes. Maybe it's a console problem, I'm mostly PC. Or maybe it's the older studios and they've become cynical in their old age.
Kickstarters only allow posts from people who've contributed right? I would imagine that those would be overwhelmingly positive.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 16:53 NKD
 
Tumbler wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 16:14:
Lower prices. $40 should be the norm. $50-$60 for the biggest games. Don't and you're only signing your own pink slip. Enjoy!

Sure, you can have lower prices, but you get more DLC or cash shops to make up the difference. Game prices haven't kept up with inflation. The box price is already falling every year, relative to inflation.

Even at $60, games are cheaper than they have ever been. Now, there used to be more variability in pricing, so some titles were cheaper, but even then. $30 in 1991 is equivalent to almost $50 today. And some games back then were $50 or more. $50 then is like $80 now.

Meanwhile they spend more and more making the game. You can't have continually lower prices in the face of ever-increasing costs.

It's the whole reason we have these cash-in DLCs and a bunch of online cashshop MMOs. It de-emphasizes the ever-decreasing profit margins from initial box sales.

None of us would like what would happen if $40 was the standard price.
 
Avatar 43041
 
If you don't like where gaming is heading, stop giving your money to the people who are taking it in that direction.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 16:29 eunichron
 
I think Kotaku is confusing "disdain" and "aversion" with game developers doing their jobs. Developers make the games they want to make, yeah there are some exceptions when publishers begin to force themselves into the process, but in the end game design is not up to the gamers. As I read through the beta forums for a few upcoming, highly anticipated, games I realize that the communities have some truly awful ideas. It's not the developers job to make the games the communities wants, their job is to make the game that the designers want within the means that they are able. If the community does not like that, they can make their own studio and make the game they want. If the designers decide that they want community input and involvement in the design and development of the game, well that's entirely up to them.

That doesn't mean we should just eat up everything that is shoved in our faces. There is valid criticism, and there is being a whiny bitch. Take Diablo 3 as a prime example. Blizzard made the game that they wanted to make. If the community doesn't like it, that's not Blizzard's problem. If there are serious problems with the design they need to be examined and conveyed in a respectable manner, but the current trend in Diablo 3 forums is, "Wahh, RMAH, wahh, always online, wahh Blizzard didn't make the game I wanted." If you look at the posts that are well thought out and convey a serious problem in the design, Blizzard has usually responded appropriately, and if recent news is an indicator they are taking those critiques it into consideration. Any changes may not come about any time soon (if past Blizzard games are an indicator it will take an expansion to "fix" the game), but Blizzard does not have an obligation to inform us of the daily design decision they are making.

This may not apply equally to certain developers who just churn out the same garbage year after year (*cough*InfinityWard*cough*), but games are a product of the developers and designer first, a money grab for publishers second, and entertainment for the gamers third. Kotaku seems to have missed that point entirely.
 
Avatar 13977
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 16:28 Beamer
 
I can honestly say I would not buy more games if they started at $40. I'd still value some games as being worth full price and some games being worth sales. I'd still binge on Steam sales. I'd still buy the next Bethesda game full price. I'd still wait until the next id game is $5. I'd still find myself backlogged when I game I would pay full price comes out, then when I'm ready to buy it realize it's been out for 2 months and likely to be on sale soon and, since I waited this long, I might as well wait longer.

GameStop will still sell used games 10% less, and people will still flock to it. Tumbler, you will still do most of your game acquisition by trading games via Goozex or whatever site you're currently flogging.

 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 16:25 Beamer
 
Tumbler wrote on Aug 3, 2012, 16:14:
Lower prices. $40 should be the norm. $50-$60 for the biggest games.

How do we define "biggest" games? Are they the ones that cost the most? Are they the ones with the most content? Are they the ones with the deepest content? Are they the ones with the broadest appeal? Are they the ones with the most brand recognition?

How many developers will ever admit their game isn't one of the "biggest?"

Why change what's working right now and go straight to $40? You were only willing to pay $40 for Max Payne 3, and within a few weeks you could. Meanwhile a million or however many paid $60 prior to that. Would it make sense to leave that $20 million in revenue on the table? Would enough additional people have purchased it at $40 day one that won't purchase it at $40 month 2 to warrant letting that revenue go?

It's not as simple as "drop prices unless you're a big game or else!" I firmly believe we're going to see $40 become the norm once physical media is dead, but it's going to be hard to move down to that. Every model you can make that shows $40 leading to higher profits also shows it being catastrophically bad when a sensitivity analysis is done and some variables are loosely flexed (and vice versa.)
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 16:14 Tumbler
 
Funny thing happened recently for me.

I bought max payne 3 for $40. When it came out at $60 I thought that was a rip off. When it hit $40 it was ok.

I bought diablo 3 at launch more out of morbid curiosity than anything else and feel like that was a bad purchase. (Paid $0, all trade in credit)

I recently purchased Borderlands 2 PC via green man gaming. I'd decided to pass on the game recently and pulled my pre-orders. The game looked interesting but not for $60. But $40? Ok. I'm even willing to cut you some slack if I end up not liking it.

But $60? You better deliver something that knocks my sock. Most companies don't and I think that is where the problem is.

$60 is no longer a realistic price to expect for games. Some companies, the so called self made brands:

Tim Schafer, Notch, Cliff Bleszinski, and Gabe Newell can afford to be frank because they either own their companies or are brands in and off themselves, functionally unfirable.

Those guys are successful because the games they make have continually met expectations of gamers. (not sure how Bleszinski is in there...) If you make games that meet expectations gamers will be happy with you. If you don't and you expect everyone to pay the same price as if you did then people will (and do) feel ripped off.

Lower prices. $40 should be the norm. $50-$60 for the biggest games. Don't and you're only signing your own pink slip. Enjoy!
 
99gamers.com-Game trading site, PC digital trading!
Kickstarter "Game Developer"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 15:41 avianflu
 
Agent, great link thanks. Penny Arcade nailed it in their reply.

"This is literally the speech and conception of a child." Ouch.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Op Ed Aug 3, 2012, 15:23 Agent.X7
 
Penny Arcade had a good opinion of this article.

http://penny-arcade.com/2012/08/03
 
Avatar 23400
 
Origin - JStarX7
STEAM - Agent.X7
PSN - JStar_X7
Xbox Live - Agent X7
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo