Krovven wrote on Jan 12, 2012, 12:21:
Kinda shocked at some peoples attitude. They didn't use DRM that effects legit customers. They go after individuals in a way that doesn't effect legit users and people still complain. Do they not have a right to defend their software and business at all without catching shit from the masses? They need to be very thorough when making their accusations, but the masses should bud the fuck out when it comes to CD Projekt defending their property* that doesn't effect legit customers.

^ This. Companies really can't win at least the way current copyright laws are. We need better laws.

I don't blame CD Projekt for doing what they're doing. The reality of copyright law (such as it is) is it's mostly a civil affair, so it's up to companies to go after pirates.

If there were stronger laws/legal enforcement, then this wouldn't be necessary.

Complaining about game length seems silly to me. I'd much rather have a tight, well-paced game @ 20 hours than a drawn-out, grindy affair @ 60 hours.

Cutter wrote on Dec 4, 2011, 20:53:

shponglefan wrote on Dec 4, 2011, 20:37:

Cutter wrote on Dec 4, 2011, 19:10:
I thought cybersquatting was illegal.

They're not cybersquatting though.

well unless they're going to fully utilize them all they are.

But they're buying domains related to IP/trademarks they own. That's not cybersquatting, even if they don't use them. If someone besides EA was buying these domains with the intention of holding them/re-selling them for inflated prices, then that would be cybersquatting. But simply owning an unused domain isn't it.

Cutter wrote on Dec 4, 2011, 19:10:
I thought cybersquatting was illegal.

They're not cybersquatting though.

EricFate wrote on Dec 4, 2011, 00:25:
People still play EverQuest?

My thoughts exactly. And they're worried about cheating now?

Zadig wrote on Nov 26, 2011, 18:03:
Was excited by the Limbo sale but tried the demo first. Endless trial & error gameplay and the glaucoma-scope got old very fast. Glad I tried before I bought.

Too bad. I thought it started out a littl meh, but the later puzzles are very cool.

ASeven wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 13:39:
The combination of surplus supply, terrible game quality and high prices meant that in 81 people realistically considered the gaming industry was dead, and it came very, very close to death.

And yet:

a) Prices are generall lower than in the past and in some cases vastly lower;
b) Quality gaming exists in abundance; while there is a ton of crap shovelware out there, it's not at all comparable to the 1978 situation;
c) New technology continues to allow for new avenues for gaming (like cell phones;
d) Digital distribution eliminates the need for manufacturing/inventory costs, thus eliminating a huge chunk of costs and associate risks.

So no, this is not the same as the lead-up to the prior crash. Not by a long shot.

This comment was edited on Nov 25, 2011, 16:51.

Verno wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 13:26:
Value proposition is inherently subjective, I'm not sure why we're generalizing on behalf of every other consumer in the market but I'll play for one more post. I'd also argue that there is definitely an argument to be made that consumers are paying just as much if not when you factor in other revenue streams that the industry employs now like DLC.

Looking at average new title costs today versus 20 years ago, there's about a $15-20 difference. Plus, back in the day companies would release expansion packs and charge for those. So I don't know if DLC would make up the total difference; but it's a valid point.

A lot of gamers are new, did you even consider that? Many of them weren't around long ago, there are whole new generations of people who weren't paying $90 for an SNES game or whatever you're referring to.

Specifically I wa thinking of paying $40 for King's Quest II and getting maybe 6 hours of gameplay out of it, tops. That would be like paying $75 for the same experience today.

While quantity has grown in terms of game offerings it doesn't necessarily mean quality has too, the Ghost Recon franchise is a great example of that.

On average, I think the overall quality of gaming has gone up or at least stayed the same, mainly as a result of technology. Part of the reason I think people think prior generations worth of games were better is simply because those were "newer" then whereas once you've played everything under the sun, there are less surprises.

There are some great games I feel like I've had for bargains at $60 and there are some real turds that I feel weren't worth $20, let alone the $60 I paid. Whether we have it better in the context of the past is one of those things that will be different for everyone I guess. I certainly wouldn't call people spoiled because they're unhappy about game length as it really depends on the title in question.

Agreed, it really depends on an individual games basis. But the original argument, that an 8 hour game @ $60 is a ripoff is no different than gaming 20 years ago except that it would cost you more than $60 of inflation adjusted dollars.

Generally not a great idea to say "you can't change my mind" in what was otherwise a reasonable discussion but fair enough :)

I could go on forever about how I think gamers are spoiled these days, but mainly it comes down to: a) gaming in aggregate is cheaper (MMO's aside), b) technology, on the whole, is superior, and c) digital distro has made gaming way more convienent.

Verno wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 13:07:
On the other hand it's invalid to say games are cheaper due to inflation and gamers are spoiled because that includes prior factors while ignoring others just to make a point.

It's a perfectly valid argument especially in context of the comment I was responding to: a gamer today complain about an ~8 hour game costs too much @ $60. Yet in times past, you'd still have 8 hour games that actually cost more.

And yes, if we're not ignoring other factors I'd bring up digital distribution and how even more ridiculously cheap gaming has gotten factoring in things like Steam sales. Gamers today, imho, have little to complain about in terms of pricing of games. If want to argue that people value games less now than they did in the past, then I suppose you can go that route. But it's hard to support that argument given, as you have also pointed out, that the games industry has boomed in the last two decades.

So yes, I think gamers today are spoiled. If you have an issue with that, tough cookies; it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Verno wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 12:12:
If we're only looking at end user pricing then we're not looking at inflation.

Except that I'm comparing prices now with prices in the past. My point was that games are cheaper now. That's it. So in that regard, inflation must be factored in. You can't compare a $45 game from 1990 with a $60 from 2011 without adjusting for inflation. People complaining about a $60 game today forget that if prices of games actually kept up with inflation, we'd be paying over $80 a game, not $60.

On that point, there is nothing for anyone to disagree with because it's simply a base fact. So I don't see what you're trying to argue.

Verno wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 11:55:
I hear this one passed around frequently but it's a bit of a fallacy. It ignores the fact the market itself for gaming has grown significantly. The reason that the cost has largely stayed the same is because they are still making a lot more money to scale than they used to thanks the market being a lot larger with more platforms and revenue sources. I don't think gamers are spoiled in this regard at all, you can't just adjust things based on old inflation rates while ignoring all other factors.

But the cost of making the game/volume is irrelevant because we're not looking at costs or profit margins. We're only looking at end-user pricing. Which is why comparisons to prior pricing on an inflation-adjusted basis is entirely relevant.

Fact is, for the end consumer, gaming has gotten cheaper over the last 20 years. So complaining about pricing is, imho, moot.

InBlack wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 10:08:
Equating piracy with theft is bullshit. Im not saying Piracy is not an infringement, or even that it isnt a criminal act. Im just saying that it cant and SHOULD NOT have the same weight on the scales of Justice.

It's more akin to counterfeiting than theft. And like counterfeiting, piracy does have the impact of devaluing the item in quesiton.

WarpCrow wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 08:51:
1. Make buying and playing games easy and convenient, and let the consumer decide how they'll do it. Region locks should be rare or nonexistent. Services like Steam, GFWL, and Origin should not be forced on the consumer, nor should intrusive DRM. As soon as the pirate has an easier and more convenient time acquiring and playing the game, the studios have made a big mistake.

2. Stop charging sixty bucks for a linear, eight hour experience with zero replayability. People will pay a reasonable price for decent games, but sixty bucks will give anyone pause and make them wonder if the purchase they're about to make is really worth it.

3. Stop treating your customers like criminals. I pay for games because I want to, not because I have to, because I want to support a particular developer or do my part to make a particular style of game profitable. Piss me off enough and supporting you becomes much less of a priority.

I agree with #1 and #3. I think that when pirated games have higher value-added because of being less hassle, then publishers have failed at delivering content. And publishers do need to focus on paying customers as opposed to trying to punish the non-paying ones.

For point #2, I can't entirely speak for games pricing. However, $60 for a game today is cheaper than games were 15-20 years ago on an inflation-adjusted basis. And in the past, you'd still get games that would last 8 hours, yet would cost more in today's dollars. I think gamers are a little spoiled in this regard.

InBlack wrote on Nov 25, 2011, 08:45:
Why? Because its a blatant lie. There is no statistic that can show this, in fact there is NO DATA at all on this.

If there's "no data", then claiming it's a lie is premature, yes? That's why I pointed that the World of Goo creator reported piracy rates of ~90%. Is he lying too?

KilrathiAce wrote on Nov 24, 2011, 13:49:
Ahh yes UBI is blind to the fact their games suck more often than not, and thats the reason why they do not sell well.

If their games sucked so bad, people wouldn't pirate them either. They just wouldn't play them at all. The "games suck" = "poor sales/high piracy" meme has to die. Their games, on average, are decent; on par with most other companies' offerings.

WoodroweBones19 wrote on Nov 24, 2011, 23:45:
I've "pirated" other games that didnt provide demos and if I found they were worth it I bought them as I'm betting the majority of that 95% do.

I highly doubt that. I bet most people pirate for the same reason they pirate anything: to avoid paying real money.

It wouldn't surprise me if 95% of copies were in fact pirated. Didn't the World of Goo creator release stats that ~90% or so copies of his game were pirated? I dunno why people are getting their panties in a knot over that.

Seems like the logical step. At some point, they will start running out of good "old" games, so makes sense to start adding newer titles.

jacobvandy wrote on Nov 11, 2011, 17:13:
I think he's referring to the fact that, aside from Steam, GOG.com sold more than Impulse, D2D, GamersGate, etc. combined. The number for "everyone but Steam and GOG" is less than 10,000 copies.

So therefore most of their customers are willing to put up with DRM... seems to negate their argument.