User information for Peter

Real Name
Peter
Nickname
shponglefan
Email
Concealed by request
Description
Homepage
Signed On
December 4, 2008
Supporter
-
Total Posts
420 (Amateur)
User ID
54594
Search For:
Sort Results:
Ascending
Descending
Limit Results:
 
420 Comments. 21 pages. Viewing page 9.
Newer [  1    4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19    21  ] Older
77.
 
Re: Ubisoft: DRM
Apr 16, 2010, 21:47
77.
Re: Ubisoft: DRM Apr 16, 2010, 21:47
Apr 16, 2010, 21:47
 
Sempai wrote on Apr 16, 2010, 17:22:
This just in!

Make solid non-buggy games without forcing DRM down your customers throats while charging a fair price($59.99 fuck you)and people may just buy your games.

$60 games today are a lot cheaper than $60 games twenty years ago. Some gamers have no idea how good they have it.
Avatar 54594
7.
 
Re: Saturday Mobilization
Apr 3, 2010, 20:06
7.
Re: Saturday Mobilization Apr 3, 2010, 20:06
Apr 3, 2010, 20:06
 
RCH wrote on Apr 3, 2010, 17:40:
Before the ipad, well I've been wrong about every other apple product, maybe I'll give up being an armchair analyst, and keep my mouth shut.

Result: More then likely, Huge success

The difference between the iPad and everything else you listed is that there were already markets for the other Apple products (i.e. desktop PCs, MP3 players, and smartphones). Apple just made sexy versions of them.

On other hand, tablet PCs have been done before and have never been successful. They occupy this "no man's land" in between a netbook and a cellphone/smartphone. So what is the iPad going to do different that no other tablet before it hasn't done?
Avatar 54594
59.
 
Re: Op Ed
Apr 2, 2010, 23:54
59.
Re: Op Ed Apr 2, 2010, 23:54
Apr 2, 2010, 23:54
 
ASeven wrote on Mar 29, 2010, 20:09:
Here's the best suggestion for selling PC games in so much quantity it would eclipse all console sales.

Make great games, test the games thoroughly, don't price them high, ensure it isn't a port and code features specific of the PC platform, don't use intrusive and draconian DRMs.

See, it's simple enough.

Bzzzt, wrong. The best way to sell PC games is to slap "The Sims" in the title.
Avatar 54594
114.
 
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit
Mar 28, 2010, 16:06
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 28, 2010, 16:06
Mar 28, 2010, 16:06
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 28, 2010, 00:12:
I understand your argument perfectly.

Considering the strawmen and non-sequiturs in that one paragraph alone, it's painfully obvious you don't.

But that's fine. I've learned debating with you that you tend to hold... odd opinions on things.
Avatar 54594
104.
 
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit
Mar 28, 2010, 00:02
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 28, 2010, 00:02
Mar 28, 2010, 00:02
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 23:42:
When you buy used, they see nothing. You might as well not buy it at all.

You're just never going to get it. So I'm going to take PHJF's advice and not waste my time trying to explain to you *again* what should be a relatively simple concept.
Avatar 54594
100.
 
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit
Mar 27, 2010, 22:03
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 27, 2010, 22:03
Mar 27, 2010, 22:03
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 21:43:
If someone is so cheap that they sell everything they buy, isn't it more reasonable to assume that they are more likely to buy used games whenever possible?

No. Anecdotally speaking, I buy used and new games. It depends on the game, price and perceived value. I know some people who also only buy new games.

In any case, developers don't see any money from that used sale. If you sell a copy of Psychonauts to buy a new copy of Madden, Double-Fine doesn't see a penny. You can claim that you're helping the industry but that's a pretty lame excuse. If you enjoy a game, you should reward the developer who made it.

And if someone sells a copy of Madden to buy Psychonauts then EA doens't see a penny. This case-by-case stuff is besides the point; I'm talking about in aggregate here. (Some) used game sales help finance new sales. This is not up for debate.

Now (some) used game sales also cannibalize new sales. The question is how much and does one outweigh the other. So far there is no data available (that I've seen anyway) to determine this. That is what the debate should be about, not these attemps to eqivocate over piracy.
Avatar 54594
98.
 
Re: Your reasoning is flawed.
Mar 27, 2010, 21:05
98.
Re: Your reasoning is flawed. Mar 27, 2010, 21:05
Mar 27, 2010, 21:05
 
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 01:04:
That's why I wrote "per unit" in my original post. ;)

True, you did. I guess I was more fixated on the original post you were quoting. My bad.

Yes, but you have to look at the potential market. Video games sell today in a global market, and they are more mainstream than at any other time in the history of the industry. According to VGChartz there have been ~70 million Wii's, ~40 million XBOX360's, and ~35 million PS3's sold worldwide. There is a huge market for video games today, so the industry can certainly sustain a low price/high volume sales strategy and still be successful at least for the most popular game genres. Sure it was easy to justify a $50 price tag back when successful video games sold in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of copies. But, now that the most popular games sell fifteen or twenty million copies or more, $50 per game becomes a lot more excessive and stifling even when the games have eight figure development expenses.

Even so, many games still struggle to make money. Part of the problem is the incredibly huge costs (esp. marketing budgets these days). I'd be curious to see what the break-even points really are and how many games are profitable.
Avatar 54594
97.
 
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit
Mar 27, 2010, 20:54
97.
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 27, 2010, 20:54
Mar 27, 2010, 20:54
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 19:59:
Conversely, there is no good reason to buy and sell your games used.

People use money from selling used games to buy new games. Duh.

Of course, I already 'splained this to you before but you seem to have forgotten.

When you buy or sell used games, developers and publishers don't see any money. It's the same result as when people pirate games. Now, you can argue that someone did buy the game new at some point but again, that was one sale. If the game was resold 5 times after that, that's 5 sales where the developer and publisher didn't see a penny.

And I explain again: People selling used games often use the proceeds to buy new games. Go hang out at your local EB/Gamestop for a time and you'll see people trading in games and using those trade-ins to finance new games purchases. Happens all the time. The money they are effectively receiving selling their used copies is going to developers via new games sales. So in effect, the used market helps finance the new market.

It's a simple concept. Which you still don't get. Which makes me wonder...

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2010, 20:59.
Avatar 54594
91.
 
Re: The used game market is just capitalism at work.
Mar 27, 2010, 14:54
91.
Re: The used game market is just capitalism at work. Mar 27, 2010, 14:54
Mar 27, 2010, 14:54
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 04:01:
To expect people to pay the same price for all games (regardless of quality) leads to mediocrity and the prioritizing of marketing and hype over quality.

Nobody is expected to pay the same price for all games. That's why games typically drop in price over time. Those who value the game more pay earlier and higher, those who don't pay later and pay less.
Avatar 54594
86.
 
Re: Your reasoning is flawed.
Mar 27, 2010, 00:43
86.
Re: Your reasoning is flawed. Mar 27, 2010, 00:43
Mar 27, 2010, 00:43
 
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 00:28:
The cost of the media and packaging per unit is fixed in the sense that it is a predictable cost which does not vary (much) regardless of the number of units sold.

On a per unit basis no. But it's variable with respect to the overall cost based on the number of units; hence the term "variable cost".

The rest of the cost of producing a video game does vary greatly per unit depending upon the final number of copies sold. That was my point. Arguing semantics doesn't change that.

You're right, but you're using the terms backwards. Semantics is important in debate.

I don't and didn't dispute that, but as I pointed out and you agreed, that price is very fluid (not firmly fixed upfront).

I don't think it's quite as fluid as you think. As price drops, the number of units needed to be sold to break even starts increasing exponentially. For example, say a game cost $1M to produce with a variable unit cost of $5/unit (i.e. packaging, materials, etc). If the game was sold for $50, the developers need to sell about 22k units to break even. Slash the price in half to $25 and they now need to sell 50k units to break even; more than double the number of copies. Cut the price even further, say $10, and they now need to sell 200k copies, almost 9x as many copies. Etc.

Ultimately it will come down to demand, but there is going to be a cut-off point.

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2010, 00:50.
Avatar 54594
82.
 
Re: Your reasoning is flawed.
Mar 27, 2010, 00:05
82.
Re: Your reasoning is flawed. Mar 27, 2010, 00:05
Mar 27, 2010, 00:05
 
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 00:01:
Your reasoning is flawed. The only fixed unit cost of a video game is the minimal cost of its packaging and media.

That's variable cost, not fixed cost.

Some definitions may be in order:

direct variable cost = costs associated with producing/distributing each individual unit (i.e. packaging)
direct fixed costs = costs associated with producing/distributing all number of units (i.e. leasing machines/factory)
overhead costs = additional costs not directly associated with production of units (i.e. head office administration)

In the case of software development, companies do need to sell units at a certain price to cover fixed/overhead costs. Otherwise, they will lose money. As they lower price, obviously sales go up, but the key is finding a balance between price and cost, so that profit is maximized.

And there are also additional variable costs with units sold (i.e. aftermarket support) and semi-variable costs (i.e. shipping) that should be taken into consideration as well.

* edited to fix definitions

This comment was edited on Mar 27, 2010, 00:13.
Avatar 54594
78.
 
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit
Mar 26, 2010, 23:18
78.
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 26, 2010, 23:18
Mar 26, 2010, 23:18
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 26, 2010, 19:36:
A used video game is identical to a new one.

Except they're not. I know people who refuse to buy used because they enjoy collecting and keeping pristine copies of games.
Avatar 54594
76.
 
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit
Mar 26, 2010, 23:08
76.
Re: GameStop Used Game Lawsuit Mar 26, 2010, 23:08
Mar 26, 2010, 23:08
 
Bludd wrote on Mar 26, 2010, 12:25:
I think selling and buying used games is worse than piracy where no money changes hands. When you buy and sell used games, the makers and publishers of the games don't get a dime, but someone else does thus profiting on someone else's labor. When you pirate a game without any money change, nobody gets any money.

Used games sales help fund the purchase of new games (essentially a person buying a used game is indirectly financing someone else to buy new games). The only issue is whether or not that outweights the cannibalization of sales of new games by used games. So far there is no apparent data on this, thus it's impossible to conclude whether used games actually hurt the market.
Avatar 54594
33.
 
Re: Assassin's Creed 2 Outage Compensation
Mar 26, 2010, 19:28
33.
Re: Assassin's Creed 2 Outage Compensation Mar 26, 2010, 19:28
Mar 26, 2010, 19:28
 
WYSIWYG wrote on Mar 26, 2010, 19:23:
im pleased as Assassins Creed 2 really is a brilliant game that is worth the hassle of DRM. if you buy it now youll have no issues as long as you have an internet connection (who doesnt)

Eff that. I refuse to support certain types of DRM (always-on Internet, limited installs, etc). And especially the former as my 'net connection has a habit of randomly cutting out now and then.

I vote with my dollars. People who give in to Ubi's DRM are inviting other companies to do the same, which is invariably going to screw some people over.
Avatar 54594
31.
 
Re: Assassin's Creed 2 Outage Compensation
Mar 26, 2010, 19:23
31.
Re: Assassin's Creed 2 Outage Compensation Mar 26, 2010, 19:23
Mar 26, 2010, 19:23
 
Blackhawk wrote on Mar 26, 2010, 16:39:
Some people look at things too deeply. Ubisoft's actions don't mesh with any 'conspiracy'. If you want to quit producing for PC, you quit producing for PC. You don't spend millions of dollars on PC ports, advertising, and DRM while sullying your brand name on the hope that a handful of a small market share will buy your products. It just doesn't make sense.

I agree, there's no conspiracy and anyone claiming such needs to put down the glue bottle they've been sniffing.

What they really seem to be doing is catering to their shareholders. If you read their annual report, under "Risks associated with intellectual property rights", they explicity mention piracy as a risk they face. And when shareholders read about how "$X millions in sales are lost because of piracy" (regardless of whether it's true), it will likely turn off some investors. But if Ubisoft can turn around and spin this whole thing as a DRM scheme that works, it could lure investors in. In fact, their share price has creeped back up a couple bucks in the last month since hitting a low point of around $8.50.

No company is going to spend money to kill a market on purpose. Even Ubi isn't quite that dumb.
Avatar 54594
8.
 
Re: Legal Briefs
Mar 19, 2010, 18:36
8.
Re: Legal Briefs Mar 19, 2010, 18:36
Mar 19, 2010, 18:36
 
dubfanatic wrote on Mar 19, 2010, 13:21:
it's almost like a contest between journalists to see who can come up with the most irrelevant but popular reason for our impending economic collapse.

Of course if you'd read the article you'd know they were just reporting on a published study. So at least blame the right people.
Avatar 54594
57.
 
Re: Newell on DRM
Mar 15, 2010, 00:10
57.
Re: Newell on DRM Mar 15, 2010, 00:10
Mar 15, 2010, 00:10
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 14, 2010, 23:01:
Distribution is a form of support.

Right here is where we disagree. I don't believe that distributing Ubi's games means that Valve is implicitly supporting the DRM choices of Ubisoft.

The end.
Avatar 54594
54.
 
Re: Newell on DRM
Mar 14, 2010, 21:53
54.
Re: Newell on DRM Mar 14, 2010, 21:53
Mar 14, 2010, 21:53
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 14, 2010, 21:17:
They choose to sell Ubisoft games, even though Gabe publicly criticized overly restrictive DRM. I don't really understand your logic on this. It sounds like you believe that the desire for profit can somehow make someone objective and neutral regardless of whatever opinions and beliefs they actually have.

Well I don't understand your logic here. Accusing Valve of hypocrisy over selling Steam games because an executive has an opinion about something is a giant "wuh?" Just because Gabe has an opinion on something does not necessitate a call-to-action, as you seem to think it does.

If Gabe said, "I think FPS games are stupid", does this mean Valve is somehow morally obligated to remove FPS games from its catalogue?

The only hypocrisy I could see is if Valve adopted overly restricted DRM after Gabe's comments. Suggesting that Valve/Steam has any sort of obligation towards any of its affiliates DRM practices based on Gabe's comments is ridiculous.
Avatar 54594
52.
 
Re: Newell on DRM
Mar 14, 2010, 19:17
52.
Re: Newell on DRM Mar 14, 2010, 19:17
Mar 14, 2010, 19:17
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 14, 2010, 18:43:
Except theaters DO decide what movies to show. This why you typically don't see porn movies in regular theaters. You keep making these statements that don't correlate at all with reality. You may not want theaters and retailers to take moral positions but the fact of the matter is that they can and do. This is why Wal-Mart, Best Buy and most other big retailers won't sell AO-rated games. This is why Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony won't license AO-rated games. This is why you will never see Rapelay or Ethnic Cleansing on Steam.

Except this has nothing to do with "moral positions". It has to do with catering to a specific audience and driving profit. Take Wal-Mart as an example. They cater to the "family friendly" crowd, hence their positions on movies, games, etc. It has to do with doing what the majority of their customers want and trying to maximize profits and avoid consumer backlash.

That's it. Ditto with Nintendo, etc. So your examples really don't jive with what you are claiming Valve/Gabe is doing.

Valve decides what they put on Steam. They make an active, conscious, subjective choice. If they truly believed that DRM should be beneficial, they wouldn't support publishers or games that use overly restrictive DRM. This is a choice they can and do make, whether or not it's their responsibility to do so. They choose to support the publishers that use overly restrictive DRM because they are more interested in profit than upholding their own beliefs. This isn't difficult to understand.

Again, there is nothing that suggests just because Gabe made some comments about DRM that therefore Steam must boot out any publishers who don't comply with Valve/Gabe's vision. There is nothing that suggests that Valve must actively seek to supress/take a stand/whatever over this. Quite frankly, it's lunacy on your part to suggest they even should do this. It's in the hands of consumers.

I'm sure if consumers threw a hissy fit and started leaving Steam in droves because they carried Ubisoft games, Valve would change their tune. But given the sales of AC2 on there, that ain't about to happen.
Avatar 54594
42.
 
Re: Newell on DRM
Mar 14, 2010, 11:49
42.
Re: Newell on DRM Mar 14, 2010, 11:49
Mar 14, 2010, 11:49
 
Jerykk wrote on Mar 14, 2010, 00:08:
Gabe shared his opinion. He criticized the more restrictive, less beneficial forms of DRM. Therefore, he took a moral stance. However, he continues to support Ubisoft, a company whose DRM violates his moral stance. That is hypocrisy.

This argument is a complete non-sequitur. He's largely talking about Valve's approach to DRM. There may be some veiled criticism of Ubisoft's methods in there, but that's about it. To go from that to suggest that therefore Steam shouldn't sell Ubisoft games with that DRM... that just doesn't follow. It's not his position to make decisions for consumers.

It's like suggesting that a theater owner doesn't like a particular movie, therefore they shouldn't show that movie in their theater. That doesn't make any kind of sense whatsoever. It's not their position to make those decisions for other people.

People are making much ado about nothing over all of this.
Avatar 54594
420 Comments. 21 pages. Viewing page 9.
Newer [  1    4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19    21  ] Older