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.
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
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.
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?
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.
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 01:04:
That's why I wrote "per unit" in my original post. ;)
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.
Jerykk wrote on Mar 27, 2010, 19:59:
Conversely, there is no good reason to buy and sell your games used.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.