20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
20.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 8, 2008, 05:33
DG
20.
Re: Op Ed Dec 8, 2008, 05:33
Dec 8, 2008, 05:33
DG
 
Piracy is a pre-existing market condition...cost of doing business. DRM doesn't stop it..so why are we footing the ever-increasing bill for it?
IMO - and very close to what you're saying - piracy has effectively a substitute effect. DRM is an attempt to create a barrier against it, and since piracy is illegal that's absolutely fine on that principle.

However DRM is an beat-once-copy-many situation, the best plausible target is to delay the piracy until a week after release. Granted that's significant, but the harsher the DRM the more attractive the pirate one becomes, and the more common the harsh DRM the greater the perception that the pirate version is always going to be better. Every battle won though DRM is a small part towards losing the war.

The gaming industry just doesn't want to know. DRM complainers are utterly disregarded as a "very vocal small minority", and drop hints that they think these guys are secret pirates. Sorry guys but all the "IRL" gamers I know think the PC gaming is heading towards being a market for lemons. DRM is just enough on top of all the other pc gaming drawbacks when there's a nice shiny console alternative that just doesn't give them any grief.

If the gaming industry had any business or even common sense - and the financial statements I've seen are fairly conclusive they don't - they'd recognise piracy as for all intents and purposes being a competing product and COMPETE WITH IT.
Avatar 14793
19.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 7, 2008, 23:04
19.
Re: Op Ed Dec 7, 2008, 23:04
Dec 7, 2008, 23:04
 
Bah. Steam and EA Link don't let you sell the games after you buy them. That's not consumer oriented for me.

Adventures of a video game mercenary
http://virtualmerc.blogspot.com
18.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 7, 2008, 22:16
18.
Re: Op Ed Dec 7, 2008, 22:16
Dec 7, 2008, 22:16
 
WTF? People still believe it's piracy's fault that games are 60 bucks?

How's that working out? Are people not pirating games anymore? What's that? they still pirate them regardless of the stupid DRM? Huh. So....why is it 60 bucks again?

Piracy is a pre-existing market condition...cost of doing business. DRM doesn't stop it..so why are we footing the ever-increasing bill for it?

Ever since games went to $60. I'm the same boat as xXBatmanXx. It's pretty rare for me to buy a full price game anymore. Mass Effect comes to mind. I bought Gears of War full price, but I think everything since ME has been bargain bin and it will continue to be that way until games come down in price again...which probably won't happen.
17.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 7, 2008, 21:56
17.
Re: Op Ed Dec 7, 2008, 21:56
Dec 7, 2008, 21:56
 
Back in the early 90s, top tier games at the time (meaning Sierra On-Line for instance) also cost around $60. Factor inflation in and game prices have actually come down by about a third. A game that costs $60 in 1990 would cost $96 today, for example.

They're also about 3/4th's shorter. The average gameplay was 40+ hours for a '90s game. Most games nowadays struggle to get past 10 hours (Again, with a few exceptions).

So actually, they've gone up in price, for what you get.

Why do you think the "experimentation" with "episodic gaming" came out?
Get your games from GOG DAMMIT!
Avatar 19499
16.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 7, 2008, 14:58
DG
16.
Re: Op Ed Dec 7, 2008, 14:58
Dec 7, 2008, 14:58
DG
 
It's pretty much why they've been so heavily fucked by piracy. A competitive market would have innovated a consumer-oriented response VERY quickly.

You've got it backwards. The reason we've seen such a push for DRM is to remain competitive, as if a publisher can reduce piracy or increase sales by cutting out rental / resale markets then they can make more profit. The game design is what is consumer-oriented, while the DRM is what publishers hope will increase their percentages. If using SecuROM can increase sales in the first week by even 2% then I'm sure it's worth it for them and for all we know such a figure is possible if it prevents a game from being pirated before release.
consumer-oriented response. Steam, Impulse, EA Link etc are examples of consumer-orientated responses (with varying degrees of actually being consumer-orientated, and coming rather late).
Avatar 14793
15.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 7, 2008, 14:10
15.
Re: Op Ed Dec 7, 2008, 14:10
Dec 7, 2008, 14:10
 
Back in the early 90s, top tier games at the time (meaning Sierra On-Line for instance) also cost around $60. Factor inflation in and game prices have actually come down by about a third. A game that costs $60 in 1990 would cost $96 today, for example.
-Sphinx
14.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 7, 2008, 13:55
14.
Re: Op Ed Dec 7, 2008, 13:55
Dec 7, 2008, 13:55
 
That guy doesn't look like he plays video games.
13.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 7, 2008, 11:53
13.
Re: Op Ed Dec 7, 2008, 11:53
Dec 7, 2008, 11:53
 
There are VERY FEW games that are worth full retail price.....may 2-3 a year.
12.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 7, 2008, 03:10
12.
Re: Op Ed Dec 7, 2008, 03:10
Dec 7, 2008, 03:10
 
It's pretty much why they've been so heavily fucked by piracy. A competitive market would have innovated a consumer-oriented response VERY quickly.
You've got it backwards. The reason we've seen such a push for DRM is to remain competitive, as if a publisher can reduce piracy or increase sales by cutting out rental / resale markets then they can make more profit. The game design is what is consumer-oriented, while the DRM is what publishers hope will increase their percentages. If using SecuROM can increase sales in the first week by even 2% then I'm sure it's worth it for them and for all we know such a figure is possible if it prevents a game from being pirated before release.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
Avatar 22891
11.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 7, 2008, 02:37
RP
11.
Re: Op Ed Dec 7, 2008, 02:37
Dec 7, 2008, 02:37
RP
 
I'll pay full price for a game if it a) offers lots of replay value b) comes from an awesome studio that respects its customers

Stardock's 4X games meet both requirements. TF2 has provided me 100+ hours of enjoyment, and it was but one component of the Orange Box. I payed full price for L4D because I'll play it on-and-off for years, as I've done with Counter-Strike and Day of Defeat.

Blizzard's non-WoW games are worth full price, too.

But I have no qualms waiting for games to hit the bargain bin. Quake 4, which I just finished, was enjoyable enough as a $5 rail shooter. But no way in hell would I pay $50 for the experience.
10.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 6, 2008, 23:27
10.
Re: Op Ed Dec 6, 2008, 23:27
Dec 6, 2008, 23:27
 
I think most of my favorite games are way undervalued. I played games like Neverwinter Nights, TIE Fighter, X-wing Alliance, Conquest Frontier Wars, Fighters Anthology, and others for hundreds of hours each and only payed $50 tops for each of them. I would've been willing to pay $100 or more for some of them, to be quite frank. (Although I should say I would NOT be willing to pay $100 up front. I'd need a small fee at the beginning to see if the game hooks me in, then I would likely be willing to pay the rest of the money as it continues to entertain me.) But I'm comparing the value of all these great gaming experiences to the hundreds of mediocre non-gaming experiences that cost quite a bit more for considerably less entertainment value.

As a consumer I of course want games to be of a constantly dropping price. But there's a part of me that says these game developers are often sacrificing a huge part of their social lives to make these games for us. People say that game devs make decent salaries, but a lot of the time the salary is not that great when you look at how many hours they put in a week compared to other types of workers. This statement is a bit biased though, since I've done a few months of game tester work.. which pays like crap. (I'm now doing a job that is considerably easier than game testing work but pays more and has health/dental plan too!)

On a related note.. I sometimes wonder how wealthy or poor the more hardcore gaming audience is. I mean.. there are so many complaints about game prices. I can understand it coming from the people who aren't old enough to legally work yet, but for us working adults.. come on.. this stuff is cheap as heck! (first wave PS3 consoles not withstanding)
Adventures of a video game mercenary
http://virtualmerc.blogspot.com
9.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 6, 2008, 23:24
9.
Re: Op Ed Dec 6, 2008, 23:24
Dec 6, 2008, 23:24
 
It costs roughly $3-5 to design, code, stock and market a $60 game.
The markup is pure profit (aka rip-off).

Try looking at some financials from a publisher. In 2007, Take Two reported net revenue of $981 million and cost of goods sold of $735 million. So clearly it costs a lot more to develop and produce games.

And that's not taking into account all their other overhead costs, which results in them posting a net loss of $138 million (and a net loss in 2006 as well).

This notion that game publishers/developers are just swimming in cash is ridiculous.
Avatar 54594
8.
 
Re: $60 video game
Dec 6, 2008, 23:14
8.
Re: $60 video game Dec 6, 2008, 23:14
Dec 6, 2008, 23:14
 
Pricing on video games has been remarkably consistent for the last couple decades and the video game industry has grown by leaps and bounds in that time. So I don't think pricing is the big problem people seem to think it is.

That said, I don't like paying $50-60 a game, so I simply don't. Everything comes down in price eventually.
Avatar 54594
7.
 
$60 video game
Dec 6, 2008, 21:35
7.
$60 video game Dec 6, 2008, 21:35
Dec 6, 2008, 21:35
 
This coming from Zelnick gives it no cred, same guy who said EAs $26 bid on TakeTwo was under valued... whats T2s stock price now? $12 heh ya this guy knows the score... NOT!
Avatar 21539
6.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 6, 2008, 20:30
Prez
 
6.
Re: Op Ed Dec 6, 2008, 20:30
Dec 6, 2008, 20:30
 Prez
 
It costs roughly $3-5 to design, code, stock and market a $60 game.
The markup is pure profit (aka rip-off).

I really don't think that's true.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
5.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 6, 2008, 18:42
5.
Re: Op Ed Dec 6, 2008, 18:42
Dec 6, 2008, 18:42
 
Quality of gaming is going down... yet prices go up?

Like I posted at that article, that guy has no idea how things work. The write up is so full of holes its not funny.
Avatar 16007
4.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 6, 2008, 18:26
4.
Re: Op Ed Dec 6, 2008, 18:26
Dec 6, 2008, 18:26
 
It costs roughly $3-5 to design, code, stock and market a $60 game.
The markup is pure profit (aka rip-off).
3.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 6, 2008, 17:29
3.
Re: Op Ed Dec 6, 2008, 17:29
Dec 6, 2008, 17:29
 
The reason the consumer is willing to pay $60 for front-line product is because they are going to get 20-plus hours of game play out of that product.

Gee, I don't know. It's gotten to the point that I pretty much wait for any game to get in the $10-$20 bargain bin... not because I'm cheap... but because by the time most fucking games are "patched enough", the bargain bin price is where they're at. (And because most games are WAY shorter than they were 10 years ago).

There are exceptions... but they are getting more rare.

This comment was edited on Dec 6, 2008, 17:29.
Get your games from GOG DAMMIT!
Avatar 19499
2.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 6, 2008, 17:19
DG
2.
Re: Op Ed Dec 6, 2008, 17:19
Dec 6, 2008, 17:19
DG
 
Prices are determined by the marketplace — if folks stopped buying stuff, prices would fall, etc. (Think gasoline)
Er, what? Gas is pretty much the the closest example of economic perfect competition outside of exchanges. The product is homogenous, many buyers & many sellers, no real barrier to entry/exit, customers have pretty good information and firms operate for profit. Price is strongly determined by the market. The same cannot be said for games; the market there is a very strong form of monopolistic competition.

It's pretty much why they've been so heavily fucked by piracy. A competitive market would have innovated a consumer-oriented response VERY quickly.

What’s driving that front-line price point is the perceived quality of the experience, times the number of hours you are going to have that, so that the price per quality hour of the experience, times the hours, plus catalog value.
No. The only thing driving GTA's price is what Take 2 thought would generate the most revenue. There is no "driving" of prices by consumers. If the market determined prices, the price would be where the quantity supplied meets the quantity demanded, individual firms and consumers would be price-takers.

TBFH, I think given good data this "equation" would probably by a decent guide for predicting the consumer demand curve. But let's not pretend the marketing and finance directors plugged these figures into a calculator to come up with a fair price.

Music and movies are also notorious monopolistic competition with a lot of price fixing.

So what do you think? Are video games fairly priced?
Pricing can only be confirmed as fair when the market is perfectly competitive.

This comment was edited on Dec 6, 2008, 17:22.
Avatar 14793
1.
 
Re: Op Ed
Dec 6, 2008, 15:59
Prez
 
1.
Re: Op Ed Dec 6, 2008, 15:59
Dec 6, 2008, 15:59
 Prez
 
The reason the consumer is willing to pay $60 for front-line product is because they are going to get 20-plus hours of game play out of that product.

For every game that I get 20 hours of quality play out of, there are about a dozen more that clock in less than half of that, and a lot of that play time is filler and nonsense.

If we are really going to say the price is proportional to the length or the quality, then most games should be in the 5 to 15 dollar range.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
20 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older