Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Go **** yourself THQ
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,458 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 8074
Steam isn't a great example to use as it's PC/MAC based and everyone really knows there never was a second hand market for PC games (for years now).
PC got fecked over long ago with the stuff they're only now suggesting to be brought in for consoles.
Steam, MMO's and Indie developers brought PC gaming back to a manageable level. Otherwise it would have been destroyed.
Well, OK I guess you are right in saying that there is no longer a real market for second hand PC games - but I still think it illustrates that if a developer is presented with a workable option to limit the second hand market for their games then they are likely to choose it.
Steam is great though (if I do say so myself!
), as it actually gives the player extra features rather than just solely placing restrictions on the end user. 0 -
-
-
As above, where do you think this will leave gamers? It boggles my mind how people can on one hand complain about the introduction of unnecessary multiplayer modes into games and single player campaigns being too short when they adopt that kind of attitude.
What you call unnecessary others may call a requirement. Not me personally but make it clear why you deem unnecessary is only your own opinion.Congratulations on becoming a thief and as big a detriment to the industry as the bull**** some of the companies that you're decrying pull.
Why thank you, I will gladly not consider this approach and join you on your moral high ground once single player only games become over 51% worth the price tag.... until then i'll stay a hypothetical thief in a hypothetical scenario:rolleyes:There are many many gamers who still consider single player games with campaigns that weigh in at around ten hours to be great value for money. They would much prefer a well balanced, exciting and perfectly paced single player campaign to the kind of tacked on multiplayer bull**** that's cropping up in most games these days. You think anyone will give a **** about Modern Warfare 3 in a couple of years? Not a chance. On the other hand, in years to come people will still look back on the likes of Uncharted 2, Batman Arkham Asylum, Portal, ICO and Shadow Of The Colossus as utterly fantastic games.
Seeing as your only stating opinion here about "many gamers" finding 10 hour campaigns to be worth 60eur I will say that its my own opinion that most would find that a rip off. While quality is still a huge factor length also must be taken to account. Making a seminal 1 hour game simply wouldnt cut the mustard nor would a drab 100 hour game. The question of value can be addressed by balancing quality AND quantity, each need each other to make a good game and imo 10 hours is not sufficient of any game regardless of quality.
You also mention here that no one will not give a crap about the likes of modern warfare in a couple of years? Thats strange seeing as your exact example game has been outselling every other game year in and out for far more than "a couple of years" even now and based on all sales reports has grown year over year since so I think you may be wrong there..... unless your predicting an unprecidented massive drop in sales of gamings biggest franchise ever within the "next couple of years" that is? Also, you seem to give the impression that a game touting strong online mp focus seems to not have longevity of be regarded as good in " a couple of years", again thats wrong... rember a little game called goldeneye? All in all more people spent more time playing that games MP than the campaign and continually tops polls for best ever MP aspect and is widely regarded - 15 years... not "a couple" of years later as one of the best games ever created.
No doubt people will look back at the other example games as fine titles also but you seem to argue here that a MP focused game lacks longevity and quality over single player games - judging by your tone and grammar.
Personally I prefer a good single player game but I do find I spend more time in a year playing online than campaigns however I wouldnt take such a ham fisted attitude as to proclaim single player games as to be qualitatively superior. I think games just like goldeneye, counter strike and mario kart show that they withstand the test of time and can be of extremely high caliber and be looked back upon as excellent titles with MP focus.0 -
I referred to "people" here, not my own opinion. That being said, the large number of reviewers and gamers who support this opinion in contrast to, let's say, the dwindling number of players online reported for many of these games would add considerably weight to the argument.hightower1 wrote: »What you call unnecessary others may call a requirement. Not me personally but make it clear why you deem unnecessary is only your own opinion.
Since when is not advocating theft the moral high ground?hightower1 wrote: »Why thank you, I will gladly not consider this approach and join you on your moral high ground once single player only games become over 51% worth the price tag.... until then i'll stay a hypothetical thief in a hypothetical scenario:rolleyes:
Also, somehow working out that single player games have lost 49% value due to being a bit shorter is utterly daft. You've talked about a balance between quality and quantity but in no way should this be 50/50. Many of the games I listed in the above post only clocked in between 8 and 12 hours, do you really think this meant they were only work approximately 50% of their price?
Except my opinion is backed up by countless reviewers, posters on not only this forum but many other gaming orientated ones, strong sales from single player only games and games which reap awards come year end. I'd wager said demographic would be more than a bit miffed if the industry pushed even harder in the direction of spending more time on multiplayer modes to the detriment of the single player campaign.hightower1 wrote: »Seeing as your only stating opinion here about "many gamers" finding 10 hour campaigns to be worth 60eur I will say that its my own opinion that most would find that a rip off. While quality is still a huge factor length also must be taken to account. Making a seminal 1 hour game simply wouldnt cut the mustard nor would a drab 100 hour game. The question of value can be addressed by balancing quality AND quantity, each need each other to make a good game and imo 10 hours is not sufficient of any game regardless of quality.
No, I said no one will give a crap about Modern Warfare 3 in a couple of years. I'm quite sure there'll give a crap about Modern Warfare 5 or 6 though which will, at that stage, probably be exactly the same game in a new engine and bring utterly nothing new to the table. You've argued about the length of games and the need for a balance between it and quality and then turned around and pointed to a series which has been notorious for its lack of innovation and incredibly short campaigns over the last number of years and which has simply offered minor tweaks in each yearly iteration. This makes absolutely no sense.hightower1 wrote: »You also mention here that no one will not give a crap about the likes of modern warfare in a couple of years? Thats strange seeing as your exact example game has been outselling every other game year in and out for far more than "a couple of years" even now and based on all sales reports has grown year over year since so I think you may be wrong there..... unless your predicting an unprecidented massive drop in sales of gamings biggest franchise ever within the "next couple of years" that is? Also, you seem to give the impression that a game touting strong online mp focus seems to not have longevity of be regarded as good in " a couple of years", again thats wrong... rember a little game called goldeneye? All in all more people spent more time playing that games MP than the campaign and continually tops polls for best ever MP aspect and is widely regarded - 15 years... not "a couple" of years later as one of the best games ever created.
As for the rest of your post, you're misunderstood what I said. I'm not complaining about games which tout "a strong online mp focus", I'm complaining about games which merely tack this mode on, often to the detriment of other aspects of the game. Goldeneye was an example of a game with a strong online component although it also came out on consoles at a time when such a thing didn't really exist which allowed it to capitalise on this. Compare this to something like the multiplayer in Dead Space 2 and you should be able to see where I'm coming from.0 -
-
-
Sierra Oscar wrote: »Well, OK I guess you are right in saying that there is no longer a real market for second hand PC games - but I still think it illustrates that if a developer is presented with a workable option to limit the second hand market for their games then they are likely to choose it.
Steam is great though (if I do say so myself!), as it actually gives the player extra features rather than just solely placing restrictions on the end user.
It is I agree and I'll be honest here, if it weren't for Steam my PC would probably be full of pirated games. As it stands now, I've not a single pirate game on the PC's in the house, yet I've literally loads of games installed from Steam (and sadly a few on Origin and Bluebyte's platform) and some I haven't even played yet - damn those steam sales !
It's great though because I can install Steam on my Kids' PC's and let them login and play the games I've paid for on their own computers.
Steam in my opinion anyway, has been the most useful tool in PC gaming to make users shun piracy of games they might otherwise have done.
The other thing though is the grey market area of selling game codes (most of which work with Steam also) from different area's of the world (Russia mostly) where the games sell for considerably cheaper than here.
Some of the games I have installed were purchased in this way, the likes of Settlers 7 for example or Anno 2070 - I wasn't prepared to pay full whack for them but when I could get them for 20 dollars legit from Russia then why not.
So while there's not a second hand market for PC games, there does exist other methods, legit, of getting your games cheaper if you spend the time to look around. Whether that's in Steam sales or via legit trusted online key sellers.
Maybe similar will popup for consoles in the future, I don't see why not really.
If a console game sells for 60 euro plus here, it would probably sell for the equivalent of 20 or 30 euro in Russia.
Then it comes down to region restrictions which the console/game manufacturers impose on the console market, but if that can be gotten around, or they don't do it with the new consoles coming out then it could be a very decent option.
Pop on to a site selling cheaper legit Russian region games, have it sent via post to you, get the game a few days later and off you go - you've saved 30 quid. No piracy involved.
The other option would be to take the games companies to the EU courts for anti competitive practices in regards selling games in Europe or parts of the EU for higher prices than they are available elsewhere, then restricting the games by region. That practice could well be deemed illegal under law if challenged in court.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Where is this "price drops in a few months" thing coming from. Do people not keep an eye on games in the weeks after release and see them practically freefall?If all console gamers are left with are the prices game devs charge for their games in their region and not have any other legit option to shop around for cheaper prices, second hand or new nor have any option to rent a game or borrow off a friend - then realistically speaking, what do you think your average young gamer will consider ?
Wait for sales in a few months where the game *might* drop in price a little, or buy a cheap plugin USB modchip and just download the game and play the ISO image off a Hard Drive direct ?
Pretty sure the Steam T&C would disagree.BTW, there's nothing stopping you setting up a Steam account via a Russian based VPN service and buying the games direct from Steam at Russian prices, therefore cutting out any online key sellers. Games typically are between 20 and 30 euro cheaper on the Russian based Steam.
Between talking about taking the games companies to court for their pricing in different regions and basically saying piracy is fine in certain circumstances you're claiming one rule should apply to them and no rule should apply to the poor consumer.How so ?
You later look down on piracy as some sort of bad thing while at the same time suggesting using certain key sites is a viable option. At the end of the day, you're still ****ing the publisher/developer.
Finally, back to the lawsuit point, did you give any consideration to what would happen to the gamers in those regions who could then not afford to buy games if the companies were forced to increase their prices across all regions?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I didn't mention criminal or civil law, I was referring to legit in the context that Steam would be well within their rights to remove access to the games you have bought from these unauthorised resellers or if they found you had purchased games from a cheaper region which would ultimately leave the user out of pocket.Breaking Terms and Conditions does not mean breaking any criminal or civil law, you are doing nothing wrong other than exactly that, breaking a T&C.
There is nothing wrong with what I suggested and others are and have been doing for a long time.
I didn't say "any" circumstances, I said "certain" circumstances. The most obvious example being...Please don't lie about things I said or change arguments to suit your own.
Where did I say piracy was fine in any circumstance ?It is I agree and I'll be honest here, if it weren't for Steam my PC would probably be full of pirated games.
I'm speaking as a gamer and I'm being defensive because I can see what effect piracy has, both directly and indirectly, to my favourite hobby. As I said before, publishers and developers create video games, sometimes good and sometimes bad. They shouldn't have to go above and beyond to convince people not to pirate them, there simply is no excuse.I'm presuming you work in the industry in some way shape or form and if you do, maybe think about taking a step back and not being so defensive merely about others simply talking about the subject. You cannot just sweep the likes of piracy under the carpet by shouting down others, telling them it's bad, don't do it, blah blah blah. You have to actually do some work and use your brain to come up with better options for consumers, as Steam have done.
It's not about gaining profits, it's about breaking even in some cases and in others showing that a good idea can be profitable so that publishers will be less averse to taking risks with new IP. That is my concern.Taking better options away from consumers (by removing the second hand and rental market) in order to gain better profits for yourself - WILL NOT WORK. It's a completely suicidal move and if a developer dies because of their own stupidity then so be in, good riddance to them, greedy pig that they are.
Again I made no reference to the legality of the websites, merely the fact that at the end of the day both the pirating of software and going above and beyond to obtain it from a region where it is sold cheaper due to either economic or pirating conditions, results in reduced revenues for the companies who make them.Again stop with the generalised presumptions just because I speak on a subject.
Buying legit keys online is NOT against any law, criminal or civil. It is NOT piracy and it is NOT illegal.
Sure, it might be against a publishers/developers terms and conditions after they enter that into the text when they realise how much lovely yummy money they might be losing - my heart bleeds for them in that case, honestly, I'm crying here :rolleyes:
Of course prices would rise, do you think they'd fall in the better developed countries to match the prices found in the lesser developed ones?No. I give absolutely no consideration to the points you mention merely because again you've made another (silly) presumption that prices would somehow rise (?) rather than the EU forcing the devs to drops their prices in regions where they are clearly overcharging and ripping consumers off while at the same time getting by no problem with selling at massively reduced prices in other regions.
Also, they're not "overcharging" or "ripping consumers" off over here, they're charging the correct price, one which can result in a return on the millions of dollars pumped into the development of the game. These prices, as you pointed out, would be unsustainable in some regions and so they're lowered. One does not have an affect on the other however.
For someone getting quite worked up about having their moral stance on piracy called into question earlier, you seem to have no problem throwing around hilariously hyperbolic terms. Do you seriously think any rational gamer thinks developers are "criminal thieves"?Embrace the market and consumers fully, honestly and transparently or expect the consequences for not doing so when you yourself (game devs/publishers) are considered nothing more than criminal thieves for ripping people off in the first place.
Buying the game for 50 quid in Ireland or buying the game legit with no piracy or law breaking involved from Russia for 20 quid, oh gee, hmm, wonder which one I'll choose to do... 0
Advertisement