Im hating the way the gaming industry is heading

richymcdermott

This is a very good article, talks bout alot what i have being saying. http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/86754/gran-turismo-5-this-is-how-you-support-a-game/

AndywK

We truly do live in the generation of entitlement don't we? It's quite annoying too.

Why should the game developer care what you have to say what is a rip of and what isnt. At the end of the day it is a business, and as with all business there will be dirty tactics.

If you feel so strongly about this, then go out there and start up your own games company and then see how easy it is to do all the requests in which you seek while making sure the company is not in defict and that you can afford to pay your employees on top of other costs.

TL;DR
Put up or shut up

Fnz

AndywK wrote: »

We truly do live in the generation of entitlement don't we? It's quite annoying too.

Why should the game developer care what you have to say what is a rip of and what isnt. At the end of the day it is a business, and as with all business there will be dirty tactics.

If you feel so strongly about this, then go out there and start up your own games company and then see how easy it is to do all the requests in which you seek while making sure the company is not in defict and that you can afford to pay your employees on top of other costs.

TL;DR
Put up or shut up

I hate that argument. Being able to perform a task better than a professional is not a prerequisite before a bad word can be spoke. Car reviewers do not need to have car-constructing experience before critiquing vehicles.

Your suggestion that developer don't need to care about how they're perceived is also a little off the mark. They do well to listen to the community at large, without slavishly granting every demand. I'd say the Guitar Hero franchise might have benefited by taking on board complaints about many things, such as the frequency of updates to the software and hardware.

I do agree that some folk display an obnoxious sense of entitlement though.

AndywK

Fnz wrote: »

I hate that argument. Being able to perform a task better than a professional is not a prerequisite before a bad word can be spoke. Car reviewers do not need to have car-constructing experience before critiquing vehicles.

Your suggestion that developer don't need to care about how they're perceived is also a little off the mark. They do well to listen to the community at large, without slavishly granting every demand. I'd say the Guitar Hero franchise might have benefited by taking on board complaints about many things, such as the frequency of updates to the software and hardware.

I do agree that some folk display an obnoxious sense of entitlement though.

No your right. You worded it than b
I was more so harping on about the entiltment thing, it realllllllllllllllllllly bugs the hell out of me.
I bought bread from my local newsagents earlier, I better pop over tomorrow and demand a free loaf for the sake of it.
Hopefully one day this generation of entitlement will die
Till then, lets just be happy gamers

johnboysligo

AndywK wrote: »

I bought bread from my local newsagents earlier, I better pop over tomorrow and demand a free loaf for the sake of it.
Hopefully one day this generation of entitlement will die
Till then, lets just be happy gamers

I don't understand what you mean? If one loaf = a full game and you go looking for a free one anyone would laugh at you.
But if you buy a loaf paying full price get it home and find 5 slices are missing and must be purchased later or you had to preorder in advance not knowing the final quality of the product that is what a lot of games look like today.
Game development costs are usually recouped within a few weeks to months ( if its successful ) when a game development company is told to strip features or content from their games to be repackaged as day one DLC it makes me wonder why anyone should buy the game in the first place.

Orim

God I wish people wouldn't use stupid analogies. Not directed at below but seriously when we're talking about games can we just talk about games, not cars or bread or flowers or the mating habits of deep sea fish. They just compare badly in most circumstances, no matter which side of the fence you're on.

johnboysligo wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean? If one loaf = a full game and you go looking for a free one anyone would laugh at you.
But if you buy a loaf paying full price get it home and find 5 slices are missing and must be purchased later or you had to preorder in advance not knowing the final quality of the product that is what a lot of games look like today.
Game development costs are usually recouped within a few weeks to months ( if its successful ) when a game development company is told to strip features or content from their games to be repackaged as day one DLC it makes me wonder why anyone should buy the game in the first place.

As I said, I don't like this analogy but I see this most of the complaints as being akin to buying a half loaf of bread and then complaining that it's not a full loaf.

Why did you have to pre-order anything?

I would say that game costs are recouped in the first month or not at all. I don't think there is many games that sell that well outside of the first month. Pure opinion and I'd love if anybody could post figures showing one way or the other. This is my only real issue with day one DLC, it just seems stupid and bad business sense.

JohnMarston

I'm gonna have to disagree with the OP on this one.

First off, as many other people have said, its a business. If game developers dont make x amount of money from a title or titles, they cant afford to make the next game people may want, pay the employees to make the games, etc.

Secondly, releasing additional dlc gives a chance for the developer to add content they otherwise couldn't have fit on the disc.

jaykhunter

Unfortunately I think gamers will go to any lengths (by that i mean pay three times or more) to play all of a game, or continue playing a game, because games are so awesome these days. We (as a whole) are desperate to play a new game that we're willing TO PAY to be TESTERS for an unfinished product (i.e. paying for Beta codes) which is ludicrous.

Developers know that gamers can be squeezed for even more cash than the $50 we already pay; and it's going to continue because they can. If Cinemas cost 15-20 euro per ticket, no-one would go because the product isn't amazing. But if games cost 60; slyly up to 80; many would, and have already.

I think the OP's referring to DLC that's already on the disc, and you're buying the UNLOCK code; not stuff that's not on the disc. I find that really offensive. As with being hassled to buy DLC while playing the game...

I'm fine with DRM AS LONG as NOT ONE legitimate customer is screwed out of playing. Having internet to be able to play your game (single player, lol) is a disgrace and shouldn't be a pre-requisite. It forces legit customers to pirate to get a DRM-free version; a very dangerous path. This is a PC problem so i don't know much about it.

Online Pass I'm ok with; only people who bought the game first hand should play online all they want. I think non-first timers should get a week of free online then they gotta pay. I think the problem is GameStop or GAME, these 2nd-hand retailers, but the developers are too chicken-shít to actually hurt their relationship with them, so the customers pay the price. Why don't developers cut out GameStop for used games? No better not; just kick downwards instead.

Apologies for the long post.....well there's my 4 cents worth lol

Gamesnash.ie: Pat

jaykhunter wrote: »

Developers know that gamers can be squeezed for even more cash than the $50 we already pay; and it's going to continue because they can. If Cinemas cost 15-20 euro per ticket, no-one would go because the product isn't amazing. But if games cost 60; slyly up to 80; many would, and have already.

Online Pass I'm ok with; only people who bought the game first hand should play online all they want. I think non-first timers should get a week of free online then they gotta pay. I think the problem is GameStop or GAME, these 2nd-hand retailers, but the developers are too chicken-shít to actually hurt their relationship with them, so the customers pay the price. Why don't developers cut out GameStop for used games? No better not; just kick downwards instead.

Apologies for the long post.....well there's my 4 cents worth lol

I have posted some of the below before in a couple of threads when this point is raised in particular and I think it's worth posting again (along with some additional comments you can view as extra downloadable content if you wish:D ) to give a retailers perspective.

First off - broadly speaking we (as in Gamesnash) genuinely welcome the efforts from the publishers to address the issue of pre owned sales. Our feeling has always been that publishers had the potential to get a raw deal from pre owned sales.

The argument is normally made that trade ins fuel new game sales similar to car sales and this is 100% true and cannot be disputed. The difference though with a pre owned car is that the person buying that car does not get the same experience / newness for want of a better word that the original owner enjoyed. In software sales though this distinction isn't really there and the fact is that some customers will buy a pre owned game because it is cheaper yet derive the exact same benefit as those who bought the game new and at full price. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that publishers although gaining sales from trade ins fueling new sales growth are also losing sales to the pre owned market and it is this that we have to agree needs to be addressed.

Implementing charges for features such as online play etc but giving free access to those buying the item new is a fair approach to this but there will be a knock on effect across the industry which will most likely lead to higher prices at store level for new games. (Some of the post below is a repost of my own posts elsewhere)

There are a few things to consider here:

The price of new games on the high street is artificially low. In most cases and particularly in the last couple of years the retailers are selling the games at well below the RRP and in some cases selling at a loss. This is so they can get the loyalty of the customer and more importantly get the trade ins for them. It's no secret that the pre owned margins are a lot higher than new. New games could be anything from (minus) -5% to 10% margin with pre owned games at 40% (I'm going to defend ourselves here by pointing out that we don't operate on these pre owned margins ourselves but the major high street chains do)

When you mention squeezing an extra $10 out etc that would not even be putting it back to what the publishers actually intend to charge. Similarily people cry rip off at online marketplace pricing on the likes of Xbox Live and PSN Store but more oftehn than not the "rip off" is comparing the publishers price to the loss leading retail price on the high street.

The industry is in a situation where the trade in market is actually keeping new game prices lower than the publishers themselves recommend and its the revenue from the trade in sales that is paying the bills / wages. In the case of Fifa 11 which has really ignited the debate the RRP for this is €59.99 whereas the majority of retailers sold this for €49.99 and made a tiny profit margin on the game - certainly not enough to stay in business if pre owned game sales / margins were not there backing them up. And to update my original rambling here for relevancy inFamous 2 has an RRP of €59.99 yet I have seen it been sold for €44.99. The perceived rip off on traded in games isn't as bad as it appears at first glance (but certainly is still there with some retailers)

Initiatives such as the online pass or project $10 etc are going to change the dynamic of the market - this is inevitable. What is happening is that the €10 you would pay on top of your pre owned titles cost to access the features present in a new game will mean your pre owned games retail value will drop. This of course means what is being offered for trade in credit will also drop. What remains to be seen though is how this will change the market. My personal opinion is that if the pre owned trade in prices fall / the product becomes less attractive to the end user gamer then demand for new games will fall. Also if the pre owned trade is stifled as such I can't see retailers like Game / Gamestop etc being in a position to continue loss leading and price slashing the RRPs which will lead to higher retail prices for new games. That's a double whammy for publishers, less demand because of less cash in the market and a higher retail price too. I think ultimately publishers will have to react to the supply and demand economics of this and cut new game prices but whether or not retailers will be in a position to pass these cuts on will be another question.

The economics of this is quite simple. If the pre owned market / concept of trade ins is eradicated then retailers will most definitely have to increase their prices for new games. However considering that publishers will have presumably more demand for their game new this may lead to a fall in cost prices to the retailers which will allow prices to stay the same and perhaps even drop! From our perspective it may be a good thing and allow us to really compete with the bigger players.

If the revenue from the pre owned market can be shared between the retailers and the publishers prices of new games may be able to stay as is (in this case though ultimately the person trading in the game will part finance this in the form of lower trade in credit) This is essentially what is being put in place with the current moves. At current pricing levels this seems to be fair but if for arguments sake suddenly it was €30 to access the online play then this pretty much eradicates the pre owned market.

Basically it's a delicate ecosystem to tinker with but it does need to be tinkered with. We just hope the balance is struck that keeps everyone happy.

gizmo

I'm just going to leave this here...

Overheal

I did get a laugh out of that I'll admit. They'll lose a lot of initial purchase power, but torrents dont last. You try looking for a retro title, something between 3-5 years old, and it can be impossible if not nightmarish to pirate it at that point. You'll be able to buy Witcher 2 cheaper at which point though, and have it forever.

And imagine if they had priced that game cheaper. People can be douchebags but fewer douchebags will go to the effort if the game is $35, not $50.

ShadowHearth

it is funny, but there is one truth:

there will be allways those who pirate games, there are those who allways buy games.


do you really think, that those who allways buy games will go pirate it now?

i bought witcher 2, and i am happy developer got my money. Pirate will still pirate it no matter what DRM is on it! in this case it made normal gamers life easyer.

thank you for a great game with no ****y drm that kicks paying customer in the jewels.

Orim

Overheal wrote: »

And imagine if they had priced that game cheaper. People can be douchebags but fewer douchebags will go to the effort if the game is $35, not $50.

Humble Bundle was priced at whatever you wanted to pay. You could get it for 1c and yet 25% of the downloads from their servers were pirated. That's discounting the all the additional piracy through torrents.

There's a universe of douchebags and they don't give a fúck.

ShadowHearth

Orim wrote: »

Humble Bundle was priced at whatever you wanted to pay. You could get it for 1c and yet 25% of the downloads from their servers were pirated. That's discounting the all the additional piracy through torrents.

There's a universe of douchebags and they don't give a fúck.

yup. pirate wount give two ****s at pricing. it can be 50eu or 5eu, he wount pay anyway.

damn people are pirating such thing like minecraft, which is what? 12eu?! :rolleyes:. the SP game is free allready for cheap bastords, but they still pirate it!

Overheal

Orim wrote: »

Humble Bundle was priced at whatever you wanted to pay. You could get it for 1c and yet 25% of the downloads from their servers were pirated. That's discounting the all the additional piracy through torrents.

There's a universe of douchebags and they don't give a fúck.

Thats a lot of people who don't live in the world. I deal with a lot of customers who pay in cash, don't have any electronic form of pay, etc. - who sets up a paypal account to donate a penny to the humble bundle for example? Even if thats all you wanted to pay. Especially bad in places in ireland where banks in my experience only ever seemed to issue Debit cards which you could not use to make online purchases with.

Burgo

Overheal wrote: »

Thats a lot of people who don't live in the world. I deal with a lot of customers who pay in cash, don't have any electronic form of pay, etc. - who sets up a paypal account to donate a penny to the humble bundle for example? Even if thats all you wanted to pay. Especially bad in places in ireland where banks in my experience only ever seemed to issue Debit cards which you could not use to make online purchases with.

You can make online purchases using debit cards no problem man, have been doing it for about a year or two with little or no problems.

CORaven

Steam and paypal do not accept Lazer cards, something that plenty of people have.

Although, getting a 3v card or any of the alternatives is not that much hassle tbh once you get it the first time.

wandatowell

Visa Debit cards i think