Anyone read EDGE?

theciscokid

then why the hell aren't you part of the best games forum around?

EDGE

Shinji

Because the EDGE forum is almost entirely made up of whinging poncey prima-donna types who don't actually LIKE games, they just like their own egos. Reading that place is f*cking depressing actually - of course it doesn't help that it's regularly full of hugely uninformed rubbish (like the recent "Fairplay" campaign, which originated on the EDGE forums).

That said, I'm not a huge fan of EDGE, but while they may be up their own arses a bit they at least almost always get their facts right.

Dcully

Ive gotta agree with you Shinji.

ObeyGiant

Personally, I don't read it because it's pretty intimidating. There are a lot of hardcore gamers on there, who really know their stuff. And there's a lot of idiots on there who like to pretend they know their stuff (not like here, eh?). But generally, I don't post on there because it seems a much more closed-off clique than the wonderful (ahem), warm (AHEM), welcoming (COUGH) people on boards.ie.

I still reckon it's the best local(ish) forum for serious videogame discussion.

Originally posted by Shinji
...hugely uninformed rubbish (like the recent "Fairplay" campaign, which originated on the EDGE forums).

I'll bite - you don't agree with the fairplay campaign? Why on earth not? Would this have anything to do with the fact that you work in the videogames industry and get to play a lot of games for free? Maybe we should throw this into a seperate thread.

Shinji

Actually, I don't get a lot of games for free - I'm a business journalist, not a full-time reviewer / consumer journalist any more. I end up buying quite a lot of games these days... Spent sixty quid in GAME yesterday, as it happens.

As a consumer, I'd obviously like games to be cheaper. I'd like cornflakes to be cheaper too, and coffee, and ice cream. And sports cars, it'd be good if they were cheaper too. However, the basis of the Fairplay campaign wasn't "wouldn't it be nice if games were cheaper", it was "games are a rip-off and its hurting the games industry" - which is patent rubbish on a number of counts.

For a start, if games really were a rip-off, 300,000 people wouldn't have rushed out to buy Vice City last weekend. It's that simple; when stuff is vastly overpriced, people don't buy it, they vote with their wallets, and consumers have NOT done this. In fact, games have been gradually getting cheaper over the past ten years or so, contrary to what the Fairplay muppets seem to believe. People have very short memories; they complain about new games costing £34.99 now, forgetting that a new SNES cart could set you back £60.

For another thing, their business models don't hold up. Stuart Campbell, the amazingly embittered journalist behind the whole farce, obviously hasn't got the first clue about how the value chain for games works, or indeed how the industry works in general. He claims that if we made games half the price they are now, they'd sell twice as many, and everyone would be better off. This is the single core argument of Fairplay; and anyone with the first clue about economics can tell you what a load of crap it is. For a start, doubled sales does NOT cover a 50% price reduction; in fact, you'd need to double sales to cover a price-drop of around 30%. For another thing, there is absolutely no proof to the claim that we'd buy twice as many games if they were half the price anyway; do you think warez kiddies will stop downloading or copying games if they cost £20 instead of £40, for example? Would you buy games you don't particularly want just because they cost less? Obviously there'd be SOME increase in purchases - hardcore gamers like myself and a fair few others here would buy more games, although certainly not twice as many - but the claims of a doubling of sales aren't backed up by any statistics or research.

It shows, too. Question the Fairplay campaign, and rather than going off and finding research to prove their claims, they tell you that it's up to you to disprove them (assuming that they can stop flinging mud at you and misquoting you for long enough to say so). That's not how this kind of thing works - if they want the industry to change its practices, they need to prove that they're right and the industry is wrong. Right now, their "proof" is a petulant "because I say so! prove me wrong!".

There's some other ludicrous stuff in there - like the claim that console manufacturers should stop subsidising consoles so that they don't have to charge a licensing fee on all games. This would drop the price of games by between £7 and £12 pounds, but would mean that console hardware cost upwards of £500. It'd balance out - once you've bought the console and about 15 games, you'd be better off than you would have been if you bought a subsidised console and more expensive games. But, well, how many people want 15 games for their machine? Hell, how many consoles right now have 15 games that are actually worth playing?

It's rubbish, and thankfully it's died on its feet. I printed a rebuttal to it originally (after finding out that they'd used six year old, out of date and out of context quotes from Peter Molyneux on their site... They then proceeded to rip quotes from Miles Jacobson and from myself off the site and use them out of context, but I really couldn't be bothered arguing at this stage) but since then I've ignored it. And so, it seems, has everyone else.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Shinji
For a start, if games really were a rip-off, 300,000 people wouldn't have rushed out to buy Vice City last weekend.

You seem to be missing one of the main points of the fairplay campaign, or more accurately - ignoring it. The fairplay campaign is not arguing that 'people aren't buying games because they cost too much'. They're saying that the price of game is hurting the industry because it is making (forcing?) people to be very cautious with the money they spend on games, and only going towards buying the big-name games, where you know what you're getting. The case of Vice City is a bit of a double-edged sword in this instance, since it is a really good game - but it is also nothing drastically new, in terms of gameplay. I, personally, was not 'voting' with my wallet - I was simply too afraid to take a chance on another, perhaps better game, since I knew exactly what I was getting in the case of GTA:VC. I can easily see where Fairplay are coming from, in saying that this kind of behaviour is stifling innovation in the videogames industry.

In my perfect world, everyone's PS2 collection would include Ico and Rez. Unfortunately, this will not happen, because of the prohibitively high price of these (and other) games.

Originally posted by Shinji
In fact, games have been gradually getting cheaper over the past ten years or so, contrary to what the Fairplay muppets seem to believe. People have very short memories; they complain about new games costing £34.99 now, forgetting that a new SNES cart could set you back £60.

If by 'A New SNES Cart', you are referring to the singular, I agree, because I have only seen one game at that price - Metroid. But I assumed that was the box was so much bigger.

Overall, your argument here only superficially holds any water. The increased cost of manufacturing, and licensing fees etc. for carts meant that the carts were always more expensive than their CD counterparts. The changeover to CD/DVD-based consoles meant that prices _did_ come down in the short term, but have since shot up again.

Originally posted by Shinji
and anyone with the first clue about economics can tell you what a load of crap it is

I, personally, do not have a first clue about economics, so I cannot comment on your numbers here, however...

Originally posted by Shinji
For another thing, there is absolutely no proof to the claim that we'd buy twice as many games if they were half the price anyway; do you think warez kiddies will stop downloading or copying games if they cost £20 instead of £40, for example?Would you buy games you don't particularly want just because they cost less?

I got my DVD player at roughly the same time as my PS2. Now - a a rough count on my DVD collection, 150 or so, not all 'gems', not all films I particularly wanted (two examples: Million Dollar Hotel was bought when hung over, seemed like a fantastic idea at the time. Also: the Erotic Witch Project. Uh.. best not ask ). A rough count of PS2 games - 10. I can tell you, personally, this is directly due to the fact that I cannot easily justify, in my own head, spending EUR60+ on one game, when I'm not even sure what it is like. Getting burned by a dodgy purchase also made it a lot harder for me to justify this (game in question: Prisoner of War - eugh).

Your comment about the warez kiddies is relevant, though. Certainly, the only way to stop the hardcore warez kids in their tracks would be to give the games away for free, but a decrease in price would certainly curb the 'casual' warez trade. This is something I have seen an increase in - people who really have no interest in the warez culture, they just want to play a game, wihtout paying through the nose for it. One could certainly argue this could be due to a large takeup in p2p networks and broadband, but I personally doubt this is the main cause.

Originally posted by Shinji
if they want the industry to change its practices, they need to prove that they're right and the industry is wrong.

I can't disagree with what you are saying here, however, as is my understanding of the situation - it is not even easy to produce an accurate list of figures to show exactly where the inflated price is coming from. But this does not exactly bother the roots of the campaign.

Originally posted by Shinji
It's rubbish, and thankfully it's died on its feet. I printed a rebuttal to it originally (after finding out that they'd used six year old, out of date and out of context quotes from Peter Molyneux on their site...

This is apparently something they took to heart, and have since conducting a full-on interview with Peter Molyneux, to set the record straight.
http://www.fairplay-campaign.co.uk/opinion2.htm.

You consistently mention the fact that 'consumers vote with their wallets'. This is exactly what the fairplay campaign is about - urging people to vote with their wallets, flex their muscles, and demonstrate to the entire chain of video games production that they are there to serve the consumers, not the other way round. This is the crux of the fairplay argument.

DiscoStu

The fairplay campaign is not arguing that 'people aren't buying games because they cost too much'. They're saying that the price of game is hurting the industry because it is making (forcing?) people to be very cautious with the money they spend on games,

you seem to be missing one quite important point here. in 2001 the computer games industry grew by something like 12% when other mass entertainment industries were contracting by as much. look at music, big record companies are terrified and are trying to blame new technology for the slump. it looks like this year there will be another large spurt in computer game sales again.

in the long term there might be an incentive for publishers to drop prices because that kind of growth is ultimatley not sustainable. in the short term there will be still be huge growth (1-2years) but by the end of that period we will have reached saturation point and there will be a contraction until the next generation of consoles begin to appear.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by DiscoStu
you seem to be missing one quite important point here. in 2001 the computer games industry grew by something like 12% when other mass entertainment industries were contracting by as much. look at music, big record companies are terrified and are trying to blame new technology for the slump. it looks like this year there will be another large spurt in computer game sales again.

I'm missing nothing.
These figures do not reflect the fact that, weekly, at least one publisher/development house goes out of business. Last year, I think approximately 70 publisher/development houses shut down. Bear in mind that this is at a time when there is, as you say a '12% growth' in the video games industry, and you are touching on one of the points the fairplay campaign is trying to make.

Shinji

These figures do not reflect the fact that, weekly, at least one publisher/development house goes out of business.

That has nothing to do with the price of games. It has everything to do with the fact that a lot of publishers and developers are horrendously mismanaged - these people would go bust running a car dealership or a cornershop, never mind a development or publishing business. The growth of the industry reflects its popularity with consumers, not a growth in competence of the people running companies that go bust. EA, Activision, THQ, Sony, Nintendo... All publishers making loads of profit right now and healthy as can be. Very few developers are publicly quoted, but Argonaut, for example, is doing very nicely for itself, as is Tecmo in Japan, while companies like Square, Enix, Capcom and Namco have all pulled themselves out of a rut and are doing good business (Capcom had a hiccup with a property investment that went bad but otherwise is doing great). If the games industry were f*cked, it'd be the whole industry - as it stands, well managed companies make money, badly managed companies don't (Infogrames, Bam etc).

The argument about whether cheaper games would encourage innovation is an interesting one, and it deserves a forum - preferably one a long way away from the ranting of the Fairplay lot. Personally I believe that there ARE changes which could be made to the pricing structure of games that would benefit innovation and niche titles, but the massive over-simplification of the issue by Fairplay and the aggressive, unpleasant and confrontational way in which they presented their "campaign" has basically removed any chance of that being discussed in a mature manner by the industry within the next few years - which is a shame.

Fundamentally, the point remains the same; the arguments of the Fairplay campaign are unproven and not backed up by any research, facts or professional economic opinion. Not only that, they are presented in a manner which effectively calls the very people in whose hands the decision on pricing would rest a bunch of idiots; not exactly a clever way to go about winning over hearts and minds. This is perhaps the thing I'm most annoyed about; Stuart Campbell's unique ability to turn anything he touches into a vehicle for his attention-whoring, abrasive and unpleasant personality has destroyed what could potentially have spun into a very interesting debate about the future of the industry, not just in terms of pricing.

Shinji

By the way, responding to your point about cartridge prices... Here's a more relevant set of figures, set over six years between two equivalent weeks in 1996 and 2002 (weeks chosen because those are the ones I sourced data for back when the Fairplay stuff started up).


2002
Average retail price of Top PS2 game (Stuntman) (Week 39).....................£37.99
Average retail price for all games last week (Week 39)....................................£22.36

1996
Average retail price of top selling PS1 game (FIA Formula 1) (equivilant - Week 39)..£49.99
Average retail price for all games (Week 39) ........................................................£31.90
(Source: ELSPA. (ChartTrack))

chernobyl

I thought this was an Edge thread?


Anyways...i dont read the forums, but i do buy the magazine and really enjoy the monthly regulars like Redeye etc.

Although in general game are well priced, this is not reflected here in Ireland, but that is for stoopid reasons.
I dont think games being priced at £45 [punts] is fair pricing and most games should not be priced this high, but unfortunately games in Ireland sometimes cost a whopping £50+.

Thankyou play.

Biffa Bacon

I read EDGE and I used to contribute to the forum but I kind of just drifted away from it the more I started to post on boards.ie.

For some strange reason I almost feel guilty about that.

monument

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I'm missing nothing.
These figures do not reflect the fact that, weekly, at least one publisher/development house goes out of business. Last year, I think approximately 70 publisher/development houses shut down. Bear in mind that this is at a time when there is, as you say a '12% growth' in the video games industry, and you are touching on one of the points the fairplay campaign is trying to make.

Linking to the interview with Peter Molyneux partly answers you’re ratting statement about 70 publisher/development houses shutting down. –

“PM: I believe Sony themselves have stood up and said that they really only want to deal with about five developers in the world. Some would say that the age of the small, boutique developer is struggling at the moment, and a lot of developers and smaller publishers are finding it very hard to keep their head above water.”

Publishers or developers shutting down has little to do with the so-called high price for games. If today prices dropped by 50% publisher and developers would tighten their pockets and more would shut down from lack of cash.


As for forums, boards.ie is better because its local, with local views, ideas, problems, events etc...

monument

"Gaming Discussion
Read the rules. No console wars, no x vs y, no ALL CAPS, no trolling, no abuse, no off-topic conversation, no idiocy. Talk about games, play nice, and you won't be banned." - EDGE Rules

No console wars?

no x vs y?

no idiocy?

NO FUN

sceptre

Originally posted by monument
No console wars?

no x vs y?

no idiocy?

NO FUN

FFS - "no fun" sounds about right

"No different opinions - be sweetie nice to each other"

Bah.

theciscokid

Originally posted by monument
"Gaming Discussion
Read the rules. No console wars, no x vs y, no ALL CAPS, no trolling, no abuse, no off-topic conversation, no idiocy. Talk about games, play nice, and you won't be banned." - EDGE Rules

No console wars?

no x vs y?

no idiocy?

NO FUN

theres an organised fighting folder for that ,

Dont be at yourself

For me, boards.ie occupies the middle ground of games forums.

At one end of the scale there's the EDGE forums - incredibly elitest, cliquey and far too concerned with other people's opinions on games.

Then on the other end of the spectrum, you have forums like the C&VG forums which at any one time would have a dozen console war threads, mostly full of insults or "XBOX RULES, GayStation suxx!!". Looking at the EDGE forum rules, it abides by none of them.

Then, you've got boards.ie: a forum with intelligent conversation - rarely descending into petty insults - while not going over the top with the snobiness of EDGE. It's certainly not perfect, but it's friendly. And you won't have to wade through pretentious "Are games art?" threads, or off-topic "Wat is da best WWF restler?!?!" threads.

theciscokid

dunno ive been part of the regular edge forumites for a couple of years and don't find it bad at all, okay maybe at first you might think it isn't friendly but it is, they are just very close due to the meets they organise and everyone knows everyone..

its like alot of forums on the surface you see alot of flaming etc..
but underneath it isn't always like that , and besides the amount of posters they have they do well to keep it under control..

definitely one of the busiest forums ever

tHE vAGGABOND

We get Edge in the office, I read it (or the wonderful 442) on the bog. I would not buy it, as I find, personally, that a lot of the scores they give games have conflicted (big time) with what I would have given (eg: Few weeks ago giving Mario Sunshine a perfect 10 is just a joke, no game is perfect and Mario has some annoying issues). But as has been said before, there are several places on the net now where you can see what every site is giving a game and then pop over to that review and read it, not just one magazine.

Good games are great value for money. I paid £40 for Warcraft 3, and finished the single player in about 40 hours and now play it online. Before I worked there, I bought all the Championship Manager Games, and get 100's of hours of gameplay. The problem with the games industry is too many **** games, and too many games being released before they are ready. But that is another debate for another day!

Dont buy crap games and they will stop being made, end of story

chernobyl

Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
Few weeks ago giving Mario Sunshine a perfect 10

Would you dispute the "10", they have to Halo?

Earthhorse

Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
Dont buy crap games and they will stop being made, end of story

But how do you know the game will be crap before you buy it?

I stopped buying games five or six years ago (well, the odd PC game now and again) when I realised I wasn't getting value for money. So far it hasn't had a positive affect on quality!!!

As for EDGE, I have one or two issues but I find the tiny font hurts my eyes as does EDGE's singular lack of a sense of humour.

tHE vAGGABOND

as someone who has played FPS games on PC I dont really like Halo's control system - but that aside the game, while being very good, is far from perfect..

as I said no game is totally perfect, every game has flaws..

Anyway I know that MS paid for that 10 in add's in the mag and cold hard brown paper bag cash

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
Few weeks ago giving Mario Sunshine a perfect 10 is just a joke, no game is perfect and Mario has some annoying issues.

They didn't, they gave it 9!

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by theciscokid
dunno ive been part of the regular edge forumites for a couple of years and don't find it bad at all

Just out of interest ciscokid, what's your username over there?

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by monument
Publishers or developers shutting down has little to do with the so-called high price for games. If today prices dropped by 50% publisher and developers would tighten their pockets and more would shut down from lack of cash.

Again, this is something that is very hard to prove definitively, but you seem to be completely ignoring what the entire Fairplay campaign is arguing - they are predicting that a 50% drop in price would increase sales, at least balancing things out. Unfortunately, as I said - this is all very difficult to predict, so there's no way to conclusively prove to people that it will work.

Shinji

Unfortunately, as I said - this is all very difficult to predict, so there's no way to conclusively prove to people that it will work.

Especially not when the people predicting it have provided NO basis in fact for this argument, and ignored several major costs in getting a game to market in even their most basic equations.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Shinji
Especially not when the people predicting it have provided NO basis in fact for this argument, and ignored several major costs in getting a game to market in even their most basic equations.

This is not something they try to hide. Read their website (no, really - do), and they make no bones about the fact that the entire process of getting a game to market is so convoluted with so many people involved that it's impossible to tell where exactly the unneccessary cost is coming into the equation. This is all written in black and white (or uh.. grey and white) on their website.

Indeed, they have no real basis 'in fact', as you say, but instead are going on the hypothesis that the video games industry's prohibitive price structure is negatively affecting the market, both in terms of 'innovation', and general uptake, and that a more consumer-friendly pricing structure would, in the long run, be more benefitial to the industry as a whole. The best comparison for this hypothesis would be the other modern phenomenon - DVDs. Currently the installed base of PS2s stands at approximately 40m. The figure you quoted for GTA:VC was ... 300,000 in its first week of release. The figures for sales of Lord of the Rings on DVD stands at 2.5m on its first week (the current record). Both could be seen as being the most-anticipated titles for the respective formats. It is not entirely unreasonable to suggest that the staggering amount of sales of Lord of the Rings was greatly aided by its comparitively low price (EUR25).

Regardless of how Fairplay is being marketed, or whatever personal grievence you have with Stuart Campbell - the hypothesis they are putting forward bears thinking about, and certainly does not deserve to be dismissed so quickly.

Personally, I'll be taking part in the Fairplay campaign, but probably not out of choice - simply because I'll be too broke to afford anything new and shiny.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by chernobyl
Anyways...i dont read the forums, but i do buy the magazine and really enjoy the monthly regulars like Redeye etc.

I have to admit - RedEye's column is a guilty pleasure of mine. I know that every time I'm reading it, I should be literally shouting at the page, saying "I DON'T CARE ABOUT HOW MANY DRUGS YOU TOOK AT THE WEEKEND! I DON'T CARE ABOUT HOW BLASE YOU ARE ABOUT YOUR JOB! STOP TRYING TO RELATE YOUR HEAVY-DRINKING WEEKEND TO VIDEOGAMES SOMEHOW!" but I just can't bring myself to do it - I just think he's got a fantastic turn of phrase that keeps me reading.

But as for that Stephen Poole guy - jesus. I hurry past his page, and try not to think about the hours of my life I wasted reading his book.

monument

<Smashes head off keyboard>

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
This is not something they try to hide. Read their website...

Don’t joke your self. Nobody should predict ANY thing with "no basis in fact" "and ignored several major costs", if you do you’re talking BS.

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Currently the installed base of PS2s stands at approximately 40m. The figure you quoted for GTA:VC was ... 300,000 in its first week of release. The figures for sales of Lord of the Rings on DVD stands at 2.5m on its first week (the current record). Both could be seen as being the most-anticipated titles for the respective formats. It is not entirely unreasonable to suggest that the staggering amount of sales of Lord of the Rings was greatly aided by its comparitively low price (EUR25).

YES it is, the price would not matter to a Lord of the Rings fan.

LOTR was big before the films, a good few of my friends had read it before first year. You don’t understand how big it is, do you?

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Regardless of how Fairplay is being marketed, or whatever personal grievence you have with Stuart Campbell - the hypothesis they are putting forward bears thinking about, and certainly does not deserve to be dismissed so quickly. [/B]

I don’t think any thing that any body has said here is because of personal grievances with Stuart Campbell

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Personally, I'll be taking part in the Fairplay campaign, but probably not out of choice - simply because I'll be too broke to afford anything new and shiny. [/B]

Sense you will be "too broke" lets start a games 4 free campaign

I don’t think so!

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by monument
Don’t joke your self. Nobody should predict ANY thing with "no basis in fact" "and ignored several major costs", if you do you’re talking BS.

What they are proposing is a completely restructuring of the pricing of videogames, from the ground up - can you tell me where they could get facts to prove that such a radical idea could work? As I said - the campaign is proposing a hypothesis, and an interesting one, at that. One in which the kind of facts you are demanding are largely a moot point.

Actually - just so I'll know - what kind of 'facts' are we looking for here, anyway?

Originally posted by monument
YES it is, the price would not matter to a Lord of the Rings fan.

Exactly my point. Certainly, Lord of the Rings fans would have no problems paying pretty much any amount for the DVD, but it would have cut the average viewer out of the picture - the ones that would have balked at the thought of paying EUR50 for a copy of the DVD of Lord of the Rings (not an unreasonable price, for a fan). These are the ones that made up the majority of the people who bought the Lord of the Rings DVD. You would be a fool to suggest that Lord of the Rings DVD could have achieved the same (or even similar) sales figures with that kind of price. This is exactly what I was talking about, with regard cheaper prices affecting market penetration and 'breaking' the mainstream.

Originally posted by monument
LOTR was big before the films, a good few of my friends had read it before 5th class. You don’t understand how big it is, do you?

Okay, brainiac - explain to me how, with an installed base of approximately 40m PS2s, the sales of the PS2 game of Lord of the Rings did not manage to rival that of the DVD? All it would take would be for one in twenty PS2 owners to buy this game, and we would have a comparable figure. Why didn't this happen?
Please - I'm urging you to go and give this some real thought before you reply. If you come back with "well, maybe not all of those 40m people like Lord of the Rings", I'll be horrendously disappointed in you.

Originally posted by monument
I don’t think any thing that any body has said here is because of personal grievances with Stuart Campbell

This was a joke, alluding to the fact that Stuart Campbell seems to completely rub Shinji up the wrong way. You see, it's funny because Shinji... oh never mind.

Originally posted by monument
Sense you will be "too broke" lets start a games 4 campaign

I don’t think so!

This was another joke. Are you saying my humour is too dry? Is that it?

sceptre

Originally posted by ObeyGiant

Okay, brainiac - explain to me how, with an installed base of approximately 40m PS2s, the sales of the PS2 game of Lord of the Rings did not manage to rival that of the DVD? All it would take would be for one in twenty PS2 owners to buy this game, and we would have a comparable figure. Why didn't this happen

I'm not going to explain why it didn't happen but you can't compare the two just like that. For a fair comparison you need to compare the base of DVD players with the amount of LOTR DVD sales and express the second as a percentage of the first. Then compare the base of PS2s with the amount of LOTR game sales and express the second as a percentage of the first (yeah, I do realise it's also out on PC but we'll ignore that for obvious reasons). Then compare the two percentages.

I don't think even doing that is much of an indication - I loved LOTR, haven't bought the DVD yet but will be soon. I'm unlikely to get the game and it's nothing to do with the price (I won't even download it)

It's certainly true that if games were cheaper more would be sold. The question is how many more would be sold. I'd suggest (and believe it to be so) that demand for games does not have a totally elastic demand curve. Halving prices will not result in doubled sales. Even if it did, profits would still not be at the same level (because of the fixed manufacturing and distribtion costs (even ignoring the variable development and marketing costs) sales would have to more than double to keep the margin at the same level, even if revenue remained the same. That's economics 101 mixed with management accounting 101.

theciscokid

erm, vaggabond did you read the last edge,


mario sunshine got a 9, and they said it wasn't as good as mario 64 outright plenty of times,

to biffa, i use the same name theciscokid

festivala

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Regardless of how Fairplay is being marketed, or whatever personal grievence you have with Stuart Campbell - the hypothesis they are putting forward bears thinking about, and certainly does not deserve to be dismissed so quickly.

Isn't it funny how people who have a problem with the Fairplay Campaign always seem to have a personal grudge against Stuart Campbell as well?

Regardless of that, Stuarts mission was to get as much coverage as possible for the campaign and quickly. He has achieved that. Game prices are being discussed in a serious way for the first time in years.

This is great.

It's also amusing to see the Campaign's arguments being written off as 'underesearched' when no one seems to be able to give a justification for current prices either.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by sceptre
I'm not going to explain why it didn't happen but you can't compare the two just like that.

I realise it wasn't an entirely fair comparison. But it is something to think about, and stops people saying "It is entirely unreasonable to suggest that the staggering amount of sales of Lord of the Rings was greatly aided by its comparitively low price" without giving a good, logical reason for what they're saying.

Originally posted by sceptre
It's certainly true that if games were cheaper more would be sold. The question is how many more would be sold. I'd suggest (and believe it to be so) that demand for games does not have a totally elastic demand curve. Halving prices will not result in doubled sales.

It is important to remember that what they are hoping to achieve is not simply to get the existing userbase to buy more games, but to increase the userbase by pricing the games to fit within the budget of Joe Punter. This is, as you say, economics 101. Unfortunately it is hard to predict whether or not, overall, this will result in 'doubled sales'. Personally, I can think of quite a few people who are holding off on buying a PS2 (or any console), because the price of games is too much for them.

Shinji

This is not something they try to hide. Read their website (no, really - do), and they make no bones about the fact that the entire process of getting a game to market is so convoluted with so many people involved that it's impossible to tell where exactly the unneccessary cost is coming into the equation.

Actually, it's perfectly easy to tell where the cost is coming into the equation. You add up platform licensing and manufacturing costs, developer royalties, publisher cut, distributor cut and retailer cut and you get the cost of the game. You can then break that down further to see why each of those individual segments has to be so high - publishing costs like marketing, the huge size of developer advances and development costs... It all adds up. There's no one part of this process that you can point the finger at and say "AHA! You're too expensive! If we cut you out, everything will get cheaper!".

The problem isn't that it's difficult to work out these equations, the problem is that the Fairplay lot haven't bothered their behinds to actually sit down and do the math on them - or if they have, they've then ignored the results because they don't suit their goals. Perfect example is the claim that the massive development costs of games should be ignored because they're a once-off cost... Yes, great accounting skills there guys, given how few games actually recoup those costs!

Okay, brainiac - explain to me how, with an installed base of approximately 40m PS2s, the sales of the PS2 game of Lord of the Rings did not manage to rival that of the DVD? All it would take would be for one in twenty PS2 owners to buy this game, and we would have a comparable figure. Why didn't this happen?

For a start, the installed base of PS2s is tiny compared to the installed base of DVD players.

For another thing, it's not really down to whether they like Lord of the Rings or not - a hell of a lot of people don't like videogames and wouldn't buy one regardless of source material. Videogames do NOT have the cross-generational, cross-gender and fully mass-market appeal of films. That's not a cost thing, it's an industry maturity thing.

And of course, there's the fundamental fact that LotR has been hailed as one of the greatest fantasy movies of all time. The EA LOTR game, however, is a run of the mill hack'n'slash title. It's perfectly apparent to anyone who knows anything about this industry that a good license does NOT guarantee good sales of a weak product.

Personally, I'll be taking part in the Fairplay campaign, but probably not out of choice - simply because I'll be too broke to afford anything new and shiny.

Actually, I won't be buying any games that week either. Cos there's sod all out worth buying

Regardless of that, Stuarts mission was to get as much coverage as possible for the campaign and quickly. He has achieved that. Game prices are being discussed in a serious way for the first time in years.

But BY THE WRONG PEOPLE. This is what the EDGE forum people, the Fairplay people and so on utterly, totally fail to understand. Campbell has made a "career" out of writing inflammatory, often incorrect stuff in an attempt to provoke a response, and involving him in Fairplay has made everyone dismiss the campaign as exactly that. Right now Fairplay is a lot of hot air - loads of hyperbole and grand statements, but no facts and a very shaky core argument, and the industry is completely ignoring it.

If you'd had someone more reasoned, intelligent and informed as figurehead of the campaign, and had done you homework before launching the thing in public, then the industry would have taken notice - hell, you might even have had the support of some of the trade press like GI and MCV. As it stands, Fairplay is proposing an economically unsound argument through a mouthpiece whose sole interaction with his critics is to tell them to "fuck off".

Shinji

But it is something to think about, and stops people saying "It is entirely unreasonable to suggest that the staggering amount of sales of Lord of the Rings was greatly aided by its comparitively low price" without giving a good, logical reason for what they're saying.

Are you familiar with a concept called "onus of proof"?

Basically, you're calling on an industry to make massive, sweeping changes to the way its entire value chain works - and it's worth pointing out that it DOES work, because a lot of companies are turning a profit and sales of games are up. You're claiming that a massive change to this system will work BETTER.

Now, in this instance, it's up to you to prove that your system is better. It's that simple - you're proposing the change, you're the one with something to prove. The industry doesn't have to take your wild speculation and prove it wrong; you have to take your theories and prove them right.

This isn't something the games industry just made up - it's how this situation has worked since time immemorial. Fairplay is just choosing to ignore it, that's all. Which is okay, because everyone else is choosing to ignore Fairplay

festivala

Originally posted by Shinji
But BY THE WRONG PEOPLE. This is what the EDGE forum people, the Fairplay people and so on utterly, totally fail to understand. Campbell has made a "career" out of writing inflammatory, often incorrect stuff in an attempt to provoke a response, and involving him in Fairplay has made everyone dismiss the campaign as exactly that. Right now Fairplay is a lot of hot air - loads of hyperbole and grand statements, but no facts and a very shaky core argument, and the industry is completely ignoring it.

But it isn't. Read this weeks MCV for proof.

If you'd had someone more reasoned, intelligent and informed as figurehead of the campaign, and had done you homework before launching the thing in public, then the industry would have taken notice - hell, you might even have had the support of some of the trade press like GI and MCV. As it stands, Fairplay is proposing an economically unsound argument through a mouthpiece whose sole interaction with his critics is to tell them to "fuck off". [/B]

But the 'industry' hasn't produced any facts or figures to disprove the Campaign either. Nothing. Nada.

In fact, the horrible, 'we don't care about the consumer' approach taken by the article in MCV is more likely to win people to Fairplays cause.

monument

Originally posted by festivala
But the 'industry' hasn't produced any facts or figures to disprove the Campaign either. Nothing. Nada.

If you would like to read Shinji last reply, it answers your question.

festivala

Originally posted by monument
If you would like to read Shinji last reply, it answers your question.

Um, no it doesn't. A bunch of assumptions on what makes games cost what they do does not equal the industry justifying the prices. Shinjis comments are as vague as the Fairplay claims that he is criticising.

Basically the industry has so far shown that it's completely unable to defend its pricing strategy and the lack of any attempt to makes them look as if they have something to hide.

It's ironic that their main criticism of Fairplay is that they haven't worked out the maths properly. Well presuming that the industry has, why don't they show us?

And if not, then surely thats the reason for the Campaign? To force the hand of the industry into at least justifying the current situation?

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Shinji
It all adds up. There's no one part of this process that you can point the finger at and say "AHA! You're too expensive! If we cut you out, everything will get cheaper!".

From the Fairplay website:
"What this means is that nobody's cut is a direct obstacle to a price reduction". I told you to go read the website

Originally posted by Shinji
For a start, the installed base of PS2s is tiny compared to the installed base of DVD players.

Videogames do NOT have the cross-generational, cross-gender and fully mass-market appeal of films. That's not a cost thing, it's an industry maturity thing.

Please understand, this is integral to what I am saying. Would the installed base of DVD players (~170m) be as high if the price of the DVDs themselves was so high? The best thing to compare this to would be the installed base of Laserdisc players - this reflects the current situation with videogames pretty well. Laserdiscs simply failed because they priced themselves out of the market, leaving themselves only in the realm of hardcore movie fans. The point Fairplay is trying to make, and so many of you seem to be overlooking, is that videogames are, on a slightly smaller scale, doing the same thing. Lower prices means easier on Joe Punter's wallet means higher market penetration means greater profit.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by festivala
Well presuming that the industry has, why don't they show us?

"Europe busts Nintendo for keeping game prices high"

I knew this should have been a seperate thread

festivala

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
"Europe busts Nintendo for keeping game prices high"

I knew this should have been a seperate thread

heh.

What I really can't understand about so many people defending the game producers is this attitude that everything is perfect now, games are so priced because they have to be and so on, without ever questioning it.

Strange.

monument

Originally posted by sceptre
It's certainly true that if games were cheaper more would be sold.

The question is how many more would be sold.

I'd suggest (and believe it to be so) that demand for games does not have a totally elastic demand curve.

Halving prices will not result in doubled sales.

Even if it did, profits would still not be at the same level (because of the fixed manufacturing and distribtion costs (even ignoring the variable development and marketing costs) sales would have to more than double to keep the margin at the same level, even if revenue remained the same.

That's economics 101 mixed with management accounting 101.

I have broken this quote up so it will be easier for you to get it into your head

monument

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
"Europe busts Nintendo for keeping game prices high"

I knew this should have been a seperate thread

This is cross-border price fixing, which is wrong and legal.

Notting to do with fairplay!

festivala

Originally posted by monument
I have broken this quote up so it will be easier for you to get it into your head

Ta.

It's certainly true that if games were cheaper more would be sold.

The question is how many more would be sold.

I'd suggest (and believe it to be so) that demand for games does not have a totally elastic demand curve.

An assumption, of course. It depends upon how elastic the curve is.

Halving prices will not result in doubled sales.

Perhaps. Depending upon how true your assumption is.

Even if it did, profits would still not be at the same level (because of the fixed manufacturing and distribtion costs (even ignoring the variable development and marketing costs) sales would have to more than double to keep the margin at the same level, even if revenue remained the same.

Again, perhaps.

So basically you are saying that things are the way they are because they couldn't possibly be any different? Not good enough for me I'm afraid.

festivala

Originally posted by monument
This is cross-border price fixing, which is wrong and legal.

Notting to do with fairplay!

But what if Nintendo argued that they HAD to price a game higher in Germany than in Britian, because if they lowered the cost then their revenue would drop?

Bah.

DiscoStu

however nintendo didnt, they admitted they were wrong and stopped it a long time ago.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by monument
This is cross-border price fixing, which is wrong and legal.

Notting to do with fairplay!

I now firmly believe you are doing your best to avoid seeing whatever points I try to make.

The fairplay campaign is saying that games are unneccessarily high, and this is affecting both sales and overall market penetration. The fact that Nintendo were practicing cross-border price fixing goes some way towards proving fairplay's point.

Clear?

Shinji

So basically you are saying that things are the way they are because they couldn't possibly be any different? Not good enough for me I'm afraid.

Actually, it's entirely possible that things could work in other ways. Nobody is denying that.

However, I have yet to see anyone produce a well-reasoned, economically sound alternative to the current model.

When I do, I'll support it to the best of my abilities. But "games are too expensive and we'll picket your shops until they get cheaper" isn't a well-reasoned, economically sound alternative, it's an attention grabbing ego trip.

festivala

Originally posted by DiscoStu
however nintendo didnt, they admitted they were wrong and stopped it a long time ago.

Yes I know, but my point is that there are people who would have defended them tooth and nail on this pricing policy a few years ago just as the general industry pricing policy is being defended today. Despite it being wrong. Just look at the price of GBA games!

Shinji

The fairplay campaign is saying that games are unneccessarily high, and this is affecting both sales and overall market penetration. The fact that Nintendo were practicing cross-border price fixing goes some way towards proving fairplay's point.

No, it doesn't. Look, this has been an interesting discussion and so on, and it's nice to be able to talk about Fairplay in a civilised manner, but if you're going to drag in stuff like this I'm going to have to ask you to go off and educate yourself about the matters at hand before continuing. Read up on some market economics, for a start, and have a look at the games industry value chain and how it works. And I don't mean by reading the Fairplay site, which is written by people with zero knowledge of economics and sod all knowledge of the value chain.

Cross-border price fixing is profiteering, pure and simple. It's a nasty business practice designed to screw cash out of markets unfairly. This has nothing to do with the actual basic price of games - in fact, it generally contributes to distributor prices, not retailer prices, although consumers were certainly hit by Nintendo's fixing in the nineties as well.