Anyone read EDGE?

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.

festivala

Originally posted by Shinji
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.

A campaign like this HAS to grab attention. Otherwise there is no campaign.

The underlying assumption here is that the current model *works*. It doesn't seem to work for the majority of games that lose money and all the publishers that go out of business. It doesn't seem to work for all the consumers who don't buy software because it's too expensive.

Fairplays whole arguement is that the current model doesn't work for anyone. (EDIT: except for the odd hitmaker like GTA:VC)

And if it does make games cheaper, what harm? Disaster for the industry? Have you seen how many publishers and developers go bust every year? How much worse can it get?

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Shinji
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.

"The fairplay campaign is saying that [the prices of] games are unneccessarily high"
"... goes some way towards proving fairplay's point"

Notice I did not say it proved anything, but it does add weight to Fairplay's point [about prices of games being unneccessarily high - for whatever reason]. I'm trying very hard to understand how you can say that "consumers were certainly hit", and also say that we are no longer discussing exactly what fairplay are trying to achieve while keeping a straight face.

monument

That was quick, did you go and read up on some market economics, and the games industry value chain?

tHE vAGGABOND

Anyway besides everything else, the anti-iraq march over here in London had several hundred thousand people and it was ignored. Im sure several gamers protesting that some games are too expensive will also be ignored!

ykt0di9url7bc3

The marketing for a DVD boxset and a PS2 game a radically different and a comparison of sales is doesnt give a proper view of the state of both products in the marketplace, for that you'd want to contact the publishers... infact coming up to christmas and an eventual platnium release i'd see the game as having a good future unless it gets overshadowed by the next upcoming LOTR game


As for Fairplay, publishers tend to charge what they want for games, but as in what was the situation with game pricing 10 years ago as it is today, i see game pricing today very reasonable....( for some-one who paid £65 for Super Street Fighter 2 on the SNES in 1994??...and then 8 years later to buy GTA: Vice City at €45)...counting inflation and euro change-over...Thats a good deal!

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by monument
That was quick, did you go and read up on some market economics, and the games industry value chain?

That was quick, did you have that pre-written and waiting for my reply?

Please, just read my reply to Shinji.

monument

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
That was quick, did you have that pre-written and waiting for my reply?

I was replying to festivala, but it applies to you two.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by monument
I was replying to festivala, but it applies to you two.

Aw
I feel less wanted now

Shinji

It doesn't seem to work for the majority of games that lose money and all the publishers that go out of business. It doesn't seem to work for all the consumers who don't buy software because it's too expensive.

The games that lose money are subsidised by the games that make money. One hit pays for ten flops. The problem here isn't that games are too expensive, it's that publishers in general are no good at identifying good games which will sell, and they end up releasing a lot of tripe onto the market.

However, in general this model does work because there are more than enough hits to pay for the flops.

As to "all the publishers that go out of business"... Name a few, please. There's this assumption that all manner of publishers are going bust left right and centre, but it's simply not true - there are a handful of them in financial trouble because their management is crap and they release piss poor games.

The idea that consumers don't buy games because of the price is a key point for the Fairplay campaign, but I've yet to see market research that supports this claim, just a lot of "oooh my mate didn't buy MGS2 because it was forty quid!" type statements. Not enough to base a change to the entire value chain of a $20 billion industry on.

And if it does make games cheaper, what harm? Disaster for the industry? Have you seen how many publishers and developers go bust every year? How much worse can it get?

Actually, it's mostly getting better right now. The industry has come out of a hardware transition period (low revenues, high spending on R&D) and most companies are stronger than ever. There'll now be some consolidation while the companies who have failed to invest properly in R&D during that period or who have been using prevailing conditions to cover up bad management either shut down or, more likely, are swallowed by bigger, more successful companies. And in a couple of years time it'll diversify again as more splinter companies are formed, before another transition period and a further bout of consolidation. This is the pattern followed by this industry and countless others, and standing up at one isolated point in it and shouting "it's all gone to sh1t!" without taking the rest of the cycle into consideration is very silly indeed.

Economics 101, again.

Retr0gamer

I think capcom need to do something with their marketing people. I almost didn't buy the brilliant maximo and devil may cry because the screenshots on the back of the box were so bad. Also their advertising is really bad. They seem to rely on game show opinions and reviews with no adverts. It worked for MGS but it isn't working for capcom. It's a shame since their games in the last few years have all been brilliant and deserved to sell more.