Anyone read EDGE?

tHE vAGGABOND

As I said before, people will buy good games (like GTA3:VC) and people wont/should not buy crap games. If a game is good people won’t mind paying £45 (or whatever) for it, if a game is crap people will be pissed off having paid a fortune for it.

Look at Eidos (who I happen to know a bit about). They have a handful of games that sell a bucket load, CM series, Tomb Raider and Timesplitters and to a slightly lesser extent Hitman..

They pay for the rest of the total rubbish that they release, Swingers Golf, Legaia 2: Duel Saga, Mister Mosquito <not bad actually, good fun but a £10 game not £40> and all the other games none of you have ever seen as they are rubbish. You also have games that should be good but you are still taking a bit of a chance on, Deus Ex was a risk and Republic is a big risk. Likewise Deus Ex 2 is out in about 6 months, and it’s a bit of a risk as its one that will sell either 10,000 or 100,000! Daikatana was bad risk, and a total nightmare that lost a fortune!

http://www.eidosinteractive.com/games/outnow.html
^^^^Notice most of you will have heard of about 30/40% <tops!> of their list of released games. About 90% of the games on that list loose money, and are funded by the Championship Managers of this world.

That’s the way this business works, it’s also the way the music business works. You have bands like Steps and S Club etc and they make lots of money for the record companies and pay for the small bands that get 1 and 2 single deals to have a shot, most of whom fail and go nowhere.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
Swingers Golf, Legaia 2: Duel Saga, Mister Mosquito <not bad actually, good fun but a £10 game not £40> ...

Exactly what side of the argument are you trying to prove, with the above sentence? The side that says that games are unneccessarily expensive, to the detriment of sales (especially of 'flops'), or the side that says that games are expensive because that's just the way it is?

tHE vAGGABOND

Exactly what side of the argument are you trying to prove

I was following up from when shinji said

The games that lose money are subsidised by the games that make money. One hit pays for ten flops

and explaining it a bit..

Shinji

Exactly what side of the argument are you trying to prove, with the above sentence? The side that says that games are unneccessarily expensive, to the detriment of sales (especially of 'flops'), or the side that says that games are expensive because that's just the way it is?

Well, that's the thing though - a game like Mister Mosquito would have sold a few more copies at a lower price, but there's still a question mark over whether it would have sold enough copies to justify the price drop. It would still have been a very marginal, niche title.

As it stands, these games eventually make their way into lower price brackets thanks to discounting and budget releases - and games which sell poorly get discounted faster. However, nobody makes much cash on discounted products, but from a gamers perspective, if you're prepared to wait a couple of months, you can pick up a game very cheaply.

festivala

Originally posted by Shinji
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.

They release piss poor games AT FULL PRICE which the public is not willing to pay for a piss poor game. They're chancing their arm that people will pay full price for second rate.

Well, lets take Crawford. Widely regarded as one of the best GBA game producers. Gone. Are you seriously telling me that extorionate GBA game prices haven't driven them to the wall? Especially since the GBA itself has sold like hot cakes. Why is nobody buying the games?

If a hit funds the flops then the pressure to create hits increases. Best way to have a hit?- Make something that has already worked.

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 I've yet to see any research to the contrary.

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. [/B]

Economics is a language and can be used to argue many different models - it's not a solution in itself. This whole 'this is the way things are and you can't change it' attitude is faintly depressing to be honest.

I can't believe you're blaming bad management solely without taking the price of software into account. This is ludicrous. Software clearly has a massive influence on the amount of software sold. How do I know? I know as a purchaser of many years, both from my own experience and by listening to the people in shops.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Shinji
Well, that's the thing though - a game like Mister Mosquito would have sold a few more copies at a lower price, but there's still a question mark over whether it would have sold enough copies to justify the price drop. It would still have been a very marginal, niche title.

Using "Mister Mosquito" as an example, let me suggest a few things, as it applies to the Fairplay campaign...
1. "Niche Titles"
I have not played Mister Mosquito, but from reading the description on Eidos' website, it sounds like a pretty fun game, and certainly worth a look. But not at 40 bucks. As a consumer, I'd rather take my 40 bucks and buy a big, sure-return game, like GTA:VC, something that I'm pretty sure will keep me occupied for many weekends to come. Compared to Mister Mosquito, which would maybe give me a couple of enjoyable hours.

With the current pricing structure, games like Mister Mosquito are relegated to being 'niche titles', ones which only a few people will ever risk buying (because maybe some people just prefer to be a mosquito than being a car jacker?!). If Mister Mosquito was priced at a reasonable price, maybe 10 or 15 bucks, it would be much more likely to go ON TOP of my purchase of GTA:VC, as something to take a break with.

2. "One price to rule them all"
This is the one I'm having most trouble with - why is it that titles, such as Mister Mosquito are tied to the same pricing structure as GTA:VC. By the looks of things, it did not have nearly the same cost of production/development, yet it costs the same, or at least, roughly the same to buy. I'd honestly like for someone, anyone, to set me straight on this, and explain why this is, as I've said before, I don't have the first clue about economics - but this just sounds insane.

This ties greatly with tHE vAGGABOND said - "You have bands like Steps and S Club etc and they make lots of money for the record companies and pay for the small bands that get 1 and 2 single deals to have a shot". The record companies know well enough not to price the smaller bands into the same bracket as their larger stars. They know that by doing this, they are committing economic suicide. Take, for example, two major gigs coming up - Bruce Springsteen and the Frames. Tickets to the Boss cost a staggering EUR70 a pop. If they followed the video games industry's price structure, tickets to the Frames would be up, close to this amount, too. Instead, they know that very few people would pay this much to see the Frames, and price the tickets to this gig accordingly - so as to make the money up in quantity, rather than just price-per-unit.

festivala

Originally posted by Shinji
Well, that's the thing though - a game like Mister Mosquito would have sold a few more copies at a lower price, but there's still a question mark over whether it would have sold enough copies to justify the price drop. It would still have been a very marginal, niche title.

Again, an assumption. Perhaps it's a marginal, niche title because it is full price?
CDs manage to make a bit of cash even though quite a lot of the album market is made up from marginal, niche titles.

As it stands, these games eventually make their way into lower price brackets thanks to discounting and budget releases - and games which sell poorly get discounted faster. However, nobody makes much cash on discounted products, but from a gamers perspective, if you're prepared to wait a couple of months, you can pick up a game very cheaply.

And this is what I'd like to see. How much is made from discounted products as opposed to full price releases.

The discounted cash can't be that bad if Sony can set up Platinum label.

festivala

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Using "Mister Mosquito" as an example, let me suggest a few things, as it applies to the Fairplay campaign...
1. "Niche Titles"
I have not played Mister Mosquito, but from reading the description on Eidos' website, it sounds like a pretty fun game, and certainly worth a look. But not at 40 bucks. As a consumer, I'd rather take my 40 bucks and buy a big, sure-return game, like GTA:VC, something that I'm pretty sure will keep me occupied for many weekends to come. Compared to Mister Mosquito, which would maybe give me a couple of enjoyable hours.

I agree wholeheartedly.

2. "One price to rule them all"
This ties greatly with tHE vAGGABOND said - "You have bands like Steps and S Club etc and they make lots of money for the record companies and pay for the small bands that get 1 and 2 single deals to have a shot". The record companies know well enough not to price the smaller bands into the same bracket as their larger stars. They know that by doing this, they are committing economic suicide. Take, for example, two major gigs coming up - Bruce Springsteen and the Frames. Tickets to the Boss cost a staggering EUR70 a pop. If they followed the video games industry's price structure, tickets to the Frames would be up, close to this amount, too. Instead, they know that very few people would pay this much to see the Frames, and price the tickets to this gig accordingly - so as to make the money up in quantity, rather than just price-per-unit.

Or they could try to screw the Frames fans for 70 quid and when no-one turned up, whinge and say that, compared to The Boss, the Frames are 'piss-poor'. Later, just before the concert, they could reduce the Frames tickets, thereby alienating the early purchasers and creating a resolve to never buy 'second rate' band tickets again until they drop in price. This has the lovely side effect of stifling creativity and promoting same-old same-old music.

It's the Game industry way!

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Shinji
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.

I actually missed this comment, since I was running out to lunch.

This is, as you have so repeatedly been repeating, economics 101.
Price fuels demand.
Wait.. I'll say that again, because it might sound a little foreign to some people, and some people might just ignore it completely (monument, I'm looking your way)
Price Fuels Demand.

I have already given you a perfectly good example of this, one which you have conveniently chosen to overlook - the example of the success of DVD (cheap), compared to the relatively unsuccessful Laserdisc (expensive). For good luck, I'll give you another example - the success of VHS (cheap), compared to the relatively unsuccessful Betamax (expensive).

I seriously believe that you will have trouble finding any market research to suggest that "consumers don't buy games because of the price", because this is... well... just common sense. If you don't believe that, I'm doubting your abilities as an average, Joe Soap-type consumer.

I know this is hard for you to understand, since the idea of not buying games is completely alien to you - but really, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, people will not buy what they cannot afford.

Asuka

Im not going to get involved in this one - im just going to say that I dont read Edge because of their reviews and treatment of games. Their features are generally good/entertaining, but it seems to me that they get very extreme in their reviews. They dont seem to have much of a middle ground, particularly for big release games. They like to praise the game like a God or totally pan it, and they seem to base this choice on how controversial it might be.

It seems pretty elitist to me.

A

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Asuka
Im not going to get involved in this one - im just going to say that I dont read Edge because of their reviews and treatment of games.

Actually - this is making me wonder.. what other games-related magazines do people read?

Asuka

For me, none. I read PC Gamer a bit now, but only cos someone in the flat gets a subscription. TBH, anything I want to know about games I can get more up to date, unbiased and reliable online.

A

tHE vAGGABOND

Well, lets take Crawford. Widely regarded as one of the best GBA game producers.

Crawfish you mean, well they make games for the GBA...

a) original GBA games dont sell, the GBA games that sell are Pokemon and big franchise titles like that.

b) one of the publishers they did work for did not pay them the money they owe them, and they simply had no money to continue and hence went out of business. Just like if Dunnes did not pay the people they bought apples off they would eventually go out of business

nowt to do with anything else

Shinji

They release piss poor games AT FULL PRICE which the public is not willing to pay for a piss poor game. They're chancing their arm that people will pay full price for second rate.

Two solutions:

1) Reduce the price of games. Hope that joe public will be prepared to buy piss poor games at lower prices that he wouldn't touch at higher prices. Potentially make less cash on good games.

2) Release fewer piss poor games by means of more rigorous quality control and better management.

Now, which one do you think will work better?

Well, lets take Crawford. Widely regarded as one of the best GBA game producers. Gone. Are you seriously telling me that extorionate GBA game prices haven't driven them to the wall? Especially since the GBA itself has sold like hot cakes. Why is nobody buying the games?

Actually, there are a few key things which contributed to the Crawfish situation (they're a developer, not a publisher by the way - I'm still waiting for your examples of some of the "countless" publishers that have gone bust).

Firstly, the GBA market last Christmas was hugely over-saturated with titles; not all of these games could possibly sell well, and more importantly, not all of them could even warrant shelf space on the part of the retailers. Hence, lots of people got badly burnt and GBA contracts have been thin on the ground this year.

Secondly, GBA software margins are extremely tight for publishers, and hence for developers.

Thirdly, a publisher Crawfish did a lot of work for failed to pay them for any of it. That was the nail in the coffin - all the rest was survivable. When you're a developer most of your eggs are in one basket, and if your publisher screws you.... It's game over.

By the way, Fairplay campaign supporters might want to consider the fact that when Nintendo dropped the unit cost of GBA software by around a tenner last year, it didn't actually affect sales of software for the system in the slightest.

If a hit funds the flops then the pressure to create hits increases. Best way to have a hit?- Make something that has already worked.

The same is absolutely true of the music and film industries, both of which are a lot older than the games industry. I'm sorry, but that's economic reality; if you've got an innovative idea, you have to work ten times as hard to get it to market... And once it's there, you have to work a hundred times as hard to get joe punter to give it a shot. NONE of us are representative of games consumers in general. Games consumers in general buy FIFA, Vice City, maybe Metal Gear Solid because they saw it on the telly. Tony Hawks too, perhaps. Gran Turismo because its got fast cars in it. That's it - they aren't INTERESTED in anything new or innovative or mind-expanding or genre breaking. The same is true for TV, film, music, newspapers...

And I've yet to see any research to the contrary.

The onus of proof is on the person proposing the new system, remember. You're effectively proposing an idea and then saying that the industry should fund research into it if it wants to prove it wrong - what a load of rubbish.

why is it that titles, such as Mister Mosquito are tied to the same pricing structure as GTA:VC. By the looks of things, it did not have nearly the same cost of production/development, yet it costs the same, or at least, roughly the same to buy.

Actually, it's worth pointing out that Mister Mosquito was on Eidos' Fresh Games label and as such was launched at an RRP of £25. Unfortunately Eidos managed to mess this up and a lot of shops priced it at £35 and skimmed off the extra tenner for themselves...

But yes, this is something the industry HAS been looking at - a kind of tier system, where AAA games are released at full price but a mechanism exists for cheaper games to make it into the retail channel as well. This particularly applies for niche titles from abroad; games which sold well in Japan but won't appeal as much to Europe, because a European publisher can pick up the rights to them cheaply in a lot of cases.

Of course, it's worth pointing out that manufacturing and licensing costs are still a fixed cost. And if you're going to spend any money on marketing (a key factor in the success of any game) then that's just as expensive for a niche game as it is for a full price title. Distributors and retailers aren't too chuffed with taking smaller cuts on cut-price products either.

There's also another fundamental problem - if you release a game at £20 initially, consumers WILL assume it's at that price point because it sucks. People are inherently suspicious of cheap things becuase they assume the quality must be lacking. So you'll sell to the hardcore folk who know what the product is, but you'll pick up ZERO mass market sales, which isn't good business. Market Forces 101.

Take, for example, two major gigs coming up - Bruce Springsteen and the Frames. Tickets to the Boss cost a staggering EUR70 a pop. If they followed the video games industry's price structure, tickets to the Frames would be up, close to this amount, too

Crap example. Better example would be the fact that a Frames CD costs the same as a Springsteen CD in HMV.

S'point actually - I'm pretty sure if you released a really niche interest movie on DVD at £10, it wouldn't sell vastly more copies than it would at £20. The majority of people watching films, listening to music and playing games are NOT imaginative or intelligent people. They don't take risks on media or try new things, and making the new things cheaper doesn't really help. I'm sure I've seen music industry market research that bears this one out - I'll have a look this evening.

The discounted cash can't be that bad if Sony can set up Platinum label.

Platinum is a different kettle of fish. Sony waive a huge chunk of their licensing fee for Platinum titles, which is why it can be so cheap. They know it won't hurt sales of full-price products much because only games that have sold very well at full price make it onto the Platinum label.

Price Fuels Demand.

Hmmmm.... I don't know which Economics 101 you've been to, because that's utter rubbish. In fact, the reverse is true in general - demand sets price. Where price deviates above the minimum required to generate a profit on an item for the value chain, it does so because its found a higher level at which the market will support it.

Right now, the market is perfectly happy to support games prices as they stand.


By the way, both DVD and VHS had some other key things Beta and LD didn't have - namely massive cross-industry support, the support of the rentals industry, and huge marketing. The actual price of them had a lot less to do with the availability of players and media at the end of the day.

"consumers don't buy games because of the price", because this is... well... just common sense.

Of course this is the case. The price makes them more discerning, that's for sure. However this can equally be applied to other media - when I was younger I didn't buy many CDs because I couldn't justify the price they cost. There are a lot of DVDs I don't buy because I can't justify the price they cost. Some weeks I don't go out drinking because of the price of beer.

However, and this is what you're missing, there is still nothing to suggest that the core maths Fairplay proposes - 50% pricecut = 200% sales or more - is even remotely true. Never mind the fact that even if it were, companies would still be losing a fortune under that equation because of the magic of fixed costs and step costs...

BLITZ_Molloy

The Fairplay Campaign is a mess. Everybody would like things cheaper but the fact is console games have liscencing fees for the hardware unlike PC games and music CD's -- you're going to pay somewhere. The number of people employed to write the software is also alot more than is needed to do the production on a music record.

Anyway games are getting cheaper and cheaper. If you want more games than you can afford maybe you should have a browse thrrough the used software; thats where I get many of my arcade/action/adventure games with shortish lifespans like Ico and Rez.

I love EDGE magazine. The features and columns are second to none. The reviews tend to be a bit off from time to time but at least they don't throw 9 and 10/10 scores about like there's no tomorrow.

The forum is pretty good too.. It's hard find an intelligent console board hidden from mainstream fanboys.

festivala

Originally posted by Shinji

That's it - they aren't INTERESTED in anything new or innovative or mind-expanding or genre breaking. The same is true for TV, film, music, newspapers...

Negativity. And astonishingly arrogant.

The onus of proof is on the person proposing the new system, remember. You're effectively proposing an idea and then saying that the industry should fund research into it if it wants to prove it wrong - what a load of rubbish.

If people demand it, prices have to be justified.

S'point actually - I'm pretty sure if you released a really niche interest movie on DVD at £10, it wouldn't sell vastly more copies than it would at £20. The majority of people watching films, listening to music and playing games are NOT imaginative or intelligent people. They don't take risks on media or try new things, and making the new things cheaper doesn't really help. I'm sure I've seen music industry market research that bears this one out - I'll have a look this evening.

Depressingly negative. Categorizing people in these broad strokes is just daft. Monstrous generalization.

Right now, the market is perfectly happy to support games prices as they stand.

But support for Fairplay would demonstrate that one sector of the market is not happy, right?

BTW do you have to finish every other sentence with 101? it's incredibly annoying and patronising.

festivala

Originally posted by BLITZ_Molloy

I love EDGE magazine. The features and columns are second to none. The reviews tend to be a bit off from time to time but at least they don't throw 9 and 10/10 scores about like there's no tomorrow.

The forum is pretty good too.. It's hard find an intelligent console board hidden from mainstream fanboys. [/B]

I find the magazine a bit preachy and shockingly staid. It's the best out there though as the serious competition is non-existant.

The forum is awful.

The proof being that the General Discussion is full of thinly-disguised fanboy ranting while the Game Design forum languishes almost empty.

tHE vAGGABOND

it's incredibly annoying and patronising.

you are "incredibly annoying and patronising" by not responding and just resorting to insults

tHE vAGGABOND

The forum is awful.

one thing in its favour, reading it makes me feel mature and smart compared to all the fanboys there

Shinji

Depressingly negative. Categorizing people in these broad strokes is just daft. Monstrous generalization.

I'm sorry, but this is the truth outside the happy little world you apparently occupy. Look at the UK music charts. As games become more mainstream, they are reaching audiences of people who are simply less intelligent, less likely to demand (or want) innovation or challenge, and that's a fact. The same is absolutely true of music, films, even books, certainly television. Take your politically correct nonsense elsewhere - if you want a discussion about commercial and economic realities, you need to accept the basic reality of the marketplace first.

By the way, the people who originally made those comments to me - about the changing intellectual demographic of game consumers - have for the most part been games developers (including some very well-known and respected ones like Jon Hare) talking about the challenges of creating games that appeal to the lowest common denominator of the mass market.

But support for Fairplay would demonstrate that one sector of the market is not happy, right?

People are never happy. There are regular calls for books, DVDs and CDs to be cheaper, but they don't get much attention either outside their respective industries. Consumers always want things to cost less - and that's a natural, healthy market force.

Massive, widespread support for Fairplay would be an interesting thing - I don't know what the reaction to that would be. The industry would be in a difficult position, really, because there's a very strong argument that says that even if Fairplay makes people stop games and applies huge consumer pressure, the industry CAN'T make games cheaper, and what's more likely to happen is that a lot of publishers cancel less surefire projects to cut costs and stave off the dangers of losses through boycotts. If Fairplay is "successful" (and I doubt it will be) it could actually end up damaging development studios and strugging publishers very badly indeed.

festivala

Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
you are "incredibly annoying and patronising" by not responding and just resorting to insults

No offence intended.
Particularly as I wasn't talking to you. How can anyone get offended by me responding to someone else?

Actually, I was thinking how nice it was to have a discussion about game prices with someone that hadn't dengenerated into name-calling.

Shinji gives excellent answers too and supports them extremely well.

As it happens, I'm not too sure what to make of FairPlay personally, but if all the people who pledged on the site (over 250,000 apparently) think that something is up, then it would be prudent for the industry to take notice.

After all, these people are the so-called 'hardcore' who buy a lot of the niche titles. The real test for FairPlay is whether they can prevent sales on their 'Don't buy a game week'.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Shinji
There's also another fundamental problem - if you release a game at £20 initially, consumers WILL assume it's at that price point because it sucks. People are inherently suspicious of cheap things becuase they assume the quality must be lacking. So you'll sell to the hardcore folk who know what the product is, but you'll pick up ZERO mass market sales, which isn't good business. Market Forces 101.

I agree completely, this was entirely the focus of my last point, that setting the price of Mister Mosquito to be something reasonable, like £10 would be addressing the fact that it maybe hasn't got the longevity of other, bigger games.

Originally posted by Shinji
Crap example. Better example would be the fact that a Frames CD costs the same as a Springsteen CD in HMV.

Why was mine a crap example? Why was yours a better example? Because it suited your numbers better?

Originally posted by Shinji
S'point actually - I'm pretty sure if you released a really niche interest movie on DVD at £10, it wouldn't sell vastly more copies than it would at £20

Nonsense - I frequently buy fairly decent 'niche' films (Alex Cox' first two films, black & white horror movies) on DVD, simply because these films are only EUR10. I am 100% certain that if these were touching 'normal' DVD prices, I wouldn't even give them a second thought - I'm not that much of a fan.

Originally posted by Shinji
Hmmmm.... I don't know which Economics 101 you've been to, because that's utter rubbish. In fact, the reverse is true in general - demand sets price.

Interesting - the 'demand' for the Lord of the Rings DVD (theatrical release) was certainly there (2.5m in the first week, remember?), yet the price was kept at a relatively mediocre, and affordable EUR25.

Originally posted by Shinji
By the way, both DVD and VHS had some other key things Beta and LD didn't have - namely massive cross-industry support, the support of the rentals industry, and huge marketing. The actual price of them had a lot less to do with the availability of players and media at the end of the day.

When DVD was first introduced (I was a very early adopter), there was little or no media (literally a handful of titles), very few players and pretty low "cross-industry support". And there certainly was no support from the rental industry. None whatsoever.
This is no different to when Laserdisc was first introduced. DVD succeeded where Laserdisc failed is simply, and singularly down to the fact that the media was much, much cheaper. I am offended you even tried to argue against this.

Originally posted by Shinji
Of course this is the case. The price makes them more discerning, that's for sure.

Then what on earth are you doing crying about having seen 'no market research to support this'?

Originally posted by Shinji
However this can equally be applied to other media - when I was younger I didn't buy many CDs because I couldn't justify the price they cost.

Ah, subjectivity, where would we be without you?
Put yourself in the shoes of a younger person, who is having trouble justifying the cost of CDs right now. Now try to imagine how this same young person can justify a video game.

Originally posted by Shinji
However, and this is what you're missing, there is still nothing to suggest that the core maths Fairplay proposes - 50% pricecut = 200% sales or more - is even remotely true. Never mind the fact that even if it were, companies would still be losing a fortune under that equation because of the magic of fixed costs and step costs...

I figure right here is a good place for me to stop, since it is almost full-circle to the beginning of this entire, what are we now... 4 page discussion. Both sides of this have made the same points, time and time again. The uncertainty of what Fairplay is proposing means that each side has a counter-argument for anything the other side proposes, or says.

I, for one, am weary of this. It is a chicken-and-egg situation, and is now on the verge of breaking down into insults. I would gladly continue this argument if I actually thought that we were moving towards any kind of conclusion.

But I'll probably keep up the insults

Shinji

BTW do you have to finish every other sentence with 101? it's incredibly annoying and patronising.

Oops, forgot about this bit. I'm not really finishing every other sentence with it to be fair, and it's not intended entirely seriously - wasn't me who used it originally in the thread, I think it may have been ObeyGiant? It's just used to highlight stuff which is fairly rudimentary economics knowledge (and really not up for debate )

Actually, I was thinking how nice it was to have a discussion about game prices with someone that hadn't dengenerated into name-calling.

Heh, I've been enjoying it as well - in fact, I've done sod all work today as a result. Oops.

As it happens, I'm not too sure what to make of FairPlay personally, but if all the people who pledged on the site (over 250,000 apparently) think that something is up, then it would be prudent for the industry to take notice.

Ahh.... That's how many visits the site has had, if I'm reading Stuart's post on the EDGE forum correctly. Dunno how many people voted in the poll though. Bear in mind that the campaign was carried on a lot of yank websites too, which will have artificially boosted stats for a UK-based campaign....

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Shinji
If Fairplay is "successful" (and I doubt it will be) it could actually end up damaging development studios and strugging publishers very badly indeed.

Just so everyone knows - the petition off the Fairplay site has approximately 10,000 signatures at this stage.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Shinji
I think it may have been ObeyGiant?

I resent that - it was sceptre.

tHE vAGGABOND

I think you can break it down quite simply..

a) Do you think that making games all cost £20/£25 in the shops will lead to lots more people buying games, maybe the people who warez games now, or casual players who may only buy a game every so often. Making games this price will lead to more sales, as the above mentioned people will buy more games that will offset the price drop.

b) or do you think that the current model is unfair, but works for everyone. We have to pay over the odds for lots of games, but it means that companies stay in business and more games get made.

I think people either support a or b

Im a B myself

festivala

Originally posted by Shinji
I'm sorry, but this is the truth outside the happy little world you apparently occupy. Look at the UK music charts. As games become more mainstream, they are reaching audiences of people who are simply less intelligent, less likely to demand (or want) innovation or challenge, and that's a fact. The same is absolutely true of music, films, even books, certainly television. Take your politically correct nonsense elsewhere - if you want a discussion about commercial and economic realities, you need to accept the basic reality of the marketplace first.

My 'politically correct nonsense' are my ideals. I hold on to my ideals. They are important. From little acrons...etc.
Just because people are dimwits doesn't mean I have to lower myself. All change comes from here, not from world-weary cynicism.

By the way, the people who originally made those comments to me - about the changing intellectual demographic of game consumers - have for the most part been games developers (including some very well-known and respected ones like Jon Hare) talking about the challenges of creating games that appeal to the lowest common denominator of the mass market.

Again, I accept that but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it. Have to keep striving for better.

The games industry was caught out once before shoving out pap and they got caught out.

Massive, widespread support for Fairplay would be an interesting thing - I don't know what the reaction to that would be. The industry would be in a difficult position, really, because there's a very strong argument that says that even if Fairplay makes people stop games and applies huge consumer pressure, the industry CAN'T make games cheaper, and what's more likely to happen is that a lot of publishers cancel less surefire projects to cut costs and stave off the dangers of losses through boycotts. If Fairplay is "successful" (and I doubt it will be) it could actually end up damaging development studios and strugging publishers very badly indeed.

Again, it would be handy to see the current figures. I am being cynical and naturally assuming that the publishers are lying to us about the costs.

festivala

Um, we've kind of gotten away from the original point of this thread no?

That EDGE, eh?

Great or rubbish?

sceptre

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
I resent that - it was sceptre.

My fault entirely (of course I didn't expect everyone else to start)

Originally posted by festivala
Um, we've kind of gotten away from the original point of this thread no?

That EDGE, eh?

Great or rubbish?

Lost its way. I used read it occasionally (but then I've never in my life been a hardcore gamer). There's far too much style over substance in the thing now. Still the odd good feature or regular but I wouldn't buy it now. I'd probably read it if someone left it lying around but I'd complain about the content.

Swifty

Compared to all those other mags like PS2 POWAH!! and TOTALLY XBOX!! its a pretty damn good read. I don't agree with most of their reviews though, just two of the top of my head are 7/10 for GTA3 and 6/10 for FFX (utter Géism). Plus I don't like they way they respond to some of the letters sent into the inbox section, some of their responses are completely feckin ignorant. Their articles are fairly good though (although this months one on the xbox was fairly poor tbh). I enjoy reading the columns too, yer man Red Eye is an utter fúcknut though.

I like buying it because it looks so damn cool too. €7.50 is bit on the expensive side like but LOOK HOW SHINY AND COOL IT IS! Anyone got the issue with the Atari 'moving sticker' thingy on the front? - 0wnage