Slashdot Mirror
High Price Scare Tactics
GamesIndustry.biz has comments from Mark Rein, VP of Epic Games, stating that he considers the recent talk about sky high game and console prices nothing but scare tactics on the part of large publishers. From the article: "'I guess they just don't have productive tools like we have,' he went on to suggest."
£35 for a newly released (PC) game is already sky-high. £5 higher and its not going to sell anywhere near as well until it drops in price. I'm not as up to date on the console situation, but I believe the cost of console games is even higher in the UK.
Not that it matters, I never buy games until 6-12 months after they've been released just because of the £10-15 price drop.
Well, duh. When your pony's one trick is looking good, you're not about to go trumpeting the virtue of speedy ponies, strong ponies, or clever ponies, are you?
I mean, c'mon. Take a look at the content of Epic Games' front page navigation box:
This is akin to the VP of 3DO saying, "Of course it's about little plastic military figurines--and anyone who says otherwise is just a jerk with a silver spoon up his ass!"
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
The last thing I need is EA dictating what the rest of the video game industry's need. What EA doesn't tell you is that the $50 cazillion budget incorporates fees paid to the NFL for exclusivity player licenses. It also includes lawyer compensation expenses.
Gamers aren't fucking stupid. If only big name companies with a trillion dollar budget can make a PS3 game, this is the end of the industry as we know it.
Hardware is expensive and good developers are expensive - also gaming is growing at such a rapid rate, even with all the expense, so they know that it will sell, and if it's a good game, well worth it in my eyes.
Am I the only one who remembers when Strider for Genesis was and Street Fighter II for SNES was $70? Yes, they were cartridges and you could argue now that were more expensive than CD/DVDs to produce. The best bargain has got to PC games, price usually drops in half in 6-12 months. After 18-24 months they cost $20.
"We're going to make our next generation games for only 50 per cent more than our last generation games," Rein bullishly claimed
Okay, so a last-gen $50 game costs new-gen $75. That's about what previous reports said. Odd.
Game prices haven't changed that awfully much in the last ten years, if anything they went down. Console prices seem to be lower. I never remember being able to buy a console for $99 like the GameCube before the next generation was released.
I always thought the difference between the first Metal Gear Solid and its two sequels is that the first one didn't suck.
And exactly how is saying "graphics aren't everything" snobbish? If that's how we're defining the word, here is a list of other snobbish things to say:
1 - Fashion isn't everything.
2 - Syntax isn't everything.
3 - Presentation isn't everything.
4 - Make-up isn't everything.
5 - Superficial nonsense isn't everything.
Have you ever heard anything so snobbish in your entire life?
Open Source MMORPG projects are starting to put control back into the hands of the RPG community. Like MUDs before them, MMORPGs will one day be run by a community of volunteers. If players choose to pay those volunteers then all the better.
The biggest thing holding this back is the creation of art: maps, character models, items, 2d graphics. There's a new project LessShift to develop this art. Will you help?
How we know is more important than what we know.
It seems to be a fairly standard business practice these days. Make suggestions that your product could go up in price and people subconsciously start preparing to pay more. That's also why new technologies are always expensive ("it'll be expensive to start because of economics of scale but will come down in price soon", then end up with $50 games and $30+ DVDs). It works, so why shouldn't they push it a bit more?
Damien
Scare tactics... provided by Jee Dubya, the master.
Is it going to be a holy war of t3h games?
Finally, a post on Slashdot telling people not to buy games is going to in no way have any impact on an international marketplace, ever. God Bless.
Update For for the dupe. Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement.
With all the new games requiring a dozen programmers or so, will technologies like this bring back the concept of the one or two person commercial game? Artwork is obviously still a major hurdle, but there are many places to purchase models if you need to. And, finally, anyone know if this will be available for mod developers with the next Unreal game, or only to those who fork over the big bucks for an engine license?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
After all, what do you think Steam is all about? It's about killing the used games market, though too little and too late.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
After a new game system comes out I nefariously wait several years before purchasing it. That way I'm able to get it at a serious bargain!
I finally just got around to buying a brand new PS1 and a N64. Now I just need someone to tell me what the top 20 games are for each one.
Would anyone expect him to say anything else? Epic is shopping Unreal 3 around to licensees. So ... do you think we would say something like "your production budget will go through the roof" or will he say something like "our tools are going to save you money while you make big games"?
This is a comment from a person who obviously never actually plays the games, just looks at marketing material and screenshots.
The difference between MGS and MGS3 is mainly in the minor changes made to gameplay. Camoflage. Food. Survival. The "outdoors" world. These are mostly small, but they have a huge impact on the way you play the game. (There are also the enhancements to gameplay from MGS2, but these are also minor.)
Sure, the graphics are nice, but you could have made this game for the PSX with its crappy graphics and pretty much had the same compelling experience.
Who are you going to trust on this? Some VP from a 2nd-rate development house, or Hideo Kojima?
Graphics are nice. Gameplay is king.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
"'I guess they just don't have productive tools like we have,' he went on to suggest."
That's not a nice way to refer to your employees.
The ______ Agenda
"What's the difference between the first Metal Gear Solid and the latest Metal Gear Solid? Right, it's - wow, the graphics!" Well, that, and: 1: A first person camera mode that allowed you to shoot enemies with great preciscion. 2: A Camoflauge system that allowed you to hide from your enemies in a more sensible way. 3: Plot. 4: Main characters (Snake to Raiden to Big Boss) 5: Persistant bodies, requiring some forethought before killing every enemy in sight. 6: Tranqualizer darts, allowing you to go through the game without killing anyone (its hard, but possible). 7: Enemy guards radioing for backup. 8: Numerous weapon changes. 9: Several improvements to melee combat. 10: Several different ways to move around (hanging from rails, for example) There are more, of course. The impact of the gameplay enhancements is shown in the Gamecube release of MGS1. Yes, the graphics are better, but many of the gameplay additions introduced in MGS2 are there, making it a different game, which shows in the fact that the FPS camera makes the game a LOT easier. Graphics are the least important aspect of video games. Otherwise, everyone would be playing War3 instead of Starcraft. Sure, its nice to have some eye candy, but you won't keep playing the game for twenty hours just to look at the pretty images. Its the bait. The gameplay is the hook.
Beyond the Polygons : Because 50,000 polygo
"What's the difference between the first Metal Gear Solid and the latest Metal Gear Solid? Right, it's - wow, the graphics!"
Well, that, and:
1: A first person camera mode that allowed you to shoot enemies with great preciscion.
2: A Camoflauge system that allowed you to hide from your enemies in a more sensible way.
3: Plot.
4: Main characters (Snake to Raiden to Big Boss)
5: Persistant bodies, requiring some forethought before killing every enemy in sight.
6: Tranqualizer darts, allowing you to go through the game without killing anyone (its hard, but possible).
7: Enemy guards radioing for backup.
8: Numerous weapon changes.
9: Several improvements to melee combat.
10: Several different ways to move around (hanging from rails, for example)
There are more, of course.
The impact of the gameplay enhancements is shown in the Gamecube release of MGS1. Yes, the graphics are better, but many of the gameplay additions introduced in MGS2 are there, making it a different game, which shows in the fact that the FPS camera makes the game a LOT easier.
Graphics are the least important aspect of video games. Otherwise, everyone would be playing War3 instead of Starcraft. Sure, its nice to have some eye candy, but you won't keep playing the game for twenty hours just to look at the pretty images.
Its the bait. The gameplay is the hook.
Beyond the Polygons : Because 50,000 polygo
This is simple economics; economists would refer to this as 'price discrimination'. The basic idea is to charge everybody as much as they're willing to pay for it. Now, they can't interview you beforehand and ask 'how much are you willing to pay' like that and get a valid answer and hope to sell it to you at that price, so they do this instead. Some people are obviously willing to pay $$$$$ for a new computer game. Some aren't. So, they keep a good sky-high price for a month or two, and then drop the price down gradually so the next set of people who want it are willing to get it, until it ends up in the $5 bargain bin.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
"You know, people are such snobs, with this 'oh, it's not about graphics' thing. That's such nonsense. It's totally about graphics. What's the difference between the first Metal Gear Solid and the latest Metal Gear Solid? Right, it's - wow, the graphics!"
Technically, he's right. Metal Gear Solid (PS1) is inferior graphics to MGS3: Snake Eater (PS2). But, the REAL statement should have been:
"Why did the first Metal Gear Solid sell so well? It was an amazing game and it looked great. Why is Metal Gear Solid 3 selling so well? It's an amazing game and it looks great."
Graphics are important, true. But gameplay FAR outclasses that for gamers. Why do you think Madden games sell every year? They basically look the same every year. What they tweak is the gameplay, the techniques, the challenge, etc. The graphics are hardly improved. KOTOR (xbox) and Super Smash Brothers Melee (Gamecube) weren't anything special in the graphics department (although they are both nice looking). They were amazing games, and sold accordingly.
...when I know of at least one game specialty store that's getting ready to add a "value" section on their walls EXCLUSIVELY of new titles 19.99 and under.
Further, the prices for almost all the non-EA PSP launch titles have backed down from 50$ to 40$.
The writing is on the wall and game prices are going down.
--Moo.
"[Graphics are] the bait. The gameplay is the hook.
;)
Wow...you deserve a +5 insightful just for this one line! Good job
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
It's not just because my system is on the verge of being kin to dinosaurs, it's game prices. I stopped playing console games seriously, way back in 1997 roughly. Game prices are just too high. You figure a good system, even a year after launch is still $150+. That's just the console, 1 lame ass controller, no memory card and no game. That's it. Another $30 for a second controller (unless you get a really crappy third party one cheaper), another $15+ for a memory card, and [b]1[/b] game around $40+ you're looking at $250-300 for just one system, capable of 2 player games, able to save games, with 1 game. That's outrageous. I'm sorry but all that for just a single game? Not gonna do it. Now take into consideration some of the best games are not cross platform so you're more than likely going to need 2 out of whatever big 3 systems are around (or a PC version if avaible) that's another $300 down the drain. Sure people can site the GameCube as a great price machine which it is, but it's lowered price isn't cause it's sold so well in America it's just that way so Nintendo can attempt to keep up with the popularity of the PS2 and Xbox1. Also take into consideration after you drop that $300 roughly for a system that's been out a while (less you paid the $300 on release day + prices of mem card, game and 2nd controller, you're looking at $40+ for additional games that are somewhat recent. Which leads into todays prices that are rising. I am a Walmart shopper. When I was younger I thought ya know, it's a store for poor people. Cheap stuff, discounts everywhere etc Then when I was older and got jobs and saw how much games cost at big chain stores like Best Buy or EB compared to Walmart, I saw how much department retail saved on video games. That was until all of a few years ago. I can walk into Best Buy and pick up Half Life 2 for $55 roughly, Walmart? $49.95. I'm sorry but when they used to sell for $10-15 cheaper and now you're lucky if you can get $5 at Walmart of all places. Hell a better example. Before they closed all the local K-Marts here, I went in to check their prices on Half Life 2. I go to their computer games isle and theres not many recent big name titles. Not one copy of HL2. I ask a Electronics clerk if there are any copies he tells me K-Mart never sells copies. I asked him why, and he says "There's just no way to sell them. For what we'd have to sell them no one would pay for. Since we are a very discounted store, the managers didn't figure people would pay $65 for it". I mean come on, not only would it have been $65 (2+ months after release btw) at [b]K-Mart[/b] of all places, but the fact the stores new that people wouldn't pay that much and simply could not sell them tells you something here. And as such I'm a PC gamer. Hardware upgrading aside, PC games are just as bad almost. Walmart STILL want's $50+ for Half Life 2. And sure most people say wait the 6-12 months to buy it at the reduced price. Guess what within 6 months the fucking expansion will be released and you're even further behind in the game than most people. Same for any game really; by the time you wait the obligatory time for the price to drop, EVEN at discount department stores like Walmart, something else is already released you want just as much as that game you've been waiting on. Oh look HL2 dropped to $40 but look WoW is out now. Wait on WoW to drop in price (or if you can even find it in some cases) and by then the next game you're waiting on is out. I don't know about you but i refuse to fall into this endless cycle of being 1 full game behind my friends and peers. By the time you'd get to HL2 people would be onto some other game or some new expansion which you can't buy cause you just waited on HL2's price to drop. And so on and so forth. People wonder why piracy is so rampant, here's an idea don't ask us for an arm, a leg, our soul, first born child and the last 10 years off our life in exchange for a game. I just thank whatever god there may be that I do not play EA titles nor will I ever. I'd be god damned if I was going t
Aw Frell this
You know, before I got the joke I thought you were referring to their ability to procreate...
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Funny, most of these points sound like a checklist describing Thief or Hitman...
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Vega Strike http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/ has made a big step ahead artwork-wise in its recent 0.4.3 release.
Day Of Defeat (reportedly) started as a free mod, before it was bought by Valve. There are still fans who make their own custom maps and release them for free.
So things are difficult but not hopeless.
C - the footgun of programming languages
1: A first person camera mode that allowed you to shoot enemies with great preciscion.
Wow. They reinvented the FPS. Amazing.
2: A Camoflauge system that allowed you to hide from your enemies in a more sensible way.
Ah, yes, the magic "change clothing in face paint in the middle of a firefight with 10 guards so that magically they suddenly can't see you" system. Instead of the traditional sneak past the guards, you can now wear face paint and walk straight past them.
3: Plot.
Huh? MGS had plot. MGS2 and MGS3 didn't.
4: Main characters (Snake to Raiden to Big Boss)
Snake is Big Boss. Don't kid yourself. And Raiden sucked.
5: Persistant bodies, requiring some forethought before killing every enemy in sight.
Wrong. Guards fade out after you kill them, it takes about 30 seconds.
6: Tranqualizer darts, allowing you to go through the game without killing anyone (its hard, but possible).
You could make it through MGS without killing anyone except bosses too, without the tranq gun. The tranq gun is only for people who were too inept to sneak past the guards and instead have to put them all to sleep.
7: Enemy guards radioing for backup.
First one had that.
8: Numerous weapon changes.
Purely cosmetic, they all function basically the same.
9: Several improvements to melee combat.
Ah, yes, CQC. Always struck me as rather pointless in a game where you're supposed to be sneaking past the guards, but, whatever.
10: Several different ways to move around (hanging from rails, for example)
First game did that too.
In fact, there are a million games like that. The reason people play MGS is because... of the graphics! MGS has always been about the graphics. People need to remember that when MGS was released, those graphics were excellent for the PS1 at the time. MGS2 is what sold the PS2, showing off the amazing graphics. MGS3 - well, just kinda sucked because it's graphics weren't a large improvement. And MGS4 is probably going to be the PS4's largest selling point.
Regardless of whether or not the game is any good.
The first game woke up the game industry that they could be doing better. And now they do. Looking back, none of the MGS games are really all that great. Better games have come out since them.
The AAA-title end of the game industry is rapidly approaching a cost/benefit barrier that current development practices will not be able to surmount.
Two facts are primarily responsible:
1 - Reinventing game engine technology from scratch for every title is cost prohibitive and slow.
"In the limit, all graphics rendering technologies tend to approximate ray-tracing [+ radiosity, etc]" -Unknown
2 - Recreating game content (art and code assets) to take advantage of improving technology becomes exponentionally more expensive as we approach the asymptotic limits of "perfect" technical fidelity, and simultaneously offers diminishing payoffs.
"They're selling us the same games year after year, with small incremental content updates" -any sports game fan
Therefore, in the future, game technology needs to scale up/down freely with hardware capability and adapt "finalized" content to an appropriate level through pre/dynamic simplification or procedural/simulated detail increase.
This is taking place to some extent already, with limited reuse and extension of game technology platforms and content in similar games and sequels (Unreal, Doom, Half-Life, etc), but the industry remains short-sighted and fails to address to-the-limit scalability.
Current content and platforms are also overwhemlingly monolithic, and there's no hard limiting technical reason why there cannot be increasing modularity.
Imaging playing a game using Doom's graphics technology, Enemy Territory's gameplay, Unreal's networking & mods, Half-Life's physics system, TeamSpeak's voice technology, and Xfire's buddy-list, or any such combination as you like, on any platform.
Sigh. I hope I'm not too old and disabled to play games when computing technology finally grows up.