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."
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.
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.
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?
More people need to start following your lead. If you see a game that's priced out of the norm £40 for the UKers, $55-$60 for the Americans, etc...skip it.
I don't care how good the game is or how long you've been waiting. Wait until the price drops, then rush the store. We've been paying artificially high prices for games for a long time. Last year, some publishers finally got smart, and gave us discount games like Katamari Damacy, Gungrave: Overdose and the ESPN sports titles.
Reward the good companies willing to stick their neck out like that, and punish the ones just trying to stick their hands out into your wallet.
Eventually, the publishers will notice that there are pathetic sales for the games in their first weeks out of the game, and phenomenal numbers after the price drop. Then maybe they'll get it.
Maybe.
Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
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
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.
The price hasn't changed in a long time, and there have been no attempts to change the mainstream prices significantly, so we can't possibly know if the current games price is the optimum price or not. The market is constantly growing and changing after all; most significantly, it is getting older.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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"?
That's just not true.
PC game prices have changed. 3 years ago PC game prices were on par with console game prices. Developers realized that they weren't selling at that price though, and now the typical PC game sells for $35 instead of $49. (Blizzard and LucasArts seem to be the exception to the rule. They must put crack in their games because people buy them at any price they stick on the box.)
This EA exec seems to forget that there's more to games than gameplay and graphics. Any two-bit hack can whip up gameplay and graphics to some extent these days. They're becoming commodity. The costs are in the content. You'd think they'd know that having just shelled out millions for NFL licenses.
Let EA raise their prices. Every other developer on the planet that lives in the real world will eat their lunch.
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
"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.
I just hope they kill off the Unreal 1 code this time and rewrite the pawn as one class instead of three layers of inheritance. All of these different layers make the code unreadable since you have to search three or four classes when you want to know what exactly that function does or how it's implemented. It took me a few days to get accustomized to Doom 3, to this day I still don't understand the code in UT 2004.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Why are you "behind" with those releases? Are your friends the kinds of gamers that always want the newest and greatest? If a game is outdated by the time it hits the bargain bin, was it really worth full price? Don't think of it as being behind, think of it as getting a better product (i.e. all the patches already available, you avoid any launch trouble) at a lower price. The only two PC games I paid full price for lately were Doom 3 and HL2 and neither was worth it. By the time they hit the bargain bin the first mods might be in usable states and you'll again get more for less.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.