Slashdot Mirror
Industry Asks Gamers To Pay More
Last week we mentioned a Guardian post about secondhand games, with some industry commentary that the secondhand market was lowering the innovation expectations of developers. Today, the Gamers With Jobs: Press Pass reacts to the whining of the poor underpaid developers: "The always candid David Jaffe wrote: 'You know what? Why the **** should we even try anymore?' while Epic's CliffyB noted: 'What other entertainment medium that's mass market is at $60 a pop?' Cliffy would seem to have the right of it. The used market for DVDs, or CDs is relatively small. Why? Presumably because getting a five dollar discount on a fifteen dollar DVD is not as enticing as thirty dollars off of a sixty dollar game; when it's only five bucks, the natural desire to buy something perfect and new will, in most cases, outweigh thriftiness. While I certainly sympathize with Mr. Jaffe's frustration on this matter, his concerns are a result of working for an industry which refuses to intelligently adapt to a changing marketplace."
Well, there's certainly lots of MMO's out there that charge per month. And of course the indy games that are free, or some that are cheap, like 10-30. I think the game industry is facing a big change, one way or another.
Right now i do a mix of buying games and pirating them. If games cost less, I would buy all that I use. Alternatively, if they had less stringent copy protection, I could give games to family members so two of us could enjoy a game and I wouldn't feel quite so ripped off.
PS. not all of us make $50,000/yr or even $30,000/yr. Working for a non-profit does not pay very well.
No.
Work smarter not harder.
Demented But Determined.
But they don't seem to fall as quickly as they used to, and I haven't seen this nearly as much for the console games.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
When you look at the value you're getting, $50 or so for a game is reasonable. Many games will give you months of entertainment. The cost per hour is extremely low when compared to renting a movie or going to the theater. Just my two cents.
http://religiousfreaks.com/I know of at least 4 more people off the top of my head who own PS1's or PS2's who only have a handful of games because they're just too expensive. Are all my friends and coworkers cheapskates, or could it be that the industry has been so blinded by the "hardcore" gamers that they've alienated the much larger market of casual gamers due to difficulty levels and prices that are beyond the reach of the casual gamer?
... they're getting one salary for essentially two (or more) full time jobs. at least the poor fools working at E.A. (unless E.A. has changed...)
To David Jaffe from game consumers: "With the polished turds your industry has been throwing against the wall lately... You know what? Why the **** should we even buy anymore?"
If you created decent games, we wouldn't mind paying full price and guess what? We'd actually keep them rather than sell them as second hand. Wow! What a novel solution.
It's annoying, but sometimes when a game first hits the shelves you'll see it for $39 or so, and then a week or two later the price will jump up to $49. It's not always the case, but I've had that happen to me with more than a few titles that were trying to make an impact right off the bat - even Half-Life (the original) did this back in '98, and was significantly cheaper on release day.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Gamers tell industry to expect more piracy.
Technoli
If they want to keep their games from having the ability to be sold second hand, they need only sell them exclusively on steam or another content distribution system. HL2 even sold in stores, but the CD-Keys were only good for one activation on steam and you were not able to resell the games. They didn't sell additional CD-Keys to stores like EB-Games.
:)
The publishers (who use CD Keys) do sell cd-keys to stores so their games can be resold...so really it's their own fault on that front as well.
The publishers need to get a clue. There are very few games that i would ever even consider spending 50 bucks on. The only one i ever have was HL2 and that's because....i'm a HL addict.
Its either, an FPS/Driving/Sports/or a MMPORG. Rename, Repacakge, Repeat. I dont mind buying a game new for 50 bucks if its something that will entertain me for a while, but there has been nothing thats grabbed my attention in a long while.
I am unwilling, however, to pay 50 dollars for a game, and then have to pay 10-15 dollars a month for the previledge of playing with my friends online.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
"We'd pay your prices if XX didn't suck." Sadly, that's not really a new statement, and it's by no means restricted to the gaming world. Movies/movie theatres are facing this phenomenon as well, and books/music to a lesser degree. As a general rule, innovation for the last few years has been facing a distinct downtrend. Rather than huge leaps, we've been making small nudges forward at refining what we have. Part of the reason for this is that sequels are safe, and new material isn't. Yet another version of Battlefield:Earth? Quake 99? NFL Madden 3,000,192? Those are safe, predictable sources of income. The only sequel that truly tanked in the last year or two was Tribes, may it rise again. New titles are risks, and companies don't like those. Ever heard of Savage: The Battle for NewErth? It's a beautiful cross of RTS and FPS... but that game only did "okay" because no one knew about it - no publicity, no risk. Part of this is on the consumer; how many of us buy games we know nothing about except the back of the box? Innovation is dying; partially because companies aren't taking the risk... and partially because the consumers aren't, either.
The ability to communicate well does not directly correspond to the ability to communicate intelligently.
Gamers ask industry to make less shitty recycled games.
It takes me back the the early 1990s when used music CDs were a controversy, with Garth Brooks giving interviews on how it was killing his industry. A local indy music shop began using that to market its used CD section.. "Come on down and piss off Garth Brooks!" It was a smashing success, and I think they may still have the sign up somewhere.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
My only comment regards the lack of change of price of games compared to the cost to produce them is the one factor I feel you might be missing... 20 years ago playing "video" games was much more of a minority market. Whereas now it is a major market, thus they are making far more profit due to having a vastly bigger market
Motion picture developers though [and to a lesser degree musicians] don't use media sales as their primary income source. They've likely recouped costs from the theatre before a single DVD is ever made.
Game developers only get money from media sales. They also suffer under a publishing oligarchy comperable to the RIAA, who takes up to $25 per product. Going from $25-35 to $5 after discount is by far more damaging than any DVD or CD discount could ever be.
Games cost a lot of money compared to a Movie, and partly this is because they do not effectively pursue multiple tiers of revenue. At $60 a lot of people simply will never buy your game. At $10 a lot of people will never pay to see a single showing of a movie. For movies, they first release in theaters at an exorbitant price for a single showing. Next it goes to second run theaters that charge less, but still a fair bit for a single showing. Then they on release on DVD, often getting people who paid the first time to buy another version, this time at a more reasonable price. DVD prices generally drop over time to help incentivise those who would not buy at the original price, but will buy a bargain. Then they play the movie on TV for "free" generating ad revenue. Movie studios collect money all along the way and thus each stage can actually be cheaper.
Here's my new model for gaming revenue. First, make new games only playable at gaming "arcades" like gaming cafes and the like. These venues may have to be invented by the game company to start, but once the profit model is shown they will become more common. Next, release the game on DVD or CD and slowly lower the sale price over time. Finally, release free, ad supported versions of the game and make money from ad revenue.
Is this practical? Who knows. The thing is, games are often very poorly offered at only one price point and, like movies are not something everyone wants to keep. It is that or I'll just keep buying four year old games from the bargain bin.
Really? Could you list some games released within the past 3 years that have 'months' of replay value? And no, user made content doesn't count.
And for the record, the last game I played was Call of Duty 2. I beat it on Average on a weekend. No cheats. Haven't touched it since. 'Borrowed' it from a friend who beat it himself and got bored with it. Online play bores us both since we don't have the time to memorize maps, weapon sounds, develop a twitch reaction time and deal with all the idiotic kiddies online.
Agreed. There is a much larger market available now than there has been in the past. The increase in cost can be justified and negated through many various arguments.
The core issue is as always profits. An average joe doesn't want to have to pay more than he feels he should have to. The companies releasing the games want/need to make as much money as they for many reasons beyond just lining their own pockets.
The main problem I have with the current industry is if the damn game sucks... They should refund me the cost, time, and sometimes effort wasted dealing with their issues. Typically these are the games where the users have to debug the companies game to figure out exactly what the hell is wrong. In some cases, taking months for the company to resolve their products issue. That is if they will do anything at all once they've made their buck from you.
While I enjoyed both games very much, I don't plan on playing them again - I've already extracted all the fun from both. Thus, it's a lot better for me to spend $6 on a rental then $50 on a purchase.
On the other hand, games that offer high replay value by being easy to learn but hard to master (such as music games or puzzle games), I often think worth it to buy new. These games often don't become obsolete by better hardware as action games often do (example: compare, say, Top Gun on NES to Ace Combat 4 on PS2) mainly due to the fact that they don't concentrate on hardware - DDR, for instance, despite being on 4 different consoles, remains fundementally the same while being fun even now. The icing on the cake is that these games are often priced at $35 or less when they first come out - and will often provide months to years more gameplay then the latest action fix.
You're right, I left that aspect out. According to The Entertainment Software Alliance, 105M units were sold in 1996 (the furthest back I could find data), compared to 248 million units sold in 2004. If we generously assume that the market was half that size in 1987, then ~55M units were sold in 1987.
A quarter of the games were sold, to cover development budgets of approximately 1/80th of modern development.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
'You know what? Why the **** should we even try anymore?'
When do they even try anymore? There hasn't been any innovation in the industry in years.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
Certainly it would be impossible to refund you the time you spent on dealing with issues of crappy games.
However, if you buy your games from smaller video game stores, such as Super Software and Electronics Boutique, they generally have much more liberal return policies than Best Buy, CompUSA, etc. Generally, smaller stores will charge you more for a game, ($5 more), but you can return the title for up to a week for any reason whatsoever, including "this game sucked."
That's where I make the majority of my game purchases.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
First thing's first. Second hand market does so well because, well, $60 for a game that you beat in 2 days.....I can understand that. I pay less than that for my television service and it lasts and entire month. I sat down with American McGee's Alice after paying $55 for it at a local store on a Friday evening. Saturday night I had it beaten already. I bought Diablo 2 the day it came out for $65. I came home, spent 4 hours working on it to make it even work on a standard system. When I say standard it was an asus board, intel chip, nvidia video. NOTHING worked beyond the ingame vids. After that 4 hours of mucking around with it, I got it to run. I then played it an astounding 2 hours. Since then it has sat on my shelf. So not only did it waste $200 worth of my time ($50/hr instore labor, not gonna use onsite labor even thought I should) and I'm out the money for the game, but I didn't even get as much play time as I did repair time with it because the game sucked so badly. Tribes 2, again, the day it came out. Nothing but system lockups and other anomolies. The only game producer I know of that actually consistantly puts out games that don't crash constantly (not to say they don't have issues, but atleast they do RUN out of the box) is Id Software.
Let's not forget about companies like Valve. I bought HL way back when and though I wasn't happy with it's netcode the single player was worth playing....for awhile. Until you go to the alien planet, but that's another story. So I start playing CS online with it and get used to the game play. Valve all of a sudden releases their new netcode. I have to say "thanks for trying to fix your mistakes" but they took it too far. The new netcode was horrible and nothing ticks someone off more than getting killed by someone when you're halfway across the map from where they shot. Basically, their new updates made THAT game worthless to me and has since sat on a shelf.
Everything said up until now has just been examples. I could fill an entire office full of paper with the various issues I've had over the year.
I used to spend anywhere from $2-5k on games a year. Not hardware, just the game titles themselves. However over the years, the games take longer to be released (understandable since there's more to do....in some ways), they are lower quality, and quite frankly rushed to market. Imagine if Ford put a vehicle out there with bad tires on it.....oh wait..... Point being, products are being put out before they are ready. This frustrates and angers the person who paid for the product.
Why on EARTH should we pay $50-80 for a game that we'll have to spend days, weeks, or even months helping fix flaws in the game before we can even use it for what we intended...stress/frustration relief. That's like selling someone a car that backfires any time you give it gas, the windows will only roll halfway down, and every so often it evacuates the cooling system on it's own. "Oh, well, you can bring it into the shop and we'll fix that for you. We found that problem". Of course that problem causes another problem so you have to wait to get that one fixed. Or better still, you buy a car that won't move. The engine will run, all electronics work, but it just sits there in your driveway. 3 months later, the automanufacturer delivers the transmission to your house but you have to install it yourself.
Don't get me wrong, I understand software flaws and they can happen. But if the flaws are there from the day it was published as ready...that's just wrong. And going back to one of my earlier statements, I once spent $2-5k/yr on games. Last year I spent a whole $150 buying games. Why? Because I refuse to pay for something that is suppose to be for entertainment but I have to work (unpaid mind you) to be able to properly use it.
If the game producing industry doesn't get their heads out of their ***** then they're going to soon find themselves in the same boat as the Recording and Movie industry. People don't mind paying top dol
I know a lot of people in the development community. UO and UO2 programmers, a designer for Galaxies, people from Digital Anvil, EA, Microsoft. Most of them make enough in 8 months to take 4 months off a year collecting unemployment. One is about to head back to work because he's blown through the $30,000 he had in his savings account after his last contract was up (was a gig with Microsoft). His new job is level design and mission scripting for a PS3 game. The pay is $50 hour plus double pay for overtime. So he'll work for 6 months then take the rest of the year off to play Warcraft. I have no sympathy.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
I fall into the category of "casual gamer." Which means I've got a day job that lets me *afford* games, I don't have the time to cope with anything that's going to eat my life learning how to play. But that's not the major reason I've pretty much quit buying games.
The major reason is the nasty, intrusive and ugly copy protection, and yes, I mean *YOU*, Half-Life 2. The dozen or so times I tried to play the game, EVERY STINKING TIME I STARTED IT UP the program would run out to Steam's servers and ask "mother may I," making it VERY plain that Valve regards everybody who buys its game as a thief or thief wannabe. It also extended what should have been a less than thirty second startup time into five to ten minutes.
I got tired of being bitch-slapped by Valve's nastiness. Also, consider this: I can't sell the game to the used market because, once registered, you're pretty much stuck with the thing.
Feh!
Yeah well, as far as I'm concerned they can go back to making 2d games with SNES level graphics and sell them for less, seeing that the technology has been perfected.
Oh wait, that's right. That's my GBA.
The thing is, not everyone wants a game for super amazing graphics, cutscenes, etc (the things that are MAKING games cost so much more to produce). Some people are happy with simpler games and non-cutting edge graphics. It's because of the super produced games that are generally flashy but otherwise lackluster that we're forced to pay even more money on games. They augment the cost of the blockbuster titles with the much smaller cost of easier to make titles. We're also seeing a lot of repitition because of the super blockbuster titles. Engines are being reused, companies give games a face lift and resell them with a different title. It's really getting quite bad.
I'm just glad that games that come out of nowhere, like Katamari Damacy, are able to show that great games don't have to cost a fortune to make while being affordable for the consumer as well. Eventually the industry will start to curve more toward the creative games. I'm counting on the Revolution to push this segment...because we know that non-blockbuster games aren't in MS's vision of the industry...and Sony has enough blockbuster titles to push it through without having to really change anything.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
I honestly have no problem buying new games, even if it costs a bit more, because I like to support companies that do a good job. I only have three used games and that's because I couldn't find them new at any store.
However, I'd like to make this perfectly clear: any company that takes steps to prevent me from lending games to friends or buying used games will never, ever receive another dollar of my money.
I don't see what CliffyB has to complain about. Their recent games are Unreal, UT, UT2003/2004, and the upcoming UT2007. That's one evolutionary (not revolutionary) game every 2-3 years. The other 3/4 of their releases are "Game of the Year Special Edition" deals, basically DVDs with a few nice (free) maps and mods dumped in. Even so, they're making money hand over fist.
The issue isn't that they're losing money, or even that they're just breaking even. They're upset because they're not making insane profits. These are the same complaints that we're hearing from the RIAA/MPAA. So, to the game industry: we (consumers) are good allies. We don't hate you (yet). Stop being greedy, get off the soapbox and get back to work. We'll be happy to buy any good games that you release.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
"the industry" complains about used game sales every 5 years. It's like a rule if you're in this business. Nintendo bitched about "rentals" and used game sales back in the late 80's. Companies bitched about it again in the 90's... and the cycle continues.
Oh, and the music industry does the same.
Should we expect any less though? Any industry obviously will be unhappy with any market that brings them no revenue.
$60 dollars for a video game just isnt worth it.
... Lite ... Version. Same game, shorter game. Have a $20 version of the game that has enough levels for 4-8 hours of play, and I'd buy up every new game that came out. ( FEAR, HL2, GUN, etc. )
I work full time, I have a social life, I exersize, I read, and occationally, I play computer games. I spend about 4 hours a week playing video games (monday/tuesday night).
If i wanna try the newest game, for example, right now its "F.E.A.R." i will probably play the game for 8 hours this whole month ( games are social, not gonna give up current games/clans ). So for the amount i'm gonna play the game, $60 dollars just isnt justified.
I could rent 12 movies for that price. I could buy a DVD PLAYER($40) and 2 movies, for that price.
They should make a
In fairness, I should mention, turn based strategies, and some RTS's are worth the $60 bux, such as Civ4, AgeOfEmpires3. My Price complaint is much more directed at FPS's which i enjoy in small doses.
I go into EBGames, and all the new games are around $60. Its just not worth it. I wait to buy them used, or in the discount bin. Yeah, the games are a year are 2 old, so what? When your in the heat of the battle, playing a game, lost in the game, your not nit-picking over the texture of the bark on a tree.
blah, i know i'm just rambling, I saw some other posts about indy games, and prices in the $10-$30 range. If you would provide links to these developers I would appreciate it, and I would likely check them out.
*I exclude any particular consideration of the MMO sector here since I'm not familiar enough with them to really talk about them beyond an abstract* This is mostly just observation and opinion, but...people are fickle. What they liked yesterday may change today, and vice versa. Furthermore, growth in the number of casual gamers appears a lot higher relative to that of hardcore gamers--and while some casual gamers may make that transition, I don't see it making any particularly significant difference as far as the market is concerned. While I don't have an adequate definition for either type of gamer (even though I am one myself), one characteristic of the casual gamer is that to him/her, games are primarily entertainment, socially or otherwise.--being skilled is secondary to enjoyment of the game (though it probably helps, haha). This creates a few problems: A hardcore gamer probably appreciates a game for the game more than the casual gamer, and is willing to put up with its flaws in exchange for the total experience. A casual gamer--not so much so. If it doesn't look good to them, they'll walk. If it's tough to figure out, they'll walk. If it's a chore or too difficult to play, they'll walk. I know, because I've been gradually making that transition from hardcore to casual now that I'm in college and trying to....well, live. From the casual gamer's perspective, my time and tolerances are limited, and thus I am that much more interested in saving my time and money for the experience I'm looking for. Not that this means I know what I want, just that I'm looking to buy from the someone that's holding out on me. Thus, developers (and their backers, and publishers by association) have a harder job of competing for my attention. Unlike athletes who generate revenue for their team and are paid huge sums of money even while on the injured list, there is no such guarantee for developers, whose budgets and costs continue to grow with time. And they know this. Publishers want titles that will sell, developers want to make games (driven by one reason or another) and the companies backing developer studios want their developers working on the games that publishers want to put on the shelves. On a budget, wtih deadlines and "required" features bases on what their marketing and publisher marketing thinks will sell, etc... So, you have developers that want to make the game they want to work on. Publishers, developers, and investors who want the game to be a game that they are pretty sure will make them money, therefore companies want to tell developers what kind of game to make, and gamers expecting companies (developers) and publishers to provide them with the game they want (even though they don't know what they want or even what they consider acceptable). Given all the interaction that takes place between these parties and the money being thrown around to make a game happen, it's no wonder that that things are the way they are. But here's the thing: If anything is going to change, then something has to give. What will it be? A: Gamers become more open to experimental and/or somewhat faulty games, particularly the newer and generally casual crowds. B-C: Publishers become more willing to take more risks with the kinds of games they'll take on so that companies might give developers more freedom. D: Everyone could relax on riding the technological wave, allowing developers to use technology and tools they're already familiar with instead of expecting them to create and utilize new ones "just because they're there" -- reducing costs as a side effect. I hardly think the list is all inclusive, but the point I'm trying to make with all of this is that there are issues at every link in the consumer chain which contribute in some way to the current state of affairs. And...I think I may have lost track somewhere along the way so hopefully I'm making some sense :P
Could a mod set the reply to plain old text formatting, if possible? First post and I missed the option...hopefully it will retrieve the carriage returns properly.
I'm really fed up with these gaming shops that open up EVERY copy of almost EVERY game in the store.
They keep them all locked up in a showcase, and put empty boxes on the floor.
WHY should I buy the brand new version, when they've already opened it up and rifled through it? They've probably even played it. That's not new product. Aren't there laws about selling used materials as new, any way?
-Patrick
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
I don't really know what y'all are talking about here. I just recently bought a GameCube, and Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros. were both $30 each. Considering that I have probably played Mario Kart for almost 24 hours so far, and that I've only just recently bought it, I don't really see the issue.
:P But it was also a treat whenever I rented it, and I didn't mind playing the whole thing over again each time.
There's definitely a distinction to be made from the kinds of content that most people will use over and over again (music, multiplayer games like Mario Kart, MMOGs like World of WarCraft) and the kind of media that most people will use once or twice (movies, single-player games like any RPG).
The former are worth buying because they have basically infinite replay value. The latter are worth renting. Look at the popularity of NetFlix, and what they offer: $20/month for all the movies you can watch.
Why can't a similar model work for games (especially console games, which is where the market seems to be heading)? Sure, some people will make copies. But somehow NetFlix is doing fine, despite the fact that making copies of movies is no problem at all for a technically proficient user.
I know that I grew up renting games, anyway. My parents bought me a Sega Genesis, and for a long time, whenever I was going to have a friend over who lived kind of far away (about once a month), we'd go to the video store and rent Sonic 3. I was 8 years old, so I wasn't very good, and it took me a while to beat it.
When I was a bit older I rented Final Fantasy 2 (American), and then there was the extra bonus that we lived in a small town so no one touched our save file in between times when we rented it.
If I had bought any of these games, I would have played them in one shot, and gotten sick of them very fast --- I recently played Chrono Trigger on SNES9X, and by the end of the game, I wasn't into it at all, I just wanted to play to see the ending.
So yeah. We need a NetFlix for games.
Not really. While there have been some exceptions (Thief series), most new games for the past five years have either been disappointingly short or just plain boring so that I quit playing. On the other hand, I still play Master of Orion 1&2 (never got into 3, but thatkinda reinforces my point) and Master of Magic and NetHack and Angband and its variants as well as Might and Magic and Heroes of MandM plus many others. I used to head to the software store when I wanted to play something different and now I turn to my old catalog. Partly this is not wanting to sift through the all the carp at the store looking for the few good games, and it is partly that as someone who has been playing computer games for over 25 years (god, I'm an old geek) it sometimes feels like everything is just a retread of that game I played ten or fifteen years ago. But mostly, new games are so expensive that I take less chances. I used to walk into the store and find a game that looked good and buy it knowing nothing about it but what was printed on the box and maybe an employee or fellow customer saying they liked it. I threw it in the PC and figured it out as I played. Now, with so much junk on the shelves all priced the same, I research a game before I buy it and often know all the cheat codes and the entire story line and how to get past the hard parts before laying a hand on it. I often end up not buying it because it seems like playing it would just be redundant. If I do buy a game on the spur of the moment I'm disappointed nine times out of ten and am bitter that I spent the money that could have gone to hardware or dinner out with my wife. (Ok that sounds bad but she understands.)
I guess the short of it is, if you want people to not mind paying that much money, then put out quality games that last. The parent is correct about fifty dollars not being a bad price for hours of entertainment. Where I disagree is the assumption that most games provide that.
1) I am trusted without DRM/copy protection. I can live with a CD-check (though I dislike them).
2) I can return games within a 14-day period.
In the past I have bought too many games near launch day that were junk. It was total waste of my time and money, yet the developers/distributor/retailor profited. That is not fair and the 'once we release it, the money is will flow regardless of quality' mentality is what has ruined the industry. Its easy to see that rather than innovate or battle for the best game, the past years have been about how much pre-release hype can we generate. The goal is to maximize launch day sales and pre-release orders before people can find out if the game is worth buying. Since no returns/refunds are allowed it is all about the promises, deception, and hype at launch.
The indepent game developers thrive. Smaller companies are coming into the marketplace. Take a look at the Independent Games Festival
If you look at the titles you will see a lot of reasonably priced games that are great fun, though they may not be as polished as a AAA title.
A little shameless plug for company I work for: Tribal Trouble
We are an independent developer and we intend to bring fun into games again.
If I'm using a Porsche, nobody else can use it at the same time. The Porsche is scarce. The fact that a single person is using a "copy" of software does not prevent others from using the software (on a different piece of hardware). Thus, software is not scarce. Now, a particular CD with software information on it is a scarce resource, but the information on the CD is not itself scarce.
The thing that is scarce when it comes to software is the talent required to create the first copy. This is why I believe "content" is really a service industry and things like "property rights" do not naturally apply (they currently apply by force of law). Property rights only really make sense when applied to scarce resources.
So I wouldn't call making a copy of software stealing, but I would call it breaking the law. There is a subtle difference there that I think needs to be considered.
That said, there is still the issue of how to link the value of having software to those who create software. That is - how do you get the people who use software to pay the people who create it if you don't use a "merchandise-like" scheme? The same thing applies to musicians, although they have a simpler way to generate revenue through concerts (there's no such thing, really, as a software "performance").
What could happen is that consumer software will have to become free, and all "heavy iron" software will not be available, but the use of it will be purchased from service organizations which hire, internally, people to write that software. As an early example, consider things like search: the general public doesn't buy the running software, but they use it. Organizations pay the search companies to maintain the searches - basically they are paying those companies for the use of that software. Another example is online games - consumers pay to have the service of connecting to the game servers and (aside from the initial purchase of physical media, which is arguably just another payment into the service) are paying more for the service rather than some scarce resource (ignoring the fact that some MMOG's do experience some limited resources in terms of queues and the like).
Hrm. Well, I started rambling on there, but the main point is that things will continue to get worse until people realize that ideas are not scarce and enforcing the concept that they are is just a tax on society. How to make proposals for change to those that make legislations is a task for which I am not currently prepared, however.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
And of course the indy games that are free, or some that are cheap, like 10-30.
Problem is that to my knowledge there aren't any popular gaming handhelds that are designed to run independent games. Phones generally have crappy controls and (in the United States) are locked to the carrier's online store. Nintendo and Sony gaming handhelds shut out homebrew as a side effect of shutting out piracy, though Nintendo is much less proactive than Sony in this regard. GP2X isn't available at brick and mortar retailers in the United States, nor is it advertised in the United States. What's left?
You have the option of working elsewhere
How much would it cost to move or to be retrained?
By the time I buy the game, I have (1) saved money on the game by getting it at a lower cost, (2) saved money by only buying good games, (3) saved money by getting older hardware that doesn't require a leaf blower to cool, and (4) saved time by not playing a game that turns out to be dull.
You have also (5) allowed players to get a one-year head start on gaining skill, so that there are not enough players of your skill level left, and (6) taken away one year of online play time before the game's publisher shuts down the servers permanently.
There is at my local library, and it's free. I'd be surprised if your local library didn't have a similar service available.
OK, be surprised that my local library has crap for selection of recent PC games.
A great example of a stellar game that costs a little less is Shadow of the Colossus (PS2, from the makers of the also great Ico). I was able to purchase SotC for 29.99 new at my local Gamestop. Granted, the game is only about 15 hours, but is an innovative and fun play-through, not to mention the extra content that is unlocked when you beat the game. I believe this is the type of game the author was trying to get at in this article. It is quite a bit shorter than some other adventure games out there, it's a bit cheaper, but overall it's a perfect experience.
With that out of the way, I do think $50-$60 is too much for a game. This however stems more from an industry-wide issue of development costs more than just greedy retailers. It's a big problem with few solutions. Nintendo is the only hardware company that apparently is taking steps to bring those costs down, and middleware companies like Epic are a big help too. However, it seems that's not enough...
I myself don't quite know the solution to this, although I think Nintendo's strategy of promoting smaller games based more on fun and replayability than cinematics and graphics is the most effective step, as gameplay in the end is truly all that matters. However, this solves the problem only on a limited margin. There should be some way to get those great, epic games made without multi-billion dollar budgets. I hope we find it.
I dream for the day games retail new for $30 across the board, and monthly subscriptions are as dead as dead can be.
(Curse you WoW, for taunting me so...)
Street Fighter 2, Mortal Kombat, Lethal Enforcers, Virtual Racing, Cruisin' USA - do these titles ring a bell? This was the arcade scene in the early to mid 1990s, where we all happily dumped quarter after quarter into games that would eventually go on to be pretty big hits on home consoles. Or are you implying today's dead arcade scene and tomorrow's DRM-crippled future suit you better?
I don't understand why people complain about $60 games these days, considering how high the production values and lengths of most good games are. In the 90's, the typical Super Nintendo cartridge was priced at $60 or higher, and those were mostly crappy 2D side-scrollers. Nintendo's own games averaged about $50-55 (because they didn't need to pay a licensing fee to themselves, therefore they could put their games out for less than third-party publishers).
But the point is... $60 has been the pricepoint since at leasy 1992!
User made content counts - the (good) companies take some of money you pay for the game and spend it on giving out modding tools, teaching people how to use them, promoting modding, finding the best mods and maps and distributing them to you.
Can you name a good game for Sony PlayStation 2, Nintendo GameCube, Game Boy Advance, or Nintendo DS that has decent modding tools? Or do I have to spend 5 times more for a gaming PC to sit next to the TV?
Anyone alienated by today's difficulty levels need to be sat down in front of an NES pronto.
You claim current PS2 games are easy? Go play In The Groove (PS2 NTSC U/C) and try to pass the "Breaking Point" course.
as far as I'm concerned they can go back to making 2d games with SNES level graphics and sell them for less, seeing that the technology has been perfected. Oh wait, that's right. That's my GBA.
OK, so how do you play independent games on your GBA without having to buy borderline-illegal devices?
Of course, if you're really annoyed with him over that, it makes more sense to go door to door collecting used garth brooks CDs, and putting them on amazon or half.com :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Have you been to a video arcade lately? They are still around and are full of games you can't play easily at home. Most of them have hardware that is specialized for the game
I assume that by this you mean custom controllers. Apart from redemption games (those that spit tickets), the most popular game by far at arcades I've been to is Dance Dance Revolution and other games using the same cabinet. That form factor is so old that controllers for Konami's DDR brand console games and for PC-based clones are anywhere from $20 to $200 depending on quality. Which games were you talking about?
or have large systems linked together so a number of people can all play together interactively.
You've never been to a LAN party?
You can see the movie now, not in six months when it comes out on DVD and all your friends have already seen it.
Tell that to people in Europe, who had to wait nine months for their PSP, and by then, the system's killer app had already been cloned for another system.
I've never seen HL2 take more than a minute to start up.
I've never seen Super Mario Bros. 3 take more than 1/10 minute to start up once I've cotton swabbed it.
Gotta love slashdot, where a valid opinion that goes contrary to the mainstream gets modded down as a troll. Good job, mods!
I don't know about the rest of you, but I've been bit one too many times dishing out $60.00 for the latest marketing masterpiece, to find out the game is just plain lame. after you shell out $60.00 a pop for several games that you never play more than once or twice, you stop and think twice before you put down that hard earned cash for another game. I'm more than happy to pay for games that I enjoy, and anything decent that is published for Linux I've purchased (Quake series, Doom, UT 2004, Savage, Etc.. ) to show my support for the publishers. Other games have been terrible, I received Wheel of Time for Christmas several years ago. It wouldn't install. after searching for a bit I discovered it was due to a known manufacturing defect. I followed all the directions sending in the disc for replacement, and then I waited, and waited some more, then waited a little longer, then I called, wrote letters and did whatever I could to find out where my replacement media was. Finally I contacted the attorney general and the BBB and reported them. Eventually I got a call back and assurances the replacement was on it's way. I received it in May. 5 MONTHS after I had sent in for the replacement. I still have the disc in the shrinkwrap, I lost all interest in the effort and time wasted to get the replacement. I could have obtained a warezed copy over dialup in less time. and while I'm at it why do you keep insisting on selling me games on 5 CD's ? Here's a CLUE for you, DVD Drives have been around for SEVERAL YEARS NOW.. I really don't enjoy swapping multiple CD's to install a game, you can't possibly tell me it's cheaper to press 5 CD's than One DVD. the Movie industry seems to pull it off fairly inexpensively. I have a total of 2 games on DVD. UT2004, and Quake4 and I had to jup through hoops, multiple stores and in one case order it from overseas to get ahold of the DVD versions.. COmeon why aren't these on the store shelves ? thiss attitude of unless I preorder the game a DVD version isn't to be had is just ridiculous. yeah charge me more for the priviledge of swapping CD's in the drive.. thanks for that.. and yet the game industry claims WE are the problem, WE are cheap, WE buy used instead of new, WE pirate because they won't accept returns on inferior products or games that just plain suck. I have a pointer for you, quite wasting all your money marketing to make a crappy game look good in the media, and spend that money to make the game actually GOOD !! Woah, revolutionary concept I know, but I really think you can pull it off.. Give me a decent product and I'll be happy to give you my cash, keep shoveling out the garbage you have been and my money stays in my wallet.
far...out
The recyclers don't sell $60 titles for $30 they buy them for that much and sell them back for $5-10 off at best. People buy them because the guys running the store have been trained to do everything in their power to push a chewed-up used copy without even acknowledging that a new copy might be available. Often you don't even have a choice since the recyclers rarely stock more than 1-2 copies over their pre-order total.
It's just like buying a car. Game shops don't make money selling new games for a few bucks over invoice they do it buy selling your trade-in(s) for 2-3 times what they paid for them.
The shop wins and everyone else loses. The publishers sell fewer new games, the end-users get underpaid and overpay for used games and those who want a *new* game get nothing without a pre-order. Thanks to this BS, three months post release many games are a pain in the ass if not impossible to find new. Wait a year or two and you'll have no choice but pay a premium on eBay or settle for scrathed up disc and a mangled manual if you're lucky.
Higher prices will do nothing but cut original game sales even further. What we need are... -More playable demos so that we aren't gambling by spending money on an potential pile of shit sight unseen with no hope of returning it.
-Cheap games. It's a lot easier to swallow a $20 gamble than a $60 one. At $30 or more For $20 I'm willing to experiment, get down to $9.99 for your so-so game and that's $10 you never would have gotten otherwise.
-Direct sales with incentives. Give me $5 off for buying the game online based on the playable demo. Send me a soundtrack CD, vinyly figure, faceplate or something for preordering.
I'm talking about games with toy guns attached, dancepads
Both have been available for home consoles since NES (Zapper and Power Pad). Both are available for PS2 (GunCon2 and Ignition). It also looks as if the Nintendo Revolution, with its point-and-shoot gyroscopic remote control, is about to revitalize the first-person rail shooter genre.
motorcycles or surfboards that move under you etc.
A lot of these are priced out of many United States arcades' reach or liability magnets or both.
I'm also talking about games that are networked for group play.
Xbox 1 SystemLink anyone?
With a gaming cafe, the equipment and location are there. The software is there, loaded, and up to date. You don't need to have friends, or friends who have time, since when you go, there are people there to play with.
What of this is not true of Xbox Live?
Yup. done that before. I just made a habit of just using two BR tags.
Han shot first.
know phones have crappy controls
The Nintendo DS is beating the PSP precisely because the DS has better controls (a touch screen vs. a ThinkPad style nub).
but they ARE meant to run whatever you bring to them, since they run java and it's not like it's signed or anything.
No they don't. How can I load a J2ME program onto, say, an Audiovox 8610 phone provided by Virgin Mobile? What about the "Get It Now" BS from Verizon Wireless? Given that phones without SIM cards are not generally available in the United States, which prepaid carrier do you suggest for United States residents who want to play midlets? If you recommend against prepaid phones entirely, what good is another carrier's phone and its 720 USD minimum contract ($30/mo for 24 months) if the carrier has urine-poor voice coverage in my geographic area? And what should parents buy if they want their kids having a game machine but not a phone?
And as you allude to the majority of nintendo handhelds will run homebrews from flash carts.
Game Boy and Game Boy Color flash equipment is no longer manufactured. Like the GP2X handheld, flash equipment for Game Boy Advance and Nintendo DS is available in the United States only through Internet order and is not generally advertised in the United States. Because they're aren't available at brick-and-mortar retail outlets in the United States, GBA and Nintendo DS homebrew games cannot become mainstream in nearly the way that PC freeware or shareware games have become mainstream.
Now a longer, more complex line of thought:
99BottlesOfBeerInMyF wrote: You can see the movie now, not in six months when it comes out on DVD and all your friends have already seen it.
tepples wrote: Tell that to people in Europe, who had to wait nine months for their PSP
99BottlesOfBeerInMyF wrote: What is your point? I don't see how this pertains to the discussion.
The point is that if the publisher delays the PC or console release of a video game, the free software community will quickly get to work on a clone and may have it out before the official port is released. My example was that this happened in the case of Lumines, which was cloned by the homebrew community on the GBA and the PC before it was ported to the European PSP, taking at least some of a bite out of the publisher's first mover advantage.
Well, not all phones. Not the ones that are complete shit.
Problem is that the majority of phones in the United States are complete shit. If independent game developers want to make their games accessible to the public, they have to have some way of targeting a large, easily identifiable chunk of the phone market. Otherwise it will become too difficult for potential users to see if a particular game works on the phone for which he or she is already locked into a $720 contract.
But then, if you get Verizon, again, you deserve what you get for not doing research.
It's not the independent game developers who are "not doing research"; it's the customers that the developers are trying to reach.
And you still didn't address the issue of parents who want their minor children to have a handheld machine that can play independent games but cannot make or receive voice calls to or from strangers and does not cost $720 for a 2-year contract.
I have T-Mobile [who resells Cingular] and they don't lock out much of anything
Which model of T-Mobile prepaid phone do you recommend for midlets? Given that Google search terms choosing phone midlets don't seem to result in anything, how do you suggest that I and other readers go about doing this research?
[I'm not fit enough for DDR or ITG at the higher levels,] but I can kick the crap out of anything requiring a controller or on my MAME cabinet :).
OK, how well can you do on A or V in Beatmania IIDX?
The point is to sell them the premium gaming experience in cafes first, then sell them the game for home use as well.
Point taken, but real estate is expensive, and so is staffing. Even traditional video arcades in the United States are said to be dropping like flies. Who will front the money for such a venture?
I will only spend so much money on my gaming habit. So the more games cost, the fewer games i will buy. if i currently buy a game every month or so, of they raise prices very much, i mgiht only buy a game every 1.5 or 2 months. if they lowered prices on games cnciderably, i might buy several each month, or even every week.
There's constantly new games i want coming out... but lately all i have been buying is Nintendo DS games, and conciderably more frequently than i usualy buy games... you know why? because they cost less, and tend to be very original/interesting/fun.
Take a hint, guys!
My hand touched her hand. Her hand touched her boob. By the transitive property, I got some boob! Algebra is awesome!
I have a total of 2 games on DVD. UT2004, and Quake4 and I had to jup through hoops, multiple stores and in one case order it from overseas to get ahold of the DVD versions..
But thankfully you saved upwards of 90 seconds of installation time!
Way to go!
Have you ever heard of a demo? They come in gameing magazines for console games
I have never seen a demo disc for GameCube; why is that?
Why should I pay $50 for a game that doesn't install? I just purchased Civilization IV for $39.90 from BestBuy...they are having a sale on it this week. I didn't want to pay $50 for it, but $40 was OK. HOWEVER, when I got the dumb thing home, I got a "DefaultFeature Catastrophic error" on disc 2 when I went to install it. I called the ever so helpful support line. Someone actually answered the phone! And he was helpful...as well as he could be. Apparently there is a bad disc on disc 2 on a whole lot of packages, because this guy said they have been getting a lot of calls about this recently. The only solution is to go back to the store and swap it out. I'll be taking a laptop with me to make sure what I swap out actually installs.
Talk about bad quality control!!! Why should I pay more for crap like this?
I will either pay to buy the game, or pay to play it (subscription service), NOT both. If I pay $50 for a game, I expect to be able to play it for free from that point on. If they're going to charge you to play a game (as in an MMORPG), the client should be free. Otherwise if you decide to stop paying for the subscription, you're left with a $50 coaster (the game CD). I believe it is immoral to charge for a game that is online subscription-only and then charge for the subscription on top of that. Heck, if the client were free, I might be tempted to try WoW for a month or so, and continue if I like it. But I'm not about to risk $50 on something that I would have to pay $13/month for to play.
Check out www.cheapassgamer.com
No, I don't run the site. No, I'm not part of some wacky viral marketing scheme.
The community there is nice and, essentially, they have listings of current sales at the majot stores and links to coupons at various sites. Check it out!
Remember Neo Geo games?
:P
I paid exactly $84 for Street Fighter II for the SNES at Babbages on release day. I remember Super Mario II was $70 when it first came out.
$60 is nothing in today's world where we're all making $50k plus....right?
The key in terms of recently-released games is rentals and playable demos. Nothing new. Although the latter has deteriorated somewhat - the last time I checked into downloading demos (something I used to do on a very regular basis back in the days of DOS gaming...and don't do much anymore, since keeping up with PC gaming is too expensive), pretty much everyone but happypuppy made you subscribe and use proprietary download managers, and most of the demos were so buggy/incomplete/ran like crap on 80% of the graphics cards on the market, they were far from accurately representing the experience of the full version. Can't say what the actual distribution of blame is here, but my guess for the top shareholder would be the pace of the industry due to the gaming population throwing money at glitzy games lacking novel gameplay. And it's for that reason, and capitalizing on people addicted to multiplayer gaming through subscription services, that I think the gaming industry will continue to do just fine despite the people like me that will be playing their PS2 and GBA for another few years, generally buying old/used games.
And no, Katamari Damacy and DDR don't count - they're still lame fanboi games
"The main problem I have with the current industry is if the damn game sucks... They should refund me the cost, time, and sometimes effort wasted dealing with their issues."
I can understand if the game doesn't work, you should get a refund. But a refund just because you think the game sucks? Do movie theaters refund your ticket cost if the movie sucked? Does the book store refund your money if the book sucked? Does the concert venue refund your money if the concert sucked? Do some research, read reviews. If the game sucks, it is your fault for buying it. You could have found out it sucked before purchase.
That's why it's more profitable to go for the european or japanese markets.
Would you please recommend a resource for English-speaking independent video game developers to learn to speak either Japanese or French, Spanish, German, Italian, Dutch, and Portuguese?