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."
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?
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.
Right, not having the money for the stuff you want gives you the desire to steal.
My ally is the torrent. And a powerful ally it is...
Paying per month is certainly an option that we might see more of. Systems like Valves Steam might be turning towards a subscription plan for updates, but that might drop off lots of customers as they feel that they are paying for a game over and over. Unlike ORPGs that has got obvious expenses with server maitenence people will be hard to convince that they need to pay more than once for a single player game.
;D
I think FunCom has struck a piece of genious in the way they allow people to play the original Anarchy-Online for free, wilst giving the option to buy the Shadowlands and Alien invasion expansions to gain access to the rest of the games. This type of "feature" will probably only be feasible for such ORPGs as other types of games aren't really that geared towards upgrading your player character. The accounting system of Battlefield2 however might be elligeble if you were able to get a free or cheaper version that is not elligeble to play on ranked servers. If you choose to upgrade you will be able to accumulate points and upgrade weapons on ranked servers. Just a thought.
However lowering prices on games would probably entice people to buy the game instead of pirating it. Still this chicken and egg situation has been debated for ages and will probably continue to be debated for ages to come.
In the end it will probably be a combination of online accounting systems that allow for upgrades and good "teasers" that will allow people to play a big part of the game for free but still leave a significant feature out that will make it harder for them to advance that will make gamers play.
Just my thoughts right out of bed.
If pro and con are opposites, what is the opposite of progress?
Gamers tell industry to expect more piracy.
Technoli
I fall into the "tightwad" category. And it's a wonderful place to be. It means I buy games about a year after they are released, and get to play them with maximum graphical detail with my mainstream graphics card. 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.
People may say "you miss all the fun of multiplayer games because by that time, everyone has moved on". Rubbish. There are still plenty of people playing the game online, and by this time, most of the morons have given up and moved on.
I agree that $50 or $60 is way overpriced, particularly when you're buying the latest model year of a sports game. The problem is this: price is determined by the market. Games cost $50 or $60 simply because there are tons of people who are willing to buy them at that price. While we may moan and complain and threaten to boycott, there are millions of suckers out there who think that it's an acceptable price.
Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
"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
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.
'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.
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!
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
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."
Ok, so it's copyright infringement. It's still illegal. It also causes the developer to take upon himself the cost of your financial situation. The difference between never going to purchase the software and taking it without paying for it is significant.
The first one has the end result of the developer making no profit from their labor. They don't get the funds because they didn't make a product you wanted to purchase. Ok.
The second means that the developer created a piece of software that you did want, but couldn't afford to trade currency in exchange for the end result of their labor. You then take the end result of their labor without trading back the requested amount of currency, leaving them on the deficient end of the transaction. The net result is not the same.
You can argue that it's not stealing because there is no limited supply of the program, that may be true. Yet, the resources used to develop this program are most certainly functioning under the rules of supply and demand.
The skills to program a good piece of software are not ubiquitous, nor are the environments needed to create these pieces of software. The systems used to program them weren't free, and neither was the original transport vehicle for the executable. Someone paid for all of the CD's or bandwith that the program was originally obtained from. What about time? That is a very precious, non renewable resource in the context of software development. The time of the developer was invested in the program that you just took with the hopes that people would like it enough to purchase it.
You're stealing, flat out. You wanna play little kid games with scemantics over economic concepts that you know jack shit about, fine. But please don't expect anyone to buy your "It's not stealing" bullshit.