Well done for thinking as if programmers are the only people that make video games, while completely ignoring the creative input of designers, artists, and musicians.
Nonetheless, I'd like to treat it as I'd treat it in most games I play: go for broke on ones I feel like achieving, and calling it a day.
I suppose this achievements system will start making more random crap appear, but maybe there will be some good of it, like people finding exploits to abuse the system that could be found...
- Easy is unplayable. Ugh. Serously, the zombies do like 1 damage per hit, and there's NO friendly fire. The tank dies if just one or two people empty their Uzis into it, and can't possibly get close if you're paying any attention whatsoever, let alone actually hit you. Why bother?
You're missing the point of why we have easy mode: it's actually more along the lines of "you win" mode. The whole point is to give people who aren't looking for any sort of challenge at all a chance to complete the game.
The complaint about a game mode being too easy is a poor one only made by people who want a challenge... which isn't an excuse when there's 3 separate, harder tiers of difficulty.
A solid piece of text. Thank you for your in depth and insightful post; it makes me wish I had mod points for you.
I think the most important thing to take away from this is something that people often forget: there are costs that aren't monetary that you have to keep in mind.
Of course, the whole thing about managing customer complaints is good too. I develop iPhone games, and the staggeringly ridiculous comments we have for our games (free or not) are numerous and mind boggling. People just love to get things for less, you know...
Do you really believe the HL2 episodes wouldn't have been better if they'd just built them all in 3 years as a complete game and released it all at once so you get the full story in one sitting?
Actually, I do have a few reasons as to why it could be better to spread them out.
Firstly, there are people who like the idea of having the chance to play a bit of new HL more often than once every three years (or more).
Secondly, it's probably more economically feasible for Valve to have a somewhat constant influx of revenue by spreading the game out then doing the same AAA release-all-at-once-and-pray tactic that many companies are looking to not do.
And thirdly, it's similar to what Starcraft is doing: the individal chunks, when put together, are likely to be bigger than what you would normally see in one AAA title.
I actually saw some of this a few days ago on David Sirin's Blog, and found it quite interesting. There's a fair bit of looking into the design of the game, in addition to the micromanaging for more competitive players. A worthy read for a system designer.
Automotive manufacturers use this mindset, and try to sell me a $50,000 truck that'll take 10 years to pay off(I don't buy). Housing producers use this mindset, and try to sell me million dollar houses(I don't buy). Sony tried this mindset, and were blown out of the market with their $750 ps3(I don't buy).
How does any if this relate to the amount of income you'd be able to get with a few hours/a day's of work? Also, the PS3 can be easily obtained for half of what you just claimed.
You developers are pricing yourselves out of the market, then using DRM to make legitimate users think twice about whether you're going to hack their computers or disable their software. With a bit more common sense, I think the game industry would be a lot bigger than it is now, and piracy would be a much smaller problem.
You're entirely wrong. Do you actually think that the developers have any say in DRM used? That's entirely a publisher choice.
Furthermore, the extreme irony about the pricing matter is in most cases, that is also set exclusively by the publisher... but you're talking to an iPhone dev in this specific case. We do get the opportunity to set the price that we want, and we sell our games for $1-$5. And you know what? That still doesn't stop people from bitching about the price being too high (even complaints that our $1 games should be free!).
If anything, your entire post proves my point that the current pricing system works: you can get games in pretty much every range of prices possible: from free to a few dollars, to $10, $30, $50, or more. And no matter what your pricepoint (even Guitar Hero and related games' $200 for the biggest bundles), people will buy it. It all comes down to people being fucking greedy and just wanting more for less.
Thats the problem, they may not be making money on the device itself. Now I don't know what the profit margin or loss is for the DS, but in many cases, the makers lose money on the hardware, and make up for it with the licensing of the technology to the game makers.
You know, there's more than just Nintendo who wants to stay afloat. There's people like me who actually develop the software you play. If you buy a console/handheld then pirate all the games, then it really puts the developer/publisher in a bind.
since they all seem to be priced the same (on avg its what, $60 for a new release)
It depends on quite a few factors. Usually PS3/360 games are $60*, but Wii games usually top at $50, and I think DS and PSP both start at around $40 (PSP maybe more). It's also not uncommon to see some games (more budget ones, specifically), to launch about $10 less then the previous amounts, and it's quite possible a few months into a games existence to drop to the $20-$30 range (or again less for handhelds).
So as you can see, especially if you add in factors such as second-hand sales, you can get games at a wide varity of pricepoints varing from $20-$60 in current-gen software (and even less for previous gen like PS2, Gamecube, and GBA). I find that hard to believe unreasonable, considering many people in the US or Canada could make that in a day, if not a fraction of.
*Keep in mind these prices are US/Canada benchmarks, your country/area/store may vary.
They have come out and said she was banned for stating her sexual orientation NOT for being offensive or using offensive language which is extremely clear in their TOS, so if they wanted a non-controversial way to ban her, they'd use that.
No, I would think that the quickest way to get rid of someone they didn't want would be something as simple as "you said you were a lesbian". You start talking about someone's text being offensive and it's a bit more subjective.
I think it's also worth noting that the GP's examples were more extreme the necessary to prove a point. It could be very possible for the second example to use different wording, but still come across as "offending" to some people.
You must be a baby boomer. Gen X and younger have figured out that just about everything these days is a commodity. Very few of us ever pay full retail for anything. Some of us have figured out that the old adage 'you get what you pay for' is very often complete bullshit.
My apologies, I should have clarified that not everyone really judges in that matter. I'm not a baby boomer (child of one, though), so while I don't fully believe in the sentiment, I deal with a fair few who do.
Dude, if 10 cents a song got you that kind of revenue, indies on iTunes would be fucking rich by now with their 70 cents a song. There's a damn good reason they're not, and it has nothing to do with quality.
Obviously, this example of going gold without taking into account any other expenses (such as taxes, your distributor's cut whether it be iTunes, a record label, or bandwidth, etc) is not realistic.
Of course the market says the prices are too high. What matters is if the market is still willing to pay anyways... and since CD sales haven't stopped completely, it's worth saying that people are continuing with paying at the current prices.
Also, your example of Walmart is flawed. If you're saying that they do believe that lower prices == more sales, try seeing what happens to your profits. There's also that funny tilt factor of people judging the worth of a product by it's price, and such low (or free) prices often mars their view of it.
Okay, I gotta ask - exactly why do artists think they're owed a living?
As a society, I think we can mostly agree that we should compensate people for entertaining us, especially if they are proficient in their craft. Allowing entertainers to make a living isn't a right, but I'd prefer for those who want to make a living out of it to be able to do so if they're good enough. If their ability to survive off of their trade alone is reduced to only being possible as a side hobby, it lessens the amount of great works that can be achieved, as less time can be put into it and still live.
I can't seem to find anything definite, but sources I've found have stated Apple making a 10% profit after taking into account their expenses. This implies that the amount they take before expenses would be above 10%, although it is true that the final number may be less for 30% with music.
I agree that in most cases the rule lower prices -> more sales is not true but I do believe it's the case with severely overpriced stuff like music.
There is no rule of lower prices == more sales to begin with. What is important to know is that the price of a product/service is related to the sales of said product/service. Given what the market wants, it is possible to maximize profit by finding where profit is highest on a graph of price and projected sales.
With a price of ~10 cents people could afford to buy a LOT of music. Many people wouldn't hesitate to buy a thousand songs.
I don't think I agree with that. There are people who would only want to get songs from a few artists, and decreasing the price is not something that will automatically revert equal or more revenue into the same service. If anything, it just means that the need a person has for a service is met for less, and surplus revenue may just as well go to other services not even related to music/movies/games/etc in any way.
There is a finite amount of money a person has to spend. Even after taking into account lines of credit, they can only spend so much. If any given artist is to lower their prices, then that doesn't automatically mean they would get more money from sales. We have people that look at sales trends and other factors with actual math to derive maximum profit with a product or service for this reason.
Give me one good moral reason why one shouldn't respond in that way to a cease and desist letter.
If you know you're in the moral wrong, or should otherwise know.
Cease and desist letters aren't exclusively evil. They're merely tools. Just like with the Pirate Bay, it is not exclusively a pirating tool, but it can be (and in many cases is) used as such.
Songs cost $1 to download when they should cost 11 cents with ten cents going to the artist and one cent going to the host/distributor.
Well, if we're dealing with iTunes (the biggest and most popular distributor of music that I know of), don't forget that Apple takes it's 30%, not ~8% you infer would be fair. That leaves 70% for the artist and the label (if appropriate) to deal with (and you can really do without the latter in many cases).
Also, I don't think that most artists could live off of 10 cents a song for downloads (or the $1-1.5 an album) unless they have a very good PR plan/comity to not get lost in the giant sea that is the iTunes store.
Mostly, I think our disagreements stem from the numbers, which are easily adjustable. At least we agree that the methods could change (and roughly what directions to go from what we currently have).
Err, if you're going as far as to say they're not distributing text, then even books aren't distributing text. They'd be distributing it as a set of inky lines in which folded pieces of paper stores and displays as text. (if we take your logic and input different strings of words)
I can't agree with the concept that they're not distributing text, as that is indeed the primary function of these ebooks.
How is this different from going to a live game and drinking a certain brand of beer while you're in the stadium??
The simple fact that if you're at a stadium, your choices are specifically limited (you can only buy what the stadium supplies, and in most cases they don't allow drinks from outside the venue).
With a video game, you buy the drink you want ahead of time. The game you played X hours ago, no matter how intense it's advertising is, is not going to leave the same effect as having said drink forced upon you while you play as what was conducted in the study.
Quite literally, the study utilizes a scenario that is not likely to ever occur in an average person's day.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe giving CPR to the guy that someone else just shot in the head, who may or may not have gotten the gun from you?
I'd argue the same for hardcore games too, only the hits will be profitable.
Dude, most games (casual, hardcore, or otherwise) aren't profitable anyways.
Well done for thinking as if programmers are the only people that make video games, while completely ignoring the creative input of designers, artists, and musicians.
I think I have to agree with this.
Nonetheless, I'd like to treat it as I'd treat it in most games I play: go for broke on ones I feel like achieving, and calling it a day.
I suppose this achievements system will start making more random crap appear, but maybe there will be some good of it, like people finding exploits to abuse the system that could be found...
- Easy is unplayable. Ugh. Serously, the zombies do like 1 damage per hit, and there's NO friendly fire. The tank dies if just one or two people empty their Uzis into it, and can't possibly get close if you're paying any attention whatsoever, let alone actually hit you. Why bother?
You're missing the point of why we have easy mode: it's actually more along the lines of "you win" mode. The whole point is to give people who aren't looking for any sort of challenge at all a chance to complete the game.
The complaint about a game mode being too easy is a poor one only made by people who want a challenge... which isn't an excuse when there's 3 separate, harder tiers of difficulty.
A solid piece of text. Thank you for your in depth and insightful post; it makes me wish I had mod points for you.
I think the most important thing to take away from this is something that people often forget: there are costs that aren't monetary that you have to keep in mind.
Of course, the whole thing about managing customer complaints is good too. I develop iPhone games, and the staggeringly ridiculous comments we have for our games (free or not) are numerous and mind boggling. People just love to get things for less, you know...
Do you really believe the HL2 episodes wouldn't have been better if they'd just built them all in 3 years as a complete game and released it all at once so you get the full story in one sitting?
Actually, I do have a few reasons as to why it could be better to spread them out.
Firstly, there are people who like the idea of having the chance to play a bit of new HL more often than once every three years (or more).
Secondly, it's probably more economically feasible for Valve to have a somewhat constant influx of revenue by spreading the game out then doing the same AAA release-all-at-once-and-pray tactic that many companies are looking to not do.
And thirdly, it's similar to what Starcraft is doing: the individal chunks, when put together, are likely to be bigger than what you would normally see in one AAA title.
It's a shame because I really liked [snip] HL2 episodes, they were all pretty good but my god the [snip] Episodic idea spoils them completely.
Really? Are you just looking for a reason to bitch, and are using every excuse you could feasibly find, no matter how loosely related?
I actually saw some of this a few days ago on David Sirin's Blog, and found it quite interesting. There's a fair bit of looking into the design of the game, in addition to the micromanaging for more competitive players. A worthy read for a system designer.
Automotive manufacturers use this mindset, and try to sell me a $50,000 truck that'll take 10 years to pay off(I don't buy). Housing producers use this mindset, and try to sell me million dollar houses(I don't buy). Sony tried this mindset, and were blown out of the market with their $750 ps3(I don't buy).
How does any if this relate to the amount of income you'd be able to get with a few hours/a day's of work? Also, the PS3 can be easily obtained for half of what you just claimed.
You developers are pricing yourselves out of the market, then using DRM to make legitimate users think twice about whether you're going to hack their computers or disable their software. With a bit more common sense, I think the game industry would be a lot bigger than it is now, and piracy would be a much smaller problem.
You're entirely wrong. Do you actually think that the developers have any say in DRM used? That's entirely a publisher choice.
Furthermore, the extreme irony about the pricing matter is in most cases, that is also set exclusively by the publisher... but you're talking to an iPhone dev in this specific case. We do get the opportunity to set the price that we want, and we sell our games for $1-$5. And you know what? That still doesn't stop people from bitching about the price being too high (even complaints that our $1 games should be free!).
If anything, your entire post proves my point that the current pricing system works: you can get games in pretty much every range of prices possible: from free to a few dollars, to $10, $30, $50, or more. And no matter what your pricepoint (even Guitar Hero and related games' $200 for the biggest bundles), people will buy it. It all comes down to people being fucking greedy and just wanting more for less.
Thats the problem, they may not be making money on the device itself. Now I don't know what the profit margin or loss is for the DS, but in many cases, the makers lose money on the hardware, and make up for it with the licensing of the technology to the game makers.
You know, there's more than just Nintendo who wants to stay afloat. There's people like me who actually develop the software you play. If you buy a console/handheld then pirate all the games, then it really puts the developer/publisher in a bind.
since they all seem to be priced the same (on avg its what, $60 for a new release)
It depends on quite a few factors. Usually PS3/360 games are $60*, but Wii games usually top at $50, and I think DS and PSP both start at around $40 (PSP maybe more). It's also not uncommon to see some games (more budget ones, specifically), to launch about $10 less then the previous amounts, and it's quite possible a few months into a games existence to drop to the $20-$30 range (or again less for handhelds).
So as you can see, especially if you add in factors such as second-hand sales, you can get games at a wide varity of pricepoints varing from $20-$60 in current-gen software (and even less for previous gen like PS2, Gamecube, and GBA). I find that hard to believe unreasonable, considering many people in the US or Canada could make that in a day, if not a fraction of.
*Keep in mind these prices are US/Canada benchmarks, your country/area/store may vary.
People wouldn't be playing the old ones if the new ones were that much more fun.
Err... except for nostalgia, perhaps? Some "Cranky" people refuse to take off their rose-coloured glasses, if you get what I mean.
They have come out and said she was banned for stating her sexual orientation NOT for being offensive or using offensive language which is extremely clear in their TOS, so if they wanted a non-controversial way to ban her, they'd use that.
No, I would think that the quickest way to get rid of someone they didn't want would be something as simple as "you said you were a lesbian". You start talking about someone's text being offensive and it's a bit more subjective.
I think it's also worth noting that the GP's examples were more extreme the necessary to prove a point. It could be very possible for the second example to use different wording, but still come across as "offending" to some people.
You must be a baby boomer. Gen X and younger have figured out that just about everything these days is a commodity. Very few of us ever pay full retail for anything. Some of us have figured out that the old adage 'you get what you pay for' is very often complete bullshit.
My apologies, I should have clarified that not everyone really judges in that matter. I'm not a baby boomer (child of one, though), so while I don't fully believe in the sentiment, I deal with a fair few who do.
Dude, if 10 cents a song got you that kind of revenue, indies on iTunes would be fucking rich by now with their 70 cents a song. There's a damn good reason they're not, and it has nothing to do with quality.
Obviously, this example of going gold without taking into account any other expenses (such as taxes, your distributor's cut whether it be iTunes, a record label, or bandwidth, etc) is not realistic.
Of course the market says the prices are too high. What matters is if the market is still willing to pay anyways... and since CD sales haven't stopped completely, it's worth saying that people are continuing with paying at the current prices.
Also, your example of Walmart is flawed. If you're saying that they do believe that lower prices == more sales, try seeing what happens to your profits. There's also that funny tilt factor of people judging the worth of a product by it's price, and such low (or free) prices often mars their view of it.
Okay, I gotta ask - exactly why do artists think they're owed a living?
As a society, I think we can mostly agree that we should compensate people for entertaining us, especially if they are proficient in their craft. Allowing entertainers to make a living isn't a right, but I'd prefer for those who want to make a living out of it to be able to do so if they're good enough. If their ability to survive off of their trade alone is reduced to only being possible as a side hobby, it lessens the amount of great works that can be achieved, as less time can be put into it and still live.
I can't seem to find anything definite, but sources I've found have stated Apple making a 10% profit after taking into account their expenses. This implies that the amount they take before expenses would be above 10%, although it is true that the final number may be less for 30% with music.
[...] if the price was ~10 cents i might [...]
Anecdotal evidence, my friend.
I agree that in most cases the rule lower prices -> more sales is not true but I do believe it's the case with severely overpriced stuff like music.
There is no rule of lower prices == more sales to begin with. What is important to know is that the price of a product/service is related to the sales of said product/service. Given what the market wants, it is possible to maximize profit by finding where profit is highest on a graph of price and projected sales.
With a price of ~10 cents people could afford to buy a LOT of music. Many people wouldn't hesitate to buy a thousand songs.
I don't think I agree with that. There are people who would only want to get songs from a few artists, and decreasing the price is not something that will automatically revert equal or more revenue into the same service. If anything, it just means that the need a person has for a service is met for less, and surplus revenue may just as well go to other services not even related to music/movies/games/etc in any way.
There is a finite amount of money a person has to spend. Even after taking into account lines of credit, they can only spend so much. If any given artist is to lower their prices, then that doesn't automatically mean they would get more money from sales. We have people that look at sales trends and other factors with actual math to derive maximum profit with a product or service for this reason.
Give me one good moral reason why one shouldn't respond in that way to a cease and desist letter.
If you know you're in the moral wrong, or should otherwise know.
Cease and desist letters aren't exclusively evil. They're merely tools. Just like with the Pirate Bay, it is not exclusively a pirating tool, but it can be (and in many cases is) used as such.
Songs cost $1 to download when they should cost 11 cents with ten cents going to the artist and one cent going to the host/distributor.
Well, if we're dealing with iTunes (the biggest and most popular distributor of music that I know of), don't forget that Apple takes it's 30%, not ~8% you infer would be fair. That leaves 70% for the artist and the label (if appropriate) to deal with (and you can really do without the latter in many cases).
Also, I don't think that most artists could live off of 10 cents a song for downloads (or the $1-1.5 an album) unless they have a very good PR plan/comity to not get lost in the giant sea that is the iTunes store.
Mostly, I think our disagreements stem from the numbers, which are easily adjustable. At least we agree that the methods could change (and roughly what directions to go from what we currently have).
Err, if you're going as far as to say they're not distributing text, then even books aren't distributing text. They'd be distributing it as a set of inky lines in which folded pieces of paper stores and displays as text. (if we take your logic and input different strings of words)
I can't agree with the concept that they're not distributing text, as that is indeed the primary function of these ebooks.
How is this different from going to a live game and drinking a certain brand of beer while you're in the stadium??
The simple fact that if you're at a stadium, your choices are specifically limited (you can only buy what the stadium supplies, and in most cases they don't allow drinks from outside the venue).
With a video game, you buy the drink you want ahead of time. The game you played X hours ago, no matter how intense it's advertising is, is not going to leave the same effect as having said drink forced upon you while you play as what was conducted in the study.
Quite literally, the study utilizes a scenario that is not likely to ever occur in an average person's day.
Sadly, this works.
I hate you iFart. As an iPhone dev, I hate you and your top 100 charting feats.