-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rage Has A New Buyer's Incentive
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
erragal said:
Yes they are, some people as evidence in this thread think that content creators should spend millions of dollars developing games and then just hand them over on a silver platter for free because"we just want you to play our game". I mean, how dare a company develop games I want to play but at the same time want to make a profit.
x-Lundz-x said:
This is an obvious strawman. There is nobody here denying companies from making a profit or requiring that they give games for free. You might disagree with some people not liking some specific profit strategies that they see as not consumer friendly, but that is completely different.
Striek said:
That's a philisophical viewpoint that doesn't fit with the society you live in. Our society allows ideas to be protected by their original creator; in doing so we give the creator the control over the methods and limitations of distribution. If consumers are in control of the content they purchase than no content would ever have any value and everything would be pirated. Your philosophy is completely incongruent with the way the real world works.
You only believe you're being 'screwed' because you've convinced yourself you have the right to a high resale value on your content that you didn't create. This makes no sense; why should someone that creates content ensure that the people who buy it can resell it with no money ever coming back to the original creator? Do you believe it's your awesome sales skills that are ensuring the value of that content? Or maybe it's the actual created content; you're 'dicking over' the creator of that content by not giving them the proceeds of your resale is what's actually happening.
Too bad only consumers apparently have rights to you. Ridiculous.
spindoctor
Member
Woo-Fu said:
That's what I was wondering too. If they don't make these extra sewers attractive enough, people who buy it used won't care about missing out on it. The only way they can make those buyers want to get it new is if it's something substantial.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
erragal said:
No, sorry. A consumer is wholly concerned with establishing terms that are favorable to himself. In what reality has that ever not been the case? When you make a purchase with limited funds, you are 100 percent, absolutely, trying to find what's best for yourself.
...and people, stop throwing around entitled, please. It's becoming the new "straw man" in that it's a term rarely used correctly, and is never conducive to any sort of reasonable discussion.
What is with this alarmism?SneakyStephan said:
Game creators incentive is to make money. They do that by selling games. Yes yes, new games. As does an author, or a movie producer. Making your game good is a pretty damn compelling marketing tactic.
How is this different to every other form of media? Would you accept a DVD where you had to download some scenes to get the complete experience?
Basically this, well summed up. Also your second post in this thread had a very reasonable suggestion, I forgot to mention.Reuenthal said:
This is my last post on this, because your arguments keep getting more and more ludicrous.erragal said:
You realise that the society you believe I desire, the one you believe isn't congruent to the way the real world works, is the exact same one we've been living in for...oh... hundreds of years. Through dozens of media formats.
Yes we're giving up control in the digital era. Doesn't mean we have to fucking like it.
WanderingWind said:
I never said that a consumer shouldn't want to establish terms that are favorable to themselves. Not once was that criticized. If you re-read my post it clearly states my issue is with people expecting content creators to establish terms that are favorable to the individual people complaining.
How is that not the very definition of entitled? That's exactly what it means. Individuals complaining that people with no connection to them are not catering to their desires. That is entitlement. Nothing unreasonable about that comparison. Can you address what led you to believe this isn't a display of entitlement?
SneakyStephan
Banned
They aren't consumer unfriendly, it has zero effect on what the consumer gets.Reuenthal said:
DRM is consumer unfriendly, no mod support to push DLC is consumer unfriendly, encrypted configs are consumer unfriendly, taking out content to sell as DLC is consumer unfriendly, unfinished games with day 1 patches are consumer unfriendly.
No matter how much you want it to be, you are not a consumer or customer if you buy your game second hand.
You are a consumer of gamestop, go demand for gamestop to give you free online passes, that I could understand.
Striek said:
There's nothing ludicrous about what I've said, you just have no logical way to refute them.
Dozens of media formats? Hundreds of years? Really? Most media/entertainment was reserved entirely for the extraordinarily wealthy for the first several thousand years of human history. It's only in the past century that this situation has changed (Due to the increases in free time and average wealth in developed nations).
Why are you so angry about it? Why do you think you should have control over things other people create? Are you going to try and claim that's an illogical statement too, even though you just said "Doesn't mean we have to fucking like it". You clearly are upset about people maintaining control over their creations; why is that so offensive to you?
And here I was, hoping for an always-online DRM.
Well, this bullshit is close second.
The #1, best, buyer's incentive to get a game new, to me, personally is still an old-school classic:
. I wish more games did went back to that. But maybe that's just me.
Well, this bullshit is close second.
The #1, best, buyer's incentive to get a game new, to me, personally is still an old-school classic:
make your game so good it's worth the damn money
SneakyStephan
Banned
K' Dash said:
That is supply and demand. (buying from russian sites etc is questionable indeed, waiting for bomba is not)
You wait to pay what it is worth to you. If it is worth more to people in general then you will have to pay more (but it clearly isn't in this case).
Noone is going to wait for a bomba sale on trackmania 2, noone said 'i'm going to wait' when the orange box or half life 1 or ut99 were released.
My local grocer doesn't stock his shelves with 5 dollar apples and expects me to buy them, developers mostly try, but thankfully that is not how the real world works, and the game stores are forced to adjust prices to the demand.
The industry is huge, games are put out at a tremendous rate, the market for them is only so big.
This is how the real world works kids.
Yeah , I already agreed that that is a load of bull. =)StuBurns said:
It's due to poor execution though, not the principle behind it.
My brother has an xbox parked at his grandma who we still visit both every month or so, she doesn't have inet, I will suffer from it too with my new games.
But again, people here aren't arguing against that ironically. They just want their cheap games.
Snkfanatic
Banned
Awesome, I just ordered this today since it looks like Amazon added a $10 credit. Although they got rid of the cheap release date shipping 
someguyinahat
Member
Zzoram said:
Don't say it so loudly. Sooner or later, they'll add online passes or locked "sewer content" to people who bought the game in a steam sale.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
I'm not going to buy the game when it comes out, but even if I did I'd probably be too lazy to download the content. Same thing happened with Mass Effect 2. I just don't care enough, and frankly, feel weird about taking advantage of these things.
Especially when it's silly stuff like better equipment for the SP campaign. No thanks.
Especially when it's silly stuff like better equipment for the SP campaign. No thanks.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
erragal said:
No, you didn't say "individual people complaining." You said "An unreasonable person expects the content creator to establish terms that are favorable to the consumer rather than the content creator." Let's not revise things, okay?
Yeah, a consumer is definitely going to be looking for what is favorable to themselves, not to the company that produced whatever. It is not the consumers responsibility to look out for the company's bottom line - no more so than it's the company's job to look out for the consumer's secondhand sales profit potential.
And no. I'm not going to explain how a consumer looking out for themselves is not entitlement. It really ought to be apparent why it's not. Again, where did you get your view of the customer/company relationships from? Of course it's the company's job to cater to the customer. They're not "individuals" who just exist in a vacuum in which the evil consumer is just making demands from nowhere. They exist to make money off the customer and in return, the customer has a right to certain expectations. That's not entitlement. Period.
...I honestly can't believe I had to type that last paragraph. I'm going to hope I misunderstood you.
Snkfanatic
Banned
BobsRevenge said:
No kidding, I don't understand the whole "lets give players game breaking equipment since they preordered or bought day 1". It really stands out in racing games
SneakyStephan
Banned
edit, saw your edit heheAcullis said:
No point repeating myself in other words.
CrunchinJelly
formerly cjelly
This stinks.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Oh man the gt5 pre order cars were such a dumb idea, well the people deciding to skip half the sp by using them were stupid.Snkfanatic said:
At least they didn't balance the game around having them by making the early game super grindy or something, now THAT would be a nail in the coffin (and is the kind of poor judgement you'd expect from most lesser developers, sadly).
I don't believe that we are far away from that, from pre order content turning games into a 60 dollar f2p experience.
You will buy your game full price, but unless you get dlc or preordered you will have to deal with large inconveniences. (HELLO bank chest DLC in dragon age: origins, hi mod tools on the other hand to just mod in a bank chest, then HELLO DA2 mysteriously lacking mod support as far as I'm aware, oh bioware, your slow witted bandaids on a 1 release delay are adorable)
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Devs actually make money on Steam sales.someguyinahat said:
Actually its more funny because not a single person in this thread has indicated they are annoyed because they were planning on buying the game used. I re-read the thread and yep, not a single one. In fact, only one person even mentioned that they may buy it used. Some people merely assumed that anyone not pleased was a gosh-darned dirty used game buyer.K' Dash said:
In too much of a hurry to be all defensive than to bother reading and comprehending what they're arguing against I guess.
StuBurns said:
For a whole year my PS3 wasn't connected online so I know how annoying it was to miss out on sp content (eg trophy patches, game tweaks), but I think we have to accept that we are heading to a future where online access will be assumed by most devs and by catering to always-offline folk they are limiting what they can do.
Then what on earth made you quote my post about second-hand buyers and argue against it like you were one of them if you're not? My entire point was second hand buyers weren't customers of the company and you made a comment about if they're not customers of the company they're another company's customers instead.Ken said:
Seriously. What possessed you to quote me if you're now offended that I (quite naturally given your rhetoric) assumed you'd actually be counter-arguing my actual argument?
SneakyStephan
Banned
Suairyu said:
That's because he is, or he isn't and he lost the argument somewhere along the way and is grasping out of a sense of misplaced pride.
Still waiting for him to refute your 'not a customer' argument, which basically ends the discussion right there.
I think that's true yeah. And it's not like they're tricking people. If you can't get online and you buy this game new, you will be aware you are missing content in both the single player and the whole multiplayer, at that point does the product still seem attractive to that person, I think most the time it will certainly be yes, for the few who it isn't, that's fair too.NBtoaster said:
NBtoaster said:
My main issue with this is simply not knowing which version of the game has been playtested and balanced the best. Was development time spent assuming the sewers would be there, or will they make parts of the game a joke?
Of course, the entire game could already be a joke, in terms of difficulty curve, so what's some bonus loot? I really hope that's not the case.
WanderingWind said:
You did misunderstand. You're not reading what I'm saying at all; you're just trying to see me saying something I'm not.
Let me say it again: The problem I have is with INDIVIDUALS (IE: An unreasonable person) complaining that THEY (the unreasonable person) EXPECT (Here's the entitlement) the content creator to do things that the INDIVIDUAL (Unreasonable person) wants them to do that are against the content creator's best interest.
Your implication that it's the content creators job to cater to the customer but the whole point is that you aren't a customer if you aren't paying them money (Buying used). There's also a greater responsibility as the content creator to make sure your creation isn't devalued. You also have the right as a content creator to choose to distribute your product in the manner of your choosing.
You even acknowledged exactly what I said: "no more than it's the company's job to look out for the secondhand sales profit potential". Aren't there people in this thread asking for that? How is that not being entitled? I explained it before: It's entitlement -EXPECTING- someone to do something for you that goes against what would be best for them; I'm not sure how you can't see that.
It's not just about money either. This issue extends past paid for content as well. I feel very strongly about the rights of content creators and find it offensive that people think the rights of a 'customer' that isn't paying any money trump those of an individual or group that put the work/creativity into actually producing something of interest and value.
Everyone thinks they're a customer if they're simplyinterested in a product at all. That doesn't make you a customer; it makes you a potential customer. If you disagree with the way a company is choosing to distribute their product then you are no longer a customer and aren't a part of their market segment. They aren't catering to you and expecting them to is entitlement. Expecting everything you're interested in to be distributed in a manner that is best for your situation is entitlement (Isn't port begging banned on this board for a reason? It's the same mentality.)
Where we can have a discussion is whether the content creator is making the right decision. Are they alienating too many potential customers by choosing to restrict used game sales? That's a real conversation. Not this crap about 'treating customers badly'; you haven't purchased the game at all.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Yeah, I saw that and was genuinely offended. Which is awkward, because I didn't think of myself as that nerdy before, but apparently it's true.StuBurns said:
edit: btw guys, there's nothing wrong with feeling that you're entitled to things as a customer. That's called having a healthy relationship with content creators. You demand what you want and hope they concede. There's nothing at all wrong with that, it is the process of things.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
erragal said:
Yeah, you're to the point where you're reiterating things already covered, but angrier and now with added things that have nothing to do with anything I said. I mean, I quoted you directly and you still insist that you didn't say what you said.
We're just going to reach anything resembling an agreement, so...yeah.
InsaneLuchador
Member
Why am I down with anything that gives gamestop the finger?
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
I don't even shop on Impulse anymore. My distaste for them runs so deep that if they take over something I greatly enjoy, I immediately start ignoring it completely. And I feel bad about that because Stardock is such a great company.InsaneLuchador said: