Diablohead
Member
a1m said:
-
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.
Sony is inspired by EA - White Knight Chronicles 2 requires license for online play
- Thread starter duckroll
- Start date
Vinterbird
Member
a1m said:
Then you will soon rebel against any game ever.
Augemitbutter
Member
cool, i'll buy WKC 2 when it drops to $20 then.
Sure. When it gets to that point I'll be more than happy to stay with games released so far. I don't understand why I'd have to buy games just because they are new and probably good games but come with ridiculous accessories and whatnot. Be my guest and support this idiocracy.Vinterbird said:
Vinterbird
Member
a1m said:
What? If you buy the game new, as normal people do, then there is no problems at all. It's only if you re-sell stuff or do other shady stuff. It's like Steam, XBLA or PSN. And no one seems to be going insane over those set ups.
CadetMahoney
Member
A fee for multiplayer should be the norm for every game on PSN. Obviously not many ppl have a problem with it, good for devs etc.Dresden said:
Castor Krieg
Banned
CadetMahoney said:
Wut? Take your XBL crap elsewhere.
Castor Krieg
Banned
Vinterbird said:
I rarely buy games on PSN and XBL apart from biggest hits, because I cannot justify the price. Also, most of my Steam collection are games I bought from Steam sales. If I want a new game and it requires Steam I will always buy Steam key locally, as it's 20%-30% cheaper. Steam prices are insane in Europe, 50EUR for a game, wtf?
Vinterbird
Member
RandomVince said:
Or maybe wanting the industry talent to not be totally fucked by the consumer they are desperately trying to please?
I don't work for an developer, publisher or the likes. I just think it would be kinda awesome if the developers got the money and sales they deserved, instead of seeing a substantial amount of their income disappear in the used-games market.
Castor Krieg said:
I will never understand how people can not justify 1200 Microsoft Points for an amazing game, or the equivalent on PSN. If you have fun with the game, then the price/hours for money shouldn't matter.
Vinterbird said:
Publishers/developers have no right to more money from a consumer after the initial sale (ok, except for a sub service like MMOs).
Every other industry - film, music, whitegoods, furniture, automotive, book/print, consumer electronics - has a model built around selling value for money goods and operating at a profitable level to remain in business. And competing with the used market is standard practice.
If the games industry wants to double, triple, quadruple dip (and more) on each game made it just proves that they have a broken model, are bad economic managers and according to consumer principles - are making products that are in many cases not value for money.
Publishers/devs deserve the first sale, no more. And if they keep spiting legitimate paying customers then more and more will turn towards illegitimate means of getting those games, or stop buying new games altogether.
The games industry is using too much stick, too little carrot. I wont be sympathetic towards any publishers that go under after using this scam tactic.
McHuj
Member
I'm fine with this as I don't play multiplayer.
But I would actually prefer if they would sell at $60 game as a $40 single player experience and a $20 multiplayer experience. Maybe it would be a sliding scale for some games, the single player is $20 and the multi is $40 for a MP focused game like CoD.
I could get just the experience that I want for a cheaper price, but realistically that's not going to happen, they'll just tack on the cost of multiplayer to the $60 price tag.
But I would actually prefer if they would sell at $60 game as a $40 single player experience and a $20 multiplayer experience. Maybe it would be a sliding scale for some games, the single player is $20 and the multi is $40 for a MP focused game like CoD.
I could get just the experience that I want for a cheaper price, but realistically that's not going to happen, they'll just tack on the cost of multiplayer to the $60 price tag.
Castor Krieg
Banned
Vinterbird said:
Either you're not serious, or you didn't work a single day in your life. Don't start with "15USD is so little", it's the principle that matters.
Combichristoffersen
Combovers don't work when there is no hair
jorma said:
I was a bit 'wut' at that when I first read it, but I think 'shady stuff' refers to piracy, not reselling of games.
FINALFANTASYDOG
Member
Just curisous all you folks that are like "THIS IS EVIL, NEVER BUYING A GAME AGAIN."
Have you guys seen game companies economics lately? used game sales in japan are killing companies they NEED to do this to keep surviving.
Have you guys seen game companies economics lately? used game sales in japan are killing companies they NEED to do this to keep surviving.
MikeE21286
Member
how awesome :/
Castor Krieg
Banned
FINALFANTASYDOG said:
You mean those companies that take 4 years producing a game that will only sell in Japan? Also, explain to me why are U.S. game companies doing quite well?
FINALFANTASYDOG
Member
Castor Krieg said:
But the reason games go down in price is thanks to the used market eating sales of new games, FFXIII is a perfect example of this(Compare to Nintendo games that are on the whole brought at a much higher percentage new. , If the trend continues less and less core-marketed games will be produced and more stuff that is made for the masses who buy new will come out)
If you were around back in the SNES ERA, Games did not price drop anywhere near as much as today
Castor Krieg said:
They aren't. 2009 Profits(In Millions):
Activision Blizzard　-23.35　
Electronic Arts　-615.96　
Ubisoft　-67.34　
Take-Two　-116.92　
THQ　-8.66　
Vinterbird
Member
RandomVince said:
Movies and games are different beasts all together. Movies are one/two times entertainment, cheaper for the consumer and not like games were multiplayer is something that you could play for an insane amount of time.
And still, if you buy the game new. The publisher/developer doesn't see more money then they normally would. It's for the people that buy used, and I really can not see what the problem is for publishers wanting some sort of compensation for providing content updates, patches, user statistics and the likes. There's nothing wrong with that.
Castor Krieg said:
I work two jobs and I am deadly serious. If a game if 2 hours, 40 dollars and amazing. I will buy it. I don't care about price or game time = money spent, if the game is great and fun it is worth the money asked for it.
This one is a bit inaccurate due to deferred revenue. Activision is actually making 20% margins right now with a total profit of around $500 million to $1+ billion a year when all the dust and accounting oddities settle.FINALFANTASYDOG said:
That said, the rest would be accurate.
Ninja-Matic
Banned
Suzzopher said:
I think that is a good thing. Devs see no money from used game sales. Perhaps if more devs got their money's worth - half the games this gen would be worth more than shovelware.
Castor Krieg
Banned
FINALFANTASYDOG said:
You need to account for the fact that many more games are producted today, gamers play more games per year, thus the need to sell some of older games in order to buy new ones. This mostly happens with games that sold fuck-a-ton initially e.g. GoW III and FFXIII ----> lots of people selling their games, not many people to buy them = low re-sale price.
It would be interesting to make an eBay analysis of all the trades for a given game e.g. after game sold 1mln new, how many sales were concluded for a Used copy of such game in 1/3/6/12 months after its release. I think game industry is approaching the problem the same way as they approach software piracy i.e. DEAD WRONG.
Other than that I'm surprised by the financials. Still, I would put my bet on bad management instead of used game sales. Funny seeing EA there, as they are the one that started "$10 USD project".
YuriLowell
Member
Yeah this is complete bullshit. Take your game and shove it right back up there sony.
Vinterbird said:
Given how tenuous the justification for title updates has become I dont buy your argument. Maybe if they had better QA in the first place such bugs wouldnt need so frequent patching?
Why should my resale value be harmed, or my ability to use my game that I paid for be limited unreasonably by publishers who want to get more money for no more work. I'm not going to reiterate it in full, but each copy sold/rebought adds no extra load on the server side of things.
This is a cash grab, plain and simple. Publishers should just stop lying about bullshit justifications for it being 'good for the consumer', raise the price of new games to $80 and see how that flies with customers instead.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Vinterbird said:
Would you pay 1600 Microsoft points for an amazing game?
Vinterbird
Member
Stumpokapow said:
I will pay whatever the publisher demands if the game is good enough. I paid 400 dollars for the complete Beatles bundle, because that was the only way to get the drums in Europe when the game launched, and I was fine with that because it was a great game and if I wanted to play it like it was intended with a full group, then I had the pay what was asked.
FINALFANTASYDOG
Member
Yoichi Wada　president of Square-enix Interview
http://www.square-enix.com/eng/company/interview3.html
Seriously, if this is the case, then publishers simply must take steps to fight against this(the online fee to play being one). Add to the fact that Companies in America have to buy back New games that don't sale(this really hurts). It's in the best interests of game stores to essentially throw the new games in the closet until used games stock is gone.
http://www.square-enix.com/eng/company/interview3.html
Seriously, if this is the case, then publishers simply must take steps to fight against this(the online fee to play being one). Add to the fact that Companies in America have to buy back New games that don't sale(this really hurts). It's in the best interests of game stores to essentially throw the new games in the closet until used games stock is gone.
a1m said:
This is the problem with implementing the one time license, especially with a more niche game like WKC2 (not saying you're wrong to feel like that a1m, quite the opposite). It always felt like there was a shortage of people around my Guild Rank when I played WKC anyway (whether that was true or not, there was always a little bit of a hassle involved with finding a party), and unless they make some significant changes to the online structure it'll be an even bigger issue with WKC2. Less people buying used, and less people buying new to protest this new policy on consoles (not to mention the average to poor word of mouth the first one received anyway). That's a pretty big problem when you're expected to put in 500+ hours to do everything online with a group of people.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Vinterbird said:
Would you have paid 800 dollars for the complete Beatles bundle?
MikeE21286
Member
Numbers would be considerably better if they weren't renting out Staples for $775 millionFINALFANTASYDOG said:
Castor Krieg
Banned
FINALFANTASYDOG said:
How are gamers at fault here? It's Gamespot's business-model to earn profit on Used games. Again, maybe try and tackle retailers, instead of customers?
ReyBrujo
Member
If I consider the online factor as an extra service and not an integral part of the game itself, I don't have any problem with having to buy access. The online infrastructure grows more complex, companies are forced to keep them up for several years even if there are few active players (which requires maintenance, upgrades, etc).
If I sell you my WoW disc, you will have to pay the online subscription anyways. And here you can play the game offline without restrictions (while WoW doesn't have one). Think of it as a one-time fee, and it makes sense.
If I sell you my WoW disc, you will have to pay the online subscription anyways. And here you can play the game offline without restrictions (while WoW doesn't have one). Think of it as a one-time fee, and it makes sense.
Castor Krieg
Banned
ReyBrujo said:
Fine, let's do like this: sell the game for 40USD single player only, full price for multiplayer component. Any takers?
Vinterbird
Member
Stumpokapow said:
Theoretically yes, but I doubt any publisher would price their stuff that high, even in Europe.
AdventureRacing
Member
FINALFANTASYDOG said:
I'm not going to argue this here but i firmly believe that destorying the used game market will really hurt publishers and it isn't this massive untapped marekt that they see.
This issue has been discussed many times before and others like segata have put it much better than myself so i can't be bothered repeating worn out arguments.
First is online registration for online
Next is online registration for even single player
Then the online activation limits begin
And finally Ubisoft comes in and requires a persistent online connection for all gameplay online or off
Welcome, console gamers, to the future of gaming.
Too bad you are locked to your console manufacturer's online solution and cannot be saved by Steam.
Next is online registration for even single player
Then the online activation limits begin
And finally Ubisoft comes in and requires a persistent online connection for all gameplay online or off
Welcome, console gamers, to the future of gaming.
Too bad you are locked to your console manufacturer's online solution and cannot be saved by Steam.