Support NeoGAF

[Version 3.0]

That movies can earn money for the studios for decades whereas even marginally significant video game revenues can dry up in a couple of years, sometimes months.

How much money do you think Nintendo has made with re-releases? Hell, some of the best games this gen were last-gen re-releases. Your point is only selectively correct.

 

[unbias]

Excellent post. Blockbusters are selling well; Why do people expect that to change if they continue to buy these games? I mean even in GAF. I go to some thread about who buys yearly updates of games and I see most posters buy COD yearly. Then I check the post history of some of these posters and apparently they criticize the industry for trying to imitate COD. In fact, many of these hypocrites criticize COD itself yet they happily pay yearly for it.

Their excuse? "My friends have it bah." Man the fuck up people.

No it isn't an excellent post, it presupposes demand, when it is the publishers telling us what we want. The market contraction we have been seeing is literally a sign that, that isnt what everyone wants.

 

[jmdajr]

Valve as a company competing with their service in a open system vs the publicly traded companies that would have firm control of the console market isnt even a little comparable. Steam(unless a Publisher forces it, whcih would be on the publisher not Valve) is not anti consumer, becuase the service it offers is a choice, not something forced onto the market. In fact it saved the market at a time when selling you game+cd key was easily done. Since then it has had a lot of competition in the PC market.

But you can't sell your games.

 

[KingFire]

Let's see how well those EULAs stand up to a real legal challenge.

They stand up pretty well in the US and parts of EU. This is generally applied to all intellectual property but it's rarely enforced by other industries. Technically all these other industries can enforce the same policies that MS is trying to enforce. You rarely do own your music, movies, software, and video games. You merely have a license to use these products under certain conditions outlined by the producer/maker.

Do I like it? Hell no. But it is the law, and it is above all.

This is "it is my RIGHT" bullshit needs to go. It is making us look as bad as those extreme environment people who basically wanna kill the whole oil industry.

 

[Heavy's Sandvich]

Not seen the video. Will watch it at some point. But surely steam is the exception that proves the rule.

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

That movies can earn money for the studios for decades whereas even marginally significant video game revenues can dry up in a couple of years, sometimes months.

The point was not that literally no one is buying it, just that the actual revenue generated is insignificant. Stop trying to be pedantic.

You're pitting the sales of Pong, the simplest of video games, against the film many critics consider to be the best of all time, and I'm the one being pedantic?

 

[unbias]

In a future all digital world, what are your "rights?"

If it gets there naturally it would be the consumers choice. Books are a perfect example of this. The difference is, this industry, financially, is ran by people who dont care about the health of the industry, but care about artificially bloating stock numbers for their share holders.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

So what happens when we go all digital like every other form of media on the planet?

 

[Version 3.0]

In a future all digital world, what are your "rights?"

Unfortunately, they have yet to be set down in law. That being the case, I do retain my right to re-sell anything I buy. It's only the ability to do so individually that has yet to be returned to me. People sell consoles loaded with DD games all the time.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

LMFTFY:

I'm not going to go through your whole post, but while CDs were a thing, they most certainly did NOT have a high margin for the retailers, which leads me to believe that the rest of your argument is probably just as dismally supported.

I used to run a record store (back when buying music was a thing, but before pirating killed it and then iTunes saved it again) and the margin on new releases was literally zero. We would sell at cost.

The margin on new catalog was ~10-15%.

The margin on used was ~40%.

Most of our sales were either the new releases that we made literally NOTHING on or the used CDs that we sold to actually have a business.

 

[StudioTan]

Considering PONG is decades old, I am not following how this proves your point?

I apologize if I am missing something obvious or have not followed your post clearly.

Yes, how MUCH revenue is it generating? Almost nothing. That same is not true for movies and games. Dark Side Of The Moon is still generating revenue despite being 40 years old.

 

[Rodney McKay]

I agree with the points he makes about the monetization of the game industry being different than other mediums like film and music, but I completely disagree about outlawing used games in order to get developers more money.

Used games have always been a part of the industry and the industry has somehow managed to not only survive, but thrive! You've got big budget multi-million dollar extravaganzas all the way down to Indie games one dude made in his garage. If making a game that looks insanely good (technically) next-gen, it's on the developer/publisher to either:

1. Make the game development cheaper (simpler dev tools, smaller scope, reuse assets for other games, etc.). Movies have the benefit of using actual real life stuff as their assets and they don't need to remake them every film that gets produced, games should try to adapt to a similar model.
2. Figure out ways of monetizing your game to make money post release like Dota 2 and TF2. Single player only games are a little harder to do that with, but it's not impossible.
3. Just charge a little more up front (for the people guaranteed to buy day 1), then drop the price later (for people who wont pay full price and usually buy used). I know I don't want to pay extra for games, but I remember certain N64 games being a lot more expensive than others. Most games on Steam drop in price like a rock after a few months, yet plenty of people still buy day one anyways.

Blocking and/or charging extra to play a used games is an anti-consumer practice plain and simple.
There are better ways of making sure a game can make money.

 

[Mxrz]

Except used market doesn't hurt the industry. All we have is publishers screaming that it does. Just like they did with piracy. Just like they did with video rentals.

Steam has sales because the PC is not a closed platform. There is all sorts of competition. Microsoft (or Sony, or Nintendo) has no such competition. There will be no Steam-like sales. You will never get a AAA title for $7.50 no matter how old it is. Gears of War is what, $40 on games on demand?

Trying to equate the whole thing anything like the PC situation is just as shortsighted as trying to compare it to car, music, movies, or any other market. Video games are video games.

If it were as bad as the publishers claimed, that the industry was doomed otherwise (They did this in the 80s and 90s too btw.) then maybe it should fail. Its not our duty to give up our rights in order to support a broken business model.

And lets just go ahead and drop this notion that no used game sales would mean more money for the developers. No. its the publishers that get it. As is the "huge profit margins" stores get on used games. That neglects the fact that they get jack shit for new sales due to the publishers taking the majority of the money.

So no. Fuck 'em. Its still bullshit and it will always be bullshit. Trying to peddle it just makes you a bullshit peddler.

 

[unbias]

But you can't sell your games.

Nobody forces you to go through steam, so I'm not sure I get what you are trying to infer.

 

[Majukun]

Exactly! If people are saying "I am not willing to pay $60 for a new game if I can't sell it later and recover some of that cost," then why would companies continue to charge $60? They would only be hurting themselves as they watched sales drop.

because the actual costs of the industry make that price point necessary (and maybe it's actually too low).
before lowering that price point,the industry should lower their own costs.that's why i said that the industry should first look at itself and fix what is wrong,instead to find every time new ways to screw their loyal customers while they do exactly jack shit.

They do have control over what they charge, but we have control over what we'll pay. Its not really an "assumption" that prices would go down if people didn't spend more money (net) per game. I guess my major assumption is that people would not just increase the overall amount of money they spend on games (thereby allowing game companies to continue to charge $60 and retain the same sales).

it's a matter of who has the hardest resolution...the industry to try its hardest to take as much money as possible from their customers,or the average casual customer that find itself in front of halo 5 and must decide if they want to buy it or not.
counting that these same average customers are the ones that are passively accepting any kind of bullshit the publishers are throwing at them in the last 6 or more years,and said publisher are he ones who demonstrated many times how are fucking attached to our money,i'm not putting my bet on the costumers.

i may be wrong,no doubt..the fact is that i don't want to take the risk,especially if i don't really get anything in return (as it's the case in this situation,as i said,the industry is yet again trying to use the customers to solve its own problems)

 

[EMT0]

Ah, but you see, used music, cars, movies, TVs, tech, furniture, clothes, books and other stuff aren't the same as games.

Clearly, games can't be compared to this diverse array of things that don't get hurt by the used market.

 

[KingFire]

sadly it's true..but if the industry is at stake,some eggs should be broken...what i can't accept is that the eggs must always come from the user's basket.

they also wanted these kind of games to succees,because making good graphics takes much less skill then making good gameplay or level design.

they should go back to concentrate on making good gameplay instead of graphics...less costs,and if the game is good,the players are going to keep it instead of throwing it away at the nearest gamestop because after you played it one time the game it's useless.

We have devs who do that. They call them indie. And most of them are not doing so well.

So if you really want companies to focus on gameplay and neglect the graphics, then you should vote with your wallet. Support indie and boycott blockbusters.

 

[StudioTan]

You're pitting the sales of Pong, the simplest of video games, against the film many critics consider to be the best of all time, and I'm the one being pedantic?

So just to be clear, your counter argument is that games that are 2 decades old will generate the same amount of revenue as a movie of the same vintage?

 

[Grief.exe]

If the industry 'surviving' means no used games and giving up physical property rights, then the industry does not deserve to survive. It's that simple.

IF the industry wants to...



...then maybe, before we get to this point where we give up our rights as consumers willingly for no appreciable return, it's time to re-evaluate the whole goddamn metric you used to determine the economics of making games in the first place, hm?

MAYBE it's time to fucking cut out those Willem Dafoe and Ellen Page starring roles, hm? Maybe it's time to STOP releasing every fucking goddamn game with some bullshit multiplayer mode nobody fucking wants on this goddamn fucking planet so that you don't have to keep spending money with servers and upkeep? Maybe it's time we get back to the old days, when you released a fucking game without a billion fucking bugs before it even comes out, and you let your consumers beta test the shit out of it for six months before the platform even gets a functional version? Hm, Bethesda? Perhaps it's time to drop the sixteen string orchestras and 9 hours of voiced cutscenes for your ego-driven abomination of a story if you're the type of business survival depends on whether or not your game sells 18 million units to break even? Maybe it's time to stop nickel and diming customers, so they don't get into the game expecting to be ass fucked with 19 paid on disc DLCs that you're shunting away from customers just to be a bunch of withering fuckwads? Hm, maybe you could do that between all the fucking whining and bullshit you've done this past week, blaming everyone else for your misfortune but your own goddamn self?

MAYBE, EA, as you fucking turned Dead Space 3 into a franchise nobody wanted; maybe, EA, as you release five hundred 'EA partner' titles with no marketing, no support, and ridiculous budgets considering their market appeal, you'd decide to change your strategy? MAYBE if we fucking did what they said, none of this would happen? MAYBE if Insomniac Games didn't focus test any personality out of their generic 4-team shooter that I already played sixteen other times this generation, it wouldn't be walking head long into super bomba territory?

Maybe SquareEnix would decide they didn't want to disembowel the Hitman franchise and everything it stood for? Maybe they wouldn't decide that it needed 5 million units, 'cause since when is that the fucking Hitman series sales ability? Don't even get me fucking started on Tomb Raider. Are you serious with this shit? Maybe stop hiring the Lara Croft models, the Californication actresses, maybe stop spend 100 goddamn million on a series that traditional sells 3 million like clockwork?

MAYBE if Activision didn't beat us over the head with a new Call of Duty game every other day, and maybe if half the industry didn't stumble over themselves trying to pathetically copy it to victory? When we're sitting here in seven years wondering why Call of Duty is no longer selling one trillion units every day, will we say it was the gamers fault for milking the shit out of the series until nobody ever cared anymore? I'm sure it was the gamers fault for all the other series they drove into the ground. No names required!

Perhaps if Ubisoft didn't spend year round molesting the Assassin's Creed franchise piece by piece with their behemoth 900 man teams clacking together soulless voyages down destroyed concepts, we'd have a more reasonable economic structure in place. Or delaying a complete game on platforms that were starving for titles for no reasonable return? Or turning Splinter Cell into a completely different series so all the good will for it evaporates? Are we responsible for that too?

But most of all... maybe if EVERY FUCKING STUDIO in this failed industry stopped wishing they were a fucking part of Hollywood, things would get simpler? You ain't hollywood, assholes.

I want big games. But not everyone can make big games and survive. And not only that, maybe some developers have completely misinterpreted what many of us meant by 'big games.' Perhaps it does not mean 500 person teams and celebrity roles, it means diverse gameplay opportunities presented in a nonlinear fashion. Maybe it means instead of corridors, you design more complicated structures for gameplay scenarios to play out... like games had in the 90s, when life was easier and things were cheaper.

And maybe I'm completely wrong. But what IS clear is that there is a billion different strategies developers and publishers could have adopted as things started heading down this path to avoid fucking us in the ass just so they could 'survive.' If we need to give up such basic fundamental rights in order to have the industry survive, then they need to die.

Its pretty clear the mega-publisher might be a dying breed, unfortunately they have too much control over future policy.

A future they might not even exist in if they are unable to innovate.

 

[jmdajr]

Steam has sales because the PC is not a closed platform. There is all sorts of competition. Microsoft (or Sony, or Nintendo) has no such competition. There will be no Steam-like sales. You will never get a AAA title for $7.50 no matter how old it is. Gears of War is what, $40 on games on demand?

I bought Conan on XBOX Live for like 5 bucks. Maybe that's like a solid C title.

 

[MotionBlue]

Not seen the video. Will watch it at some point. But surely steam is the exception that proves the rule.

You just summarized his video, without even watching it. Only with much less retailer hating.

Actually, change that, the entire video seemed to be about hating on retailers for "massive profits" on used games


Edit:

GameStop’s fiscal 2012 net loss was $269.7 million.

 

[unbias]

They stand up pretty well in the US and parts of EU. This is generally applied to all intellectual property but it's rarely enforced by other industries. Technically all these other industries can enforce the same policies that MS is trying to enforce. You rarely do own your music, movies, software, and video games. You merely have a license to use these products under certain conditions outlined by the producer/maker.

Do I like it? Hell no. But it is the law, and it is above all.

This is "it is my RIGHT" bullshit needs to go. It is making us look as bad as those extreme environment people who basically wanna kill the whole oil industry.

Oh please, it doesn't make anyone look bad. I don't even think it is a right, but I see in no way how that view point is detrimental to a consumer, who thinks this way. Just because you or an EULA doesn't think it is a right, doesn't mean people cant feel it is a right.

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

Yes, how MUCH revenue is it generating? Almost nothing. That same is not true for movies and games. Dark Side Of The Moon is still generating revenue despite being 40 years old.

That's true, there's a huge difference in revenue. Think of all the revenue from the sequels Citizen Kane spawned. Citizen Kane 2, Citizen Kane 3, Super Citizen Kane World, Citizen Kane Kart, the list goes on and on!

 

[jmdajr]

We have devs who do that. They call them indie. And most of them are not doing so well.

So if you really want companies to focus on gameplay and neglect the graphics, then you should vote with your wallet. Support indie and boycott blockbusters.

Phil Fish looks pretty healthy. I'm sure he'll be around until at least age 50.

 

[unbias]

I bought Conan on XBOX Live for like 5 bucks. Maybe that's like a solid C title.

>.> I think you are being a little generous. C- at best. I definitely wouldn't give it an average grade.

 

[jimi_dini]

Remember that video he posted when he told people to call him out if they felt like he was becoming a corporate shill?

His point is:
"It's great, because it's against Gamestop - it's also bad for consumers, but who cares, it's against gamestop."

Why should I care about Gamestop? Why should I care about publishers? Actually publishers are the same breed - it doesn't matter how, they just want more money. Screw the developers? fine by publishers. Screw the consumers? fine by publishers as well. And in case an older IP isn't relevant enough, they will just not care about it at all - for example Activision owns the rights to (most?) Sierra classics. For example Quest For Glory series. Those are true classics. It would be really cheap to create a collection DVD of that series and sell it. Did they do it? No. Because they assume it won't make ENOUGH money. Not less money than making such DVD would cost them. No. Just not ENOUGH money for them to care.

GOG had to actually talk to them, so that they let GOG sell "their" games. Otherwise none of those would be available digitally at all.

Why should I even consider thinking: yes, Gamestop is bad, so it's totally fine to screw me over so that I won't be able to sell my games anymore AT ALL. So that I won't be able to play classics, just because I didn't buy them back when they were released. So that I won't be able to play the games that I bought before, just because the publisher pulled the plug on the DRM servers.

Funnily Biscuit wouldn't care about all of this. If the games are not sold, he will just pirate them. For him the perfect solution to those problems. Not for me, Biscuit. Not for me.

If the industry 'surviving' means no used games and giving up physical property rights, then the industry does not deserve to survive. It's that simple.

.

 

[StudioTan]

That's true, there's a huge difference in revenue. Think of all the revenue from the sequels Citizen Kane spawned. Citizen Kane 2, Citizen Kane 3, Super Citizen Kane World, Citizen Kane Kart, the list goes on and on!

You're moving the goal posts.

 

[Majukun]

If the industry 'surviving' means no used games and giving up physical property rights, then the industry does not deserve to survive. It's that simple.

IF the industry wants to...



...then maybe, before we get to this point where we give up our rights as consumers willingly for no appreciable return, it's time to re-evaluate the whole goddamn metric you used to determine the economics of making games in the first place, hm?

MAYBE it's time to fucking cut out those Willem Dafoe and Ellen Page starring roles, hm? Maybe it's time to STOP releasing every fucking goddamn game with some bullshit multiplayer mode nobody fucking wants on this goddamn fucking planet so that you don't have to keep spending money with servers and upkeep? Maybe it's time we get back to the old days, when you released a fucking game without a billion fucking bugs before it even comes out, and you let your consumers beta test the shit out of it for six months before the platform even gets a functional version? Hm, Bethesda? Perhaps it's time to drop the sixteen string orchestras and 9 hours of voiced cutscenes for your ego-driven abomination of a story if you're the type of business survival depends on whether or not your game sells 18 million units to break even? Maybe it's time to stop nickel and diming customers, so they don't get into the game expecting to be ass fucked with 19 paid on disc DLCs that you're shunting away from customers just to be a bunch of withering fuckwads? Hm, maybe you could do that between all the fucking whining and bullshit you've done this past week, blaming everyone else for your misfortune but your own goddamn self?

MAYBE, EA, as you fucking turned Dead Space 3 into a franchise nobody wanted; maybe, EA, as you release five hundred 'EA partner' titles with no marketing, no support, and ridiculous budgets considering their market appeal, you'd decide to change your strategy? MAYBE if we fucking did what they said, none of this would happen? MAYBE if Insomniac Games didn't focus test any personality out of their generic 4-team shooter that I already played sixteen other times this generation, it wouldn't be walking head long into super bomba territory?

Maybe SquareEnix would decide they didn't want to disembowel the Hitman franchise and everything it stood for? Maybe they wouldn't decide that it needed 5 million units, 'cause since when is that the fucking Hitman series sales ability? Don't even get me fucking started on Tomb Raider. Are you serious with this shit? Maybe stop hiring the Lara Croft models, the Californication actresses, maybe stop spend 100 goddamn million on a series that traditional sells 3 million like clockwork?

MAYBE if Activision didn't beat us over the head with a new Call of Duty game every other day, and maybe if half the industry didn't stumble over themselves trying to pathetically copy it to victory? When we're sitting here in seven years wondering why Call of Duty is no longer selling one trillion units every day, will we say it was the gamers fault for milking the shit out of the series until nobody ever cared anymore? I'm sure it was the gamers fault for all the other series they drove into the ground. No names required!

Perhaps if Ubisoft didn't spend year round molesting the Assassin's Creed franchise piece by piece with their behemoth 900 man teams clacking together soulless voyages down destroyed concepts, we'd have a more reasonable economic structure in place. Or delaying a complete game on platforms that were starving for titles for no reasonable return? Or turning Splinter Cell into a completely different series so all the good will for it evaporates? Are we responsible for that too?

But most of all... maybe if EVERY FUCKING STUDIO in this failed industry stopped wishing they were a fucking part of Hollywood, things would get simpler? You ain't hollywood, assholes.

I want big games. But not everyone can make big games and survive. And not only that, maybe some developers have completely misinterpreted what many of us meant by 'big games.' Perhaps it does not mean 500 person teams and celebrity roles, it means diverse gameplay opportunities presented in a nonlinear fashion. Maybe it means instead of corridors, you design more complicated structures for gameplay scenarios to play out... like games had in the 90s, when life was easier and things were cheaper.

And maybe I'm completely wrong. But what IS clear is that there is a billion different strategies developers and publishers could have adopted as things started heading down this path to avoid fucking us in the ass just so they could 'survive.' If we need to give up such basic fundamental rights in order to have the industry survive, then they need to die.

 

[jmdajr]

>.> I think you are being a little generous. C- at best. I definitely wouldn't give it an average grade.

Aww man. It's pretty fun for a beat em up!

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

So just to be clear, your counter argument is that games that are 2 decades old will generate the same amount of revenue as a movie of the same vintage?

Some will, some won't. If you're going to cherry pick Citizen Kane, then I'll take Super Mario Bros., thanks.

 

[mbmonk]

Yes, how MUCH revenue is it generating? Almost nothing. That same is not true for movies and games. Dark Side Of The Moon is still generating revenue despite being 40 years old.

Thanks. I think I understand your point.

I feel like others in the thread have brought up better arguments than I can birth at this time, so I will bow out.

Thanks for clarifying the augment for me. Apologies.

 

[Version 3.0]

But you can't sell your games.

The European Union says otherwise. I, for one, find it sad that I live in "The Land of the Free" and the historic champion of capitalism, and I have to cross my fingers and hope that foreign laws will prevent corporations from stepping on my rights.

 

[BlackJace]

Its pretty clear the mega-publisher might be a dying breed, unfortunately they have too much control over future policy.

A future they might not even exist in if they are unable to innovate.

If they don't know what to do with their buckets of cash in order to garner profits without fucking people over, then they deserve to go under. Sucks about the job loss, but that wouldn't be much in light of the job loss an industry wide crash would cause.

 

[jmdajr]

That giant post just illustrates trends. I mean how many platformers and fighting games did we need in the 90s.

If you have one successful thing, you will have a shitload of derivatives from it.

It goes the same with music, books, movies, etc.

 

[unbias]

Aww man. It's pretty fun for a beat em up!

Friend of mine forgot that at my house one day... I'd rather play limbo or something.

 

[StudioTan]

Some will, some won't. If you're going to cherry pick Citizen Kane, then I'll take Super Mario Bros., thanks.

Which will? Give me an example of game from the 90s would make significant revenue if released today unaltered?

 

[Atrophis]

Well this certainly wasn't the direction I was expecting TB to go in but this will certainly get him a lot of views.

I want to see him go head to head with Sterling who made a much more compelling argument. TBs really don't stand up to the most basic of scrutiny.

 

[Palette Swap]

I bought Conan on XBOX Live for like 5 bucks. Maybe that's like a solid C title.

The thing is, good GoD sales have been so far more the exception than the rule. I'll be the first to acknowledge MS have been better at this this year than previously but their current GoD approach is still very backwards.

 

[BlackJace]

That giant post just illustrates trends. I mean how many platformers and fighting games did we need in the 90s.

If you have one successful thing, you will have a shitload of derivatives from it.

Look where it's gotten us though. A lot of fighters and platformers were middleware.

And middleware's pretty much gone now.

 

[Shai-Tan]

The European Union says otherwise. I, for one, find it sad that I live in "The Land of the Free" and the historic champion of capitalism, and I have to cross my fingers and hope that foreign laws will prevent corporations from stepping on my rights.

reselling games, basic human right

 

[morpix]

This guy seems to forget that when Microsoft locks down an already locked system, they're not going to drop prices (like Steam sales) because there's no competition.

Steams Marketplace is in competition with Amazon, GMG, GamersGate, etc. Microsoft will have sole control over the XBones Marketplace. So there's no incentive to drop prices.

Using Steam as an example of what will happen in a "no used games" world, is warped.

 

[KingFire]

Oh please, it doesn't make anyone look bad. I don't even think it is a right, but I see in no way how that view point is detrimental to a consumer, who thinks this way. Just because you or an EULA densest think it is a right, doesn't mean people cant feel it is a right.

Excellent point about the feel. I totally agree. One reason people don't mind Steam DRM and no-used policies is because Valve made that "feel right." by trying to appear very consumer friendly while in fact they are doing what console makers are now trying to do: kill used game sales.

The publishers need to do this. Make it feel right that there is no longer a used game market. How you say? I have no idea and I guess people with marketing experience can help with that. It requires creativity and hard work but it can be done since it already has been done on the PC.

No wonder people defend Valve in armies even though Valve is just the other side of the same coin.

 

[Silphonica]

You know, PC games have had activation keys for fucking ages now, waaaay back when they had never even stepped foot in digital distribution platforms. Online passes didn't really phase me much anyway as I didn't play many games recently, but it doesn't surprise me either that a lot of devs would choose to implement this.

Change is happening, people don't like change. However, people don't like anything.

 

[Wickerbasket]

reselling games, basic human right

Consumer rights; I know those might seem confusing when you're used to having none.

 

[Majukun]

We have devs who do that. They call them indie. And most of them are not doing so well.

So if you really want companies to focus on gameplay and neglect the graphics, then you should vote with your wallet. Support indie and boycott blockbusters.

i don't make it a problem of indie vs blockbusters..i've loved FTL this year as much as i loved dark souls..and i despise dear esther as much i despise all the run-of-the-mill shooters with scripted cinematics and boring gameplay.

it's all about gameplay,if someone gives me that,then it's a copy sold,if there's good production values too,well it's even more good but gameplay has priority

 

[unbias]

Excellent point about the feel. I totally agree. One reason people don't mind Steam DRM and no-used policies is because Valve made that "feel right." by trying to appear very consumer friendly while in fact they are doing what console makers are now trying to do: kill used game sales.

The publishers need to do this. Make it feel right that there is no longer a used game market. How you say? I have no idea and I guess people with marketing experience can help with that. It requires creativity and hard work but it can be done since it already has been done on the PC.

No wonder people defend Valve in armies even though Valve is just the other side of the same coin.

By making it the consumers choice, like e-books, GOG, Steam, and ect.

 

[KingFire]

By making it the consumers choice, like e-books, GOG, Steam, and ect.

I don't exactly get it? You mean make the service so good that people naturally choose you over used? That does not eliminate the used market if that is what you mean.

 

[unbias]

I don't exactly get it? You mean make the service so good that people naturally choose you over used? That does not eliminate the used market if that is what you mean.

And? I think you are missing my point.

 

[Version 3.0]

Yes, how MUCH revenue is it generating? Almost nothing. That same is not true for movies and games. Dark Side Of The Moon is still generating revenue despite being 40 years old.

So is Super Mario Bros. How much money is your average forgotten album from 1973 generating?

You ignored my post above. Your argument is only selectively right. Even assuming that it was 100% true, though, why do you think the amount of money something might potentially make over the long term change my rights as a consumer?

 

[Eliciel]

When did a "used anything" actually "hurt" anyone or anything.

Cars, Second Hand Clothes, CD, DVD, Kitchens, what have you. Give me some examples when did this happen in history. Everyone who can't afford a new game buys a used game and then the consumer that bought the new game in the first hand has new money (from his sale) to actually buy more new games.

DVD's actually costs 5-10€, watching a movie in the cinema costs 6-12€ - buying a new game costs 60€. Do I miss something? Avatar cost a lot of money. The risk was taken because they believed in it. If it would have sold only 1m worldwide it would have been very very bad for everyone actually participating in it. So? Where is your point my dearest "The Devil's Halibut"? They did it, they made money out of it - that's how our actual market works. Why should I as consumer empower EA making even more money? Really? That's your opinion? Give me a break..seriously. If you like that go and let microsoft get your money. Monopoly at it's finest once again.

In addition to that, you say in the beginning of yourmovie that whoever doesn't like your opinion should just leave the channel. Well, my dearest TDH this is NOT how discussion and how internet works. If you think that this egozentric way will get you fame or what ever...have fun with it. In general discussion is about meeting different tastes and generating trade-offs, closing agreements. Your style Sir doesn't help anybody at anypoint of every problem.

He is so arrogant, it hurts my soul.