129 réponses à ce sujet

[Vez04]

Haristo wrote...

Vez04 wrote...

Btw about gamestop, They also have that ridicoulous thing with upcoming game releases they usually snaps one week before its release which other stores however dosent do, and that dosent help their Store reputation either, its down right retaded they snaps a game one week before its release. so they can play it<_<, while the rest in the world have to wait until it releases in there country/or region

this is supposed to ''test the product so they can rate it''... I don't give a crap about that I just want my games at day 1 (almost all of them...)

Fair enough m8, but on youtube about over 4 months ago when Blizzards lastest game wasent released gamestop putted a video of the CE edition and they even said ''yeah we got this edition haha suck it you suckers have to wait one week until release'' and that pretty says sometimes they actually screw with the testing of the game/rating it and just play it for themselfs instead.

Modifié par Vez04, 25 avril 2011 - 09:23 .

[Homey C-Dawg]

 I still don't know how to feel about Project $10. I understand it's reasoning but as was pointed out in the video, it feels more greedy than justified. Like EA is just grasping at straws while pissing off the customers, just like they have been doing with all their DRMs for the past few years.

I have a question about this though...

If a copy of a game is being bought used, that means someone already bought that copy of the game new at some point (obviously). So EA has technically already got it's $27 or whatever from that copy. Hence, project $10 can appear from that angle as simply trying to milk more money out of copies they've already been paid for.
If EA simply wants to get a cut from every single person who plays the game, well thats just greed to me, and it feels like strong-arming the customer for it. Computer software are not consumables, and every non-consumable product has a second hand market which afaik the manufacturer doesn't get a cut. I'm wondering why the video game industry feels it should be special.

It's not going to affect me much personally (since I stopped buying all EA games a couple years ago except ME/ME2) but I have ethical problems when I see good concepts turned greedy.

I'd like to see Toyota try to exert this kind of control over their second hand market.

[Relix28]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

It's funny that they had "technical difficulties" when they were about to explain how exactly one could take this out on Gamestop... Don't get e wrong, I am all for this, but I don't really see a way to get those 10$ from gamestop on used games, other than having some sort of used games tax. That'd cause some legal issues though I bet.

One thing I know for sure though: Having special content you get as preorder bonus only when you preorder at Gamestop will not make this any better. In fact it supports gamestop. What is this? They are actively taking some of your profit away and you SUPPORT them?
I know, there are issues that make this seem worthwhile (like having your game featured prominently in the stores or sth) but isn't that counterproductive? (an annoying for everyone who doesn't want to preorder in five different places to get all the content)

Yeah, I also don't get this one. Gamestop is one of the biggest "problems" for devlopers and publishers, concerning this "used game market" issue. And they ALWAYS give the best offers to Gamestop. Why give the best offers to a store that costs developers and publishers the most potential profits? Why not give it to other stores that don't deal with used games instead?

[Homey C-Dawg]

Wow thread dies quick.

I was hoping someone could retort to my question 2 posts up regarding the never-mentioned fact that EA has already been paid for every single used EA game out there. No one ever addresses this point.

Anyone?

Modifié par Homey C-Dawg, 26 avril 2011 - 12:30 .

[AbsolutGrndZer0]

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

Wow thread dies quick.

I was hoping someone could retort to my question 2 posts up regarding the never-mentioned fact that EA has already been paid for every single used EA game out there. No one ever addresses this point.

Anyone?

I can.

They already got paid, yes.  Now, bear with my prices here I'm making the math easy for me to figure and you to understand (or just me, I hate math)

Say they spend $1,000,000 to make the game.  They then charge $10 for the game.  In order to JUST BREAK EVEN they must sell 100,000 games.  

So, say 75,000 people buy the game brand new.  50,000 keep it forever, but 25,000 sell it to a place like GameStop. Then 25,000 people buy it used. So, while 100,000 people bought the game, the company only got the money for 75,000 sales.  So, they get $750,000.  Well, that puts them $250,000 in debt.  

If this does not help it make sense to you why "they already got paid" isn't a valid argument, then you just refuse to accept the facts.

Note: I do buy used games sometimes, I'm not saying I don't.  However, because I do understand the company gets no money for those sales, that's why I have no problem with "Project 10 dollar". You don't need Zaeed.  The game does not suffer if you don't have him.  So, if you never buy the Cerberus Network for you used copy, no big deal.   However, Zaeed is a cool character, and the other stuff that is part of the Cerberus Network is cool... you don't NEED any of it, it's just cool to have if you want it.

Modifié par AbsolutGrndZer0, 26 avril 2011 - 01:04 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

I don't like it, but that's the way the market works.

Where is the guy who always posts the "deal with it" pictures with the sunglasses?

[Haristo]

ReconTeam wrote...

I don't like it, but that's the way the market works.

Where is the guy who always posts the "deal with it" pictures with the sunglasses?

This one ?

[Silmane]

I find it hilarious that only the biggest publishers in the industry do Project $10.

Not greedy, you say? Rubbish.

[LadyJaneGrey]

Great video...  Personally, my family buys most video games new to support the developers, but buying used isn't immoral or unethical.  Some people don't have the cash for new games, and the developers need to make up the difference somewhere so offering extra content through something like Project $10 makes sense.

At the same time, I resent the feeling that I'm being punished for buying a product new.  Between the DRM and then waiting for the extra content to download, starting a new game can feel like:

"Hey, yeah, since you bought our new product, but our servers are overloaded / system's messed up / internet connection isn't 100% constant, you can't play the game YOU BOUGHT.  Try again later. "  Well I feel good about giving you my $.  Not.  

@Homey  Not a retort (so sorry if this isn't confrontation enough for you): I wonder if authors ever get annoyed at libraries for taking away book sales?

Edit: Sunglasses make everyone look cool.

Modifié par LadyJaneGrey, 26 avril 2011 - 01:23 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

I think stuff like Project $10 might be the salvation of the game industry in the future. I say more power to 'em.

Right now, the best possible revenue model is subscription or free-to-play with purchasables. These are the big streams right now, the guaranteed money-makers if you will. They ensure a long tail and allow for lengthier development times and more investment into a single game. They're also not the best model for anything not multiplayer, but if they end up being the only consistent revenue sources, then that's all that we'll be able to make.

More game companies are finding more ways to work with the long tail, as time goes on. Steam helps with this... if a Steam copy is almost as cheap as a used game from Gamestop, you might as well buy the Steam copy. Same thing with services like Good Old Games, I'll pay $8 for Fallout 2 sure! But if you're a console game without a digital purchase option, then a lot of that "long tail" gets eaten up by Gamestop. An optional, non-story-vital bonus content thingy for $10 if you like the game enough seems like the perfect compromise.

So yes, that extra revenue lets them spend more money to develop their next project. I say go for it.


Edit: also, day 1 DLC is good for another reason: there's usually a lag time, between 2 and 4 months, between "content lock for the release disc" and the game's actual release. If you plan on having day 1 DLC, you can keep your devs working on the game for that extra few months, rather than moving them to another project. So don't think of day 1 DLC as stuff they're holding back on purpose, think of it as extra stuff added in after "content lock."

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 avril 2011 - 01:29 .

[Walker White]

These arguments are conflating a lot of issues here. There is a big difference between Day 1 Single Player DLC and Day 1 Multiplayer DLC.

Servers are not free, they are on ongoing maintenance cost for the developer that costs them as long as people play. Allowing you free mutliplayer is a huge gift (yes, I know you pay for Live or the equivalent, but little of that goes to the developer). The only reason it works is because the developer crunches some numbers to determine how long people will play and amortizes that over all players and front loads that in the production cost of the title. When people play multiplayer on a used game, they are screwing with this formula and adding to the load on the server with no additional revenue. This is unfair to the people that payed for the multiplayer component and cannot be permitted.

However, for single player DLC like *ahem* BioWare -- I got nothin'

[Elite Midget]

Didn't have that problem. I Day One'd ME2.

[Homey C-Dawg]

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote...

They already got paid, yes.  Now, bear with my prices here I'm making the math easy for me to figure and you to understand (or just me, I hate math)

Say they spend $1,000,000 to make the game.  They then charge $10 for the game.  In order to JUST BREAK EVEN they must sell 100,000 games.  

So, say 75,000 people buy the game brand new.  50,000 keep it forever, but 25,000 sell it to a place like GameStop. Then 25,000 people buy it used. So, while 100,000 people bought the game, the company only got the money for 75,000 sales.  So, they get $750,000.  Well, that puts them $250,000 in debt.

 

Well if thats the case it just reinforces my greed theory, since in your example they only actually sold 75,000 copies (the 25,000 who sold the game obviously didn't keep their copy). Sure 100,000 ended up playing the game, but 25,000 of them had no intention of buying it new or they would have. So it comes back to EA wanting a cut from every single person who plays the game which, as much as I like Bioware, I cannot get behind. I think thats exerting too much control on a post-purchased product.

Again I wonder how the used car market would work if Hondas or Toyotas required you to re-purchase the stock heater/AC/stereo/speakers every time the car was re-sold. After all, you don't really need that stuff to drive it.

If this does not help it make sense to you why "they already got paid" isn't a valid argument, then you just refuse to accept the facts.

I'm not "refusing to accept" any facts, I'm simply trying to account for all factors while forming my opinion. Thanks for the response still.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote...

They already got paid, yes.  Now, bear with my prices here I'm making the math easy for me to figure and you to understand (or just me, I hate math)

Say they spend $1,000,000 to make the game.  They then charge $10 for the game.  In order to JUST BREAK EVEN they must sell 100,000 games.  

So, say 75,000 people buy the game brand new.  50,000 keep it forever, but 25,000 sell it to a place like GameStop. Then 25,000 people buy it used. So, while 100,000 people bought the game, the company only got the money for 75,000 sales.  So, they get $750,000.  Well, that puts them $250,000 in debt.

 

Well if thats the case it just reinforces my greed theory, since in your example they only actually sold 75,000 copies (the 25,000 who sold the game obviously didn't keep their copy). Sure 100,000 ended up playing the game, but 25,000 of them had no intention of buying it new or they would have. So it comes back to EA wanting a cut from every single person who plays the game which, as much as I like Bioware, I cannot get behind. I think thats exerting too much control on a post-purchased product.

Again I wonder how the used car market would work if Hondas or Toyotas required you to re-purchase the stock heater/AC/stereo/speakers every time the car was re-sold. After all, you don't really need that stuff to drive it.

If this does not help it make sense to you why "they already got paid" isn't a valid argument, then you just refuse to accept the facts.

I'm not "refusing to accept" any facts, I'm simply trying to account for all factors while forming my opinion. Thanks for the response still.

Ok, how about this: what if the profit from a series is used to determine the budget for the next installment in that series? (From what I've seen, this is fairly likely to be the case, along with other factors... marketing projections, etc.)

Let's say about 1,000 people buy the $10 project DLC. That's $10,000. That's salary for an entry level writer for approximately 3-4 months. That means you can have nother writer working on ME3 for four extra months. Or another artist working on it for an extra 2-3 months. This could mean a bunch of new quests and dialogue, or a number of new fully rigged, fully animated character models. (Salaries estimated based on some rough industry standards I'm aware of. May not reflect Bioware's actual pay scales! Estimates!) 

The game industry isn't shoveling money into its pockets. Many game industry workers are getting paid around 50-70% of what they could make in a non-industry job. They stay in the industry because of the love. Now, I don't know how much average profit a studio makes, but believe me when I say this: every dollar Mass Effect makes is factored into decisions about whether or not the next Mass Effect gets made, and what that game's budget will be.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 26 avril 2011 - 01:45 .

[Walker White]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

They're also not the best model for anything not multiplayer, but if they end up being the only consistent revenue sources, then that's all that we'll be able to make.

Free-to-play, pay-for-stuff is pretty heavy in the mobile (iPhone) space as well.  It is damn hard to recoup investment on a 1-dollar game.

It is pretty easy to monetize a resource flow in a game, so any game can include this.  The question is whether or not we will reach a stage at which this is accepted.

[theSteeeeels]

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote...

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

Wow thread dies quick.

I was hoping someone could retort to my question 2 posts up regarding the never-mentioned fact that EA has already been paid for every single used EA game out there. No one ever addresses this point.

Anyone?

I can.

They already got paid, yes.  Now, bear with my prices here I'm making the math easy for me to figure and you to understand (or just me, I hate math)

Say they spend $1,000,000 to make the game.  They then charge $10 for the game.  In order to JUST BREAK EVEN they must sell 100,000 games.  

So, say 75,000 people buy the game brand new.  50,000 keep it forever, but 25,000 sell it to a place like GameStop. Then 25,000 people buy it used. So, while 100,000 people bought the game, the company only got the money for 75,000 sales.  So, they get $750,000.  Well, that puts them $250,000 in debt. 

soooo i buy a car from bmw for $100,000, then after 1 month i sell it to someone for $75,000, you think its ok for bmw to charge that someone another $10,000 to drive it?

[Walker White]

theSteeeeels wrote...

soooo i buy a car from bmw for $100,000, then after 1 month i sell it to someone for $75,000, you think its ok for bmw to charge that someone another $10,000 to drive it?

The old reliable car analogies.  Road maintenance is not free.  Someone gets paid for the roads, either through tolls or taxes.  The difference in the game example is that the game developer typically maintains the roads, where roads=servers.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

aLucidMind wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl is basically saying that there is a difference between being greedy and trying to make a profit. Every company has one goal: To make AT LEAST double the amount they spent on making, which has many factors.

1- Labor (work that went into it. Gotta pay your writers, music producers, and so on)
2- Parts/Supplies (CDs, engines, etc.)
3- Maintanance (Patches, multiplayer servers, etc)
4- Hiring voice-actors, those who act as character models, mo-capping, and so on.

There is a lot that goes into a video game, we all know this, and it costs a lot. In order to thrive, they need to make a minimum of double the amount the put into the product to make it sellable to the public. So if only enough people buy it new to allow the company to break even, they have to find some other way of making a profit on that game so they do it in the form of Project $10. Take into consideration that, if everyone bought new, they may have been able to hit the "x2 Profit" mark. If half of those people bought it used, then they need to do something else to get enough profit to continue making games.

I do buy used games, but if I am confident that the game I'm buying is going to be good then I buy it used. I bought Mass Effect and Metal Gear Solid 4 new because I knew I liked the series and want to support the company. But I bought Uncharted 1 new for $20. but I enjoyed the first game so I bought Uncharted 2 new. Once a series earns my trust, thats when I start buying more of that series New. The next game I buy from that company will be Used, but once I begin to trust the company in making a good game in terms of story and mechanics (minus glitches and such) then I buy New from them.

I also don't think the video game industry is operating on anywhere close to a 100% profit margin. Jesus. Few businesses do, unless I'm going completely batty here. Net from all of a company's projects combined is probably something closer to 10-30% if that.

[theSteeeeels]

Walker White wrote...

theSteeeeels wrote...

soooo i buy a car from bmw for $100,000, then after 1 month i sell it to someone for $75,000, you think its ok for bmw to charge that someone another $10,000 to drive it?

The old reliable car analogies.  Road maintenance is not free.  Someone gets paid for the roads, either through tolls or taxes.  The difference in the game example is that the game developer typically maintains the roads, where roads=servers.

but if you sell your game then its not putting any more pressure on the serves because after the transaction the same amount of people are using the servers

[N7 Vanguard]

I think buying used games is a great way to play games I usually wouldn't play (other than gamefly). If I think a game deserves to be bought at full price I will buy it, if I don't I will wait and get it when it falls down to the 20 dollar range.

Honestly I don't think any game should be 60 bucks but what can you do. You either get it or you don't.

[Walker White]

theSteeeeels wrote...

but if you sell your game then its not putting any more pressure on the serves because after the transaction the same amount of people are using the servers

Not true.  They factor in how long people will play the game before stopping in budgeting for server maintenance. You may not like this, but the alternative is to charge subscriptions for every multiplayer game.

[theSteeeeels]

Walker White wrote...

theSteeeeels wrote...

but if you sell your game then its not putting any more pressure on the serves because after the transaction the same amount of people are using the servers

Not true.  They factor in how long people will play the game before stopping in budgeting for server maintenance. You may not like this, but the alternative is to charge subscriptions for every multiplayer game.

so we pay $10 on a preowned game because they need to know the maintence figures?

how about choosing the third option, were we dont pay for supscripton or the $10, like games have been doing since online gaming started

Modifié par theSteeeeels, 26 avril 2011 - 02:42 .