You Get What You Pay For

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

You Get What You Pay For

Modern Warfare 2 aside, gamers are soon going to have to dial back the hate and realize that not enough money is being made on big-budget gaming.

Read Full Article

I think that now Unreal Engine 3 is free, we might see some genuinely interesting indie games with the graphical chops to back it up. I look forward to it.

it sucks to see great developer/publisher work so hard to create new IPs but they don't sell and that company has to get shut down or break up into smaller cmpanies

It's a harsh world. That being said, I'm more than willing to cough up some extra money for games. It's not like it's killing me. I wish for nothing but the best when it comes to the video game developers, as they show more spirit in their work than any blockbuster movie director I've seen in a long time.

Don't die on me now developers! We need you! I need you! What will I do if Quantic dreams stops making awesome games with great storytelling? What am I going to do when Team Ico has to shut down? I'll give you more money, just don't die! *Cries over all the horrible things that happens to developers these days*

Although I'm still pissed at Guerilla Games for including a multiplayer in Killzone 2 but no Split-screen multiplayer matches against bots. That made the first Killzone awesome dammit!

Nice commentary.

But it needs some figures to distinguish informed opinion from fanboy rant.

Boohoo, cry me a river. Perhaps if gaming companies would stop making so much shovelware they wouldn't lose so much money. Please tell me how it's expensive for them to release software they previously have created and probably used when testing the game so that people can host servers. How does that hurt them? And I think we can see from Bethesda and Bioware that DLC is successful in earning extra money for games, however I refuse to pay a monthly fee for a game like Call of Duty that is never going to offer the features that an actual MMO such as WoW offers players. Until such a time that Modern Warfare is comparable to games like Planetside, or WoW, and actually offers features that I see costing developers money I will refuse to pay anything.

And please tell me how it's our fault that games crash and burn? Why don't companies do better public opinion polling and testing, or realize that Karaoke and the people who do it are made fun of for a reason? Or realize that the casual gamer they make those games for are fickle beings, and instead offer some support to those fans they can actually rely on?

And simply because every other person failed to do so, I haven't bought MW2. Consumers are the people who decide how the market works, not the developers. We are the people that buy the game, we give them their paychecks. Just because 12 years olds who flipped out and then like 12 year olds changed their minds 20 seconds later doesn't mean that we have lost that power. Isn't it "The customer is always right."

I also think we can see that companies like Valve that actually give a shit, respond to things when their fans protest decisions they made. Valve stepped up and offered features for L4D, and as a result people who wouldn't have (such as me) did end up purchasing L4D2. I think we can see the difference between a successful and caring company, and a successful and cold company. I also think we will soon see which one will fall faster, because last I heard Valve hasn't had to lay anyone off.

Well, good luck with your 2 "Call of Duty"'s a year from 3, maybe even 4 developers and maybe a Call of Duty MMO?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6240709.html

The past several weeks have seen game-news headlines dominated by the $550 million launch of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Now, with the game officially shattering the five-day sales record for any sort of entertainment property, it appears that Activision is increasing its backing of the series.

According to a report in today's Los Angeles Times, the publisher has now enlisted a third studio to help out in development of the Call of Duty series. Until now, Activision had a two-studio system which assured annual installments of Call of Duty. Currently, the series' creator, Infinity Ward, is focusing on the Modern Warfare branch of the franchise, which explores fictional near-future conflicts with cutting-edge technology. The second studio, Treyarch, had been focusing on World War II games, although it has since said it has finished with the conflict in the face of rumors that next year's title will be set during the Cold War.

What exactly the third Call of Duty studio will be working on remains a mystery. The Times did not name the shop and Activision had not responded to requests for identification as of press time. The paper also does not explain the third studio's role, saying only it will be "working on future versions" of Call of Duty games. Those may include the current console and PC mainstays of the series, handheld spin-offs, Wii ports, or even possibly mobile games like the just-released iPhone title Call of Duty: Zombies. Another possibility is a rumored massively multiplayer Call of Duty spin-off, which cash-flush CEO Bobby Kotick teased in 2008.

And have fun with your Subscription-based "World of Warcraft" Payment-Models on upcoming "Call of Duty"-titles: http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/104/1044979p1.html

During today's BMO Capital Markets Conference, CFO of Activision Blizzard Thomas Tippl was asked if the successful World of Warcraft online business model will ever translate into the publisher's other major franchises, such as Guitar Hero and Call of Duty. While Tippl said WoW's model is difficult to replicate, players should expect new monetization models for its other titles soon enough.

"It's definitely an aspiration that we see potential in, particularly as we look at different business models to monetize the online gameplay," said Tippl. "There's good knowledge exchange happening between the Blizzard folks and our online guys."

"We have great experience also on Call of Duty with the success we had on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. A lot of that knowledge is getting actually built into the Battle.Net platform and the design of that," he added. "I think it's been mutually beneficial, and you should expect us to test and ultimately launch additional online monetization models of some of some of our biggest franchises like Call of Duty."

Tippl added there is a demand from its core fanbase willing to pay for additional services and content.

"Our gamers are telling us there's lots of services and innovation they would like to see that they're not getting yet. From what we see so far, additional content, as well as all the services Blizzard is offering, is that there is demand from the core gamers to pay up for that," Tipple explained.

http://bulk2.destructoid.com/ul/135924-rumortoid-activision-creating-a-service-for-call-of-duty/CoDsubscrip02-noscale.jpg
http://bulk2.destructoid.com/ul/135924-rumortoid-activision-creating-a-service-for-call-of-duty/CoDsubscrip03-noscale.jpg

It's as you've said... you get what you pay for, in this case a wagon-load of crap.
I hope you love never-ending sequels with no new ideas and challenging gameplay whatsoever.

Or let's put it this way, if you make deals with the devil don't be wondering if some day you'll end up in hell xD

And I'm amazed at the sheer amount of innovative titles Activision has put out since they have a continous flow of hard cash to back them up from titles as Call of Duty or World of Warcraft...like err Guitar Hero: The 11th Installment or DJ Hero or maybe Wash-Machine Hero...

meh. I've long since given up caring about the vast majority of AAA-title games out there. If it means "the industry" ever does come crashing down because of its own hubris & insatiable consumer demand for only the best, I won't shed a tear on its behalf.

The Triple-A Games industry has huge development costs because money is being wasted. It's as simple as that. You don't need the best classical orchestra on the continent to do your music, you could get almost the same quality for a fraction of the price and NOBODY would notice. You don't need Hollywood actors to do your voiceovers. You can get professional voice actors for a fraction of the price and get equal if not better performance (since they're less likely to phone it in while wondering where their careers went). You don't need to spend hundreds of man-hours developing better breast physics. The list goes on and on and on and on.

On the bright side, eventually the industry will collapse under its own bloated weight and will end up restructuring itself. Might take a few more years, but we'll get there.

A small number of high-quality games>a whole bunch of mediocre games. A whole mess of delays that result in an awesome game>a game that is released when it's good enough, just to get it on the shelf.

When you've been giving people a feature for years, and all of a sudden you're taking it away, do not be surprised when they are pissed at you for taking it away. If your mom or your wife, depending on your stage in life, lets you have chocolate chip cookies and a glass of Kool-Aid for breakfast every morning and then all of a sudden she makes you eat a piece of whole wheat toast, a banana, and a cup of herbal tea, you don't care how good her reasoning is: you are going to be upset.

If people want something, they will pay for it: so make what you are charging for something worth paying for. Simple as that. Make that day-one DLC worth the $15 and I will buy it without complaint. If I pay $15 a month to play a game, I'm going to want to play that game more than any other game I own because I am constantly paying for it. If I don't like the game, I will not play it and I will cancel my subscription. Make it a game I want to play, and I will pay for it. THIS IS NOT A DIFFICULT CONCEPT TO UNDERSTAND.

Yes, gamers need to adjust to a changing landscape. They need to realize that with new services comes new costs. They need to drop the entitlement complex. But developers and publishers also need to realize that they are not the only ones who are suffering for income; gamers are not getting any richer (at least not this one), so if you want my disposable income make, give me something worth it. If you can't, then don't waste your money on desperate cash grabs and we'll all be happy.

I will never, ever, pay a subscription for a shooter like Call of Duty, Halo or anything else. I'll never pay a monthly subscription for anything (by that I mean I won't play those games, it's a fine business model for things like WoW which just keep going and refuse to die.) I'll pay for extra, bonus downloads, but not core gameplay that I put 60 bucks out to get.

They can suck one if they think they can charge 60 bucks for a game and then expect me to pay to play online.

Article:
The thing that struck me hardest amongst these arguments was the idea that Activision was greedy/morally corrupt/the spawn of Satan himself because it dared to change how things had been done up until now by removing key PC-only features, charging for things that used to be free

And doing any of those things is perfectly fine because?

The author of the article is using some really flawed logic here.

Yes, creating games now costs much more money. But is that our fault? No.

I don't give a shit how much it costs to make games now, if they remove basic features that have been a standard for the past decade or suddenly decided to charge for them then i will ignore there products. Simple as that.

Personnally, I only buy the new IPs (like Mirror's Edge, Valkyria Chronicles, Demon's Souls, etc) at release and wait on most of the 'franchise' games. Usually, it is the little guys that actually try something outside the cookie-cutter 'blockbuster' crap that create something of worth. Unfortunately, innovation is rarely rewarded.

Basically what I was saying all week, right at the end there. Boycotters gave proof positive that the opinions of PC gamers don't matter. And console gamers... well, the vast majority of us aren't really enough informed to have opinions on the "industry" as a whole. That's a tough pill to swallow, but its true.

As for rising game costs... I guess Triple AAA titles need to budget more effectively. I'd love to see a monster graphics cut in favour of playtesting and stronger writing. That's just me though, there are other decent balancing acts these companies can commit to.

Furburt:
I think that now Unreal Engine 3 is free, we might see some genuinely interesting indie games with the graphical chops to back it up. I look forward to it.

Agree'd. I have a friend working on a title now. Its the same as any product. A great product comes out but doesnt get the attention it deserves due to a monster, well known name coming out the same time.

Christian Ward:
You Get What You Pay For

Modern Warfare 2 aside, gamers are soon going to have to dial back the hate and realize that not enough money is being made on big-budget gaming.

Read Full Article

Free radical have not been "Shuttered forever" they have been bought out by Crytek and are now known as 'Crytek UK'

Grin have never made a good game, only made a PC port of GRAW1 + 2 and did a shitty job with Bionic Commando, by ANY industry's standards they deserved to go under.

Factor 5 have not made a decent game since 2003 and that is not the industry's fault, that is their own. And they too have not been "shuttered forever" they are currently in litigation, they are alive though I wonder if they deserve to be.

On top of all these GLARING errors this "journalist" has made in this article, the utter naivete about pricing is utterly ridiculous:

-It would NOT cost more to implement Dedicated Servers in Modern Warfare 2
-NO ONE is complaining about MW2's DLC yet
-Console game have a LICENCE FEE (paid to Sony or Microsoft) per game sold, PC games DON'T so they should be cheaper!
-The gaming industry revenues in 2007 were over 18 BILLION DOLLARS and have increased year on year
-For example Killzone 2 only cost $20 million to make (do some research), had revenue of around $123 million (based on games sold) and it should be said this game was unusually expensive and has had comparatively poor sales
--compare to Transformers 2 that cost $200 million and earned about $800 million.

Trust me, even a game that took 4 years of intensive work to be made would not cost even HALF as much as just hiring ONE of the actors of a typical blockbuster movie.

Yet movie tickets are sold at $10 per head and games sell at $50-60 each! Long gone are multiplayer games, no, it's system link and online play (sometimes with a fee) so each person must own a copy.

And you deserve all the hate you get for what you said in the last paragraph.

How can you jsut blithely say "I'm not a PC gamer". You say you "work for a major publisher" (Activision maybe?) yet you just dismiss an entire platform out of hand... do you not have the technical competence to game on PC? Then WHY are you lecturing us on it?!?!?

I mean you ignorance and arrogance is astounding.

You say the PC boycott has failed because MW2 sales are high... ON CONSOLES!!! The PC sales are MUCH lower... Activision have lost out on a HUGE amount of revenue with their illogical way of handling online that would never have gained them a single extra Dollar and served only to alienate their most loyal fans.

Gee, fans of a franchise... wasn't that what you were saying these publishers needed?

Escapist deserves better than hacks like you.

Fearzone:
Nice commentary.

But it needs some figures to distinguish informed opinion from fanboy rant.

How's this for some interesting information about "Christian Ward" that is in fine print at the bottom of the article:

"Christian Ward works for a major publisher, and was a lot more affected by the terrific snowmobile scene, to be honest."

So not a developer, you know those guys who don't actually make the games, just the one who counts the money and says which weapons can be in the game and which will be locked till the hard up gamer has already paid $60 must then pay for "DLC" to unlock them.

I also *Love* it how how he talks about the gaming industry in the THIRD person yet goes on and on about how it needs so much more money from us.

Sounds like a Banker as he slowly tries to justify why he should get a larger bonus.

He also seems reluctant to mention which Publisher he is with *cough*Activison*cough* excuse me, I must have some sort of cold, maybe I should go to some sort of Ward...

Yet more reasons to love Indy PC Game Developers. Lower price, quality graphics with low system specs, continued community support, a focus on gameplay over graphics...

I find it ridiculous that these amazing indy artists, programmers, and project managers can pump out so much with so little, yet so called Trip A Title developers/PUBLISHERS require so much for so little in enjoyment of the quality of game play. Let those AAA game industry implode as far as I am concerned, it will just leave a greater space for indy games to get the recognition they deserve for being the real future of gaming.

Speaking of which, I so totally looking into purchasing these games if the family budget allows:
Gratuitous Space Battles
http://store.steampowered.com/app/41800/
AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! - A Reckless Disregard for Gravity
http://store.steampowered.com/app/15520/
Hinterland
http://store.steampowered.com/app/17140/
Mount and Blade - though I am waiting for a price drop to around $20
http://store.steampowered.com/app/22100/

I will gladly hear any other suggestions for fantastic indy games. I am also following the development of Natural Selection 2. And if anyone knows of L4D RPG, I would be interested in that at the right price as well.

In conclusion, Activision and EA, you are not going to see any of my money unless you happen to have a game that "wins the lottery", which IMHO none of your games has and thus you don't have my portion of disposable income from my family's budget slotted for games, these other indy developers are providing me with a lot more fun. The last game that I could remotely consider "winning the lottery" with me was Valve's Orange Box and Left 4 Dead. I am waiting for a price drop/cut to get in on Left 4 Dead 2.

A little off topic here but... lately the site seems to be going "corporate" on us. Example: the MW2 review.

pay more in order to get the things they are used to.

In the Case of MW2, it's less options for more money. So the entire theory kinda falls apart there.

Hardcore_gamer:

Article:
The thing that struck me hardest amongst these arguments was the idea that Activision was greedy/morally corrupt/the spawn of Satan himself because it dared to change how things had been done up until now by removing key PC-only features, charging for things that used to be free

And doing any of those things is perfectly fine because?

The author of the article is using some really flawed logic here.

Yes, creating games now costs much more money. But is that our fault? No.

I don't give a shit how much it costs to make games now, if they remove basic features that have been a standard for the past decade or suddenly decided to charge for them then i will ignore there products. Simple as that.

Because you have a choice. You have free will. They aren't taking away any of the 5 essentials you need to survive. They are offering a luxury not a necessity. No one owes you anything. They offered a product to entertain people. If you don't like it boycott it (just like I apparently have boycotted 1000s of games this far in my life and will be boycotting tons more over the next year). I mean I could have held my breath waiting for them to listen to me and change whatever I didn't like about whatever game but all that would have led to is a very blue face.

Are people that surprised these companies don't give a rat's ass about thier opinions? Or is it shock that attempting to blackmail them had no effect?

squid5580:

Are people that surprised these companies don't give a rat's ass about thier opinions? Or is it shock that attempting to blackmail them had no effect?

blackmail =

n.
Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.
Something of value extorted in this manner.

Get your English right please.

Treblaine:

Fearzone:
Nice commentary.

But it needs some figures to distinguish informed opinion from fanboy rant.

How's this for some interesting information about "Christian Ward" that is in fine print at the bottom of the article:

"Christian Ward works for a major publisher, and was a lot more affected by the terrific snowmobile scene, to be honest."

So not a developer, [b]you know those guys who don't actually make the games, just the one who counts the money[.b] and says which weapons can be in the game and which will be locked till the hard up gamer has already paid $60 must then pay for "DLC" to unlock them.

I also *Love* it how how he talks about the gaming industry in the THIRD person yet goes on and on about how it needs so much more money from us.

Sounds like a Banker as he slowly tries to justify why he should get a larger bonus.

He also seems reluctant to mention which Publisher he is with *cough*Activison*cough* excuse me, I must have some sort of cold, maybe I should go to some sort of Ward...

You could be on to something here, check out the other content he has submitted, not much better than this "article" *cough*propaganda*cough*.

Ganryu:

squid5580:

Are people that surprised these companies don't give a rat's ass about thier opinions? Or is it shock that attempting to blackmail them had no effect?

blackmail =

n.
Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.
Something of value extorted in this manner.

Get your English right please.

Sorry mister dictionary. Using coercion to get what you want. Happy?

Fearzone:
Nice commentary.

But it needs some figures to distinguish informed opinion from fanboy rant.

Here, knock yourself out: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/26086/Analysis_Industry_Faces_Steep_Odds_Against_YearOverYear_Growth.php

Also, what the hell are these comments? Are you all so blinded by some weird rage against Activision that you can't see the forest behind the tree? Just yesterday, 200 dudes and gals lost their jobs as Pandemic went under. Is it because they released "so much shovelware"? Not really. EA had to put the lock on the door because of slow down in revenue. And it's pretty much like this all over the industry. Seriously! How can you go around and say that. Companies that make shovelware and games for the "oh so awful" casual market are not going down. Ubisoft is the publisher behind all those imagine games (note that they are the publisher, not devs. These games are developed by small companies across the world) and while this is all speculations, I don't have any numbers, I don't think that they are loosing so much money on their investment. Those games are relatively cheap to develop and you don't need to sell a lot of them to make a profit.

The main problem is that the gaming industry went up for the last 10-15 years in an arms race to the best hardware possible to push out the most realistic graphics possible. Now here we are in 2009, with mind blowing graphics, but what else. I'll hold on to my horse and not go on a whole tangent on creativity (Mr. Hecker did it for me: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=26077), but we have pushed so much on the expensive tech that the cost of developing a AAA title went through the roof. The budget for a AAA title in 87 was certainly less significant (even with inflation) than one for a modern game.

And gilthanan, Mr. Ward never said that is was "our" fault that the game industry was facing problems, he merely pointed out the reaction of the majority of "hardcore" gamers that hang around here, or destructoid or wherever, to business decision made by some companies. They may seem unfair to some of us but they make sense on a purely financial level. Good for you if you didn't buy the game but a damn lot of people did (even if 12 years old shouldn't be playing that game anyways) so I guess not that much people cared.

Gamer's head got a bit big in the last few years. We were spoiled by the industry for so long but now the harsh reality comes crashing down and we will have to learn to live with it or take the steps to change it. Let's take a look at Torchlight. A small team of experienced devs took a year to make a small game with what they knew from before and used simple but effective resources to make it. They advertise it on key sites, sell it for 20$ digitally, sell a physical copy some times later, give the tools for user-created content, and use the profits for the further development of the project. More companies will have to look into such new ways to make budget games because the way it is going right now, creativity is killed and the budgets are insanely bloated.

I could also go on and talk about indie games and how the industry could learn form them but that has already went on for long enough.

CanadianWolverine:

You could be on to something here, check out the other content he has submitted, not much better than this "article" *cough*propaganda*cough*.

Sure, since you don't agree with him you have to question his motives and assume he obliviously is working for "The Man".

Not really, you are still butchering the English language.

Crunchy English:
Basically what I was saying all week, right at the end there. Boycotters gave proof positive that the opinions of PC gamers don't matter. And console gamers... well, the vast majority of us aren't really enough informed to have opinions on the "industry" as a whole. That's a tough pill to swallow, but its true.

Opinions matter a hell of a lot. You can't sell any game if no one feels like buying it.
What the failed MW2 boycott showed is not that opinions matter, it's that their opinions didn't matter.

If people complaining on the internet isn't enough to shock the big companies into changing corporate strategy, then the boycotters will need to do something more dramatic. Like shooting a spitwad at Infinity Ward's offices. And boycotts can get you free flights to Valve HQ.

Crunchy English:

As for rising game costs... I guess Triple AAA titles need to budget more effectively. I'd love to see a monster graphics cut in favour of playtesting and stronger writing. That's just me though, there are other decent balancing acts these companies can commit to.

Agreed, though lavishing money upon AAA titles is partially just the custom of corporations and not a deep necessity. Graphics are something easy to optimize and boast about; gameplay and writing is a lot more subjective and more of a crapshoot to just throw money at.

I agree with Treblaine on this, in general.

I also agree with those who mention budgeting. If you aren't making enough money from selling your product (games in this case), then one option is to increase prices. The other is to look at your costs, and consider cutting away some of the fat.

"What I never see in these arguments are all the things gamers have been getting for no additional cost for years."

No additional cost. Yes, the cost of these features was inclusive of the amount of money we paid for the product - they were not free. Such features were considered part of the game, part of what you were buying. Now they should become "premium content"?

squid5580:

Hardcore_gamer:

Article:
The thing that struck me hardest amongst these arguments was the idea that Activision was greedy/morally corrupt/the spawn of Satan himself because it dared to change how things had been done up until now by removing key PC-only features, charging for things that used to be free

And doing any of those things is perfectly fine because?

The author of the article is using some really flawed logic here.

Yes, creating games now costs much more money. But is that our fault? No.

I don't give a shit how much it costs to make games now, if they remove basic features that have been a standard for the past decade or suddenly decided to charge for them then i will ignore there products. Simple as that.

Because you have a choice. You have free will. They aren't taking away any of the 5 essentials you need to survive. They are offering a luxury not a necessity. No one owes you anything.

Does that mean i HAVE to buy there game?

Read what i said again before trying to lecture me:

Hardcore_gamer:
if they remove basic features that have been a standard for the past decade or suddenly decided to charge for them then i will ignore there products. Simple as that.

Did i ever say anything about them HAVING to put something into there games merely because i want them to? No. It's there game and they have the rights to do what they want with it, but that doesn't change the fact that if i think they are dicks for doing what they are doing then i won't buy there games. I am a consumer, and i have a right to decide what i consume just the same as they have a right to do what they want with there games even if it means taking loads of flack as a result.

squid5580:
They aren't taking away any of the 5 essentials you need to survive.

No, they are taking away some of the essentials i need to enjoy my PC online gaming. Sounds like a reason enough for me to ignore there PC products. If you don't care then good for you, but don't try to tell me that my opinion is "wrong". What people like is entirely subjective, there is no official right or wrong opinion when it comes to these kind of matters.

Hardcore_gamer:

squid5580:

Hardcore_gamer:

Article:
The thing that struck me hardest amongst these arguments was the idea that Activision was greedy/morally corrupt/the spawn of Satan himself because it dared to change how things had been done up until now by removing key PC-only features, charging for things that used to be free

And doing any of those things is perfectly fine because?

The author of the article is using some really flawed logic here.

Yes, creating games now costs much more money. But is that our fault? No.

I don't give a shit how much it costs to make games now, if they remove basic features that have been a standard for the past decade or suddenly decided to charge for them then i will ignore there products. Simple as that.

Because you have a choice. You have free will. They aren't taking away any of the 5 essentials you need to survive. They are offering a luxury not a necessity. No one owes you anything.

Does that mean i HAVE to buy there game?

Read what i said again before trying to lecture me:

Hardcore_gamer:
if they remove basic features that have been a standard for the past decade or suddenly decided to charge for them then i will ignore there products. Simple as that.

Did i ever say anything about them HAVING to put something into there games merely because i want them to? No. It's there game and they have the rights to do what they want with it, but that doesn't change the fact that if i think they are dicks for doing what they are doing then i won't buy there games. I am a consumer, and i have a right to decide what i consume just the same as they have a right to do what they want with there games even if it means taking loads of flack as a result.

squid5580:
They aren't taking away any of the 5 essentials you need to survive.

No, they are taking away some of the essentials i to enjoy my PC online gaming. Sounds like a reason enough for me to ignore there PC products. If you don't care then good for you, but don't try to tell me that my opinion is "wrong". What people like is entirely subjective, there is no official right or wrong opinion when it comes to these kind of matters.

You might want to reread the bolded part. Since they are your words afterall.

squid5580:

Hardcore_gamer:

squid5580:

Hardcore_gamer:

Article:
The thing that struck me hardest amongst these arguments was the idea that Activision was greedy/morally corrupt/the spawn of Satan himself because it dared to change how things had been done up until now by removing key PC-only features, charging for things that used to be free

And doing any of those things is perfectly fine because?

The author of the article is using some really flawed logic here.

Yes, creating games now costs much more money. But is that our fault? No.

I don't give a shit how much it costs to make games now, if they remove basic features that have been a standard for the past decade or suddenly decided to charge for them then i will ignore there products. Simple as that.

Because you have a choice. You have free will. They aren't taking away any of the 5 essentials you need to survive. They are offering a luxury not a necessity. No one owes you anything.

Does that mean i HAVE to buy there game?

Read what i said again before trying to lecture me:

Hardcore_gamer:
if they remove basic features that have been a standard for the past decade or suddenly decided to charge for them then i will ignore there products. Simple as that.

Did i ever say anything about them HAVING to put something into there games merely because i want them to? No. It's there game and they have the rights to do what they want with it, but that doesn't change the fact that if i think they are dicks for doing what they are doing then i won't buy there games. I am a consumer, and i have a right to decide what i consume just the same as they have a right to do what they want with there games even if it means taking loads of flack as a result.

squid5580:
They aren't taking away any of the 5 essentials you need to survive.

No, they are taking away some of the essentials i to enjoy my PC online gaming. Sounds like a reason enough for me to ignore there PC products. If you don't care then good for you, but don't try to tell me that my opinion is "wrong". What people like is entirely subjective, there is no official right or wrong opinion when it comes to these kind of matters.

You might want to reread the bolded part. Since they are your words afterall.

What parts would that be?

Next CoD game will have an add on DLC, 50 bucks, for the ability to reload your weapons.

Hardcore_gamer:

squid5580:

Hardcore_gamer:

squid5580:

Hardcore_gamer:

Article:
The thing that struck me hardest amongst these arguments was the idea that Activision was greedy/morally corrupt/the spawn of Satan himself because it dared to change how things had been done up until now by removing key PC-only features, charging for things that used to be free

And doing any of those things is perfectly fine because?

The author of the article is using some really flawed logic here.

Yes, creating games now costs much more money. But is that our fault? No.

I don't give a shit how much it costs to make games now, if they remove basic features that have been a standard for the past decade or suddenly decided to charge for them then i will ignore there products. Simple as that.

Because you have a choice. You have free will. They aren't taking away any of the 5 essentials you need to survive. They are offering a luxury not a necessity. No one owes you anything.

Does that mean i HAVE to buy there game?

Read what i said again before trying to lecture me:

Hardcore_gamer:
if they remove basic features that have been a standard for the past decade or suddenly decided to charge for them then i will ignore there products. Simple as that.

Did i ever say anything about them HAVING to put something into there games merely because i want them to? No. It's there game and they have the rights to do what they want with it, but that doesn't change the fact that if i think they are dicks for doing what they are doing then i won't buy there games. I am a consumer, and i have a right to decide what i consume just the same as they have a right to do what they want with there games even if it means taking loads of flack as a result.

squid5580:
They aren't taking away any of the 5 essentials you need to survive.

No, they are taking away some of the essentials i to enjoy my PC online gaming. Sounds like a reason enough for me to ignore there PC products. If you don't care then good for you, but don't try to tell me that my opinion is "wrong". What people like is entirely subjective, there is no official right or wrong opinion when it comes to these kind of matters.

You might want to reread the bolded part. Since they are your words afterall.

What parts would that be?

First line. The one you just answered with your post before this. "AND DOING ANY OF THOSE THINGS IS PERFECTLY FINE BECAUSE?"

Unfortunately, EA and Activision been bitten in the arse because "they make a similar game, they come to it" philosophy. And what happened? Activision released DJ Hero and it failed in sales. Brutal Legend from EA released and despite the hype it has lower sales expectations.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here