Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NEXT
 

Crono1973:
So according to publishers who use online passes, the market value for online multiplayer is $10 per player, not $10 per copy of the game?

I guess that means that if I never use the multiplayer, I should be paying $10 less or that I should get a $10 rebate after purchase right? Right?

I wish this is how it worked, there are a number of games I play single player on and I have no intention of using the multiplayer.

FelixG:

Crono1973:
So according to publishers who use online passes, the market value for online multiplayer is $10 per player, not $10 per copy of the game?

I guess that means that if I never use the multiplayer, I should be paying $10 less or that I should get a $10 rebate after purchase right? Right?

I wish this is how it worked, there are a number of games I play single player on and I have no intention of using the multiplayer.

It should be the way it works, after all if they are going to attach a market value to multiplayer it should apply across the board. New buyers who play online, used buyers who play online and new buyers who don't play online.

As it stands now, if I buy a new game, I am overpaying by $10 because I never play online.

FelixG:

Treblaine:

Halo 2 was shut down not because the servers were too expensive - there were no servers - but because of network incompatibility with the direction Xbox Live was heading. Particularly on the number of friends in the friendslist. This is no excuse, they could have patched the game but they refused to.

By the way, the multiplayer of halo 2 on PC is still going strong. It uses fan-run Dedicated-servers.

I really need to reiterate quite how cheap the console client-hosted model is. Quibbling over that amount of money is even more petty than quibbling over the number of pages in the manual! oooooh, laminated paper is so expensive... those poor publishers[/sarc]

Hm ok, I dont actually have actual stats on how much it costs to run these servers, I dont work for any of the publishers or microsoft.

But then again, if they are so cheep to run, why doesnt gamestop pick up the servers when the devs or what have you grow tired/incapable of hosting them? They dont they support their loyal used game customer base?

It's something like 100 dollars per year. Even for a mediocre title it's something like 0.04% of the total revenue to keep the servers going for a decade. And it is a GOOD IDEA to keep allowing matchmaking, as if you shit over your old games that is going to give your games a bad reputation as poorly supported.

Gamestop et-al aren't taking these over because they are game retailers, they had precisely Dick and All to do with running networks. They buy and sell boxed copies of games. Remember, the publishers hold the keys the the authentication servers and the ball is in their court, you can imagine why they won't give that to the big retailers, they'd rather keep the network for themselves.

How about THE FANS take responsibility for this, it's not hard. Why do console gamers all expect big businesses to make every little decision for them, do everything that they would be better off doing themselves? If servers are being abandoned by the devs, write a letter to the publisher and ask to keep running them on a fan-support. This was done for dozens of Dreamcast games. Whether Xbox Live will allow this, I don't know. Microsoft are kind of dicks that way, most likely is Microsoft will FORCE the publishers to keep supporting games as part of the terms of releasing a game on Xbox 360.

And another question... Why should the publishers/devs support those who are not their customers? People are quite fond of using other industries as an example, so lets say used cars. If you buy a used car and it didnt come with something that was supposed to come with the car, would you expect the people who made the car originally to provide that bit, or the people who sold you the car? You could probobly pay the original makers for the bit though, like online pass.

Enough with the spurious analogies. They are irrelevant and unnecessary, this is NOT hard to comprehend, there is no need for convoluted comparisons of "buying a used game, just like buying a used car". By the way car warranties: transferable with ownership.

But this really annoys me:

"Why should the publishers/devs support..."

Don't you get it? THEY AREN'T SUPPORTING SHIT!!!!

get this into your head, once Call of Duty is released that is IT! It cost Activision NOTHING for you to play online games, YOU the gamer host the games, YOU paid for the hardware, YOU pay for the electricity, YOU pay for the internet. Tracking stats is NOT significant support, any 3rd year web-designer could make a protocol and host a server for that.

Stop talking about servers as if you are actually playing on proper servers, it's delusional!

YOU support YOURSELF! The publishers merely ALLOW you to connect to your peers, you and your hardware and connections do ALL the leg work!

The question should be;

"why are the publishers putting up a pay wall from me connecting with my peers?"

I'm paying for the internet to my ISP, that infrastructure is paid for. I paid for the console, the game was paid for, it doesn't matter if it was bought directly from them, as it's a 'zero sum game' as they are now down a game, no extra game copies were created. So primary buyer sells on Bad Company 2, then they have enough money to buy Battlefield 3 after the taster of BFBC2!

Man, as a European, I'm already paying WAY too much for games (generally 60 Euro's). Stop trying to mess with the only possibility for me to play a game without handing you over $80 for every single fucking game.

Crono1973:

kiri2tsubasa:
How is it that someone like me who makes $6.00 per hour can still buy new games (in almost all cases they are day 1 releases) and collectors editions of various games (most recent collectors editions were Disgaea 4 and Space Marine). Do you want to know the last time I bought a used game. I have no clue, maybe last generation or the one before.

$6 an hour, 40 hours a week, $240 GROSS. Say 10% income tax (and that's generous) and you are left with $216. $216 * 4 = $864 per month. That's only $164 more than my rent for a two bedroom apartment. Don't you have a car payment, insurance, gas, groceries, electricity, etc..?

Not buying it unless you have no rent/house payment, no car and are on food stamps.

That is what I make as a part time worker at college.

kiri2tsubasa:

Crono1973:

kiri2tsubasa:
How is it that someone like me who makes $6.00 per hour can still buy new games (in almost all cases they are day 1 releases) and collectors editions of various games (most recent collectors editions were Disgaea 4 and Space Marine). Do you want to know the last time I bought a used game. I have no clue, maybe last generation or the one before.

$6 an hour, 40 hours a week, $240 GROSS. Say 10% income tax (and that's generous) and you are left with $216. $216 * 4 = $864 per month. That's only $164 more than my rent for a two bedroom apartment. Don't you have a car payment, insurance, gas, groceries, electricity, etc..?

Not buying it unless you have no rent/house payment, no car and are on food stamps.

That is what I make as a part time worker at college.

Part time, so not even 40 hours per week. No bills eh?

PunkRex:

Wicky_42:

PunkRex:
Here in Enland we userly pay 45-60 for a brand spanking new game... which is about $60-$70 dollars... bad timez... I havnt bout a new AAA game in about a year, I mainly only play XBox live arcade now... to be honest, its been really fun... except for Clash of Heros, YOU JUST GOT 5 LINKS IN A ROW RANDOMLY?! BOLLOX!!!

Good God man, where do you shop?! Quick tip: go to Amazon.co.uk and buy new titles for 25-35. Heck, even Steam is cheaper than your rates, and if you pre-order a title you're very excited about you can save yourself 10% or more, without waiting for months in the hope of a sale or price reduction. Smart shopping, what-ho!

... can't tell if Amazon employee...

Nonsense my good man, you don't have to be employed by them to realise what a great place for deals they are, consistently undercutting prices not only in physical stores but also amongst many of their online competitors! Where they're not beaten on price you're going to be hard-pressed to find a store with such convenience of purchase and breadth of produce of offer. Sign up for Amazon Prime and you'll not even have to pay for delivery first-class delivery!

...

but it helps
>.>

<.<

[not actually employed by Amazon]
will accept commission though - pm for details ;)

Treblaine:

With new publishing models like (but not limited to) XBLA, Steam and iOS the developers get 70%-to-100% of royalties - BEFORE profit - just from the raw revenue.

And with the minecraft-model it is possible to find the funding through the alpha-and-beta stages with limited access for much reduced price.

The necessity of big publishers like Activision made sense in the days of boxed copy and retail market, but now they are little more than a pushy bank manager. All they do is bankroll their development process and like a pushy-old-fashioned bank-manager tell the artists how to do their job, what they can spend the money on and so forth.

The best publishers are those that are more like rich indie developers, like Bethesda and Valve.

Publishers' days are numbered. At the very least, they are put in a vulnerable position by how redundant they are, they now have to offer much more and can demand much less.

I think you've got a typo there, 100% of royalties before profit means that no-one else gets paid, which if it's possible means that the developer is paying a nice sum to someone somewhere else.

I think you'll find that you're wrong though, as regarding publishers. If we look at banking, music, film, (maybe books?), television and all the other big well established media enterprises, they've all experimented, some for hundreds of years and fallen back onto the publisher model.

I think the big idea that possibly your missing when building up your conclusions is the idea of risk. Which has a very real, expensive existence in big finance. It's not that the developers do all the work and the publishers bankroll them, it's the developers do all the game developing, the publishers handle all the things which take a large experienced staff to do but would oversize and be underused by a single developer and most importantly the publishers handle all the risk.

In the end, the risk taken by a developer is that they can't find anyone to publish there work and the developer closes and everyone finds jobs elsewhere. Whereas a publisher ultimately takes the risk of losing ten of millions of pounds. A developer never takes that risk, because they're given the money essentially risk free by the publisher.

Now 20% may sound pretty pathetic, but remember that the publisher pays the developer a huge advance that it ultimately may never get back. It's 20% but it's 20% as if you've sold millions of units.

I think you're treating Steam and XBLA as publishers, which they aren't. They're more like platforms. Steam doesn't pay your wages whilst you work on the game and doesn't provide you with the resources needed to make it (unless in special cases). It just takes your game and sells it, does nothing more than that, takes no risk and it still takes 30% of the profit you tell me? And you're complaining about publishers, who take the risk, handle complaints, sort out packaging and manufacturing and frequently publicity and all that, as well as making sure that the developers aren't doing a Duke Nukem and just not actually making the game and you're saying that's not even twice the work that Steam or XBLA does?

The minecraft model is a freak of nature and can't really be repeated. One guy managed to make a game by himself that millions of people thought worth paying for as it is. Games like Achron have managed to scrape by on the model but it relies on word of mouth and novelty. You've got to somehow and advertise for free and interest people purely on the concept of the idea. No-one would ever have funded Uncharted on those grounds and even the really popular and unique success stories haven't raised anywhere near the sort of money required to make a game like Uncharted. Even Minecraft, the very best that there is hasn't quite raised the budget for a quality game like Uncharted or Crysis or Gears of War or GTA.

Now I can't comment on how good Valve are as a publisher, because apart from Portal which Valve kinda bought out I can't think of many games that they've actually published and Valve have the unique advantage of actually owning a platform. In reality Valve are in a more similar position to Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony than a straight publisher because Valve make money on every single game that people buy through Steam, regardless of Valve's actual involvement.

Nor can I comment on Bethseda. I can provide you with a whole list of completely awesome games that have been published by Activision, EA and THQ and Take-Two however which suggests they aren't worsening the game industry with their publishing habits. As much as I hate Mass Effect 2 can I really say the game industry would have been better if EA hadn't given Bioware the money to push the bar and expand in so many ways? Not really.

So I really can't say that publishers days are numbered. Most of the films I watch have been published by the big companies, most of the books I've read have been published by some conglomerate mega publisher and I have a feeling most of the games I play will be the same. Indie games, phone games (and that less so now bigger plays move in on the market) and quirky small games have the blessings of low budget and so can do without publishers, but as great as those games are I do love me some Little Big Planet and Motorstorms and Valkyria Chronicles etc...

Holy shit did the Escapist redact their "5-minute run-time" policy? If so, then good on them. Anyway, agree with all points made here. Keep up the good work.

Kevlar Eater:

MeTheMe:
Once again, this shows us the need to vote with our wallets. If a game with a new pass was released that was annoying and intrusive, and no one bought it because of that, don't you think they'd rethink what they'd just done? Same for intrusive DRM. Yeah, I may not get to play the game I want to for a while, but I try to send a message.

Nope, they would use piracy as an excuse for their (nonexistent) sales, and then implement DRM similar or worse than that of Ubisoft's.

True enough, but I'd like to think to think there are studios who'd understand, and not basically say everyone everywhere is a pirate and they need this intrusive DRM and all these one time passes. Studios who can listen to what we're saying. Studios I'll actually buy from.

BrotherRool:

Treblaine:

With new publishing models like (but not limited to) XBLA, Steam and iOS the developers get 70%-to-100% of royalties - BEFORE profit - just from the raw revenue.

And with the minecraft-model it is possible to find the funding through the alpha-and-beta stages with limited access for much reduced price.

The necessity of big publishers like Activision made sense in the days of boxed copy and retail market, but now they are little more than a pushy bank manager. All they do is bankroll their development process and like a pushy-old-fashioned bank-manager tell the artists how to do their job, what they can spend the money on and so forth.

The best publishers are those that are more like rich indie developers, like Bethesda and Valve.

Publishers' days are numbered. At the very least, they are put in a vulnerable position by how redundant they are, they now have to offer much more and can demand much less.

I think you've got a typo there, 100% of royalties before profit means that no-one else gets paid, which if it's possible means that the developer is paying a nice sum to someone somewhere else.

Not really.

I meant for the publisher+studio model they only get a percentage of the money after all the costs/expenses, so of the profits. I suppose semantically the current model the Development Studio can only possibly get 20% of the profits, compared to iOS App Store where developers get 70% of the raw revenue. Sure they have the costs to absorb, but I'll get onto that.

Compared to say Minecraft where 100% of the money you pay (bar taxes) as revenue goes directly into Notch's bank account.

It's interesting looking at the breakdown of the cost of consoles games, what slim margins they make. Publishers sell the discs to retailers at only about $36 per unit (Pachter interview) then they are hit with a $10-12 licence fee per disc from Microsoft/Sony for the royalty of releasing a game on their system, the cost of the box + disc + manual ($3) and other per-disc costs. In the end, Notch makes about as much per sale of Minecraft as Activision makes per sale of each COD game.

I think you'll find that you're wrong though, as regarding publishers. If we look at banking, music, film, (maybe books?), television and all the other big well established media enterprises, they've all experimented, some for hundreds of years and fallen back onto the publisher model.

Well, for hundreds of years we had the creator-manufacturer-distributor model and all the inefficiencies of physical products.

Things are so different with digital distribution, the manufacturer can be cut out of the loop almost entirely and the distributor slimmed down significantly if not completely eliminated.

For hundreds of years there was a huge buggy whip industry, then all of a sudden there wasn't.

I think the big idea that possibly your missing when building up your conclusions is the idea of risk. Which has a very real, expensive existence in big finance. It's not that the developers do all the work and the publishers bankroll them, it's the developers do all the game developing, the publishers handle all the things which take a large experienced staff to do but would oversize and be underused by a single developer and most importantly the publishers handle all the risk.

In the end, the risk taken by a developer is that they can't find anyone to publish there work and the developer closes and everyone finds jobs elsewhere. Whereas a publisher ultimately takes the risk of losing ten of millions of pounds. A developer never takes that risk, because they're given the money essentially risk free by the publisher.

Now 20% may sound pretty pathetic, but remember that the publisher pays the developer a huge advance that it ultimately may never get back. It's 20% but it's 20% as if you've sold millions of units.

I'll grant you, the risk is there... if you are playing it straight.

But the digital distribution model allows you to do things you could never have done in the past on cartridge or optical media sold through retail, such as sell a game in its alpha and beta stages at a mark down price to test if you have a good idea before it is fully developed. Sell a game for noting at all and charge for an upgrade to a more feature filled version.

And the thing is Publishers to spite their expressed purpose being it to absorb risk: THEY DON'T!

They do not take the necessary risk to innovate, they are notoriously derivative, predictable and safe. When there is failure, they don't absorb the loss, most of the time they liquidate the studio or at the very least cut them loose. How many more West and Zampellas is it going to take for everyone to ask if what these publishers really bring to the table really worth it? And that's for the most successful game of it's time, Infinity Ward got gutted and Literally thrown out on the streets by bouncers.

You look across the industry, if studios don't do EVERYTHING right, then they get broken up as if they were an independent that went bankrupt. Team Bondi made a great game with LA Noire, overdue but great and sold well, now it's being liquidated, most of the staff going to the film industry... Whoopee...

Bungie signed up with Activision but in a very curious way, much more in the literal sense of a "publisher", just want them to publish the game as in get it from their studios to store shelves, Bungie retaining all rights and control. In the Gaming industry we use the term publisher that would best describe a "producer"; they are most involved in the financing and control of production and owning the copyrights and ultimate control of everything the studio creates. Now, that's very different from say an Author's Publisher, where the author makes their manuscript almost completely independently with publisher only having limited creative input at the end mainly to do with page layout or included drawings.

I think you're treating Steam and XBLA as publishers, which they aren't. They're more like platforms. Steam doesn't pay your wages whilst you work on the game and doesn't provide you with the resources needed to make it (unless in special cases). It just takes your game and sells it, does nothing more than that, takes no risk and it still takes 30% of the profit you tell me? And you're complaining about publishers, who take the risk, handle complaints, sort out packaging and manufacturing and frequently publicity and all that, as well as making sure that the developers aren't doing a Duke Nukem and just not actually making the game and you're saying that's not even twice the work that Steam or XBLA does?

Well, I suppose they are publishers in the traditional/literal sense, they "publish" the games. They take 30% of revenue, not 30% of profit. That's a hell of a lot better than the disc based retail market where the studio where the Studio takes only 25-30% of the actual shelf price.

I think marketing/public-relations is great for consumables that you put little thought into like coke-vs-pepsi, but not for video games, we are too wise to the marketing and with that much money and TIME on the line, people are more likely to depend on logical thought than irrational association (which is the main influence marketing can achieve). When selling things like this, you have to make an old school demonstration, not a Multi-million dollar razzmatazz. Who needs that when we have fanboys?

You know what is really good marketing: being GOOD and releasing a free demo so people can see how good you are, then withhold the final component that would make it perfect and put there: "upgrade to Pro version here for only $1.99"*. I've bought so many apps I thought I could go without this way.

Now why did Halo 3 sell so well, was it because of the multi-million dollar ad campaign... or was it thanks to Halo 2?

(*are we both British? I'm using Dollars because just because this is an American site + $ seems most recognised here)

The minecraft model is a freak of nature and can't really be repeated. One guy managed to make a game by himself that millions of people thought worth paying for as it is. Games like Achron have managed to scrape by on the model but it relies on word of mouth and novelty. You've got to somehow and advertise for free and interest people purely on the concept of the idea. No-one would ever have funded Uncharted on those grounds and even the really popular and unique success stories haven't raised anywhere near the sort of money required to make a game like Uncharted. Even Minecraft, the very best that there is hasn't quite raised the budget for a quality game like Uncharted or Crysis or Gears of War or GTA.

What about the free-to-play model that is exploding? League of Legends is a variant of this, also 100% independent developer.

What about most of the software and games on iOS that is all about independents having dynamic pricing models?

As for high quality games, what about Hard Reset? Witcher 2? And the upcoming Hawken? These are INDEPENDENT games! They did NOT have EA nor Activision bankrolling them. Yet look AMAZING and are great games too.
Some titbits:

Hard Reset

Witcher 2 (merely distributed by Atari)

Hawken

As much as I hate Mass Effect 2 can I really say the game industry would have been better if EA hadn't given Bioware the money to push the bar and expand in so many ways? Not really.

Who says Bioware couldn't do it for themselves?

They have had hit, after hit, after hit. Big hits. If Bioware had received 100% of the profits from each previous revenue, they could easily have re-invested it to make each subsequent game. The thing is not the a case of the benevolent EA absorbing risk for Bioware, Bioware is their golden goose to subsidise their other ventures that have much more to do with trying to desperately attain market dominance.

So I really can't say that publishers days are numbered. Most of the films I watch have been published by the big companies, most of the books I've read have been published by some conglomerate mega publisher and I have a feeling most of the games I play will be the same. Indie games, phone games (and that less so now bigger plays move in on the market) and quirky small games have the blessings of low budget and so can do without publishers, but as great as those games are I do love me some Little Big Planet and Motorstorms and Valkyria Chronicles etc...

Oh yes, Publishers won't do down without a fight. But I think that would be more down to them being hard to kill than it being an environment that actually favours them.

True, most of the books/films/games I have consumed have come from pig publishers/producers. But what about the ones I really love:
-District 9
-zombieland
-Portal 2
-Hard Reset
-Amnesia
-Witcher 2
-Magicka
-Minecraft

I will give props to Sony, for all their many MANY failings (and I mean MANY) if mostly redeemed by the many great studios they support in making great, distinct and worthwhile games. These are developers that clearly benefit from being in the Sony computer entertainment environment (that wonderfully is a spin off of Sony Music). But what I can't stand are studios who would clearly do better without the publisher using them as a golden goose to end up in the cooking pot at soon as they have a bad year.

(Sorry I haven't quoted most of your post here, I find once an debate has got to split quotes it's easy for someone like me to fall into the trap of endless nitpicks rather than broader arguments, I hope I've at least mentioned enough of what I'm responding to, to be followable)

Treblaine:

Not really.

I meant for the publisher+studio model they only get a percentage of the money after all the costs/expenses, so of the profits. I suppose semantically the current model the Development Studio can only possibly get 20% of the profits, compared to iOS App Store where developers get 70% of the raw revenue. Sure they have the costs to absorb, but I'll get onto that.

Compared to say Minecraft where 100% of the money you pay (bar taxes) as revenue goes directly into Notch's bank account.

It's interesting looking at the breakdown of the cost of consoles games, what slim margins they make. Publishers sell the discs to retailers at only about $36 per unit (Pachter interview) then they are hit with a $10-12 licence fee per disc from Microsoft/Sony for the royalty of releasing a game on their system, the cost of the box + disc + manual ($3) and other per-disc costs. In the end, Notch makes about as much per sale of Minecraft as Activision makes per sale of each COD game.

That's pretty cool to know actually, thanks for the info. The minecraft model of course is not workable in any real form for the majority of distributions, if only because Minecraft got the equivalent of several million pounds of publicity absolutely free. Developers of merely good to average indie games don't have news site after news site linking to the place where people can buy their game and at the very least would have to rely on a place where people would naturally go to buy a game.

The real thing about Minecraft though is that Notch made money without money, something that is normally impossible to do. He just stumbled on the dream of something which costs almost no money to make and that everyone wants to pay lots of money for. Most other ideas take money to make and then make a little bit more, and that's the way it works for most games.

He's also in the situation where he can safely make other games without running out of capital.

The reason we need publishers is otherwise the system is too brutal. Take your Bioware example. Yes Bioware can probably make enough money off each game so they can afford to make their next game. But 1) Is the money available at the right time? Money coming in from games is pretty erratic and any delay in a game schedule that pushes a game overbudget would mean that even though the game will still easily make it's money back when released it doesn't have the money now. Which means it needs a hefty loan, which means it needs investment. Which means the people investing in it feel like they should be assured the job will be done well. And once inverstors are putting in millions, you've basically got a publisher again.

IE if Valve and Blizzard didn't have Steam and WoW in a publisherless world they'd go out of business before their next game gets released.

2) What if they make a game that is less succesful? I don#t even mean a bad game, just one that's less successful. If Bioware make a game for 10 million and receive 15 million in return that's still not enough money to make their next game. If they make a Jade Empire it's all over. Whereas a publisher can see the talent (or else another publisher will and swoop in on it) and say, okay Dragon Age 2 wasn't as good but if you've got this fantastic track record so we'll give you the money you need to make another game.

You're also placing too much hope in digital distribution. You said it yourself, the disc and box and stuff only costs $3. It's chicken feed. DD will bring many brilliant revolutions to the industry and hopefully more flexible pricing systems, but it won't change the need for investment and security. The thing is that most of the DD games at the moment have indie inclinations, where the whole point is they're smaller budget and manage to avoid the reaches of a publisher.

And you're ideas on how to avoid risk aren't long term feasible. Like selling a game in it's alpha, we've already gone over how the only 1 in a million example success story hasn't even managed to raise funds to make a big budget game. And that's with an alpha game which is playable, something that's rare in itself.

Same with selling something for nothing and upgrading. To get to that stage you've got to have a game. To have a game (unless you're Notch) you have to pay peoples wages whilst they make it. To pay peoples wages you need an investment. For an investment you need a...

When I said publishers absorb risk I didn't mean they fund risky things. No a publisher always will try to minimise risk. I'd take a fifty fifty bet with a fifty pence, but not with a fifty pound note. I meant risk purely in terms of having a 50 million debt on your head and the risk of losing that money.

I agree it's bad the publishers close developers that fail, and in a sense that's pretty bad. But in the end those people go and get new jobs. If they've got talent and the industries got space they will, if they can't find jobs it's because they aren't quite good enough or the industry has shrunk because people haven't got money to spend on games. They will have been paid for there time spent on a game and have opportunities to continue working. They've lost nothing but the next job and of course the huge discomfort of trying to find a new one, particularly if the industry has shrunk (but then someone is going to lose a job whatever happens). They haven't lost money in that deal. Whereas a publisher had 10 million in it's bank, somewhere a group of people put up 10 million of cash and now they are 10 million poorer. They've lost a lot more financially than the developer. That's what I mean by risk. If the developer took the risk then even they'd start of rich and make themselves jobless and poor if things go bad or they'd start of moderately rich and end up in debt with no way to pay it off.

And your ideas for cheap marketing, like releasing a good free demo. Well that's not enough. People have to know that demo exists. People have to be convinced that demo is worth trying. If everyone is doing this, isntead of a one off, it's not news and doesn't get reported. No-one finds out about the existence of the demo. Even putting a demo together can take a lot of time and money investment. What if your game doesn't demo well? A story based game is hard to demo without it being a loooong demo. A game with complicated mechanics that build up gradually doesn't demo well because you either start off with simple mechanics that aren't special, or difficult mechanics that the player isn't sufficiently familiar with.

And even Halo 3, remember that Yahtzee story? About how Guiness decided to stop advertising because everyone knows what Guiness is and St Patricks day exists? And then Guiness didn't end up selling much that year? It's hard to realise how much more informed we are about most people. The majority of CoD player didn't realise Modern Warfare 2 was a sequel to Modern Warfare 1 until the marketing department stuck the CoD prefix back on it. And to get to the point where you can sell a brand you need to spend a lot of marketing on the initial brand.

Free-to-play is a good model. But it's not necessarily 100% developer. To do something free-to-play you need to have a game to have a game you need...

League of Legends was funded by venture capitalists to the tune of 20 million dollars before it was released. You can bet those people are taking a hefty cut and were watching to make sure their investment was secure.

Finally AAA games that managed to do it without a publisher. You mentioned the Witcher 2. Interestingly enough it turns out that CD Projekt are actually a videogame publisher that decided after 8 years of publishing games they'd turn some resources to developing their own too. CD Projekt RED STUDIO are essentially are an in house developer for the publishing company CD Projekt. I just never heard about it before because they were focussed on Poland.

I don't know enough about Hard Reset but wikipedia says it's got mixed reviews and a couple of those explicitly state they feel the game didn't have enough funding to be the game it should have been :D It's an upstarting developer so they have to have got money from somewhere so either the founders were insanely rich or they're paying off a hefty loan to someone.

Hawken is a brilliant case in your point. Small indie developer making a class game.

In the end, in weird sense I don't think we're disagreeing. (Well not as much as we might think) I agree that publishers bring about flaws, that great games can be made without publishers and some truly brilliant things can be done with some clever marketing and pricing.

The trick here is "all" I don't believe that all great games can be made without publishers and that all brilliant things can be done with clever marketing and pricing.

But the way I see it. Publishers don't actually hurt anything. The point of all your methods is that they don't need publishers. So if a studio is doing those things, a publisher shouldn't be involved in the first place to hinder them. But this also means the publishers time and money is available to be spent on other brilliant games. Meaning that we have more brilliant games!

A developer only comes under the thrall of a publisher voluntarily. They choose to sign a contract and make a deal. There have been some nasty cases where a developer has made an unwise choice or taking things on faith that the publisher was too nefarious to take on faith, but the truth is most of the time a developer and a publisher only hook up when they feel things can be mutually beneficial.

There can only be so many Minecraft at a time. Brains and info can only be passed so far. I'm not saying we should get rid of it, no we should embrace it! But at the same time we have Minecraft we can also have FiFA. The two can co-exist because they're so radically different. We don't need publishers for everything, but they can be good for some things.

To sum up I feel this analogy is best, since Peter Jacksson published District 9. District 9 was a great film that did fantastic things on a small budget and found new ways to bring quality without a publisher and it was a great film. The Lord of the Rings was a big budget masterpiece that needed a publisher so much it took the publisher the risk of desolation to get it onto the big screen. They're both great films and the world is better for both of them, neither one could have worked with the others system. The one was too risky for a publisher to take on, the other to expensive for an indie.

Lets have both

(I'm Welsh/British btw)

for the money side of things, i recommend avoiding Australia, we still have the god damn online pass (and variants), but your paying $100-$110 for a used game within the first few weeks of release and if you include another $10, you are paying more for a used game than a new.

Amen. It needs to be said even if the POV will be unpopular.

zelda2fanboy:
First point - Get a job, hippies! Games are not too expensive, if you're a smart consumer. This is true of all goods and services. I'm not going to spend sixty bucks on a 5 hour campaign because I do my research before I even enter the store. Even then when I do splurge on a full priced new release title, I do so with the help of Amazon / KMart / Best Buy incentive programs. The last full priced title I bought was Deus Ex 3 at KMart with the promise of $20 off the next game, and the next, and the next, and the next. And that game lasted me a solid month of regular playing with a reasonable expectation of coming back to it again. I can't think of any other form of entertainment with that level of value. The fact that Skyrim will be the same price, and I paid less than that to play Oblivion Game of the Year Edition (brand new copy, about two years after release) is mind boggling. If I can afford to sustain this hobby with a $9000 college loan and working three days a week for minimum wage, almost anybody can.

Ok well, too much text there I think. I read the the first paragraph and it is all based on preference of game. Every game you mentioned is an RPG, which given the amount of hours that can be spent, are great value.

But, say you are more into other games, say for example you like 5 hour long campaigns and then moving onto multi player, your screwed. Especially if you don't have the money to buy brand new or pay for a pass, the multi player will have become stale and lifeless by the time you get your hands on it 2-3 months down the line, plus everyone that is still playing it will have a massive advantage over you.

Don't take this the wrong way, I agree with your principles, I myself am very careful about which games I buy and how much I pay for them, no matter what genre.

Azuaron:
Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I may be jaded by the whole "used game" arguments because I'm a PC gamer, and digital distribution is the way to go.

People say that they can't afford to buy a game new, so they wait and buy it used.

I say I can't afford to buy a game new, so I wait and buy it on a Steam/Gamer's Gate sale for 10-30% of its original price (seriously, I got Dragon Age, it's expansion, and all the DLC for $20). Since I'm buying new, I'm a customer of the publishers and developers, and since I'm willing to wait for a sale, I'm not selling organs to fuel my gaming habit.

So anytime someone says they "can't afford" a new game so they buy used, I naturally scoff, but maybe things are different on consoles.

Generally the good games don't go down in price, for instance i saw call of duty 2 for 40 dollars recently when that game should only be around 10 at this point.

But one thing I think that people rarely discuss is availability as well. Certain games just are not sold new, for instance I wanted to get another copy of Hitman Blood Money after my other disc wore out, but noone around here sells it new at all. I eventually had to pick it up used at gamestop because stores just dont sell the game anymore.

Also i think selling games to buy new ones is a valid point, Ive played quite a few games and 3/4ths of them were all new, I would not have bought half of them if i hadnt sold games to make money. For instance because of the games ive sold recently I was able to pick up Deus Ex Human Revolution, and Ill be able to pick up Skyrim, Modern Warfare 3, battlefield 3, Uncharted 3 and Gears of War 3 (sheesh a lot of 3's) I would only be able to pick up one of those new (maybe one, probably none of them) if i didnt make money off used games

I think one way to fix this would be to have a price system like new games are, hen gamestop sells a game new they send a percentage to the game company, so why not just have them set up the same thing for used games? have a percentage of the sale goto the developer (maybe a slightly smaller percentage, say if it were 15 percent for a new game make it 12 percent for a used game), then it doesnt matter how many times a game is sold new everyone gets their money

Baresark:
I'm in agreement with the addled mind of Jim Sterling, scary stuff.

My favorite bit is when stupid consumers make excuses as to why this type of stuff is a good idea. It's like Stockholm Syndrome. Don't defend the companies that don't give a shit about their customer base please.

I'm with you and, oddly for me, JS as well. I've been arguing a TON of the same points he's brought up here while also coming across a billion of the turkeys voting for Xmas that Baresark seems to be on about with hi all-too-true "Stockhom Syndrome" reference.

Fact is a shedload of gamers become fans of series and even of games AT ALL because they can start off with the used games they can afford as students/schoolkids etc (or for trade ins etc)and these kids will be the big buyers of next gen or the gen after that. The industry is SOOO short sighted and , frankly, I have to ask if it's because we gamers are the least well supported and supportive bunch of consumers on the planet. Since when did o many of us care more about publishers than fellow gamers FFS?

Also, as a musician it annoys me to see devs cry about people selling on their game when I have NO problem with someone, say, selling on a recording of mine-guess what? I should have made it BETTER, good enough to keep. Well said guys-can't believe I'm so behind Sterling after so many times finding him formulaic(always thought he could write, mind)and totally opposing his views.

The problem with your arguments is that the publishers will be helped more than hurt by the online pass. One publisher, I think it may have been EA, has already said it has made them tens of millions of dollars.

If the publisher wants to do this they can. I rarely participate in the used market but the industry is going through some growing pains and as America and the rest of the world become very connected with fat pipes the industry is going to have to adapt. We've some good examples, ie Freemium games and some bad examples, ie always-on Internet for single player games. I think at the end of the day we'll get to a point where everyone is relatively happy.

That's not how you hold a sword.

...just sayin'.

JustaGigolo:
You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

you know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes?
1. game developers who don't make games good enough for people to keep them or buy them new when they come out
2. game developers who whine about not making enough millions of dollars
3. people for allowing this shit to happen and setting a precedent for the rights of gamers everywhere.

the used game industry has thrived and so has the gaming industry. store credit for trading in a game that kind of sucked and giving someone else the opportunity to play it and enjoy it is not going to kill EA, and budget indie titles often come out as download only.

also, multiplayer is a pretty big component of some games, can you imagine being stuck with only single player call of duty?

Enkidu88:
Car companies, Book publishers, Movie companies, and Game publishers:

One these four use less resources than three of the others, charge on average twice as much for their product, and suffer from less "used" sales.

Now I'm going to let you guess which one is also bitching about "used sales" and forcing paying customers to prove their purchase every time they want to use the product they paid for.

Here's a hint: it starts with "Game".

car companies, music companies, movie companies make money from other sources too.

car companies will sell brand name parts, or offer warranties or service maintenance on used cars.

music companies/artists will make money for concerts, live tv performances, movie,media deals, advertisements, and biographies,.

movie makers make money of cinema, dvd, blu ray, digital downloads, not to mention tie in books,movies, cartoons, toys, posters and in movie advertisements for products.

games make money off new sales. the other way they do it is through in game ads and dlc, yet they get heck for that.

Decent points, except you completely missed half the argument. You know, the part where used games provide zero revenue to publishers/developers and lessen their ability to create future games.

Or the part where servers cost money. You didn't think online play just magically happened, did you? Online multiplayer requires host servers, and those cost money. Or do you expect Codemasters (the developers and publishers of Dirt, which you mentioned) to provide you access to their servers out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not, if you want to play online, you've gotta pay the piper. Bandwidth ain't free. If you buy the game new, then Codemasters likes you and will let you use the servers to your little hearts content. If you bought a used copy, tough cookies.

Besides, isn't "used" supposed to indicate a depreciation in value? If I buy a used car, it's got miles on it. It might have damage. Someone else has had their fat ass in the seat. It won't have all the shiny bells and whistles of the new model. Thus the price is lower.

What has depreciated in a "used" game? The box art might be a bit dingy. Maybe the worthless manuals aren't there. But really, does anyone care about those things? Didn't think so.

Last question: Didn't Extra Credits cover "Project $10" already... like 7 or 8 months ago? I guess now that their archived stuff is gone, you're free to crib notes.

BrotherRool:
And even Halo 3, remember that Yahtzee story? About how Guiness decided to stop advertising because everyone knows what Guiness is and St Patricks day exists? And then Guiness didn't end up selling much that year? It's hard to realise how much more informed we are about most people. The majority of CoD player didn't realise Modern Warfare 2 was a sequel to Modern Warfare 1 until the marketing department stuck the CoD prefix back on it. And to get to the point where you can sell a brand you need to spend a lot of marketing on the initial brand.

Well Guinness is a common consumable, people hardly put much thought into it. They just make an instinctive decision at the bar or in the supermarket, that's where marketing can worm into your subconscious. It's which drink FEELS right.

You know an easy and cheap way to advertise Modern Warfare 2? COD4! Update with a few performance tweaks and bam: little ad post-game saying "say, COD4 has a sequel, Modern Warfare 2"

You didn't have to pay for that space, that's YOUR space. And there is no point in telling people who haven't played MW2 that it is a sequel to COD4, if they haven't played it, why should they care? And informing people of something they were going to buy anyway? That's the easiest kind of marketing. What you need the millions of dollars for is the persuasion part, for a product that has pretty much no unique appeal like coke vs pepsi. It has to leave a strong impression with billions of people that coke is the one to buy and really the taste of sugar-water (especially the sugar free diet varieties) is very much an acquired taste.

There are countless examples in the video game industry of games selling very well without the massive marketing expense. In fact most games go without it, it's only the mega-publishers who feel the need to saturate the media and resort to bullshit like EA's "your mom wouldn't like this" ad.

I got to admit, I agree with what he says about people buying a used game, loving the game and buying the sequels for full price. I picked up Dead Space dirt cheap, I had asked me people what it was like and got a response of "meh, its alright". I ended up loving the game and had no problem shelling out full price for Dead Space 2 and I have no problem paying full price for Dead Space 3 when/if it comes out.

Vyse86:
TL;DR-Version:
(Please at least watch this video if you didn't bother with my post)
http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2010/10/episode-41-revolution.html

Amazing post, ty.

Gears 3 has a ton of weapon skins that can only be acquired (afaict) by paying points. Not through gameplay like some. I find this disgusting.

actually completely agree that second hand games are an essential part of the current system and I think this problem springs from game publishers charging too much in a lot of cases. This year one of my most anticipated games is batman arkham city, which I will probably pre-order, however I got the original cheep second hand...why? well two reasons, firstly for a game I finished in a week, including riddlers challenge, 60 is a big asking price, secondly for a game ive never played and have no experience with 60 is a big fucking asking price, was I meant to spend that money solely on the basis batman was in the game? Publishers are asking you to give them big money on the off chance you'll like their game and your only indication is at best a demo. I honestly think we need a two tier system of game prices with one for massive triple A titles with years of playability, and a much lower one for short single player based games....if gaming was more affordable I wouldn't have to rely on second hand games and trade ins.

Vyse86:

TL;DR-Version:
(Please at least watch this video if you didn't bother with my post)
http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2010/10/episode-41-revolution.html

I've no idea what this mountain of sarcasm laden text was supposed to mean but that video is a facile load of bollocks. Competition has done NOTHING to reduce game prices and infact the opposite has occured in many cases.
Selling on my property is entirely legal, and entirely a good thing. Moaning that a shop can resell games is such a straw man when talking about the profitability of the industry.
The whiny little child in that video needs to grow the fuck up. Calling shops that sell used products 'pawn shops' is so fucking beyond childish it's laughable.
The online pass racket has nothing to do with developer payment or even with the publisher being denied profit. It's about creating another revenue stream for M$ and so forth.

No one but fucking no one will be telling me I'm acting immorally or selfishly for selling on a game i'm FINISHED with, for whateer reason. Anyone that attempts to convince me otherwise is wrong. That's it. Wrong.

Smithburg:

Azuaron:
Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I may be jaded by the whole "used game" arguments because I'm a PC gamer, and digital distribution is the way to go.

People say that they can't afford to buy a game new, so they wait and buy it used.

I say I can't afford to buy a game new, so I wait and buy it on a Steam/Gamer's Gate sale for 10-30% of its original price (seriously, I got Dragon Age, it's expansion, and all the DLC for $20). Since I'm buying new, I'm a customer of the publishers and developers, and since I'm willing to wait for a sale, I'm not selling organs to fuel my gaming habit.

So anytime someone says they "can't afford" a new game so they buy used, I naturally scoff, but maybe things are different on consoles.

Generally the good games don't go down in price, for instance i saw call of duty 2 for 40 dollars recently when that game should only be around 10 at this point.

But one thing I think that people rarely discuss is availability as well. Certain games just are not sold new, for instance I wanted to get another copy of Hitman Blood Money after my other disc wore out, but noone around here sells it new at all. I eventually had to pick it up used at gamestop because stores just dont sell the game anymore.

I think everyone can agree that there's a "statute of limitations" on when you're reasonably expected to buy a game new instead of used (I recently bought Windwaker used because "new" copies are, essentially, unopened used copies that are selling for over $100).

Smithburg:
I think one way to fix this would be to have a price system like new games are, hen gamestop sells a game new they send a percentage to the game company, so why not just have them set up the same thing for used games? have a percentage of the sale goto the developer (maybe a slightly smaller percentage, say if it were 15 percent for a new game make it 12 percent for a used game), then it doesnt matter how many times a game is sold new everyone gets their money

For new games (consumer pays $60), I expect Gamestop only makes around $10 and the rest goes upstream. For used games, Gamestop makes half of what they're selling it for, the rest having gone to the person who turned the game in.

That being said... why should Gamestop give them a cut? They're not adding additional value to the product at that point. ...Unless the game has multiplayer and the game companies setup some kind of... online pass system...

Alternatively, if production companies just setup their own trade-in system (like they'd do if they were smart...) they could keep all the profit from trade-ins and they would ensure users buy more of their games (credit only works at the place you got it).

Shops that sell used games are still taking a risk. If a game isn't popular enough to stay on people's shelves they are taking the risk it will still sell used. Publisher's don't bother to address that convenient fact.
Nor do they care if they offload their inventory to the retail sector for a game that, like Dead Island, turns out to be an underdeveloped turkey.

So i have very little synmpathy for some of these publishers.

BrotherRool:

The real thing about Minecraft though is that Notch made money without money, something that is normally impossible to do. He just stumbled on the dream of something which costs almost no money to make and that everyone wants to pay lots of money for. Most other ideas take money to make and then make a little bit more, and that's the way it works for most games.

He's also in the situation where he can safely make other games without running out of capital.

You act as if the only indie games are Minecraft type simplicity. Let me remind you of what kind of quality Indie developers can afford:

Hard Reset

Witcher 2 (merely distributed by Atari)

Hawken

The point is Minecraft is so LUDICROUSLY over successful it shows that any other indie developer could make it without publishers. You don't have to do as well as Minecraft to do better than signing away your soul to the devil/Activision.

Jim, gotta be honest with you buddy, I never thought much of Jimquisition. You seemed like a decent guy once you got past the snark, but the show wasn't doing it for me.

However, in just 8 minutes, you have convinced me that you should run for president.... if that's possible. You know, with the nationality and all...

I live in Australia and even though our dollar is on par with the US currency, publishers still make us pay over $100 for a new game. So when two come out in the same week that's a cool $200 we have to lay down to get the goods. Think of me and my kind suffering here in this hellish cultural wasteland when you are purchasing your newest game. For we in the land of sand will not see it's like for at least a week, two months if we're unlucky. And curse the publisher scum for taking value away from my trade in, which each month are used to aid and abett my gaming habit.

Treblaine:

You act as if the only indie games are Minecraft type simplicity. Let me remind you of what kind of quality Indie developers can afford:

Hard Reset

Witcher 2 (merely distributed by Atari)
Hawken

The point is Minecraft is so LUDICROUSLY over successful it shows that any other indie developer could make it without publishers. You don't have to do as well as Minecraft to do better than signing away your soul to the devil/Activision.

Did my post not show? Or didn't you read it? Because I went over all three examples and made my closing point which you've also ignored. Apart from anything else I explictly stated that CD Projekt makers of the Witcher 2 are a PUBLISHER not a developer. They have been PUBLISHING games since 1994 and in 2002 they decided to create an in-house development team called CD Projekt RED STUDIO who are a development team working for the overall PUBLISHER CD Projekt. The reason you haven't heard of them is that they're an exclusively Polish publisher.

All I'm saying is these games are possible, but Hawken and Hard Reset had to cut stuff to make the fantastic game they did. One of them took a loan out of 20 million dollars from venture capitalists so you can bet your bum that they're making nothing like 100% of the profit on that game and are instead forking it over to what by all accounts is a publisher, just one that isn't even providing gaming experience or marketing help.

The other cut any sort of multiplayer mode to retain funding.

And what I'm saying is. These are great games. They are great games that exist amongst other publisher made great games, neither type of game could be made under the other system. Both co-exist and should co-exist. All indie games either find novel shortcuts or take out ridiculous loans where they end up in a lot of debt and the risk on bankruptcy. What's more, I predict those games you've mentioned will not sell as well as they should given the quality of the game.

Also I think your view of marketing is a little behind and you don't understand the amount of marketing money even goes into the mediocre games. It's almost certainly multimillion. You just see the more noticeable failed attempts at unique marketing whereas the real money is just to reach people who don't read sites like this, so TV spots and the like and generating a buzz. It's scary how much control marketers have over what people think of a game. Did you read the column on Duke Nukem marketing?

But anyway I think this discussion has run it's course, I've presented my side and I will leave you to your conclusions, thanks for the discussion, I've learnt a lot

BrotherRool:
You mentioned the Witcher 2. Interestingly enough it turns out that CD Projekt are actually a videogame publisher that decided after 8 years of publishing games they'd turn some resources to developing their own too. CD Projekt RED STUDIO are essentially are an in house developer for the publishing company CD Projekt. I just never heard about it before because they were focussed on Poland.

Well CD Projekt fits part of the definition of "indie" which is short of "Independent". They are their own boss, independent of any

As Artists they did not have to go cap in hand to a rich publisher who will make their game in exchange for all the rights to the game, major aspects of design and execution as well as taking most of the profits. That's what I can't stand, like what Activision did to Infinity Ward, that scenario shakes so much confidence in publishers as a beneficial force for the industry. Look how FUCKED Infinity Ward has been making the most successful game ever for Activison.

You could go as far as saying Valve is an "indie developer" as they are on entity who both makes and funds and publishes their own games.

It's not poverty I am advocating, It is Artistic Independence! Some publishers are good, very hands off and without the fear of liquidation if they take a risk that turns out bad. But ideally you don't want people like Bobby Kotick running the show whose interest in games is limited to how profitable they can be. COD is a good game series that has clearly been hobbled at every turn by producer interference, particularly on the hiring/firing side.

To sum up I feel this analogy is best, since Peter Jacksson published District 9. District 9 was a great film that did fantastic things on a small budget and found new ways to bring quality without a publisher and it was a great film. The Lord of the Rings was a big budget masterpiece that needed a publisher so much it took the publisher the risk of desolation to get it onto the big screen. They're both great films and the world is better for both of them, neither one could have worked with the others system. The one was too risky for a publisher to take on, the other to expensive for an indie.

Lets have both

(I'm Welsh/British btw)

Well, I liked District 9 much more than LOTR, but that's personal taste, I can appreciate there are films that are just so big that no filming studio has the time, money and resources on hand to make it. But most films are not epic trilogies. For games, unless you are developing a whole new engine (very time consuming + expensive) today there is less reason that ever for Publishers to have their fingers in every pie.

My problem is publishers want to take more than they really should, they want rights to all the Intellectual Property, they want to be able to demand a sequel, they want to set the release date, what servers to use, hiring and firing. NO! Stop! And they aren't making these decisions for what makes a GREAT game, just what makes a LUCRATIVE game at the cost of greatness. This is Activision, EA and so many other unsavoury publishers.

That's the conflict of interest I am talking about, which is avoided by Independence (Indie) even if the development studio is "technically" a publisher . And can extend to Valve and other "in house" studios like Bethesda. Bungie is remaining an independent company in the publishing deal with Activision that is purely distribution. Look at the trail of dead bodies left in Activision's wake from all the studios they've run!

Independence is the issue here, one way or another the studio must be protected such as:
-a development studio becoming so rich (or smart) they are effectively a publisher and can self publish (Valve, Mojang)
-A publisher having talent from within, integrated as one entity with clear concise vision (CD Projekt, Bethesda)
-A separate publisher entity who remains hands-off, without demanding IP ownership (bungie+Activision)
-A publisher as mere distributor, devs arrive with finished product for them to distribute (iOS, Steam)

PS: On the value of big separate production companies for the likes of Lord of the Rings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Line_Cinema#Accounting_practices

Yep, big publisher says three of the top grossing films of all time, $6 BILLION in all (not including all the merchandising including the many successful video games licences) somehow made no profit at all. Bullshit. Yet they are using this as grounds to refuse to pay their due shares of profits to the cast and crew. Peter Jackson had to bring in an independent accountancy firm, needless to say, he won't be working with New Line Film ever again and The Hobbit is in development hell precisely because of this publisher money shenanigans. Round about this time Peter Jackson produced District 9.

These producers/publishers are taking the piss.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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