56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

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

Well, what the hell to you want from us developers and publishers? We're already getting screwed over financially by our government, and now you complain that we aren't spending enough on your games. If you look at the gamer community, a good number of gamers are either children or college students, neither of which have a lot of money to spend on games. Sure you could argue that children are directly tied to their parent's disposable income, but there are less and less families out there that can afford to regularly spend their money on newly released games because of the unemployment rate that is STILL rising. It seems that the only people who buy new titles anymore are die-hard fanboys, people who review games, and rich kids.

I love the used-games market because it allows for those less fortunate to still enjoy the novelty that this industry has become. If you're really having that much trouble why don't you set up your own used-games stores that are directly tied to the publishers/developers. Or do what Valve did and create an online distribution/gaming service that offers big-name titles for affordable prices. I don't know when/if this stupid recession will end and unemployment starts to decrease, so until then you're just going to have to hope that game sales overseas can sustain you. Or be happy that you can still obtain a profit.

Perhaps all of these problems with companies could be easily solved if they stop trying to make more and more profits each year and just focus on making enough to keep going and sustain a HEALTHY workforce (none of this bare minimum skeleton crew bullshit that's going on now), and when you earn enough to expand, do so. Stop being greedy, nothing good ever comes out of it in the long run.

Irridium:
Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

Especially you EA, who said that the $60 price was a problem way back in 200-fucking-7, and still have done NOTHING to remedy this despite now having your own store where you can charge whatever you want.

Publishers are so quick to blame so many things for the loss of money, but I would bet that their own broken-ass business model is the biggest reason.

Valve has proven that the less you charge, the more you make. Perhaps you should try that.

Normandyfoxtrot:
The thing that always bugs me is people complaining that they don't make enough new IP's but then won't buy new IP games new, they rent them or buy them used.

Well when the publisher doesn't market them, charges $60, and releases the at the same time as the next big Modern Warfare, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Battlefield, Elder Scrolls, and/or Fallout game, can you really blame them for not wanting to risk their money on it?

Would you risk $60 on a game you've never heard of, when instead of it you can buy the sequel to a series you already know you love?

agreed on all of this.

i'm only going to buy when steam has an insane sale going on, or if i get it dirt cheap somewhere used or just because they have it dirt cheap, yeah i'd love to support the developer more but when the average person is on a tight budget, i could give fuck all on your 60 dollar game, and instead go and by 5 games for 10 bucks and have dinner on top of that.

I didn't know 56% of the USA went on /v/?

More seriously, well sure when gaming is an expensive medium people borrow and buy pre owned it's financially smart. A lot of people don't get to wrestle with their moral conscience and have to buy pre owned to afford a game.

theultimateend:

Yopaz:
And yet people will come here and say that used sales don't cause the publisher any reason to worry...

This statement is incredibly short sighted.

Or thin sighted, whatever it would be called.

This issue isn't that simple. If they got rid of used sales the amount of sales wouldn't jump by 56%.

The used product industry is fueled by a consumer market that cannot afford a luxury at the full asking price.

There is a used market for everything outside of food. Only one of those industries is accusing that market of crippling them.

Video Game publishers and Developers are making products outside of their budget and charging more than consumers are willing to pay. It is entirely their fault. Nobody forced any of them to take on the expensive arms race of graphics. Had they not done so they'd still be making large and relatively cheap games.

Yopaz:

So you wont care if all publishers/developers slip into bankruptcy?

All publishers wouldn't, only the bad ones, Free Market (as you said).

If a company can't survive without shady practices they aren't functioning properly. There is nothing stopping companies from making good games on the cheap.

good is relative to the situation, they could just be insanely skilled with marketing and keep producing lowest common denominator games (oh wait that sounds a bit like activision).

Real quality things rarely hit the wide market they should because they don't have the big marketing push, and because of that the more niche games would feel this.

Pandabearparade:

Yopaz:
And yet people will come here and say that used sales don't cause the publisher any reason to worry...

Mo

teh_gunslinger:

Plinglebob:

Can someone help me out here as my sarcasm detector is broken.

Why would that be sarcasm? It's a perfectly reasonable statement. And one I heartily agree with.

This.

Most publishers aren't doing gamers any favors these days, so I hope they don't expect me to care if they start slipping into bankruptcy.

Jesus, Thank You! I don't understand why so many on the Escapist rush to defend the poor, unfortunate developers from the evil, malignant consumers. Game Devs aren't doing me a favor when they decide to sell me something, and damn right I'm going to complain when they disrespect me buy making me jump through hoops and instituting draconian measures to make me play for a legally bought game.

munx13:
I think it's because of the INSANE PRICES?

Games are longer, more complex, and (adjusted for inflation) cheaper than they've ever been. So, not that insane, really.

Anyway, this wouldn't be a problem if they didn't let Gamestop step all over them. Gamestop relies solely on one product, a product that can be purchased digitally. And yet they don't share used game profits? That's the problem, not people buying used games or prices.

Irridium:
Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

Especially you EA, who said that the $60 price was a problem way back in 200-fucking-7, and still have done NOTHING to remedy this despite now having your own store where you can charge whatever you want.

Publishers are so quick to blame so many things for the loss of money, but I would bet that their own broken-ass business model is the biggest reason.

Valve has proven that the less you charge, the more you make. Perhaps you should try that.

Normandyfoxtrot:
The thing that always bugs me is people complaining that they don't make enough new IP's but then won't buy new IP games new, they rent them or buy them used.

Well when the publisher doesn't market them, charges $60, and releases the at the same time as the next big Modern Warfare, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Battlefield, Elder Scrolls, and/or Fallout game, can you really blame them for not wanting to risk their money on it?

Would you risk $60 on a game you've never heard of, when instead of it you can buy the sequel to a series you already know you love?

EXCELLENTLY put good sir! i agree wholeheartedly but i must add just one thing of my own to make it absolutely perfect as a message to publishers

since when did it become acceptable to charge the same amount new, for a game that you only get a 5 hour campaign, wen we USED to pay full-price for games that had 50+ hours of campaign? seriously? i have older games (namely Phantasy Star Ep 1&2 Online that i rave about almost every chance i get on my little soapbox) that i've spent over TWO HUNDRED hours on and STILL havn't beaten. i've spent years playing this game (which is nigh-impossible to find cheap... $40-80 used on E-Bay last i checked and this game was made in the early 2000's) whereas i can knock out almost ANY modern game's storyline in little more than ONE NIGHT. if you have a big sprawling game with HOURS of stuff to do at every turn (like they used to be) then you're so engaged with playing it that you're NOT going to loan it out on a whim. you're gonna keep it and keep playing. so your buddies will have to go get the game themselves, or wait a year or so for you to let them borrow it.

so my answer to the devs and publishers is... make longer games, make funner games (because a lot of what's released is shit and we REALLY don't need games for EVERY good [or even not good at all but still based off a movie that SHOULD have been great, i'm looking at YOU Golden Compass and Eragon!] movie out there! we watched the movie, and half these are based off books too and some of us have read THOSE too! we do NOT need a game for it!) and make games CHEAPER. $60 is a rather HIGH price for a new game... for the price of 2 new games, i could buy a pre-owned, perfectly functioning 360 (mine broke about a year ago T.T) or i could go and but about 10 older games that i just never got around to playing.

scorptatious:
Geez. No wonder publishers are so intent to have people buy new in order to have access to special content.

Fortunately, if there was a new game out that I wanted to play, I usually buy new.

That only 65% of game budget of americans is spent on new games and 12% on DLC?

Or that the statistics don't touch on the fact that for example, little kids have their games bought by their parents for the most part?

Maybe if publishers didn't just stamp $59.99 on every title they drop out their ass and charged based on other factors maybe more people would buy new. Instead 5 hour games get $59.99 price tags and I know I'm waiting till that game hits bargain bin used before buying it.

Seriously Sonic Generations dropped on console for 50 bucks, and 30 for PC. And I'm sure they'll make a shit ton of money based on that they're charging less alone. Steam and Origin both had big halloween sales, and valve has released that PROFITS had goes up to 1200%. nd there's no packaging involved, so just a listing fee I assume.

If they considered a little compromise rather than charging a flat rate for every game, removing quality packaging, removing manuals and charging the same price they'd sell more.
Used games haven't changed since the Funcoland era (well maybe it's a bit easier to find used copies of Barbies Horse Adventure with online) so I do see myself confused why they're complaining when they've only packed less with their games and upped the price.

ElPatron:

Okay. Then art would be a better analogy. Except it also raises prices a lot. But forget that part. I suppose that those auctions are hurting artists as well.

No. That's a terrible analogy. Considering materials a painting is worth 5 bucks. If that gets sold for 50 the artist has already made 10 times the money it takes to make it. If a painting gets famous then the artist can earn tons of money on his pictures.
A publisher on the other hand has to sell about 1 millions games just to be able to make any profit at all.

If you can't come up with one good reason why DLC is bad then I really must assume you don't know how the industry works at all or that you just really love complaining when a publisher includes free DLC with games.

Yopaz:
And yet people will come here and say that used sales don't cause the publisher any reason to worry...

It's their fault for charging so much for a single game. I'm sure the majority would prefer NOT to plunk down $60 that could be used for gas, food, or rent.

Krantos:

Yopaz:
And yet people will come here and say that used sales don't cause the publisher any reason to worry...

True, but they should stop punishing the consumer for doing the financially smart thing, and instead go after Gamestop and others like them for not sharing the profits on used sales.

I do think Used sales hurt the industry, but I don't think publishers are fighting it the right way. Instead of trying to force players to buy new, they should be finding ways to get money from used sales.

I had the same thought - publishers could get paid a royalty from used sales.

Ironic Pirate:

munx13:
I think it's because of the INSANE PRICES?

Games are longer, more complex, and (adjusted for inflation) cheaper than they've ever been. So, not that insane, really.

Anyway, this wouldn't be a problem if they didn't let Gamestop step all over them. Gamestop relies solely on one product, a product that can be purchased digitally. And yet they don't share used game profits? That's the problem, not people buying used games or prices.

You seem to forget the fact that the average consumer has the lowest portion of overall spending power (adjusted for inflation) since the 1920s.

leeprice133:

Krantos:

Yopaz:
And yet people will come here and say that used sales don't cause the publisher any reason to worry...

True, but they should stop punishing the consumer for doing the financially smart thing, and instead go after Gamestop and others like them for not sharing the profits on used sales.

I do think Used sales hurt the industry, but I don't think publishers are fighting it the right way. Instead of trying to force players to buy new, they should be finding ways to get money from used sales.

I had the same thought - publishers could get paid a royalty from used sales.

Except they are not entitled to so much as a dime beyond the first sale as per the First Sale Doctrine. If they want to profit from used sales, then they need to set up shop themselves.

Syzygy23:

Yopaz:
And yet people will come here and say that used sales don't cause the publisher any reason to worry...

It's their fault for charging so much for a single game. I'm sure the majority would prefer NOT to plunk down $60 that could be used for gas, food, or rent.

Then publishers should reduce the price to 50 then? Whoops, retailer just went down to 45. Publisher goes down to 40. Used goes down to 35. See a pattern there? No matter how cheap games get buying used will always be cheaper because they don't have production costs to cover.

So backtrack trough my comments and copy paste what I said about DLC.

That's right. I didn't say anything. I'm purely defending that selling a game is no different than selling your books, not whining about DLC.

Well your explanation of how art works is an index of how much you don't understand how it works at all, for someone criticizing others' perception of the industry.

The Modern Confrontation: Generic Muhreens Spec Ops became a famous franchise so it sells more too. The tools acquired to develop the game (engine, code, etc) are already there. Probably they should waste less on making generic sequels because I ain't buying them for launch price.

Baresark:

Aeonknight:
I like how people act like a 20$ price difference in used and new game sales is enough of a factor that will actively determine whether or not your children get fed tonight.

"So sorry Timmy, we would've had Hamburger Helper, but I just had to have Skyrim on Launch day."

Seriously? If you can afford a luxury item like a gaming console/PC to begin with, then that price difference is not going to break you. Stop acting like it will.

It's strange how people think. You are wrong. Price determines how people spend money, that is a point of fact. It's not about whether there is food on the table, because anyone with any amount of sense would not buy videogames. But you can't fault people for seeking out the best deal. Just because you can afford to buy it new doesn't mean you that if someone offers you a cheaper copy, you should not take it. That is utter nonsense.

As an illustration, lets talk about luxury taxes. Back around 1991, the US government tried the same thing with yachts. The figured, as you do, that if you can afford to you will not change your spending habits. The idea was that people who could afford a luxury item could afford to spend a little more which would go to taxes paid to the government. As you may be surprised to find out, that actually destroyed the domestic yacht construction industry, driving some 10,000 people out of work. Once again, the idea was that if you made things a little bit more expensive to people who could afford it, people would not change their spending habits, which is 100% false. Your idea that since videogames are a luxury and people should just buckle down and pay higher prices is not in sync with reality. All people will seek the better deal. That is why you go to the grocery store who is having the bigger sale on things you want. It's basic market economics.

I'm not a stranger to the way economics and capitolism work. But on more than one occasion I've seen people throw that "I need to think of my kids" excuse around, so it had to be said. You're right that it's just nonsense that someone would prioritize gaming over food over the table. But that's the level of whining I see in this thread. They're not asking for your firstborn, they're asking you to work an extra shift at your job. That's it (which you'd probably have to do if you were going to buy used anyway as well.)

The developers are not the spawn of satan for wanting to get paid for what they do. They are people, just like me and you. There's one small problem with this though. People crucify developers (especially in threads like these) for the price of new games, and say "fuck the developer. I don't care if they get paid." Well, these people seem to forget that without developers, there is no game industry anymore. We've already seen this shit crash before, so it's not impossible. I don't mind coughing up a little extra to make sure this hobby of mine is still around tomorrow (that and I'm a impatient and don't want to wait a month or 2.)

This thread title is a bit misleading. When I first saw it I thought it meant to say over half the gamers are pirating.

One thing I think people are forgetting (And this could have been mentioned, I read most, but not every post here), you can't sell a used game unless someone bought it new first. Some of these arguments (Many are well reasoned on both sides, but a few) tend to be going to the extreme "People will only buy used, no new games are ever to be sold." . Also Used games take a while to show up. Sure a month or so after release a few might be available but it takes some time for major numbers to trickle into stores (In my experience)

Also, I challenge anyone to point to any game store that will sell any game title used for $15 while its still retailing for $60 new (Typically that's a $40 or up used game). Honestly my father would beat me like a drum if I told him I spent $60 on a game when the exact same one was sitting next to it for only $15, then he'd send me to my room, and I'm 30 (and I have my own house, but he'd do it just the same, and mom would cheer him on).
Typically when a "new" game drops its price to around $40 the used versions is between $20 and $30 (And I've actually bought a game New for $20 while the used version was sitting next to it for $18).
Of course this could just be locally, maybe you got some crazy commerce thing happening where you live, in which case, we should so work out a deal...8-)

Personally I like the pristine newness of a fresh out of the shrink wrap game. However If I can save money, I like that even more (Because HEY GAME COMPANIES...if I can save money I'll spend some of that savings on GAMES). Often, due to the fact that I haven't always got loads of time to play, I can easily wait for a game to go down in price (Years past I had time, and little money, now I have more money but less time). Usually I ignore instructions booklets anyways so as long as the game works that's all I really need of it, usually (GTA4 map was pretty useful).
Sometimes I wait even too long and end up having to get it used. Usually for me, a used game purchase has been either
1) I was looking for an older title and found it used only. (eg, I bought Crackdown last year after playing Crackdown 2, and after a certain reviewer (on Crackdown 2) mentioned the fun that the first game had been)
OR
2)I was thumbing through the Used bin and a title interested me enough so that for $10-$25 I was willing to take a chance on a game that might actually be crap (I got Fallout 3, and Sabateur this way (Actually a buy 3 used get one used free deal...other 2 games were crap), both turned out to be amazing finds, that I later bought new when the games were stolen and needed replacing).

As a total aside, when you have a fair bit of DLC content on your xbox (Songs for Rock Band, Xbox Live games, additional mission pacs etc.), and it is stolen (the xbox that is) and you then buy a new xbox and log in with your old user name (After you immediately changed the password on the xbox website), you get all that DLC content back for free (Cause you already paid for it). Xbox even has a feature that will list all the downloads you've made, so you can just go from there and redownload everything....actually a GREAT argument for DLC vs Media.

I've bought off Steam, and direct download as well as buying Pre-order/Brand new, new, reduced for sale, and Used games. 2 weeks ago I pre-ordered Arkham City, partly due to the bonus that Best Buy was offering (and also to use up a gift card) and also because this game I was more than willing to roll the dice on (at $60). Last year I was looking foreward to Mafia 2, but a less than stellar demo, lackluster reviews and the $60 opening price meant I chose to wait...still haven't bought it yet.

IMO New Games are expensive, selling older ones and then buying others cheap/used is the only way some gamers can go. Its a shame the industry feels that this model is bad for them, but welcome to capitalism. I Bought Arkham City last week, if Rocksteady makes $200,000,000 profit (not sales, I'm talking free and clear after all devs, execs and marketers are paid off) off this game, will I, the gamer, see free content that they had planned to charge for, as a "Thank you"? No, and I accept that!
Will I get some "Post purchase" rebate for $10, or $10 in credit to a future game? No, and I accept that.
Will certain gaming execs/companies look at me with scorn if I, 1 year from now, try and sell the game online for $25 so I can put it towards the next game I wish to purchase at that time?

Long and short of it, I don't pirate games, I enjoy them, I am willing to pay my fair share, but if the gaming industry gets pissy and wants to restrict my options and force me to pay more, then I'll just buy less. I can always tape movies on my PVR 8-)

Presumably the statistics don't factor in people who just play flash/facebook games. Are they not gamers?

*Flame shield thing*

ElPatron:

So backtrack trough my comments and copy paste what I said about DLC.

That's right. I didn't say anything. I'm purely defending that selling a game is no different than selling your books, not whining about DLC.

Well your explanation of how art works is an index of how much you don't understand how it works at all, for someone criticizing others' perception of the industry.

The Modern Confrontation: Generic Muhreens Spec Ops became a famous franchise so it sells more too. The tools acquired to develop the game (engine, code, etc) are already there. Probably they should waste less on making generic sequels because I ain't buying them for launch price.

OK, so are you really this stupid? How many people does it take to write a fictional book? In most cases 1 person. I can remember the names of all my favourite authours, but I can't remember the character designers for my favourite game, nor the story designers, the producers, the concept designers. Why? Because they have weird names? No, because it's actually a pretty big team! There's coders, there's designers, there's beta testers. All these people need to support their families.

With a book there's usually 1 write, 1 editor, 1 to design the covers and a company that prints book to supply demand. It doesn't take many sales to cover the expenses, it hardly takes 1000 sales to gain a profit. What I said in my last post that you either ignored or didn't understand was that a modern game needs 1 million sales just to cover what they have spent.

To put it in terms so simple that you can understand it let me use this analogy. If you buy a 5 bucks worth of raffle tickets and you win 5 bucks, have you earned 5 bucks? No, you're back where you started.
If you buy 5 bucks worth of raffle tickets and win 10 bucks, have you earned 10 bucks? No you have earned 5 bucks because the original investment cost 5, thus you must subtract your initial investment from your net final.

Aeonknight:
I don't care if they get paid." Well, these people seem to forget that without developers, there is no game industry anymore.

This is the wrong emphasis. Without customers, there is no game industry anymore. Unless the game designers want to work a regular job instead of a "fun" job, they have to meet the demands of the market. There was no game industry until guys who made games in their bedroom decided they wanted to monetize their game, that's why you have this hobby. For that you need someone who wants to purchase the thing you have made. It's a buyer's market. If they value your game at 20 dollars, then your price needs to be 20 dollars.

The demand for games will not vanish. But the people in the industry who are unable to meet the demand because they thought they were more important than the customer, they will vanish, and good riddance.

Athinira:

Yopaz:
And yet people will come here and say that used sales don't cause the publisher any reason to worry...

Not compared to any other industry. Every single industry in the world that sells something that isn't 100% a 'service' has to deal with resales. Why should gaming be any different?

In short: Instead of worrying about it, factor it into your budget (or as Brad Wardell put it: Make games for your CUSTOMERS, not your users, because not all users are customers).

Edit: And just to clarify, I'm an avid PC gamer. The only console i own is an old Xbox (not the 360). All my games are pretty much bought on Steam or some other digital service. I don't purchase pre-owned games, but i respect people that do.

The game industry is much more expensive then the music industry, so can't live off of a few thousand new sales, but needs 10's of thousands of copies to break even and more to make profit.

The game industry does NOT have the luxury of an isolated experience that excels over home use such as film. I'm talking about Theatre/Cinema. DvD sales are usually the icing on the cake in terms of earnings (or a desperate bid to break even) as the majority of earnings come from the box office.

Games simply don't compare and are a completely alien market when compared to music and film. The costs and earnings work differently between each medium.

The game industry is also entirely dependant on individual consumers and retailers to turn a profit. Music has radio stations who will purchase tracks to play on air, from music channels who wish to play their videos, royalties from uses in advertisement and of course Statewide/Nationwide/Global Tours.

Film makes earnings off more then just DvDs. Cinema Screenings rake in the majority of earnings and are counted as a failure if they bomb in the box office, DvDs are then just breaking even. Airlines that play films must purchase them first and I believe pay huge amounts for fixed periods of use.

Again, Games (generally with very few exceptions) are only consumed by individuals and have no fallback to break even. When the game is released it's make or break. They don't have Radio stations lining up to air their hot new singles or Tours that offer a unique experience. They don't have TV stations/International airlines pumping money at you for their demanding customers or Theatres to offer unparalleled sensory delivery.

What games DO have, is DLC (online passes are still in flux, but a lot of vitriolic spite is directed at them, more so then DLC).

These statistics shown are very much so a bad thing. There is no back up for the game industry.

TL/DR:

GAMES ARE NOT THE SAME INDUSTRY AS MUSIC AND FILM. THEY ARE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BEAST THAT ARE AS DIFFERENT AS NIGHT AND DAY!.

I am so sick of these kneejerk reactions. You ARE killing the industry if you keep defending the current consumers habits with comparisons to industries that might as well be alien.

EDIT: Sorry man... just vented, nothing personal :P

Aeonknight:
snip

I personally, always end up buying new since I'm mostly a PC gamer. I'm glad you didn't take offense to my comment, I re-read it and I didn't mean to come off in an accusatory tone. I agree, it's just a matter of trading one luxury for another. While the developer publishers are not the spawn of satan, as I said, you cannot fault people for going where they get a better deal. I'm gonna pre-purchase Skyrim this week, and I'm fighting on whether or not I am just gonna buy it from Steam or get it for cheaper from Direct2Drive. There is a $6 price difference. The only thing preventing me from outright buying it is that I don't want to wait till release to download it.

People have been buying preowned games for years. Seriously, I bought a lot of my games on the Genesis used as a kid.

Today, I buy about half of my games new and half used. If there's a game I'm really excited about, not only will I buy it new, but I'll preorder it! But if there's a mild interest, I buy the game preowned.

lacktheknack:
So... about 7% of gamers consistently buy new?

..............................................

I don't really have words.

There must a mistake here: If I were to get the figure Assassin's Creed II sales for example which has sold 9 million copies.

If these figures were correct that means that out of the copies sold, over 17 million people played the game.

If this is true it is quite shocking.

Traun:

Irridium:
Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

A publisher receives 17$ per a 60$ game sold( PC market excluded), when the price goes down they receive even less. Now mister marketer, how much do you think a game should cost, so that the additional sales compensate the lower price?

Lets go with what Bethesda's own Todd Howard said and say $40. Of course, for retail they'll only then make about $7-$8, but they have avenues to make up for that. Avenues like DLC and digital sales.

They'd have to take a bit of a hit in the short term, yes. But it'll be beneficial in the long term. Thanks to the iPhone/iPad, which lets you get literally hundreds of new and interesting games for free or $1-$5, paying $60 for a game is slowly but surely becoming obsolete.

Kwil:

Irridium:
Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

Especially you EA, who said that the $60 price was a problem way back in 200-fucking-7, and still have done NOTHING to remedy this despite now having your own store where you can charge whatever you want.

Publishers are so quick to blame so many things for the loss of money, but I would bet that their own broken-ass business model is the biggest reason.

Yeah.. how dare developers keep charging the same price they've been charging for decades. It's not as if they're spending a whole sh'load more on developing art assets for high definition visuals, or spending more money on getting actual voice actors and orchestrated music instead of 8bit beeping and booping, to say nothing of how it's free to develop multiplayer modes and make sure it's all balanced as well as having a semi-decent single player mode. And we certainly know they don't have to deal with inflation -- after all, movie tickets have continually gone down in price since the 80s. Thank goodness we have super-intelligent folks like you to point out the problem is simply they're charging too much for what we expect in a game.

Oh wait.. the opposite of all that.

I got a fix for that. It's called not doing those things.

Don't waste money on amazing graphics that'll be obsolete a year later, and instead focus on creating a strong art-style. Don't waste money on a huge, orchestral soundtrack that will end up sounding just like every other orchestral soundtrack, and instead focus on small, more atmospheric tunes that come in, set the mood, then leave. Don't waste money on a multiplayer mode because not everything needs multiplayer, and focus on the story. And voice actors won't mean anything if the game's story is crap, so use the money you're saving by not doing the other things and hire some actual writers.

And yes yes, inflation and all that. But large amounts of people aren't willing to buy the games at the current prices, so they need to change so those people can buy the games.

And yeah yeah, game developers work hard. We all have problems. Customers buy from the ones offering the best deal. Right now that's used sales. So start offering better deals. Customers have no obligation to buy from anyone.

Plinglebob:

Irridium:
Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

Especially you EA, who said that the $60 price was a problem way back in 200-fucking-7, and still have done NOTHING to remedy this despite now having your own store where you can charge whatever you want.

But if they reduce their prices, then the retailers would just reduce the pre-owned even more. Remember in relative terms the cost of buying games has stayed stable or dropped which is a damn sight better then a lot of other forms of entertainment (or even a loaf of bread).

Mcoffey:
The customer doesn't owe the publisher or the dev anything. Why should they care about their profit, especially since so many these days seem perfectly happy to screw them?

Can someone help me out here as my sarcasm detector is broken.

Heh, yeah that was kind of snarky wasn't it? I wasn't being sarcastic though. I feel that 60 bucks is way too much for most games, especially games on digital clients like steam. They cost 60 bucks because a portion of that is supposed to go to the distributors and the factories that box and ship them. So why am I paying the exact same price for a purely digital purchase?

Jodah:
Personally I follow a 1 hour per dollar rule. If I expect to get 1 hour of enjoyment for every dollar a game costs I will buy it. With me playing very few multiplayer games that means I don't usually buy games new. I'm not spending 60 dollars for a 4 hour campaign.

I take it you don't watch movies then.

Machocruz:

Aeonknight:
I don't care if they get paid." Well, these people seem to forget that without developers, there is no game industry anymore.

This is the wrong emphasis. Without customers, there is no game industry anymore. Unless the game designers want to work a regular job instead of a "fun" job, they have to meet the demands of the market. There was no game industry until guys who made games in their bedroom decided they wanted to monetize their game, that's why you have this hobby. For that you need someone who wants to purchase the thing you have made. It's a buyer's market. If they value your game at 20 dollars, then your price needs to be 20 dollars.

The demand for games will not vanish. But the people in the industry who are unable to meet the demand because they thought they were more important than the customer, they will vanish, and good riddance.

It's not really the wrong emphasis if they're both required for this industry to exist. The only one that's unneccesary is the retail side. Yet they're the ones screwing both ends, and it's somehow developer's fault (and to give credit where it's due, they blame us too.)

Hell even off Extra Credits' video here:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/project-ten-dollar

More of your money is going to game stop's pocket rather than developers. yet the developers are the greedy assholes...?

Ragsnstitches:

Athinira:

Yopaz:
snip

snip

TL/DR:

GAMES ARE NOT THE SAME INDUSTRY AS MUSIC AND FILM. THEY ARE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BEAST THAT ARE AS DIFFERENT AS NIGHT AND DAY!.

While they are not exactly the same, what you say is not explicitly true. The pricing structure may not be the same, it is still a luxury entertainment industry. The only other things the other two mentioned industries have over videogames is that they have elements that are considered art. Same thing goes for books.

The costs of production are amorphis in nature. There is no definitive amount of money that must go in any project. It just so happens that the average AAA title cost $18-$28 Million to make. But there are plenty of stories of small developers becoming overnight success stories by selling a product that very little has gone into.

It's misleading to define the videogame industry as vastly different than other entertainment industries. It's simply untrue. You are making an excuse for developers that do not turn out a product that can at least get back what they put into it. And it's not the consumers responsibility to see a company prosper, it's the companies responsibility to produce a product that people want. Likewise, it's also not the consumers responsibility to refrain from buying the product for a better rate if they can get it at a better rate.

Unfortunately, the game industry, while it's not exactly the same as other industries, should not be exempt from the same consumer end sales as other industries. You can't name another industry that has the same problem with resales. And it's not because it's so different, it's simply because car companies, record producers, book publishers, and the movie industry (to name a few) have dealt with it the only way it can be dealt with. They constantly try to turn out a product that people want. The videogame industry is different in one very important way though. Some companies seem to want to turn out crap and make huge profits. But they don't. Why? Because they put out a product that isn't worth the asking price. So, anyone selling it for cheaper is going to get the sale. And if someone buys a product they are unhappy with, they are entitled to try and make the best of it, even if that means selling the product to a neighbor or selling to Gamestop so they can get credit to buy another game they may want.

Irridium:
Hey, publishers, if SO MANY PEOPLE aren't buying new, and one of the big reasons is price, perhaps it'd be a good idea to reduce your fucking prices already. You know, like what any other business would do.

Especially you EA, who said that the $60 price was a problem way back in 200-fucking-7, and still have done NOTHING to remedy this despite now having your own store where you can charge whatever you want.

Publishers are so quick to blame so many things for the loss of money, but I would bet that their own broken-ass business model is the biggest reason.

Valve has proven that the less you charge, the more you make. Perhaps you should try that.

Normandyfoxtrot:
The thing that always bugs me is people complaining that they don't make enough new IP's but then won't buy new IP games new, they rent them or buy them used.

Well when the publisher doesn't market them, charges $60, and releases the at the same time as the next big Modern Warfare, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Battlefield, Elder Scrolls, and/or Fallout game, can you really blame them for not wanting to risk their money on it?

Would you risk $60 on a game you've never heard of, when instead of it you can buy the sequel to a series you already know you love?

Mass Effect 3 just defeated your argument, and I do tend to buy new new ip's more often then sequels. I have steam, but still...

lord.jeff:

Jodah:
Personally I follow a 1 hour per dollar rule. If I expect to get 1 hour of enjoyment for every dollar a game costs I will buy it. With me playing very few multiplayer games that means I don't usually buy games new. I'm not spending 60 dollars for a 4 hour campaign.

I take it you don't watch movies then.

I only buy movies when they are marked down or its one I expect to watch several times. As for going to the theater, I will go with my old man but that's more for the bonding than the actual entertainment of the movie.

Maybe they should start releasing games that people actually really care about. When Catherine came out I handed over my money. Why? Not because I was crazy for Catherine, but because I know Atlus is a valuable producer and developer to me and the game would be at least decent. Seeing a big ass hole in a top hat asking for me to add to their multi million dollar pile by threatening me with not being able to play Dead Space 2's multiplayer draws very little sympathy from me.

Every single time someone thinks that their price is bad they should consider other countries. If it was only 60 dollars for a brand new game many more Australians would be happy and buy games more often. Bt the way it is now, the RRP for games such as CoD MW3 and Skyrim is generally $109.95 AUD

I'm on that percentage, of course we couldn't exists if the guys that buy new and trade in didn't exists so thank to them.

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