56% of American Gamers Don't Buy Games

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

Deathninja19:
Also how did the games get to be pre-owned, someone must have bought them so the publishers are getting money.

So, if I hypothetically bought a membership card to a club, and sold it to another guy, that guy would have paid the club?

I hate DLC, because the vast majority of it is completely worthless. Not that it isn't fun, but it certainly isn't worth the price, especially since the actual fans of the series get screwed over the hardest.

I sank $60 into Borderlands, and then bought every DLC, only to find out that a "Game of the Year" edition was being released with all of the DLC coming with it. That's complete bullshit, and that is why I will no longer buy DLC for most games.

The way Battlefield Bad Company 2 handled it is far better, and for this reason, I have no problem with Online Passes that come with free DLC and the like. I oppose requiring passes for single-player modes or modes that don't require the internet (split-screen, etc), but this option is far better than what Activision does with Call of Duty.

I am not spending $120 for $70 worth of content. If the game costs $60 and comes with 12 maps and the campaign and Spec Ops, an additional 12 maps should not cost the same price.

Phas:

Deathninja19:
Also how did the games get to be pre-owned, someone must have bought them so the publishers are getting money.

So, if I hypothetically bought a membership card to a club, and sold it to another guy, that guy would have paid the club?

This hypothetical depends on several things. Is it renewed annually? Do you have benefits at this club that would still exist if you gave your card away?

If it's a for-life membership, and the only benefits are those within the club, then when you give your card away, you no longer receive any benefits. The new card-owner gains these benefits, at no extra cost to the club. The club is receiving no extra money, but the club is not LOSING money, either.

Therumancer:

Draech:

Therumancer:
-snip-

If you truely have a problem with this. It being ideological or you just feel they are ripping you off then put your money where your mouth is.

Dont buy their product. You are not forced and if the producers are greedy, then dont buy it. Dont just threaten with it. Just go spend it on something else.

Spend it only on sole developer and bedroom programmers and avoid the whole system.

I dont mind the "fat cat" publishers because without them games like battlefield 3 would never have seen the light of day. A huge team programming for 5 years just to get the engine done, some1 has to pay them. They need to live for those 5 years.

You might want to cut them out of the system, but gaming would be nothing like what it is now if they wern't here.

Actually there are a number of products I have passed on, including ones I did want. You just don't hear me yelling it from the rooftops, but I've mentioned a few of these on these forums from time to time.

That said, the issue is simply the industry needing to reform itself. Truthfully there is no reason why games like say "Battlefield 3" can't be made without profit gouging. My basic arguement is about being content with millions or tens of millions of dollars in profit (profit being computed after expenses) rather than having to constantly push for hundreds of millions of dollars and increasingly huge piles of cash. If a big budget, AAA title makes 50 million in profits (just for example), why the heck should someone not be happy with that? When your making 50 million on a single product, it's just ridiculous to QQ because that isn't enough money and to say... no I want hundreds of millions, or even billions of dollars and then stick it to people.

At any rate, the point of message boards like this is to try and convince people to follow suit, it's not me bellyaching totally in lieu of refusing to support certain products and practices. Mostly I'm writing this to serve a counterpoint to an article about the industry which seems to be trying to present it's actuons as reasonable and nesseicary when really they aren't.

Well I think we do have the same Idea.

I evaluate every purchase I do before and after I buy it. If I think I have gotten my moneys worth then I am not going complain. If not Ill take my money somewhere else. I think this is more the "Insulin" attitude that has brought this about. I cant live without it. If the market wasn't willing to accept crappy product's then crappy products wouldn't survive.

I do have a disagreement with you on the "more wanting more" thing. I am not going to pretend to be a saint and say I wouldn't work less hours for more money if the opportunity presented it self. So I would feel hypocritical I imposed a different ideal on others. The true objection comes whether or not they follow business practises I believe.

Machocruz:

Draech:

I dont mind the "fat cat" publishers because without them games like battlefield 3 would never have seen the light of day.

Sure it would. They opted to spend that much time and resources so the game could look the way it does, have a "story" mode, have voice acting. All that extraneous fluff does not make a Battlefield game.

"Fat cat" game companies are choosing not to settle for a certain range of presentation value. They still think continuing to escalate a tech arms race will always be the only way to beat the competition. They don't understand why large masses of people enjoy games.

so....

Who would pay the millions of dollars in salaries over the 5 year period the engine is developed and they have no product to sell yet?

Who would pay for the studios? The licences for the software? Who pays people for 5 years where they have no income if not the "fat cat" developers?

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.

pretty-much this, the thing is were near the end of a console generation and game fidelity isnt the biggest reason to buy new games, and that tends to be a major selling point for new releases over older trade-ins
also, recently money's been tight pretty-much globally

same reason you buy-new clothes, furniture whatever. newer ones have to be an upgrade or why bother?

and same here, i usually wait for a steam sale and gobble up a ton of cheap games
only thing i buy brand new are things like batman and skyrim, old republic ect.
they're just worth it.

i got gta4 for 99p. srsly, totally legit.

my theory is the more i save on average games the more of a monster pc i can have to run the awesome ones

This is coming from GameStop, aren't they famous for selling used games?

Also if prices weren't so crazy I would buy new more often, like I do on Steam.

And lastly, Jim Sterling made a pretty good point on this, when he said 'What are we supposed to do with games when we are finished with them? Are we supposed to keep them forever no matter how fuuuuuuuucking shit they were *gasps*'. Used game sales are literally the only thing we as consumers have an advantage over, and they want to completely take that away too.

Oh and the DLC thing, don't bother, or at least if you know there will be DLC, wait for a GOTY edition or something similar before buying the game at all, because it makes the full priced game actually whole.

I don't have a job yet and rarely pay for my own video games unless I have an allowance. Sadly I am a college student and my parents keep telling me to get one already.

Draech:
so....

Who would pay the millions of dollars in salaries over the 5 year period the engine is developed and they have no product to sell yet?

Who would pay for the studios? The licences for the software? Who pays people for 5 years where they have no income if not the "fat cat" developers? Publishers

I think you mean Publishers, and they take a HUGE chunk of income from the developers, so my question is this: How are they different from a bank loan.

Draech:

Now the thing is the DLC price rising is more a sign of the increase of used sales. Trying to get more out of the used market. Thou the increase in prices on XBLA/PSN games is more or less an increases in production value. A game like Section 8 was made under the principals of selling it cheaper over digital distribution and they were selling what is really a AAA title for 20$. Wasn't what you were asking for when you wanted cheaper games?

You shouldn't be trying to compare Steam to to XBLA/PSN as they are now thou. What you should be comparing Steam to is services like Impulse and Origin. They act more or less just like steam.

Now if XBLA/PSN became the distribution platform then games would have to compete amongst each other while being able to lower production cost. Ofc we would see a drop in prices from that.

Now you talk about short term gain over long term gain. Again that is the fault of the used market. PC games have a much longer shelf life than console. This is mainly because after initial sales almost every sale will be used . They have to push those first weeks sales because there wont be a steady income of profit over a longer period. Digital distribution makes long term profit come by it self. Sale will still provide profits long after launch and there wont be the risk of "rotting stock" that there is with no physical production.

Yes, Section 8 is a good example of what should be happening, but to my knowledge that's the only AAA title that's tried it. Nobody else has tried it. Which is my point. Prejudice was actually decently successful, but apparently it wasn't successful enough to get more to try it. Which brings me again to my point of the industries focus more towards short-term profits, rather than long-term. Even with digital-only products.

And while XBLA is not like Steam, XBL itself and PSN are slowly becoming more and more like it with full games steadily being added to each service. Well, with PSN you only get them with PSN plus. And those games are still the same prices as their retail counterparts.

PC games most certainly do not have a longer shelf-life. Hell, PC games are lucky to even get a place on shelves these days. The PC market at retail is largely dead, and now far more digitally focused thanks to services like Steam, Impulse, Gamersgate, Origin, ect. And they still have the same prices as their largely irrelevant retail counterparts. They are not reducing prices. They're reducing costs, but not prices.

And the initial sales thing is just what I'm talking about, it's a strong focus on short-term gain without looking at long-term effects. Here's the thing, if there's a lot of used sales, then perhaps it would be a good idea to find out why people are trading them in. Perhaps if publishers put more effort into why people are trading in games and fueling used sales, they might find a way to actually do something about it, which would lead to long-term benefit for both the publisher and the consumer. Instead they just focus on getting short-term profits from used buyers. A strategy that apparently isn't making them that much money.

I bought a used house. I've had a few used cars in my life. Some of my clothes when I was younger were preowned by other family members. I bought some used furniture. The entire concept of not buying new is because not everyone wants to spend the full money for buying new, when used or preowned handles your needs perfectly well. Now of course not everyone has to do that, obviously someone has to buy new, or the items won't get out there on the market at all.

Seriously, why is the gaming market the only place I ever hear about the 'evils' of buying used?

Volan:
You know what hurts more? The fact that in Australia and New Zealand, games that are new cost around $130. That's almost twice the amount for Americans. So while everyone is persuading developers to sell their games less than the $60-70 in America and complaining about that price, we're still paying MORE than them.

I think, personally, we get to complain a little more.

I know right! its fucking crazy. I remember back when the most expensive games were around $60 and even my young mind considered that to be a lot.
next the new trend was around $80-$90. Soon it was 100, and a while ago I remember going into the shops and seeing assassins creed(new at the time) on sale for $120!
A Hundred and Twenty!

I can only guess that by now new AAA games are selling at the $150 dollar mark or something(I don't buy many games... and can you blame me?).

Fucking ridiculous. Its actually cheaper to buy games and import them to Australia than to get them from most stores. I swear its just a big scam they've got going down here. I use to think its cause our dollar was weaker than America's, but even when we exceedded parity, and our dollar was worth more, we still payed $80 for stuff America had for $30.

Probably why in all these sorts of debates I'm in support of the developers, cause these retailers are just screwing us over.
Pre-owned aren't even any better unless you're getting really old stuff(ps2 games and such), even then $20 for a ten year old second hand game?

My most recent purchases have been on steam during the sale, $5 for l4d2, and l4d1.
compare: $48 for l4d2 in store(EB Games), $20 for it over steam(and as i said, $5 while it was on sale)(oh and $20 new from amazon.com).

Ok rant over now.

I'm guilty of this, I won't buy a game if I can borrow it from a friend. It's just too expensive; games need to come down in price before I'll dish out the money to regularly buy them. I'd sooner go without, or borrow than I would buy.

I don't buy used, because if I am putting money down for a game, it's going to the people that deserve it. Yeah, I know it sounds like half-assed logic, but it makes sense to me.

Dears publishers/devs,

Like it or not, I won't pay more than what I think your product is worth. I'm sad for you because you think your industry should be free of the second-hand market or basic laws of economics.

You say your games are expensive to make? Make cheaper games then. Guess what: People will still buy lower-quality games (lesser experiences, maybe, but not always. I'll still grant you this point for argument's sake). It always surprises me when I hear that cheaper-made games would not sell as well because for me it's a non-issue. You may argue that if your games appear of lesser quality then your competition would have an edge over you. Granted, this is a possibility. What if the industry as a whole finally decides to grow up, stop complaining about making expensive games and simply dial down on the most expensive stuff?

When I was younger and a new console came out I was always excited at the promise of better graphics, audio and gameplay. With the last few generations, I think we should frankly stop trying to emulate reality and simply go down to the basics of gameplay. For example, if you have bigger hardware (like a PS4), instead of going for even better graphics why not go for better AI or more enemies on screen at once? Keep the quality level where it is, increase quantity.

As many of you here (I assume) , I worked for companies. We had little choices when our products sold poorly. We could add value, reduce expenses, reduce prices or try and do all of this at once. What we could not do is gang-bang our consumers by increasing our prices as an industry while trying to kill the second-hand market.

Frankly, I couldn't care less about devs and publishers. I like their products as much as I like my car maker's. Even if the industry as a whole were to crash we would still have some games sooner or later. If there is a demand, there will be an offer. I'll be back soon. My cheap steam and gog downloads are done and I have some games to try.

TheDooD:
$60 per game NEW, stacking hyped games on the same month, week and or DAY it's fucking sickening. They DARE think gamers are suppose to be a fucking money tree. They make it seem it's wrong that I can borrow a friend's game, more so roommates or family members SHARE 1 copy of a game instead of buying 2+. Also fuck the publishers sitting on your high horse just because you have money flying out your ass that doesn't mean everybody else does you stupid, shithook bastards. They think gamers don't need to pay bills, buy food, take care of themselves.

First off publishers stop spending MILLIONS on a game when it just gonna be for multiplayer. Advertize more online since its cheaper and please don't use a stupid ass songs that'll cost you too much money to license. I got 99 problems and crooked ass publishers are one, I always wonder why in the fuck publishers take the big cut when it comes to the game sell. They overall did nothing warranting their payment amount the big cut should be going to the developers that did all the goddamn work in the first place. Plus why do a majority of new games have to be at the $60 price point I remember in the PSX - PS2 generations new games were $20-$50. So when a game wasn't hyped and it costs $20-40 they'll still get tried out if they were cool.

Yet it's the GAMERS that are causing all your problems. Really publishers, really...

I agree...a lot of it is because most of the publishers/developers being talked about are American...and therefore the whole corporate system is at fault. Publisher/Developers in other countries (Japan for example) spend a lot LESS making a game, just because they don't have exorbitant bonuses to pay (the head of Nintendo is on a $1 salary i think?), which blow out the cost of any production. If they actually spent the bare minimum (whilst still keeping production values high) they could reduce the cost of games and make more money. It's a hole that American publishers have dug themselves and doesn't just apply to this industry, why do you think the Music industry is in such fucking trouble right now? I know from experience the amount of excess that goes on there. It's no wonder a kid in his basement can make a record that sells only thousands of copies can turn a respectable profit.

Odd Water:
I bought a used house. I've had a few used cars in my life. Some of my clothes when I was younger were preowned by other family members. I bought some used furniture. The entire concept of not buying new is because not everyone wants to spend the full money for buying new, when used or preowned handles your needs perfectly well. Now of course not everyone has to do that, obviously someone has to buy new, or the items won't get out there on the market at all.

Seriously, why is the gaming market the only place I ever hear about the 'evils' of buying used?

A rare sane voice!

I grew up wearing hand-me-downs and shopping at the used bookstore. Silly me, I didn't realize that I was single-handedly destroying the clothing and publishing industries.

How about lowering prices of new games? When PC games made that jump from $50 to $60, I stopped buying new. Or at least I wait until a sale. I love you steam sales.

So, I notice that in all these studies that people do, they never tell you how the study was done, how large their sample was, where they got their sample, how randomized and all sorts of things that you need to know in order to determine if the study is valid. I'm starting to think that these "studies" are manipulated to give the people doing them the answers they want.

Interesting, it doesn't work too well for PC games (unless they are pirated, but then they weren't purchased originally either).

I suppose there are fewer PC gamers than I thought? No, I don't think so, I think this poll must'nt take them into account, or if it does, it is saying that almost all PC games are pirated...

Draech:

The 60$ is there for a reason.

Your point, summed up, is "making games is expensive stuff!"

I agree. That doesn't justify a $60 price tag logically. The cost of the game isn't in the disc, it's entirely in production. Cutting the price of new games would significantly increase the market for said new games. I will put a lot less thought into a game that costs $40 than one that costs $60.

Hunh...

I dont think used games are so much to worry about as publishers think they are or make them out ot be. You already collected the price on that new game. Publishers seem to forget that you cant have used without new, and I'd be willing to say that a good portion of bought used games are bought past the point where the publisher has to worry about making mad cash off it to justify development.

EDIT: then again the last time I paid full price on a new game was Catherine, and thats only cause I wanted to support the Persona team and SMT so much.

Ragsnstitches:

TestECull:

Ragsnstitches:

-Please, also explain to me why someone would buy a 2nd hand AAA game for 2 euro/5 Dollars less then the New release over the new release that actually goes back into the industry rather then the retailer. The answer is really simple, lack of knowledge. Why invest in the distributor only at the expense of the supplier... logically that makes no sense at all.

The answer isn't lack of knowledge. The answer is going to eBay instead of Gamestop, where you'll get the game for half of what it retails for. Often with DLC.

Used game sales are how I got into the Fallout series. I bought FO3, Op: Anchorage, Pitt and Broken Steel on eBay for 20 bucks. Not a cent of that sale went to Bethesda, and I never would have bothered if I had only new games available as FO3 was way too expensive an unknown to justify the money on. However, I liked the game so much that when Point Lookout and Mothership Zeta came out I bought them right up. There's 20 bucks Bethesda would have never made had I not bought FO3 used. They turned out quite good as well, so when New Vegas was up for pre-order I snapped that shit right up. 49.99 into Bethesda's coffers, again because I bought FO3 used. Then, of course, I bought all of the DLC for New Vegas save Courier's Stash(Mods gave me better starting gear than any of the official stuff), which sent another 45 bucks Bethesda's way.

tl;dr: Bethesda made $115USD off of me because I bought Fallout 3 used, a $115 they never would have seen otherwise.

Okay. I retract that comment, though not entirely... I'm pretty sure there are people who aren't aware (probably don't care either) to whom their money is going to.

Even then five minutes of shopping around will find them a cheaper copy on eBay than what Gamestop will sell.

You also seem to support DLC (am I right?). DLC is the extra limb that balances the losses to piracy and 2nd hand sales (no matter how large/small) and that is why I support DLC. I don't hate 2nd hand games, I have bought them when on a budget and I completely agree with you.

I only like certain types of DLC. The ones for Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas are examples of DLC I like. They were made well after release in an effort to support furthered gameplay, adding what I felt to be a meaningful bump to the storyline itself. They were also well priced, and in both cases launched on disc with the base game for a good deal(NV's version will hit stores in Feb).

I hate Activision's Call of Duty DLC though. 15 dollars for three of last game's maps and two crappy ones a half-decent modder could whip up while drunk? Puh-leeze, Activision. that's not DLC. That's bullshit.

OK, I call Bullshit, and thanks to Matthew Anderson in the Facebook comments who said everything I was going to say:

"This story is INCREDIBLY misleading. Try actually reading the datapoints.

56% of console gamers who play games do not buy them, and it includes active sharing of games in families and friends. What does this actually say? Very little actually, because there's no control for people who buy games for other people, say for example, a parent buys games for his kids to play who aren't old enough to play games. If the parent plays too and there's 3 kids, that's one paying gamer and 2 non-paying. If not, then it's 0 paying gamers and two non-paying. That skews the data A LOT.

Furthermore, THIS STORY OUTRIGHT LIES. the "85% buys a significant number of pre-owned games" is from a different population then the 44% that buy games. It includes MAC, PC, and console gamers, not console gamers. This is relevant because console games are much easier to share in a unit.

This is even more misleading because it's directly stated that from the 44% who pay for console games, 65% of that is spent on brand new games, 23 % is on used, 12% on DLC. So a net 77% of money spent on video games is being divided up in a way that includes money going to publishers and developers.

The first point is horrible data interpretation, the second point is shameless lying or not reading the report, both are completely shameful. I guess I know not to trust escapist, gamespot actually bothered to break down the numbers in their article."

Thanks.

I bought batman new and loved it. I bought RAGE new and regretted it. Some games are worth it. Like the Hardened edition of MW3. some arent like Bulletstorm.

I think developers should get a percentage for any used game they developed. At least between 20-30% for royalties or something like that. This might hurt used game sales but it won't hurt too much that we the consumers can still use it and trade in old games to buy brand new games.

emeraldrafael:
Hunh...

I dont think used games are so much to worry about as publishers think they are or make them out ot be. You already collected the price on that new game. Publishers seem to forget that you cant have used without new, and I'd be willing to say that a good portion of bought used games are bought past the point where the publisher has to worry about making mad cash off it to justify development.

EDIT: then again the last time I paid full price on a new game was Catherine, and thats only cause I wanted to support the Persona team and SMT so much.

Isn't that the craziest part, though? Any reasonable person can understand that a second hand used market is created by the existence of a first hand one selling new. Publishers act like used games pop out of an inter-dimensional wormhole into Gamestops across the country because they haven't appeased the Publisher Gods by burning more money and putting that cost back on consumers who do buy new. And those customers are happy little clams who hold onto their copy of Black Ops with the disc and manual clutched firmly against their hearts. The title itself is inaccurate because obviously someone must have lamentably bought that dust-collecting game sitting on the Gamestop Used Shelf, or it would still be in its wrappings up for full price.

As others have mentioned, there is no longer any flexibility in video game prices. Sixty dollars is the U.S. standard, like it or not in the eyes of the publishers. I don't see what gives them bitching rights about "losing" sales when there are many games that do not warrant the $60.00 price tag. Yeah, the video game industry is hurting. Well tough t's, so is everything and everyone else. A full-priced rendition of last year's experience isn't justifiable to everyone out there. Publishers need to learn that not everyone who buys a video game prioritizes their product the same way considering it's basically a hobby expense at the end of the day, not electricity, water, food, or even internet.

ok... this is going to be tough...

Personally, I don't own ANY pre-own games... simply because I don't pay for "used toys"... with that out of the way... I did have 2-3 titles that I played that are from a friend... thank god for console games... and also I had played several games at friends' because I don't own a X-box, or my computer wasn't good enough to run them... but when I OWN a title, they are new...

Back in the old days, we copy games, we trade games, we even just re-install games on to another computers, it wasn't a problem back then... why is it suddenly "sharing games" are wrong (as in borrowing friend's game)? I think it's the demand from the companies that makes the games now days, they need more money in return to make up for the production, there for when the games don't sell as they expect, they point to the "pirates", "pawn shops", or "sharing gamers"... I just don't buy more than 3-4 titles a month, and there is just too many games out there I want to "try" and only got so much on me to support (what I think) the best projects... that's all...

ForgottenPr0digy:
I think developers should get a percentage for any used game they developed. At least between 20-30% for royalties or something like that. This might hurt used game sales but it won't hurt too much that we the consumers can still use it and trade in old games to buy brand new games.

You are aware that even under Droit de suite, which gives money to someone if their product is sold, the most they get is 5%? And that's if a single item sells for millions of dollars. Hell, video games would only qualify for 1% of a new sale, AT MOST, under Droit de suite. The First Sale Doctrine, however, means they get nothing. And at least in the states, the latter is law. Why should video games get a major exemption?

What's wrong with sharing, exactly? Are they going to try and make that illegal too?

EHKOS:
Yeah...but...what about books, and movies. They don't whine like this. Or at least as much. I'm really sick of the whole subject.

Books and movies audiences are people who have eyes and can read, then have a TV/DVD player. I'm going to say the number of people who meet these requirements as opposed to the requirements needed to play a video game is much higher! It's almost like they have a bigger consumer base to start with, so you can't compare them at all! GASP! It's magical what logic can do.

Meanwhile it costs about as much to create a AAA game as it does a blockbuster film and far more than it does to publish any book. While having a far smaller base audience that can even enjoy your product in the first place.

So saying, "HURR MOVIES AND BOOKS DON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM" is asinine and ridiculous.

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.

Totally agree. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the big games too, I'll get the new Modern Warfare (didn't bother with Black Ops)but I go out of my way to buy new IP that shows promise. Enslaved, Catherine, Conan, Alan Wake and Dead Space (sales of the original were very slow) are all games I bought fresh out of the gate. I fully enjoyed them and wish more gamers would take risks too. I'm keeping my eyes open for what surprises are going to be worth it at the end of this year.

Loonerinoes:

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

Of course they don't! After all, used sales are *legitimate* ways in which the developers/publishers don't get money, whereas piracy is bad because it's *illegitimate*. What matters is the principle of the thing, not the, ya know, actual effect being virtually the same damn thing in the end.

/end sarcasm

Someone legally purchases the game after it is sold to Gamestop or Amazon. Please explain to me how getting something for free and buying it are the same.

Publishers like to stress that people buy a license to the game, so we're just helping to enforce that by passing that license around.

Frostbite3789:

EHKOS:
Yeah...but...what about books, and movies. They don't whine like this. Or at least as much. I'm really sick of the whole subject.

Books and movies audiences are people who have eyes and can read, then have a TV/DVD player. I'm going to say the number of people who meet these requirements as opposed to the requirements needed to play a video game is much higher! It's almost like they have a bigger consumer base to start with, so you can't compare them at all! GASP! It's magical what logic can do.

Meanwhile it costs about as much to create a AAA game as it does a blockbuster film and far more than it does to publish any book. While having a far smaller base audience that can even enjoy your product in the first place.

So saying, "HURR MOVIES AND BOOKS DON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM" is asinine and ridiculous.

Alright then, what CAN video game be compared to? Can they be compared to anything?

Again, let's also look at the money these publishers took in (Net Profits)

EA: $677 million
Ubisoft: €89.8 million
Atlus: 437 million
Nintendo: 77.6 billion
Activision Blizzard: $418 million
Take-Two: $137.9 million

I could go on, but I think you see my point. They aren't really starving, now are they?

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?

So if they did this and reduced the price to say $40, you think this would stop gamestop from being able to take a few percent off on a used title and sell it for $36? That's very naive right there, it would barely change the amount of people buying used at all. It only saves them a few dollars right now and apparently 85% of people are making that choice. Think about this - I'm sure in an ideal world if they were assured that reducing the price of games to $40 made it illegal to sell them used, they would take that option in a heartbeat.

I happen to think that $60 is an incredibly small price to pay for a game that can sometimes last up to 100+ hours anyway (like any multiplayer game and a large portion of RPG's). How entitled can you be to think otherwise? Think about how many DVD's/Blu-rays or movie tickets you would have to buy to equal 100 hours.

Sounds about right. 75% of the games I played in 2011 were done with the same 55 dollar credit at GameStop, with their retarded 7-day no questions asked return policy. Saves me money, and then I don't end up owning shitty games. And before I get yelled at for not supporting the developers and blah blah blah - I don't care.

 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