Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Entertainment Games

Industry Asks Gamers To Pay More 258

Posted by Zonk from the plz-k-thnx dept.
Last week we mentioned a Guardian post about secondhand games, with some industry commentary that the secondhand market was lowering the innovation expectations of developers. Today, the Gamers With Jobs: Press Pass reacts to the whining of the poor underpaid developers: "The always candid David Jaffe wrote: 'You know what? Why the **** should we even try anymore?' while Epic's CliffyB noted: 'What other entertainment medium that's mass market is at $60 a pop?' Cliffy would seem to have the right of it. The used market for DVDs, or CDs is relatively small. Why? Presumably because getting a five dollar discount on a fifteen dollar DVD is not as enticing as thirty dollars off of a sixty dollar game; when it's only five bucks, the natural desire to buy something perfect and new will, in most cases, outweigh thriftiness. While I certainly sympathize with Mr. Jaffe's frustration on this matter, his concerns are a result of working for an industry which refuses to intelligently adapt to a changing marketplace."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Industry Asks Gamers To Pay More More

Industry Asks Gamers To Pay More

Comments Filter:

  • MMO's and indy games (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Harbinjer ( 260165 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:01PM (#14540221) Journal
    Well, there's certainly lots of MMO's out there that charge per month. And of course the indy games that are free, or some that are cheap, like 10-30. I think the game industry is facing a big change, one way or another.
    • Paying per month is certainly an option that we might see more of. Systems like Valves Steam might be turning towards a subscription plan for updates, but that might drop off lots of customers as they feel that they are paying for a game over and over. Unlike ORPGs that has got obvious expenses with server maitenence people will be hard to convince that they need to pay more than once for a single player game.

      I think FunCom has struck a piece of genious in the way they allow people to play the original Anar
      • If I understand how FunCom has their games set up, its nothing new. Its the same way that Id did it back in the day with Doom and Doom 2.

        The first level is shareware, if you want to play the other 9 you have to buy the game...

    • And of course the indy games that are free, or some that are cheap, like 10-30.

      Problem is that to my knowledge there aren't any popular gaming handhelds that are designed to run independent games. Phones generally have crappy controls and (in the United States) are locked to the carrier's online store. Nintendo and Sony gaming handhelds shut out homebrew as a side effect of shutting out piracy, though Nintendo is much less proactive than Sony in this regard. GP2X isn't available at brick and mortar reta

      • I know phones have crappy controls but they ARE meant to run whatever you bring to them, since they run java and it's not like it's signed or anything. (Well, actually, on my Motorola phone if you have signed your midlets they have access to more functions, but they're not particularly useful for games anyway...) And as you allude to the majority of nintendo handhelds will run homebrews from flash carts.

        • know phones have crappy controls

          The Nintendo DS is beating the PSP precisely because the DS has better controls (a touch screen vs. a ThinkPad style nub).

          but they ARE meant to run whatever you bring to them, since they run java and it's not like it's signed or anything.

          No they don't. How can I load a J2ME program onto, say, an Audiovox 8610 phone provided by Virgin Mobile? What about the "Get It Now" BS from Verizon Wireless? Given that phones without SIM cards are not generally available in the U

          • No they don't. How can I load a J2ME program onto, say, an Audiovox 8610 phone provided by Virgin Mobile? What about the "Get It Now" BS from Verizon Wireless?

            Well, not all phones. Not the ones that are complete shit. If you buy something from Audiovox, you deserve what you get, which is to say, crap. My motorola phone has a Java App Loader that can be easily turned on... well, easily for a nerd :) However, few people want to load software into their phone from their PC, so that's not much of an issue

            • Well, not all phones. Not the ones that are complete shit.

              Problem is that the majority of phones in the United States are complete shit. If independent game developers want to make their games accessible to the public, they have to have some way of targeting a large, easily identifiable chunk of the phone market. Otherwise it will become too difficult for potential users to see if a particular game works on the phone for which he or she is already locked into a $720 contract.

              But then, if you get Veri

  • Right now i do a mix of buying games and pirating them. If games cost less, I would buy all that I use. Alternatively, if they had less stringent copy protection, I could give games to family members so two of us could enjoy a game and I wouldn't feel quite so ripped off.

    PS. not all of us make $50,000/yr or even $30,000/yr. Working for a non-profit does not pay very well.
    • You have the option of working elsewhere, or helping your nonprofit get more grants or funding so that you can get a bigger paycheck.

  • Reply (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Dr. Eggman ( 932300 )
    No.


    Work smarter not harder.

    • Re:Reply (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sstamps ( 39313 )
      Amen to that!

      I don't buy second-hand games, but I do buy games usually at discount sales (like at the recent closing of Media Play), or a year or three after they have come out when the price has dropped into the $20-30 range. Why? Because few games nowadays are WORTH more than that to me. Many games are the same rehashed formulaic crap, just like what Hollywood has been regurgitating on the audiences for years (and in some cases, the games are made from those franchises.. serious double-plus-ungood karma t

  • Price discrimination (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FooAtWFU ( 699187 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:06PM (#14540300) Homepage
    If the game-makers don't want people to sell used games at $30 off, they should start cutting their prices sooner so people can get the game new for $30. I used to see PC games doing this effectively- the game would be $50 new, then in a month or two it'd be down to $40 or $30, and it'd eventually migrate down to the $5 bin somewhere - so that everyone who wanted it could get it new for the price they wanted, just not necessarily immediately.

    But they don't seem to fall as quickly as they used to, and I haven't seen this nearly as much for the console games.

    • Re:Price discrimination (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LehiNephi ( 695428 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:24PM (#14540553) Journal
      I fall into the "tightwad" category. And it's a wonderful place to be. It means I buy games about a year after they are released, and get to play them with maximum graphical detail with my mainstream graphics card. By the time I buy the game, I have (1) saved money on the game by getting it at a lower cost, (2) saved money by only buying good games, (3) saved money by getting older hardware that doesn't require a leaf blower to cool, and (4) saved time by not playing a game that turns out to be dull.

      People may say "you miss all the fun of multiplayer games because by that time, everyone has moved on". Rubbish. There are still plenty of people playing the game online, and by this time, most of the morons have given up and moved on.

      I agree that $50 or $60 is way overpriced, particularly when you're buying the latest model year of a sports game. The problem is this: price is determined by the market. Games cost $50 or $60 simply because there are tons of people who are willing to buy them at that price. While we may moan and complain and threaten to boycott, there are millions of suckers out there who think that it's an acceptable price.
      • High end video cards cost 600-700 $'s not because people are willing to pay that but because they can only get a few people to pay these outrageous prices and they give them massive profit margins.

        The fact that both manufacturers NVidia and ATI do it is simply an indication that oligopolies still work (like monopolies but with co-operation. YAY!

        This is part of the problem of laise fair capitalism, the system requires smart consumers and well they aren't :(

        We're seeing marketting budget's skyrocket, we
      • I fall into the "tightwad" category. And it's a wonderful place to be.

        Indeed! I just found a Sega CD at goodwill and have been having more fun with it than I've had with any new games I've bought. Sonic CD is as fun now as it was 10 years ago. Snatcher is one of the best adventure games I've ever played. The two Lunar games are timeless classics.

        I figure 10 years down the line I'll pick up a nintendo DS for cheap and have just as much fun playing those games then as I would have now for a lot cheaper.
      • You call yourself a tightwad and you only wait 1 year to buy a new game? I just bought a Gamecube last November (right before Gamestop jacked up the price $20 for the Christmas rush). I only bought it because I had about $60 worth of stuff to take back to Wal-Mart and the Gamestop next door had Metroid Prime to go with it for $5. I've now got a veritable trasure trove of new-to-me games at dirt cheap prices. I did buy Madden 06 but only after I found it for $24 shipped at an on-line pawn shop in Vegas.
        • Yeah, C&C Generals bit. If you like RTS games in the realistic and somewhat futuristic category, then give "Act Of War" a spin. It's dirt cheap by now, has a great single player experience, and an expansion pack is in the works (I'm on the beta). Also, if you like the RTS/historical (but not a pure simulation per se) angle more, then Rise Of Nations is (IMO), the best thing going right now though I don't know if it's "dirt cheap" yet.

      • By the time I buy the game, I have (1) saved money on the game by getting it at a lower cost, (2) saved money by only buying good games, (3) saved money by getting older hardware that doesn't require a leaf blower to cool, and (4) saved time by not playing a game that turns out to be dull.

        You have also (5) allowed players to get a one-year head start on gaining skill, so that there are not enough players of your skill level left, and (6) taken away one year of online play time before the game's publishe

        • If you can't enjoy playing a game that's been out a year because the skill level of everyone else is much higher, then condition 2 as laid out by the GP has not been met.

          Likewise, if there is no mechanism for a user to host their own server in the case that a publisher shuts down the game, condition 2 is also not met.
    • Then (in my experience), the Mac version would be released, costing 10$ more than the PC version did new, and three or four years later it would come down by 10$. And stay there.

      Seriously. The local [macoutfitters.com] not-Apple Apple Store had copies of Oni for 50$. In 2004.

  • Prices are pretty fair. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gasmonso ( 929871 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:12PM (#14540387) Homepage

    When you look at the value you're getting, $50 or so for a game is reasonable. Many games will give you months of entertainment. The cost per hour is extremely low when compared to renting a movie or going to the theater. Just my two cents.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
    • The cost per hour is extremely low when compared to...
      What about a book?
      • Depends on the book. War and Peace will certainly give you more hours of reading than Catcher in the Rye. It will also cost more. But either way it's still far below dollars per hour for video games. "Catcher" cost me $10 and I finished it in about four hours. "Disgaea" cost $50 and I have over 100 hours clocked.
    • Prices are pretty fair if it's a game you play for weeks or months. But it's harder to know if you'll like a game before you buy it. I mean, a lot of games I've bought were only entertaining for a few days, then I stopped playing them. DVDs you can watch in theatres or rent, and at least a few songs off a potential CD you can hear on the radio or Pandora. But there's no "computer game rental", and I'm less willing to buy computer games at the $60 price. It's almost better to wait for reviews to come ou
    • Many games will give you months of entertainment.

      Really? Could you list some games released within the past 3 years that have 'months' of replay value? And no, user made content doesn't count.

      And for the record, the last game I played was Call of Duty 2. I beat it on Average on a weekend. No cheats. Haven't touched it since. 'Borrowed' it from a friend who beat it himself and got bored with it. Online play bores us both since we don't have the time to memorize maps, weapon sounds, develop a twitch reactio

      • Games released Jan 2003 - Jan 2006 that provided > 3 months of replay value for me:

        Civilization IV [2kgames.com] (November 2005): Booyah. 3 months might be stretching it, but this is the best Civ game in a long time, and I've already logged 80+ hours playing this so far.

        World of Warcraft [worldofwarcraft.com] (November 2004): No, I don't want to think about how much time I've spent playing it, but I've had an active account for the past 14 months, for whatever that's worth, and I keep logging in and playing "just another hour...".

        Neverwi [gamerankings.com]
      • If you find yourself paying $50-60 for a game that you only enjoy for a few days or so, then I'd argue that you're doing a bad job of picking games to own. :)

        I know what games I like ... typically RPGs and strategy games. Games like Civ IV, Dragon Quest VIII, WoW, Rise of Nations, are those that I'll either play for several months straight, or pick up again every so often, for the next few YEARS.

        I used to be a big fan of FPS titles back in college, but I know better than to buy them now, for the exact reaso
      • I just starting playing "The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker" over again. According to my save files the last time I played it was August in 2003.

        A couple months ago I played "Eternal Darkness" over again.

        I'm playing "Ninja Gaiden" for the XBox over again.

        I'm playing "Final Fantasy IV" (II in the US) over again on the Nintendo DS

        After I finish Ninja Gaiden or Zelda I'm going to replay "Psychonauts". After that I'm due to venture back into "Resident Evil 4" on hard mode, and to finish the extra missions.

        Other ga

    • Well, if we look at Diablo II, which kept me pretty busy for two years, or Warcraft III, which I played for months, or World of Warcraft, which I've been playing nonstop for the last year, then you have a point (sorry for the Blizzard-bias, they make awesome games). But then again, if you look at the same price point from other publishers, the games just keep getting shorter.

      This isn't even talking about half-baked games like Deus Ex 2. Sure, they're a problem. They almost feel like getting jilted by a pr

    • That's a short-sighted analysis, however.

      Part of the value of the game is its expected resale value. For example, if I can reasonably expect to sell a game used for $20, which I bought new for $50, then its actual value to me is $30. If the game is priced higher than that and I cannot resell it, then it is overpriced.

      It's no different than being unwilling to pay a high price for a car or a house if you couldn't resell those, either.

      Basically, game developers are getting unacceptably greedy. This idea of the
    • "Many games will give you months of entertainment."

      Ya, but many games will give you 8 hours of entertainment, and that's if you're stubborn enough to finish the entire set of looping dungeons and cliches using next gen rendering on your $600 video card. Take Doom 3 for example, that's 8 hours of enjoyment for $59 CDN + Tax, assuming you're not one of the 15 people who play multiplyer. Is this game worth roughly $10 an hour? Not a chance. Now BF2 I can tell you, at 25 cents per hour, represents true value! (
    • Most games are around 15-25 hours, even being generous you're looking at $2 an hour. When I buy a CD for (on average) $12-$15 I'm going to listen to it at least 10-20 times - if it's good, a lot more. At 74 mins (yes, almost all the CDs I buy are full) that's closer to $0.50 per hours. So gaming is 4 times more expensive than listening to music, which is fine, I like to do both, but it's hardly comparable "value".
      • Music involves only one sense. Games typically involve at least two (and if the smell-o-vision and the teledildonics suit ever come out, even more.) Arguably, you're getting your money's worth.
    • When you look at the value you're getting, $50 or so for a game is reasonable. Many games will give you months of entertainment.

      Yeah but a game with less than 30 hours of gameplay isn't worth $50 or more. I'd buy it at $10, which incidentally, is twice the price at the flea market.

      The real problem is that the entertainment industry are a bunch of greedy bastards just like the RIAA. They keep all the money to themselves, and exploit their employees. And now they're telling us WE are the greedy bastards?

      Yeah,

  • Habits of casual gamers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Can ( 21457 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:13PM (#14540396)
    I'm not a hard-core gamer. Nor is my brother or girlfiend. We all own PS2's. We've never paid more than $30 for a game, and that's for something we're really convinced is going to be worthwhile. Most of the time we wait for it to hit $20. Still, we probably spend as much or more money on games than on movies or CD's.


    I know of at least 4 more people off the top of my head who own PS1's or PS2's who only have a handful of games because they're just too expensive. Are all my friends and coworkers cheapskates, or could it be that the industry has been so blinded by the "hardcore" gamers that they've alienated the much larger market of casual gamers due to difficulty levels and prices that are beyond the reach of the casual gamer?

  • ... they're getting one salary for essentially two (or more) full time jobs. at least the poor fools working at E.A. (unless E.A. has changed...)

  • To Jaffe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lbmouse ( 473316 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:16PM (#14540441) Homepage
    To David Jaffe from game consumers: "With the polished turds your industry has been throwing against the wall lately... You know what? Why the **** should we even buy anymore?"

    If you created decent games, we wouldn't mind paying full price and guess what? We'd actually keep them rather than sell them as second hand. Wow! What a novel solution.
    • I second that! I'm sick of games released in beta, $50 shooters I can finish in a few hours, and I can really, really sick of all these copy-protection schemes. I pay for even game I get, and I buy a lot of them. I should have my game phoning home to ask mommy if I am allowed to pay, or ones that cause my system to become slow or unstable.
  • It's annoying, but sometimes when a game first hits the shelves you'll see it for $39 or so, and then a week or two later the price will jump up to $49. It's not always the case, but I've had that happen to me with more than a few titles that were trying to make an impact right off the bat - even Half-Life (the original) did this back in '98, and was significantly cheaper on release day.

  • Response: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Conspiracy_Of_Doves ( 236787 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:24PM (#14540552)
    Gamers tell industry to expect more piracy.
  • If they want to keep their games from having the ability to be sold second hand, they need only sell them exclusively on steam or another content distribution system. HL2 even sold in stores, but the CD-Keys were only good for one activation on steam and you were not able to resell the games. They didn't sell additional CD-Keys to stores like EB-Games.

    The publishers (who use CD Keys) do sell cd-keys to stores so their games can be resold...so really it's their own fault on that front as well.

    The publisher
    • And by doing so, they will lose a sale with me. I too love the HL series, but I will never buy another game with steam in it. I will never again give a publisher that much money and have them maintain that must control over when, where, and how I play MY games. If I pay for it, it is mine. And no, I don't buy into the whole "you license software, you don't buy it" crap. Having to ask permission everytime I want to play HL2 is disgusting.
      • While i agree with your sentiment regarding the lack of "all rights reserved" licensing, i do happen to enjoy steam. It's just incredibly handy to open steam and be able to launch and buy many games from one interface. The licensing vs buying software is hardly anything new. For instance, people have always licensed windows or MacOS... While certain members of this site may say "taht's exactly what i mean" and then no buy windows, I for one do recognize the upsides of windows and do enjoy their interfac
        • As someone who has been buying software for 30 yrs., I know that. I didn't say that software is not licensed. I'm saying I don't like that model. I'm saying if I buy a CD of software, I SHOULD own it. I don't have a problem with Steam as a sales or distribution model. I have a problem with Steam dictating to me when I can play the game. Yes, I know there is an off-line mode, but it does not work well and still requirement periodic authentication. Besides, if I go and buy a CD or DVD, steam should be
          • to steams defense, i must say i've never had a problem playing offline...

            I did actually buy the physical CD's and didn't have any trouble at all playing it the day it came out... I never had the notorious steam issues that everyone was whining about at first...

            I do agree that any software bought should be resellable, and that includes a license to software. I can't deny that on a personally level it irks me that you can't go down to EB and buy a used copy... But again....maybe smart business. You know v

  • The Death of Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fried-Psitalon ( 929587 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:29PM (#14540603)
    "We'd pay your prices if XX didn't suck." Sadly, that's not really a new statement, and it's by no means restricted to the gaming world. Movies/movie theatres are facing this phenomenon as well, and books/music to a lesser degree. As a general rule, innovation for the last few years has been facing a distinct downtrend. Rather than huge leaps, we've been making small nudges forward at refining what we have. Part of the reason for this is that sequels are safe, and new material isn't. Yet another version of Battlefield:Earth? Quake 99? NFL Madden 3,000,192? Those are safe, predictable sources of income. The only sequel that truly tanked in the last year or two was Tribes, may it rise again. New titles are risks, and companies don't like those. Ever heard of Savage: The Battle for NewErth? It's a beautiful cross of RTS and FPS... but that game only did "okay" because no one knew about it - no publicity, no risk. Part of this is on the consumer; how many of us buy games we know nothing about except the back of the box? Innovation is dying; partially because companies aren't taking the risk... and partially because the consumers aren't, either.

    • Re:The Death of Innovation (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AeroIllini ( 726211 ) <aeroillini@nOsPaM.gmail.com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:12PM (#14541778)
      Part of this is on the consumer; how many of us buy games we know nothing about except the back of the box? Innovation is dying; partially because companies aren't taking the risk... and partially because the consumers aren't, either.

      Obligatory:

      "I'd be more willing to buy a game I knew nothing about if I didn't have to shell out $60 to do it."

      By pricing their games so high, the game industry has basically guaranteed that there is no such thing as an impulse game purchase. Therefore, every game must be heavily marketed, and therefore must not be as much of a risk for the game company, since they're spending $X million on marketing on top of the money they spent developing the game. It's kind of a downward spiral.

      The consumer risk you talk about is simply too large. The majority of the market is not going to toss down $60 on a product they've never even heard of, just as an impulse buy.
      • You need to be modded up to about ten.

        I'm cheaper than most - I don't like spending more than $20 on a game, even if I know it's one I want. So when I say that I would never impulse-buy a game I knew little to nothing about unless it was under $10, I assume that for most people it'd be at least twice that - but that still doesn't come CLOSE to what they cost new. Unless it's part of a franchise that I know I like (Zelda, for instance, or Sims), I'm going to read a ton of reviews etc before I buy just a

  • in other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by bradkittenbrink ( 608877 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:29PM (#14540604) Homepage Journal
    Gamers ask industry to make less shitty recycled games.

  • Not the best way to get the buyers on your side... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:30PM (#14540616) Homepage Journal
    It takes me back the the early 1990s when used music CDs were a controversy, with Garth Brooks giving interviews on how it was killing his industry. A local indy music shop began using that to market its used CD section.. "Come on down and piss off Garth Brooks!" It was a smashing success, and I think they may still have the sign up somewhere.
    • I also remember some record store holding a "brooks-b-que" where people who already had garth brooks CDs came and burned them. It seems that they were upset with his overwhelming greed and complete ignorance of first sale laws and what they are for, and swore never to buy another garth brooks CD (new or used) ever again.

      Of course, if you're really annoyed with him over that, it makes more sense to go door to door collecting used garth brooks CDs, and putting them on amazon or half.com :)

  • Missing the point. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Telastyn ( 206146 )
    Motion picture developers though [and to a lesser degree musicians] don't use media sales as their primary income source. They've likely recouped costs from the theatre before a single DVD is ever made.

    Game developers only get money from media sales. They also suffer under a publishing oligarchy comperable to the RIAA, who takes up to $25 per product. Going from $25-35 to $5 after discount is by far more damaging than any DVD or CD discount could ever be.
    • They've likely recouped costs from the theatre before a single DVD is ever made.

      Not true. Only the heavily marketed blockbuster movies recoup their costs at the box office, and they're really only a small fraction of the total number of movies made.

      Here are some interesting numbers for you:
      A Business Week article [businessweek.com] on why theater sales are losing to DVD, and an article in The Age [theage.com.au] on the economics of the current movie industry.

      Some excerpts from the article in The Age:

      The average movie costs $64 million to mak

  • Look at Movie Revenue (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:36PM (#14540703)

    Games cost a lot of money compared to a Movie, and partly this is because they do not effectively pursue multiple tiers of revenue. At $60 a lot of people simply will never buy your game. At $10 a lot of people will never pay to see a single showing of a movie. For movies, they first release in theaters at an exorbitant price for a single showing. Next it goes to second run theaters that charge less, but still a fair bit for a single showing. Then they on release on DVD, often getting people who paid the first time to buy another version, this time at a more reasonable price. DVD prices generally drop over time to help incentivise those who would not buy at the original price, but will buy a bargain. Then they play the movie on TV for "free" generating ad revenue. Movie studios collect money all along the way and thus each stage can actually be cheaper.

    Here's my new model for gaming revenue. First, make new games only playable at gaming "arcades" like gaming cafes and the like. These venues may have to be invented by the game company to start, but once the profit model is shown they will become more common. Next, release the game on DVD or CD and slowly lower the sale price over time. Finally, release free, ad supported versions of the game and make money from ad revenue.

    Is this practical? Who knows. The thing is, games are often very poorly offered at only one price point and, like movies are not something everyone wants to keep. It is that or I'll just keep buying four year old games from the bargain bin.

    • So your idea is to copy a broken model.

      Great idea there, good thinking.

      • So your idea is to copy a broken model.

        The movie industry is making money, is it not? What makes you think their model is "broken?"

        • Look it up. Movie revenues have been off, year to year. Hollywood likes to blame growing piracy as the problem. I happen to think that many of the movies are crap, which is why I don't go to as many anymore.

          In fact, I've heard that some producers are trying to change the system so that the DVD comes out at the SAME TIME the movie is released. The idea is that you build all this tremendous buzz all at the same time. There will always be folks who go see the movie in theatres for all the added benefits (big s

          • Look it up. Movie revenues have been off, year to year. Hollywood likes to blame growing piracy as the problem. I happen to think that many of the movies are crap, which is why I don't go to as many anymore.

            Movie revenues have been growing steadily for the last decade. Theater sales are slightly down and ticket sales are down even further but this is due to many factors. First, rising prices naturally result in lower ticket sales, but increased profit per sale. Second, the theater experience has been ste

  • Ha! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nEoN nOoDlE ( 27594 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @12:46PM (#14540821)
    'You know what? Why the **** should we even try anymore?'

    When do they even try anymore? There hasn't been any innovation in the industry in years.
    • maybe not in the 'safe' retail mainstream, but there are innovative games in the indie arena, such as Gish, ShortHike, Cute Knight, Pontifex, and dare I mention:
      www.democracygame.com
      Look beyon walmart and youll find some great innovative and cheap games you can buy online.

  • Ok, blood, turnip, better products....... (Score:5, Informative)

    by scronline ( 829910 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:02PM (#14541014) Homepage
    First thing's first. Second hand market does so well because, well, $60 for a game that you beat in 2 days.....I can understand that. I pay less than that for my television service and it lasts and entire month. I sat down with American McGee's Alice after paying $55 for it at a local store on a Friday evening. Saturday night I had it beaten already. I bought Diablo 2 the day it came out for $65. I came home, spent 4 hours working on it to make it even work on a standard system. When I say standard it was an asus board, intel chip, nvidia video. NOTHING worked beyond the ingame vids. After that 4 hours of mucking around with it, I got it to run. I then played it an astounding 2 hours. Since then it has sat on my shelf. So not only did it waste $200 worth of my time ($50/hr instore labor, not gonna use onsite labor even thought I should) and I'm out the money for the game, but I didn't even get as much play time as I did repair time with it because the game sucked so badly. Tribes 2, again, the day it came out. Nothing but system lockups and other anomolies. The only game producer I know of that actually consistantly puts out games that don't crash constantly (not to say they don't have issues, but atleast they do RUN out of the box) is Id Software.

    Let's not forget about companies like Valve. I bought HL way back when and though I wasn't happy with it's netcode the single player was worth playing....for awhile. Until you go to the alien planet, but that's another story. So I start playing CS online with it and get used to the game play. Valve all of a sudden releases their new netcode. I have to say "thanks for trying to fix your mistakes" but they took it too far. The new netcode was horrible and nothing ticks someone off more than getting killed by someone when you're halfway across the map from where they shot. Basically, their new updates made THAT game worthless to me and has since sat on a shelf.

    Everything said up until now has just been examples. I could fill an entire office full of paper with the various issues I've had over the year.

    I used to spend anywhere from $2-5k on games a year. Not hardware, just the game titles themselves. However over the years, the games take longer to be released (understandable since there's more to do....in some ways), they are lower quality, and quite frankly rushed to market. Imagine if Ford put a vehicle out there with bad tires on it.....oh wait..... Point being, products are being put out before they are ready. This frustrates and angers the person who paid for the product.

    Why on EARTH should we pay $50-80 for a game that we'll have to spend days, weeks, or even months helping fix flaws in the game before we can even use it for what we intended...stress/frustration relief. That's like selling someone a car that backfires any time you give it gas, the windows will only roll halfway down, and every so often it evacuates the cooling system on it's own. "Oh, well, you can bring it into the shop and we'll fix that for you. We found that problem". Of course that problem causes another problem so you have to wait to get that one fixed. Or better still, you buy a car that won't move. The engine will run, all electronics work, but it just sits there in your driveway. 3 months later, the automanufacturer delivers the transmission to your house but you have to install it yourself.

    Don't get me wrong, I understand software flaws and they can happen. But if the flaws are there from the day it was published as ready...that's just wrong. And going back to one of my earlier statements, I once spent $2-5k/yr on games. Last year I spent a whole $150 buying games. Why? Because I refuse to pay for something that is suppose to be for entertainment but I have to work (unpaid mind you) to be able to properly use it.

    If the game producing industry doesn't get their heads out of their ***** then they're going to soon find themselves in the same boat as the Recording and Movie industry. People don't mind paying top dol

  • "poor underpaid developers" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by stlhawkeye ( 868951 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:05PM (#14541046) Homepage Journal
    I know a lot of people in the development community. UO and UO2 programmers, a designer for Galaxies, people from Digital Anvil, EA, Microsoft. Most of them make enough in 8 months to take 4 months off a year collecting unemployment. One is about to head back to work because he's blown through the $30,000 he had in his savings account after his last contract was up (was a gig with Microsoft). His new job is level design and mission scripting for a PS3 game. The pay is $50 hour plus double pay for overtime. So he'll work for 6 months then take the rest of the year off to play Warcraft. I have no sympathy.

  • It's not the price, it's the protection. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sehlat ( 180760 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:07PM (#14541075)
    I fall into the category of "casual gamer." Which means I've got a day job that lets me *afford* games, I don't have the time to cope with anything that's going to eat my life learning how to play. But that's not the major reason I've pretty much quit buying games.

    The major reason is the nasty, intrusive and ugly copy protection, and yes, I mean *YOU*, Half-Life 2. The dozen or so times I tried to play the game, EVERY STINKING TIME I STARTED IT UP the program would run out to Steam's servers and ask "mother may I," making it VERY plain that Valve regards everybody who buys its game as a thief or thief wannabe. It also extended what should have been a less than thirty second startup time into five to ten minutes.

    I got tired of being bitch-slapped by Valve's nastiness. Also, consider this: I can't sell the game to the used market because, once registered, you're pretty much stuck with the thing.

    Feh!

  • Greedy jerks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Phantasmo ( 586700 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @01:21PM (#14541207)
    I honestly have no problem buying new games, even if it costs a bit more, because I like to support companies that do a good job. I only have three used games and that's because I couldn't find them new at any store.
    However, I'd like to make this perfectly clear: any company that takes steps to prevent me from lending games to friends or buying used games will never, ever receive another dollar of my money.
    I don't see what CliffyB has to complain about. Their recent games are Unreal, UT, UT2003/2004, and the upcoming UT2007. That's one evolutionary (not revolutionary) game every 2-3 years. The other 3/4 of their releases are "Game of the Year Special Edition" deals, basically DVDs with a few nice (free) maps and mods dumped in. Even so, they're making money hand over fist.
    The issue isn't that they're losing money, or even that they're just breaking even. They're upset because they're not making insane profits. These are the same complaints that we're hearing from the RIAA/MPAA. So, to the game industry: we (consumers) are good allies. We don't hate you (yet). Stop being greedy, get off the soapbox and get back to work. We'll be happy to buy any good games that you release.
    • Both the article and the summary are poorly worded. As I understood it, Cliffy was making the point that games are expensive compared to the books, movies, etc. In other words, he wasn't the one saying that gamers need to pay more.

  • EB Games sells USED games as NEW (Score:5, Interesting)

    by thpdg ( 519053 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @02:13PM (#14541782) Journal
    I'm really fed up with these gaming shops that open up EVERY copy of almost EVERY game in the store.
    They keep them all locked up in a showcase, and put empty boxes on the floor.
    WHY should I buy the brand new version, when they've already opened it up and rifled through it? They've probably even played it. That's not new product. Aren't there laws about selling used materials as new, any way?
  • I would be willing to pay more for games on two conditions:

    1) I am trusted without DRM/copy protection. I can live with a CD-check (though I dislike them).
    2) I can return games within a 14-day period.

    In the past I have bought too many games near launch day that were junk. It was total waste of my time and money, yet the developers/distributor/retailor profited. That is not fair and the 'once we release it, the money is will flow regardless of quality' mentality is what has ruined the industry. Its easy to

    • Do what I do. Buy all your games with a credit card. If a store refuses to allow me to return a piece-of-crap, I dispute the charge with my credit card company. Usually just telling the store owner that will get me a refund. That, and telling him I won't ever shop that again (especially when I spend a lot of money there).

Slashdot Top Deals

/earth: file system full.

Close