Morning Discussion
-
In both cases--the map pack and downloadable title price increase--it's a matter of voting with your dollars. Prices increase because of the popularity of the platform and/or content. The envelope keeps being pushed to find the consumer's breaking point.
Although some titles are deserving of their asking price, the averages go up because the majority of gamers keep paying for it. It will be interesting to see how well the titles in the 2010 Summer of Arcade sell. It appears that we've already given in to the new average. Just don't tell any of the publishers that, otherwise they'll start looking for a larger envelope.
God people, please listen to this guy before we're subscribing to everything-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
hahahaha. i love you mwasher. i hope we can both make it to burning man. i will have a furiously ridiculous and fun argument with you while stoned about this.
"No it IS YOU WHO ARE IN AGREEMENT!"
"DO NOT TELL ME THAT I AGREE WITH XAV DE MATOS I DO NOT TRUST HIM YET"
"I WILL EAT FIVE HUNDRED MUSHROOMS TO PROVE HOW MUCH OF A FOOL YOU ARE!!!" -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oh. Who is doing that? I don't know anything about that. I thought the crux of the discussion here was people voting with their wallet by not supporting a price point they don't agree with. Ie. just not playing the game. I assume you're just making a corollary point here based upon the previous discussion. Correct my ignorance arse if wrong
-
Ya sorry... Abrasion has "boycotted" Starcraft 2 because he believes it's a broken product in it's current form due to multiplayer limitations. He's been very vocal about it on here, and has stated many times he will have nothing to do with the game until Blizzard fixes what he believes is broken.
Turns out he's been using an exploit for the free guest passes to enjoy playing the single player longer then is allowed, w/o paying for the game.
-
-
-
-
-
It's okay. I expect you to compile a compendium of wrongs you have suffered at the hands of Shacknews. By the time of your death [may you live 100 years] - I am expecting an edition slightly larger than the Magna Carta.
:)
I will then take this edition and make the most awesome Mel Brooks style film out of it. Everyone wins!
-
-
-
I'm just saying that I find it funny that you end up taking advantage of a "glitch" in the guest pass system to play the game for free longer then you should be.
You want to boycott the game that's fine... I totally see where you're coming from and give you props for sticking to your guns. But you have to take the good with the bad when you say you're going to do something like this.
Good = You stood your ground and didn't give Blizzard any money for a product you feel is being released in a broken state. You get to feel good about taking a stand and not caving in.
Bad = You don't get to play said product because you choose not to pay for it.
I don't even have a problem with you using a guest pass to play your 7 hours (or however long you get with one). You are choosing to use an exploit in this system to play the game for longer then you should be w/o paying. It doesn't matter if you weren't the one who figured it out, or that you didn't "hack" any files to do so... the fact of the matter is you are playing the product that you so vibrantly "boycott" w/o paying for it.
And none of this "I'm only boycotting multiplayer" crap either.. the product Blizzard released is a combination of single and multi player. There is no option to only purchase one or the other. This doesn't mean you are allowed to cheat your way through playing single player for free, and not be looked down on for doing so.
IMO this renders your "stand" null and void. -
-
-
-
-
-
I had no idea what you were talking about until someone explained in a subthread that you were referencing the chatty post. There's no link or quote, so there's no context unless you read the MD post. It's pretty rare that anyone references the MD post and it's pretty rare that the post is intending to start a serious discussion (squids anyone?). I guess that makes me the faggot for not figuring this out first thing in the morning =(
To contribute, I think Fraylo has an interesting point up top about perceived value. If 20 million people thought a gaming thing was worth their money, then clearly there's a market there. Maybe it's not me or you, but maybe it's Fraylo and 19,999,999 of his friends.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I understand what you're getting at, but it won't change anything and isn't entirely a bad thing. Yeah, people are going to pay $60 for a big name title and then some more for the DLC of they like it. That kind of sucks, but people wouldn't pay that price if they didn't want it.
On the flipsde, we don't see anyone arguing against Steam sales. Everyone here has likely purchased games during these sales that they wouldn't have touched at full price.
Finding price points is just the way business works. Sometimes it hurts us and sometimes it benefits us. -
Personally, I think the advent of quality downloadable titles for $10-15 is one of the best things to happen in gaming over the past five years.
Shit like Braid, Limbo, remakes of classic games, robust add-ons like Mass Effect 2 is pushing, Shadow Complex, PsN stuff like Wipeout HD, this is great. Great games, manageable sizes, affordable prices.
I feel like I get more value from four $15 titles like Shadow Complex than one $60 game, in most cases.-
-
-
The issue I have with these downloadable games is that at least on XBLA they stay at $15 and almost never go on sale. If I buy Braid today it will cost me $15. Physical games hit the bargain bin fairly quickly: for example, I recently bought Bioshock 2, Mass Effect 2, and Assassin's Creed 2 for $20 each. These are all AAA titles that came out less than a year ago. If it comes down to spending $15 for Braid or $20 for Mass Effect 2, I'm going to pick ME2 every time.
-
-
-
You know what's funny? People rally around valve when they talk about their "games as a service" approach to game development. It's an awesome idea. But when someone says that people should probably pay for that service over time, we get all up in arms.
I believe subscription based entertainment is inevitable.-
And yet, Valve bucks that whole subscription based argument by having the best DD service, the best games, and the best selection on PC, with free DLC for their games, and weekly sales and specials.
They're still incredibly popular, profitable, and improving, so why do they need a subscription to lop off their potential playerbase?-
-
They have the equivalent of subscription revenues via Steam, long term ongoing revenue without creating tons of new content themselves. It's not quite as nice since no one is locked into a contract but the effect is the same. They have a big revenue stream besides the tiny release window for a new game every 2+ years like most companies.
-
-
-
-
-
The comparison is between subscription models and traditional models with DLC. Activision and Blizzard are only one example. Not every subscription need be for an MMO or cost $15/mo.
Valve is a special case because they own a separate service that provides subscription like ongoing revenue. Pointing to them as an example of why subscriptions are not necessary compared to traditional models is completely irrelevant to 99% of developers.-
99% of developers can't support their own games over the length of time they get played, no matter how successful they are. Why would a subscription model change that?
OnLive is a subscription-based model that's getting heat based on it's pricing structure, and for more than just that extra $50 bucks to access a game.
-
99% of developers can't support their own games over the length of time they get played, no matter how successful they are. Why would a subscription model change that?
Because subscriptions provide guaranteed ongoing revenue... This means your plans can bank on certain targets instead of having to guess at sales projections over the long term and with DLC. If your game doesn't have a long tail of sales, then it's hard to justify investing in ongoing support when you're just hoping DLC sells. If you have x people subscribing at $y/month then you have far more exact figures.
OnLive is again a completely separate thing from individual game subscriptions. It's like arguing that games will turn subscription based because XBL is.-
-
And...? This is about why subscriptions are inevitable. That a customer may get screwed is not an argument for why it won't happen, it's an example of a negative consequence.
That said, logic and history dictate that the only way to get people to subscribe and stay subscribed is to provide ongoing value in exchange for the ongoing revenue you get. People are extremely bad at internalizing the value of subscriptions (ex all you can eat music services), so you really must provide them ongoing support if you're to succeed.
In any case, I haven't heard an argument from you about why it won't happen besides 'Valve succeeds without it' which we've covered already.-
-
I don't know what ugly and complicated even mean in this context. It's not like it's hard to create a sign up page for a service.
As for casual gamers, I'm not sure what that matters. Unless they don't buy MW3 at all because of subscriptions (and there's nothing to say mp couldn't be free but we'll move from discrete mappacks to a constant subscription with new maps) you're not losing any revenue by going with a subscription. All you're doing is gaining subscribers giving constant smaller revenue in place of the big bursts of revenue that DLC provides.
And even if you do lose some sales outright, each person who subscribes for $5/mo for a year is worth as much as a sale. As soon as it's longer than that (or if it costs more than $5/mo) they're worth more than a sale, even more so as the boxed price decreases over that year+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I never assumed anything about it. I only said they're not normal because of this extra revenue stream. If they invest a lot in DLC and it doesn't sell they'll survive. If they invest a lot in a game that doesn't sell they'll survive. So they can try things like free DLC and see how much it boosts sales. If it doesn't end up working they don't get shut down like most studios.
And then you have to look at the other side of the coin. How many dollars in profit do they make per dollar spent on development of free DLC with sales of TF2 at a reduced rate compared to the relative revenue per dollar spent of MW2's $15 mappacks? If they were a publicly traded company they couldn't just leave millions of dollars in revenue on the table just because of principles of free content that they're making some money on.
-
-
-
-
-
-
All that will eventually do is just cause massive losses for most companies. As it is people are already paying huge amounts of money for current subscriptions and trying to tac on more people will buc down. Money doesn't exactly grow on trees, when having a damn iphone practically is $100 month, throw in cable TV that many people have is nearly $100 a month or more, plus other services.
-
-
Who cares? If it's worth it people will buy it, if not then people won't. Nothing to see here.
Blah blah blah games are getting more expensive, well what hasn't gotten more expensive over the last decade?
God damn gamers are some cheap ass mother fuckers. People gave Star Craft 2 1 star on Amazon because it was $60 instead of $50. REALLY? I MEAN REALLY? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME HERE?????TWO -
-