surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
I never agreed more with anything in my entire life than I have this blog. I'm tempted to make multiple accounts just to fap it again and again.
This whole nickel-and-dime practices has soured me on HD consoles as a whole because now when I see HD consoles and games I think about DLC and DRM and online passes and such.
That's a big part of the reason why I've found my way back to Nintendo in recent years. Their philosophy always was and is simplicity in hardware and software. I had drifted away from them as I got older like a lot of folks have, but my eyes are open now. That's why I'm going to rebuild my GameCube library (gave all of my games to my Nintendo-loving friends because I thought my PS2 was all I needed). That's why I'm going to do what I should have done back in 2006 and finally buy a Wii.
That same reason is also why I'm now afraid for the Wii-U. This is going to be Nintendo's first HD console, and I'm afraid it's going to have the same money grubbing hoops to jump through as the PS3 and 360, all for the sake of Nintendo trying to win back 3rd parties. Nintendo might still decide not to DLC any of their games, but you can be sure if they are able to coax 3rd parties to develop for it like it was the PS3/360 then it will have the same pitfalls as those systems simply so 3rd parties can feel comfortable developing for it. It was already stated that the Wii-U will support DLC. So it begins...
All in all, great read. You've said exactly what I think about the situation infinitely better than I could have phrased it. Thank you.
This whole nickel-and-dime practices has soured me on HD consoles as a whole because now when I see HD consoles and games I think about DLC and DRM and online passes and such.
That's a big part of the reason why I've found my way back to Nintendo in recent years. Their philosophy always was and is simplicity in hardware and software. I had drifted away from them as I got older like a lot of folks have, but my eyes are open now. That's why I'm going to rebuild my GameCube library (gave all of my games to my Nintendo-loving friends because I thought my PS2 was all I needed). That's why I'm going to do what I should have done back in 2006 and finally buy a Wii.
That same reason is also why I'm now afraid for the Wii-U. This is going to be Nintendo's first HD console, and I'm afraid it's going to have the same money grubbing hoops to jump through as the PS3 and 360, all for the sake of Nintendo trying to win back 3rd parties. Nintendo might still decide not to DLC any of their games, but you can be sure if they are able to coax 3rd parties to develop for it like it was the PS3/360 then it will have the same pitfalls as those systems simply so 3rd parties can feel comfortable developing for it. It was already stated that the Wii-U will support DLC. So it begins...
All in all, great read. You've said exactly what I think about the situation infinitely better than I could have phrased it. Thank you.
I just don't care for the practice because companies that engage in online passes in general are trying to cut out the mainstream consumer and gamers to create a brainwashed, slobbering alpha consumer.
I'm sorry, but I have to take offense when someone comes out of the blue and demonds my loyalty. The gaming industry is fighting used games like the RIAA tried to fight MP3s.
In the long run, who benefitted. Did record companies win the hearts of consumers for treating people like criminals for sampling MP3s? The truth is the result of so-called "piracy" there was that customers found new and interesting bands they wouldn't have heard of otherwise.
The industry didn't like that because customers weren't putting the money back into the big name one-hit wonders they put so much money into.
And who but Apple came in and took advantage of the industry's complacency? All this time they could have spent embracing the tech and getting a start on that market, but instead they were forced to play catch-up and got left behind.
I have never bought a new Valve game, but I have bought them used and enjoyed them immensely. What could be the poosible end result of that?
I'm not going to keep buying them new. When Portal 3 or Half-Life 3 come out, I will buy them. When I get a better PC, I'll probably be down for some TF2 and DOTA. Valve has treated me incredibly well, even as a used buyer.
Smae with Nintendo, Atlus and a number of others.
I have less of a problem with the online pass for multiplayer, but the fact that EA thrusts it on single player as well disgusts me to no end.
I felt like I'm no longer a valued customer with some of these guys. Its gone from "The customer is king" to the Darth Vader-esque "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
I'm sorry, but I have to take offense when someone comes out of the blue and demonds my loyalty. The gaming industry is fighting used games like the RIAA tried to fight MP3s.
In the long run, who benefitted. Did record companies win the hearts of consumers for treating people like criminals for sampling MP3s? The truth is the result of so-called "piracy" there was that customers found new and interesting bands they wouldn't have heard of otherwise.
The industry didn't like that because customers weren't putting the money back into the big name one-hit wonders they put so much money into.
And who but Apple came in and took advantage of the industry's complacency? All this time they could have spent embracing the tech and getting a start on that market, but instead they were forced to play catch-up and got left behind.
I have never bought a new Valve game, but I have bought them used and enjoyed them immensely. What could be the poosible end result of that?
I'm not going to keep buying them new. When Portal 3 or Half-Life 3 come out, I will buy them. When I get a better PC, I'll probably be down for some TF2 and DOTA. Valve has treated me incredibly well, even as a used buyer.
Smae with Nintendo, Atlus and a number of others.
I have less of a problem with the online pass for multiplayer, but the fact that EA thrusts it on single player as well disgusts me to no end.
I felt like I'm no longer a valued customer with some of these guys. Its gone from "The customer is king" to the Darth Vader-esque "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
The ironic part is, you pretty much said exactly what I said in the article and the video, at least about the whole "we're all gamers" and "don't be elitist" thing (though you were being a little elitist yourself when you dissed Nintendogs). Overall though, you're agreeing with me while disagreeing with me! I guess that's the best kind of disagreement?
As for the nickle and diming thing, I think you're being way too negative. When was the last time you paid for a demo on XBLA/PSN? When was the last time you got access to a publishers online servers for free? In my day, you want to play a videogame against someone else, that's cost you $.25 to $.50 per match! Free demos? Unheard of. And home console games cost $80! This list goes on and on.
We have it really good right now, and if history is any indicator, things will only get better. The online pass thing will probably die out. I personally don't plan on supporting it, and I doubt others will either. It'll just be too easy for them to jump ship on whatever game if endorsing the online pass system for another equally fun game that has no online pass requirement. Today's highly competitive gaming market will continue to keep the consumer in the driver's seat. Everything is going to fine.
We're all in the same gang. Don't be grumpy! And nice blog! I hope you write more. I'm glad I inspired you to write it, even if you seem a little ticked off at me. <3
As for the nickle and diming thing, I think you're being way too negative. When was the last time you paid for a demo on XBLA/PSN? When was the last time you got access to a publishers online servers for free? In my day, you want to play a videogame against someone else, that's cost you $.25 to $.50 per match! Free demos? Unheard of. And home console games cost $80! This list goes on and on.
We have it really good right now, and if history is any indicator, things will only get better. The online pass thing will probably die out. I personally don't plan on supporting it, and I doubt others will either. It'll just be too easy for them to jump ship on whatever game if endorsing the online pass system for another equally fun game that has no online pass requirement. Today's highly competitive gaming market will continue to keep the consumer in the driver's seat. Everything is going to fine.
We're all in the same gang. Don't be grumpy! And nice blog! I hope you write more. I'm glad I inspired you to write it, even if you seem a little ticked off at me. <3
Requiring you to preorder a game to get access to the demo is akin to paying for a demo, and it happens a lot. Though they've started saying it's a beta now cause it sounds better then "paying for a demo".
I don't think we have it really good right now :/ Is it terrible? No. But compared to my (possibly jaded) memory of 10 years ago nowadays is pretty much a shitsandwhich, and if history is any indicator it won't get better as far as I can tell.... Companies always get more and more and consumers get less and less [rights].
I don't think we have it really good right now :/ Is it terrible? No. But compared to my (possibly jaded) memory of 10 years ago nowadays is pretty much a shitsandwhich, and if history is any indicator it won't get better as far as I can tell.... Companies always get more and more and consumers get less and less [rights].
The slippery slope argument may sound cliche but it's perfectly valid here.
Holmes, it's incredibly naive to believe publishers will not do everything they can get away with to nickel and dime customers for game content that should be part of the base product, and put more and more barriers to keep out "pirates" and dirty second-hand consumers, requiring constant internet connections and obnoxious keycodes, etc.
Things will only get worse if gamers keep quiet and just accept it.
Holmes, it's incredibly naive to believe publishers will not do everything they can get away with to nickel and dime customers for game content that should be part of the base product, and put more and more barriers to keep out "pirates" and dirty second-hand consumers, requiring constant internet connections and obnoxious keycodes, etc.
Things will only get worse if gamers keep quiet and just accept it.
@Master Snake
Rebuilding your gamecube library? You might like this.
Rebuilding your gamecube library? You might like this.
Nice blog... I always love a great rant!
I'm a little pissed at Sony in particular on this. I realize they've had a tough year (what with the Tsunami and the PSN hack) but Bluray games don't really have the excuse of rampant piracy which is the reason given for the use of the online passes in the first place. Yes, PC games are pirated. Yes, Xbox games are pirated... but PS3 games aren't pirated to anywhere near the same extent and on Sony's part this isn't any form of piracy deterrent, it's out and out a money-grab.
In regards to "Talking to women about video games", meh, I still think the satire might have been clearer if it had been "Talking to gamer about video games" because Jonathan is doing his best to portray the lowest common denominator of the term "gamer". The "woman" part is really just a foil and I still think that this clouds the irony and humour to some degree. I'd love to see him ranting about "gamer issues" to some old banker type guy or a more random person on the street.
(but that's likely just me!)
I'm a little pissed at Sony in particular on this. I realize they've had a tough year (what with the Tsunami and the PSN hack) but Bluray games don't really have the excuse of rampant piracy which is the reason given for the use of the online passes in the first place. Yes, PC games are pirated. Yes, Xbox games are pirated... but PS3 games aren't pirated to anywhere near the same extent and on Sony's part this isn't any form of piracy deterrent, it's out and out a money-grab.
In regards to "Talking to women about video games", meh, I still think the satire might have been clearer if it had been "Talking to gamer about video games" because Jonathan is doing his best to portray the lowest common denominator of the term "gamer". The "woman" part is really just a foil and I still think that this clouds the irony and humour to some degree. I'd love to see him ranting about "gamer issues" to some old banker type guy or a more random person on the street.
(but that's likely just me!)
Fapped for passion! (and agreement!) I think this is a slow spiral and I hate to see where it's going...unfortunately even if we bitch about it, I don't think it'll change much.
"Honestly, what's to stop devs from saying 'You want to see the single player ending? You should have bought it new! Now give us another $20 for the privilege!'."
Actually Cliffy B tweeted almost this exact idea a year or so ago... so your nightmare may be a reality sooner than you think!
Actually Cliffy B tweeted almost this exact idea a year or so ago... so your nightmare may be a reality sooner than you think!
I disagree, if people stopped buying Resistance 3, Sony would quickly drop this. If people didn't buy the THQ UFC or Mass Effect or whatever online pass structure, people would stop doing it. Consumer response is the end all of every argument.
Software producers aren't the ones doing this, consumers are the ones allowing it. If you feel this strongly, cancel a preorder, wait a few months to purchase new, don't buy the game.
I just don't like the fact that my physical copy of a game only works on an account tied to my name. It's stupid. I won't pay for it and the only game I own that has done this is ME2 and that's because my wife needed it.
I don't buy stuff that should be mine. I don't want to worry about a code or whether I could lend my copy to a friend and he'll be able to play it. If you want to Nickel and Dime me, I won't purchase your products.
Software producers aren't the ones doing this, consumers are the ones allowing it. If you feel this strongly, cancel a preorder, wait a few months to purchase new, don't buy the game.
I just don't like the fact that my physical copy of a game only works on an account tied to my name. It's stupid. I won't pay for it and the only game I own that has done this is ME2 and that's because my wife needed it.
I don't buy stuff that should be mine. I don't want to worry about a code or whether I could lend my copy to a friend and he'll be able to play it. If you want to Nickel and Dime me, I won't purchase your products.
I'm going to open strong here: Online passes are fighting used games on the same level as fighting piracy. When you buy used, it is exactly the same as if you pirated the game. No physical copies are lost. No revenue is gained. You can argue all day long that you might buy the sequel, but no one can actually verify that (and even if you do, if the studio gets closed down, its a moot point anyway. And if you have been reading the front page, you know studios get closed). But you got to pay someone for something, so good on you for supporting Gamestop instead of the dev. Power to the player! What's messed up about all of this is that pirates actually pledge that they might buy the real game, if it 'deserves' it. With used passes people are saying they wouldn't even do that, because the business is treating you like a thief or wasting your time. All they want to do is make money for a luxury good. If an electric company wanted you to pay an extra ten dollars for night electricity, then yes, they can piss off. But if a luxury good asks for you to give them money for them to deliver content and maintain that content, and you say no, you are an entitled brat and that's all. You use the term 'fanboy' to describe the people bending it over and taking it blindly. Maybe they are the people who actually care enough about the industry to support it.
But really, they should be lowering the costs. Just imagine if every game had the depth of EDF or the look of Deadly Premonition or the whatever the hell Onechanbara had. And come on, everyone loves it when a studio announces massive cutbacks, or has a vision but doesn't accomplish it because they don't have the resources. Comments light up, in what I assume to be a positive manner, every time that comes up!
Gaming as a business is a cycle: They make games. We pay for games. They make more games. We stop paying them. They stop making games. Dinosaur kills man. Woman inherits the earth.
But really, they should be lowering the costs. Just imagine if every game had the depth of EDF or the look of Deadly Premonition or the whatever the hell Onechanbara had. And come on, everyone loves it when a studio announces massive cutbacks, or has a vision but doesn't accomplish it because they don't have the resources. Comments light up, in what I assume to be a positive manner, every time that comes up!
Gaming as a business is a cycle: They make games. We pay for games. They make more games. We stop paying them. They stop making games. Dinosaur kills man. Woman inherits the earth.
Thanks for the replies everybody! Sorry I wasn't able to reply sooner!
@Holmes I'm not the one saying that if someone doesn't like how the state of gaming is, if they actually have expectations from a multi billion dollar industry that wouldn't exist if it weren't from them, that they should stop their complaining and maybe consider finding a new hobby. That was you. I'm not the one who wrote a bunch of definitions for types of gamers then claimed some of them maybe aren't real gamers. That was you.
I didn't even insult Nintendogs, you completely misread that. I think it's a great idea and from what I've heard from some people is a perfectly valid piece of gaming. But how could you not be aware of the casual/hardcore pissing contests that have been going on for years?
I'm really not sure what period you're coming from, but I grew up in the age where demos existed to convince you to buy a product and nothing else. As long as I've known about PC gaming, shareware demos that were up to a third of a full game were completely free, or a couple of bucks to pay for the floppy/cd costs that the demo came on. Even during the PSX/PS2/XBox era demos were still free. You had to buy a magazine to get the disc with the demos but you were still getting a magazine for your troubles. Nowadays some devs actually expect you to preoder, as in already commit to buying the game, for the "privilage" to play the demo which is suppossed to be what you'd use to decide whether or not you wanted to buy the game.
Your comparison to (I assume) arcades makes no sense, because you never bought the game. You're paying the person who did buy the cabinet to temporarily use it, and if you didn't want to do that you could just buy the cabinet yourself. Either way the owner of the game paid once: when they first bought the cabinet. The makers of that cabinet don't get a cut for every quarter you put in. Bringing it back into the home, neither did I ever have to pay Id/GT Interactive to play Doom on PC against my buddies, I just needed to convince my parents to stay off the phone line for a few hours. Even now if I want to play TF2 I just have to find a server someone else provided or provide my own.
Valve is a great example of a company that seems to get the market and actually wants to foster goodwill amongst their consumers rather than figuring out how to more easily exploit them. Counter Strike and Team Fortress 2 are two of the biggest multiplayer games in history, and in all those years Valve didn't make a dime directly from the multiplayer. Yet you never hear them complaining about these things or clawing back from the consumer. Hell, they're giving away TF2 for free now because they've figured out how to make money in ways that don't piss off their consumer base. They're going to give DOTA 2 away for free and last I heard have yet to figure out how they're going to make money off of it. Obviously that's an insane business practice that's not viable for all companies, but it shows that they can be profitable (Valve is the most profitable per employee company in the industry) without blatantly exploiting gamers.
Yes the market is competitive, but every time a company gets away with screwing you over just a little bit more, every other company will scramble to catch up and be the next one to push just that little bit farther. Companies aren't your buddies and they aren't competing for your benefit. They're competing for theirs.
@Mr Andy Dixon
The Mario picture is from a Ripten article from 3 years ago. And I remember someone... This shit's been talked about for awhile, and it's fucking scary.
@manasteel88
That's kind what I'm getting at. They have the money and the resources, and we just have our numbers and our wallets. Although speaking with our wallets hasn't worked yet. The sequel to something that sold upteen millions of copies is still going to sell enough to justify whatever skeezy practices they do surrounding it. That's why I say it's a losing battle, because the market clearly wants this...
@taterchimp
So you think that all used gaming should be outlawed? What about anything used? I bought some clothes at a thrift store today, so by your definition I stole? :\
And no, gamers should not sit back and take whatever the companies will give them. Because every time they'll get a little bit less and have to pay a little bit more. As a consumer you should ALWAYS be demanding better and cheaper from your companies. ALWAYS. Because if you don't they're certainly not going to give it to you. Like I said before they aren't your friends, they aren't looking out for you. They want as much of your money for as little effort as possible, and it's up to you to make sure they earn that money each and every time.
I'm not saying you shouldn't appreciate what you are given. Reward companies that are doing right by you. But still keep demanding better, or the next time it won't be as good and will cost you a little more.
@Holmes I'm not the one saying that if someone doesn't like how the state of gaming is, if they actually have expectations from a multi billion dollar industry that wouldn't exist if it weren't from them, that they should stop their complaining and maybe consider finding a new hobby. That was you. I'm not the one who wrote a bunch of definitions for types of gamers then claimed some of them maybe aren't real gamers. That was you.
I didn't even insult Nintendogs, you completely misread that. I think it's a great idea and from what I've heard from some people is a perfectly valid piece of gaming. But how could you not be aware of the casual/hardcore pissing contests that have been going on for years?
I'm really not sure what period you're coming from, but I grew up in the age where demos existed to convince you to buy a product and nothing else. As long as I've known about PC gaming, shareware demos that were up to a third of a full game were completely free, or a couple of bucks to pay for the floppy/cd costs that the demo came on. Even during the PSX/PS2/XBox era demos were still free. You had to buy a magazine to get the disc with the demos but you were still getting a magazine for your troubles. Nowadays some devs actually expect you to preoder, as in already commit to buying the game, for the "privilage" to play the demo which is suppossed to be what you'd use to decide whether or not you wanted to buy the game.
Your comparison to (I assume) arcades makes no sense, because you never bought the game. You're paying the person who did buy the cabinet to temporarily use it, and if you didn't want to do that you could just buy the cabinet yourself. Either way the owner of the game paid once: when they first bought the cabinet. The makers of that cabinet don't get a cut for every quarter you put in. Bringing it back into the home, neither did I ever have to pay Id/GT Interactive to play Doom on PC against my buddies, I just needed to convince my parents to stay off the phone line for a few hours. Even now if I want to play TF2 I just have to find a server someone else provided or provide my own.
Valve is a great example of a company that seems to get the market and actually wants to foster goodwill amongst their consumers rather than figuring out how to more easily exploit them. Counter Strike and Team Fortress 2 are two of the biggest multiplayer games in history, and in all those years Valve didn't make a dime directly from the multiplayer. Yet you never hear them complaining about these things or clawing back from the consumer. Hell, they're giving away TF2 for free now because they've figured out how to make money in ways that don't piss off their consumer base. They're going to give DOTA 2 away for free and last I heard have yet to figure out how they're going to make money off of it. Obviously that's an insane business practice that's not viable for all companies, but it shows that they can be profitable (Valve is the most profitable per employee company in the industry) without blatantly exploiting gamers.
Yes the market is competitive, but every time a company gets away with screwing you over just a little bit more, every other company will scramble to catch up and be the next one to push just that little bit farther. Companies aren't your buddies and they aren't competing for your benefit. They're competing for theirs.
@Mr Andy Dixon
The Mario picture is from a Ripten article from 3 years ago. And I remember someone... This shit's been talked about for awhile, and it's fucking scary.
@manasteel88
That's kind what I'm getting at. They have the money and the resources, and we just have our numbers and our wallets. Although speaking with our wallets hasn't worked yet. The sequel to something that sold upteen millions of copies is still going to sell enough to justify whatever skeezy practices they do surrounding it. That's why I say it's a losing battle, because the market clearly wants this...
@taterchimp
So you think that all used gaming should be outlawed? What about anything used? I bought some clothes at a thrift store today, so by your definition I stole? :\
And no, gamers should not sit back and take whatever the companies will give them. Because every time they'll get a little bit less and have to pay a little bit more. As a consumer you should ALWAYS be demanding better and cheaper from your companies. ALWAYS. Because if you don't they're certainly not going to give it to you. Like I said before they aren't your friends, they aren't looking out for you. They want as much of your money for as little effort as possible, and it's up to you to make sure they earn that money each and every time.
I'm not saying you shouldn't appreciate what you are given. Reward companies that are doing right by you. But still keep demanding better, or the next time it won't be as good and will cost you a little more.
I do not think that used gaming will become outlawed, but I do think there will be a drastic change to compensate those who created the product. I do not know what this change is, and I do not believe that the online pass is the best solution.
Two things on your point on thrift clothes. First, imagine for a minute being in the companies shoes, instead of the consumers. Someone now has your product. They did not buy your product through your channel. In the case of many styles of clothes, and to the point, gaming, this is a unique product they cannot get anywhere else. You see no revenue for someone purchasing it. None. But they have a product you could have otherwise sold them. Just like piracy, it isn't stealing exactly, but it doesn't help you or support your business (in any way tangible to the bottom line).
Second point on clothes vs video games is that the used market for games is not the used market for clothes or furniture or even video game hardware. Many products eventually get wear and tear and must be replaced after a certain time frame. Look at a car: If you buy a car new, it has the new value. After you put 50K miles on it, it is worth less because it is closer to death. If the car makes it to 200K then the last person who has it will probably have to buy another car from somewhere, hopefully the same company who sold them that car. It doesn't matter how many people owned it, it will inevitably need to be replaced after a natural and predictable life span. A game never deteriorates over time. If you play Mass Effect New and sell it back to Gamestop, who sells it to another gamer, they get the exact same New experience. So all the used pass is doing is upping the odometer on the game, but allowing you to reset it.
I completely agree with you though. As consumers we have a responsibility to demand the best we can get from the goods we purchase. The only way we can voice our opinion is to vote with our wallet with the games we purchase. Buying used is a mixed message vote of 'I will gladly purchase your product. I do not want you to profit from it' which is the same vote as 'I will not buy your product' to the business. Bottom line: either don't buy the product at all or support the business.
Two things on your point on thrift clothes. First, imagine for a minute being in the companies shoes, instead of the consumers. Someone now has your product. They did not buy your product through your channel. In the case of many styles of clothes, and to the point, gaming, this is a unique product they cannot get anywhere else. You see no revenue for someone purchasing it. None. But they have a product you could have otherwise sold them. Just like piracy, it isn't stealing exactly, but it doesn't help you or support your business (in any way tangible to the bottom line).
Second point on clothes vs video games is that the used market for games is not the used market for clothes or furniture or even video game hardware. Many products eventually get wear and tear and must be replaced after a certain time frame. Look at a car: If you buy a car new, it has the new value. After you put 50K miles on it, it is worth less because it is closer to death. If the car makes it to 200K then the last person who has it will probably have to buy another car from somewhere, hopefully the same company who sold them that car. It doesn't matter how many people owned it, it will inevitably need to be replaced after a natural and predictable life span. A game never deteriorates over time. If you play Mass Effect New and sell it back to Gamestop, who sells it to another gamer, they get the exact same New experience. So all the used pass is doing is upping the odometer on the game, but allowing you to reset it.
I completely agree with you though. As consumers we have a responsibility to demand the best we can get from the goods we purchase. The only way we can voice our opinion is to vote with our wallet with the games we purchase. Buying used is a mixed message vote of 'I will gladly purchase your product. I do not want you to profit from it' which is the same vote as 'I will not buy your product' to the business. Bottom line: either don't buy the product at all or support the business.
I dig the passionate blog too, but I really couldn't disagree more. I'm bias for two reasons. One: I like Jonathan's show. Two: I'm working for a small company that deals with this bullshit all the time. We're always figuring out the best prices for our games and figuring out in app purchases that will sell well for 99 cents. We also think about piracy, but it is different on the iPad because for the most part they have that thing locked down better than the console or PC environment.
There is big problem I have with this passionate outburst. It's like taterchimp suggests. You are not looking at this from a company/business standpoint. Speaking out about the problem is good - a protest against something you don't appreciate. It's just hard to take you seriously when you have such a negative view of the average company.
Sorry to be captain obvious. Companies have to make money to keep everyone working. There are all sorts of different goals that they have, but usually money is the bottom line. I happen to think that companies are still just guessing about how to really monetize their games. So these demonized corporate strategies like DRM, online passes, subscriptions, and in app purchases are, from what I can tell, in an experimental stage. Developers are really trying to grasp what price their games are worth, and what people are willing to pay for.
When Minecraft started making shit tons of money, anyone that knew anything about business shit a brick. Could it be that taking a huge risk, innovating, and making something extremely cool could actually make enough profit to dwarf most of the top earners today? What a concept! It's just what I want from games today! But there is a reason why companies don't normally do this. It's just too high risk. EA doesn't pay one no named programmer with an idea to have a life while he builds something like Minecraft for them. It's just not done. What EA would rather do is take Minecraft's subscription model and replicate it. EA would rather take the games concepts and replicate the ones that were not patented. They would rather put these cool concepts in an already established brand. Low risk and high reward. They just have to wait until it exists first.
Valve and Blizzard are a few companies that have enough money and are cool enough to innovate and experiment. EA, being such a big company probably has huge turnaround when certain games fail. For those companies, hitting a bottom line of profitability and trying to implement DRM in their games should be... unsurprising to you. Companies may piss you off sometimes, but if you are being nickel and dimed then you are also paying for something that you must think is worth it.
And hey, low risk development does make for some mediocre products. But these companies aren't all bad, some of them are just trying to scrape by. There was a time when Square put together Final Fantasy VII. They recently gave us a very solid Deus Ex sequel. There is still some 'heart and soul' there and some innovation. Gears of War 3 was pretty damned good. Mass Effect 3, Diablo III, and many more games with online passes, online only, DRM-type features will all probably worth their price. I'm totally able to deal with these online passes if it means I get to play an awesome game. There are plenty of things I refuse to pay for. If Final Fantasy games start being released on Facebook and I have to buy Facebook coins to buy the best crafting materials, I'm going to look elsewhere for an RPG, just for example.
That said, this online passes thing reminds me a lot about how much people were complaining about Diablo III's online only single player. You ask a person like me? I LOVE the idea of online only Diablo III. It means that I can expect little to no hackers/cheaters. It means if I decide to partake in their auction house that my money is fairly secure. It means that every decision I make is calculated somewhere other than my computer, saving the data on reliable hardware that my computer doesn't have to mess with. I'm online all the time anyway, so it's just something I have no problem dealing with. And from a company standpoint - holy shit. Blizzard is in a position to make sure no one pirates the game. Talk about knowing what your product is worth - they might be able to see every dollar of every sale coming to them. This means good things for a good company. Sure, they will lose some customers because not everyone is online all the time. But how many people play Minecraft and WOW in exactly the same 'online-only' way? It's not a reason to get pissed at Blizzard, it's a reason to pay more for internet. It is a reason to be online. And despite all this hubub I will still make the easy choice to buy Uncharted 3. Holmes is right. If you are a gamer you will play games that are worth playing, and that probably means you will jump through some hoops. Hold on tightly, let go lightly.
There is big problem I have with this passionate outburst. It's like taterchimp suggests. You are not looking at this from a company/business standpoint. Speaking out about the problem is good - a protest against something you don't appreciate. It's just hard to take you seriously when you have such a negative view of the average company.
Sorry to be captain obvious. Companies have to make money to keep everyone working. There are all sorts of different goals that they have, but usually money is the bottom line. I happen to think that companies are still just guessing about how to really monetize their games. So these demonized corporate strategies like DRM, online passes, subscriptions, and in app purchases are, from what I can tell, in an experimental stage. Developers are really trying to grasp what price their games are worth, and what people are willing to pay for.
When Minecraft started making shit tons of money, anyone that knew anything about business shit a brick. Could it be that taking a huge risk, innovating, and making something extremely cool could actually make enough profit to dwarf most of the top earners today? What a concept! It's just what I want from games today! But there is a reason why companies don't normally do this. It's just too high risk. EA doesn't pay one no named programmer with an idea to have a life while he builds something like Minecraft for them. It's just not done. What EA would rather do is take Minecraft's subscription model and replicate it. EA would rather take the games concepts and replicate the ones that were not patented. They would rather put these cool concepts in an already established brand. Low risk and high reward. They just have to wait until it exists first.
Valve and Blizzard are a few companies that have enough money and are cool enough to innovate and experiment. EA, being such a big company probably has huge turnaround when certain games fail. For those companies, hitting a bottom line of profitability and trying to implement DRM in their games should be... unsurprising to you. Companies may piss you off sometimes, but if you are being nickel and dimed then you are also paying for something that you must think is worth it.
And hey, low risk development does make for some mediocre products. But these companies aren't all bad, some of them are just trying to scrape by. There was a time when Square put together Final Fantasy VII. They recently gave us a very solid Deus Ex sequel. There is still some 'heart and soul' there and some innovation. Gears of War 3 was pretty damned good. Mass Effect 3, Diablo III, and many more games with online passes, online only, DRM-type features will all probably worth their price. I'm totally able to deal with these online passes if it means I get to play an awesome game. There are plenty of things I refuse to pay for. If Final Fantasy games start being released on Facebook and I have to buy Facebook coins to buy the best crafting materials, I'm going to look elsewhere for an RPG, just for example.
That said, this online passes thing reminds me a lot about how much people were complaining about Diablo III's online only single player. You ask a person like me? I LOVE the idea of online only Diablo III. It means that I can expect little to no hackers/cheaters. It means if I decide to partake in their auction house that my money is fairly secure. It means that every decision I make is calculated somewhere other than my computer, saving the data on reliable hardware that my computer doesn't have to mess with. I'm online all the time anyway, so it's just something I have no problem dealing with. And from a company standpoint - holy shit. Blizzard is in a position to make sure no one pirates the game. Talk about knowing what your product is worth - they might be able to see every dollar of every sale coming to them. This means good things for a good company. Sure, they will lose some customers because not everyone is online all the time. But how many people play Minecraft and WOW in exactly the same 'online-only' way? It's not a reason to get pissed at Blizzard, it's a reason to pay more for internet. It is a reason to be online. And despite all this hubub I will still make the easy choice to buy Uncharted 3. Holmes is right. If you are a gamer you will play games that are worth playing, and that probably means you will jump through some hoops. Hold on tightly, let go lightly.
I think the greatest problem with this article is that the way you put it if someone dares to disagree witt you is 'bending over' for coorporate greed. Have you never thought that maybe be people agreeing with those practices have stoped, take everything in account and decided that is not a problem?
@Fame Designer
The Humble Indie Bundle is my counterpoint to everything you said. The pay whatever you want deal they have set up has been very successful for everybody involved, and they only had to do two things: release quality products and treat customers with respect and trust (aka: NOT assuming they're all criminals).
It's almost solely the giant companies that are complaining about used game sales and are putting in things like DRM and online passes. There is absolutely no excuse for Mass Effect 2 (or the upcoming 3) to have an online pass other than a cash grab. If a company the size of EA or Square has to have every game sell millions of units or it's a financial failure, then they need to step back and take a look at their bloated budgets rather than passing the costs of their bad business practices onto the consumer. If a small company feels like they have to do these measures, then maybe they should consider making a better quality product or figure out how to market it better. I know that seems harsh but that is business and as a customer not a business owner I shouldn't have to prop up big companies that "can't fail" or small companies that maybe should.
@taterchimp
I see used stuff as "I want to buy your product, but I don't think it's worth what you want so I'm going to buy from this person instead", or "I can't afford what you think your product is worth but like it enough to still want to experience it without resorting to theft". Obviously a company will never please everybody when it comes to pricing. The problem with gaming pricing is that it's static. If I want a particular game I really only have one option for a price point unless I buy it used or hope for a sale. If I want a car or a shirt, then unless I really want a particular one there's a wide range of prices and options.
Also, a used sale can still indirectly benefit a company, such as a friend convinces me to buy a game that they bought used, only I buy it new. Image and word of mouth is a very powerful marketing tool, whereas treating your customers like criminals is kind of bad PR.
The Humble Indie Bundle is my counterpoint to everything you said. The pay whatever you want deal they have set up has been very successful for everybody involved, and they only had to do two things: release quality products and treat customers with respect and trust (aka: NOT assuming they're all criminals).
It's almost solely the giant companies that are complaining about used game sales and are putting in things like DRM and online passes. There is absolutely no excuse for Mass Effect 2 (or the upcoming 3) to have an online pass other than a cash grab. If a company the size of EA or Square has to have every game sell millions of units or it's a financial failure, then they need to step back and take a look at their bloated budgets rather than passing the costs of their bad business practices onto the consumer. If a small company feels like they have to do these measures, then maybe they should consider making a better quality product or figure out how to market it better. I know that seems harsh but that is business and as a customer not a business owner I shouldn't have to prop up big companies that "can't fail" or small companies that maybe should.
@taterchimp
I see used stuff as "I want to buy your product, but I don't think it's worth what you want so I'm going to buy from this person instead", or "I can't afford what you think your product is worth but like it enough to still want to experience it without resorting to theft". Obviously a company will never please everybody when it comes to pricing. The problem with gaming pricing is that it's static. If I want a particular game I really only have one option for a price point unless I buy it used or hope for a sale. If I want a car or a shirt, then unless I really want a particular one there's a wide range of prices and options.
Also, a used sale can still indirectly benefit a company, such as a friend convinces me to buy a game that they bought used, only I buy it new. Image and word of mouth is a very powerful marketing tool, whereas treating your customers like criminals is kind of bad PR.
There is nothing wrong with the Humble Indie Bundle. I agree with you that releasing quality products and treating customers with respect are aspects that can make a project successful. But are they making a killing making these games? Probably not. No where near the kind of money that the Mass Effect games make. I haven't fact checked, but it seems like a good bet. Success to EA is much different than the success of the indie bundle.
As far as being a counterpoint for everything I said, what does the Humble Indie Bundle being successful counter anything? Both these big companies and indie game companies can be successful in their own ways doing very different things. I even sited Minecraft as a hugely successful indie developer. Wasn't Minecraft part of the bundle at some point? My point is that you have to treat your purchases individually. Would I buy Madden used if I knew I had to buy an online pass? No. Would I buy Mass Effect 3 if I had to buy an online pass? Probably. The details after that are trivial. If an online pass is 20$ and you save 30$ on the used game you buy from GameStop, you can choose for yourself if you think it is worth the trouble. Why have a fit about it?
Every video game company out there has their opinion on piracy. It's just so common. DRM and online passes exist because people do make copies and do play games for free. I don't care if you are a big company or a small indie one - companies have the right to choose their price. Nothing about this looks like a cash grab to me. And you have the right to buy what they are selling or not. You thought the Humble Indie Bundle was worth it. Good for you. I didn't. I bought VVVVVV and most of the other games in the bundle when they came out.
If VVVVVV had DRM or some code I had to put in to play it, I would have put in the god damned code because I'm a gamer, I game, and I buy (or don't buy) the games based on the terms of the seller.
As far as being a counterpoint for everything I said, what does the Humble Indie Bundle being successful counter anything? Both these big companies and indie game companies can be successful in their own ways doing very different things. I even sited Minecraft as a hugely successful indie developer. Wasn't Minecraft part of the bundle at some point? My point is that you have to treat your purchases individually. Would I buy Madden used if I knew I had to buy an online pass? No. Would I buy Mass Effect 3 if I had to buy an online pass? Probably. The details after that are trivial. If an online pass is 20$ and you save 30$ on the used game you buy from GameStop, you can choose for yourself if you think it is worth the trouble. Why have a fit about it?
Every video game company out there has their opinion on piracy. It's just so common. DRM and online passes exist because people do make copies and do play games for free. I don't care if you are a big company or a small indie one - companies have the right to choose their price. Nothing about this looks like a cash grab to me. And you have the right to buy what they are selling or not. You thought the Humble Indie Bundle was worth it. Good for you. I didn't. I bought VVVVVV and most of the other games in the bundle when they came out.
If VVVVVV had DRM or some code I had to put in to play it, I would have put in the god damned code because I'm a gamer, I game, and I buy (or don't buy) the games based on the terms of the seller.
But that's my point! The Humble Bundle doesn't feel the need to burden gamers with all that bullshit, but Mass Effect which makes EA piles of cash does because used game sales are hurting them so much? How does that make any sense other than just a cash grab because they know most people will buy it anyways?
And since when has Gamestop ever charged $30 less for a used game than new? If anything that's what pisses me off the most about this whole thing: companies jump into bed with Gamestop with preorder and exclusive incentives, but then complain about how used games are killing them and punish the customers rather than going after the very retailer they're supporting. When companies team up against the consumer we all lose.
And you can and should always ask for better terms from the seller, just as they're always demanding more and more from you for their wares.
And since when has Gamestop ever charged $30 less for a used game than new? If anything that's what pisses me off the most about this whole thing: companies jump into bed with Gamestop with preorder and exclusive incentives, but then complain about how used games are killing them and punish the customers rather than going after the very retailer they're supporting. When companies team up against the consumer we all lose.
And you can and should always ask for better terms from the seller, just as they're always demanding more and more from you for their wares.
I still don't understand the burden to the consumer. Here's how it will happen for me. I'll go to buy Mass Effect 3 at a store. If the store offers the game used at ten dollars off the price of a new copy - I'll buy that one. If the store informs me or I'm previously informed that there is an online pass free with a new copy, then I'll buy a new copy instead - but only if that online pass would cost me more than what I'm saving. Where is the burden in that? If anything - the burden rests on Gamestop to inform me of what they are selling me. To me this is just a way for EA to stop shops like Gamestop from exploiting a shady used game resell system.
It's true, the customer is always right. But I believe you can't do that by literally asking the company to change. Not giving them your money is really the only way. Go with your emotions and listen to that cringe you get when you think about online passes. But I'm guessing that while you speak against online passes, there are going to be a lot of people just buying the game and playing it. The online passes technically 'do' take some of the value away from the consumer because you have to insert a code and some information or something - but if the game is worth it, people will jump through that hoop. And I feel EA has the right to make money where money is due. So does everyone else.
It's true, the customer is always right. But I believe you can't do that by literally asking the company to change. Not giving them your money is really the only way. Go with your emotions and listen to that cringe you get when you think about online passes. But I'm guessing that while you speak against online passes, there are going to be a lot of people just buying the game and playing it. The online passes technically 'do' take some of the value away from the consumer because you have to insert a code and some information or something - but if the game is worth it, people will jump through that hoop. And I feel EA has the right to make money where money is due. So does everyone else.
Game pricing isn't static. New games drop in price at the retail perspective all the time. If there is enough demand, the retailer can order more from the supplier. You can wait for prices to go down for a game and buy it new still, or you can wait until you have the (in Gamestop's case) extra five dollars.
"If I want a car or a shirt, then unless I really want a particular one there's a wide range of prices and options". Yeah, if you want a game, but it is too expensive there are other games. Glad we are on the same page.
I am aware that word of mouth spreads, and people who play the original may buy the sequel, but in an argument, you can't count either of those. Tell me exactly how much money was made on that industry. Using this link as a sourcehttp://www.next-gen.biz/news/gamestop-used-game-sales-pegged-2b the damage to the industry is 2 billion (Dr. Evil Finger here) dollars. You think that the devs want a share of that? If you say no you are lying. If you tell your investors that you aren't going after a piece of a two billion dollar pie, you will go out of business. So while the 'their friends will tell their friends, promise' strategy sounds good, it simply doesn't hold any water.
You brought up indie games and price points, so I want to touch on that for a bit. If consumers get to pick the price point, they will screw over the dev as hard as they can. What is the price that people paid? About a dollar a game, five dollars for the total. And if you know about stats you know that the people who donated over 1000 have skewed that number, so it is a little bit less than that, most likely. So you take five dollars for five games, so thats a dollar a game, oh, and part goes to charity. And people still pirate it (estimate is that 1/4 of all of the downloads were from illegitimate sources). Just saying. Not to mention that the source code was used to create a copy on the app store (Lugaru). So if you don't treat the people buying your games like theives they will....steal from you as hard as they can, both legally and illegally. Cool!
(And why would humble devs sign up? Because they are a small team, love their craft, and didn't spend twenty millions dollars and employ five hundred people to produce that. The money they lose from selling for cheaper is probably nothing compared to being noted by a company like EA/Ubisoft/etc or building a name as an indie dev. It is basically the unpaid internship of gaming.)
I am not trying to say that used game passes might be bad for some people, its just that it isn't all corporate America's fault. They aren't out to get us. It isn't us versus them. We are all just trying to make a living, and live life. They just want a fair share, which the consumers are trying to remove from them.
"If I want a car or a shirt, then unless I really want a particular one there's a wide range of prices and options". Yeah, if you want a game, but it is too expensive there are other games. Glad we are on the same page.
I am aware that word of mouth spreads, and people who play the original may buy the sequel, but in an argument, you can't count either of those. Tell me exactly how much money was made on that industry. Using this link as a sourcehttp://www.next-gen.biz/news/gamestop-used-game-sales-pegged-2b the damage to the industry is 2 billion (Dr. Evil Finger here) dollars. You think that the devs want a share of that? If you say no you are lying. If you tell your investors that you aren't going after a piece of a two billion dollar pie, you will go out of business. So while the 'their friends will tell their friends, promise' strategy sounds good, it simply doesn't hold any water.
You brought up indie games and price points, so I want to touch on that for a bit. If consumers get to pick the price point, they will screw over the dev as hard as they can. What is the price that people paid? About a dollar a game, five dollars for the total. And if you know about stats you know that the people who donated over 1000 have skewed that number, so it is a little bit less than that, most likely. So you take five dollars for five games, so thats a dollar a game, oh, and part goes to charity. And people still pirate it (estimate is that 1/4 of all of the downloads were from illegitimate sources). Just saying. Not to mention that the source code was used to create a copy on the app store (Lugaru). So if you don't treat the people buying your games like theives they will....steal from you as hard as they can, both legally and illegally. Cool!
(And why would humble devs sign up? Because they are a small team, love their craft, and didn't spend twenty millions dollars and employ five hundred people to produce that. The money they lose from selling for cheaper is probably nothing compared to being noted by a company like EA/Ubisoft/etc or building a name as an indie dev. It is basically the unpaid internship of gaming.)
I am not trying to say that used game passes might be bad for some people, its just that it isn't all corporate America's fault. They aren't out to get us. It isn't us versus them. We are all just trying to make a living, and live life. They just want a fair share, which the consumers are trying to remove from them.
So tempted to say boo fucking hoo.....
Anyway, you are getting a lot more than you did years ago. Any idea what games cost to make?
You know what happens if you screw with gamestop? Your game doesn't sell in america.
This just sounds like a lot of entitlement. Also you tend to point the finger at developers when i think you mean publishers. Something you might want to consider, consumers always have a choice. You have to log in an online pass, what a tragedy, developers have been bearing the brunt of the entire industries mistakes for years. You just have to log in a pass, people lose there jobs because some want to save a few dollars, and then complain they didn't get everything.
Anyway, you are getting a lot more than you did years ago. Any idea what games cost to make?
You know what happens if you screw with gamestop? Your game doesn't sell in america.
This just sounds like a lot of entitlement. Also you tend to point the finger at developers when i think you mean publishers. Something you might want to consider, consumers always have a choice. You have to log in an online pass, what a tragedy, developers have been bearing the brunt of the entire industries mistakes for years. You just have to log in a pass, people lose there jobs because some want to save a few dollars, and then complain they didn't get everything.
@ Master Snake's first post
You have just summed up my thoughts about the Wii U exactly. I like the thought of the controller and all that good stuff, but the possibility for paid DLC in Zelda makes me sick to my stomach.
This is a good article, I haven't read what Holmes was originally saying though.
You have just summed up my thoughts about the Wii U exactly. I like the thought of the controller and all that good stuff, but the possibility for paid DLC in Zelda makes me sick to my stomach.
This is a good article, I haven't read what Holmes was originally saying though.
@ScottyG: Actually the more I read up on DRM, the more I disagree with what it is doing. At the basic level, companies should be able to sell things how they want to sell them and make their money if they have a product that is worth buying. If there is something out there that stops people from pirating their game, then I agree wholeheartedly with that. But it seems DRM and a great may other things companies are doing are anti-competitive and aren't treating customers very well. Congrats, you inspired me to do more research and now I'm on your side on a lot of this. I feel that eventually we'll find ways to fight piracy, we just don't have the tools that both treat customers well and fight pirates at the same time.
