Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Go down


Post by Rasq'uire'laskar on Wed May 19, 2010 9:31 am

OK, don't have time to weigh in on this, so...

So long as I see an eventual reduction in the price of new games, I'm a'right with this.
Crimson Scribe

Male Number of posts : 2927
Age : 29
Location : Follow the cold shivers running down your spine.
Registration date : 2008-06-29

Back to top Go down


Post by Vigil on Wed May 19, 2010 9:35 am

As I said before this thread became a massive debate, the gaming industry gets no return from used games, and the only one who profits from them are the game store.

Will I be sad when Gamestop or it's Equivalent here GAME goes under?

No, they've been pretty stingy with gamesselling games that are over 2 years old for full price. Sure they occasionally have a few good deals, but it's all about bullshit pre-orders for extra content nowdays, and that's one fad that needs to be let ouside the woodshed and two sheels blown through it's head (Yes I know they'll still do it online or digtally, but it would help duck the trend.)

I get my games from Amazon or Play now, because they're always cheaper and a lot more reliable (Bastards at GAME lost my Halo 3 Legenedary pre-order, so I had to hunt around for one a week before release.)

Besides if you don't what they're doing (Which I don't because it's EA just being greedy) It's their sports games, which I don't give a shit about. Besides I was watching a podcast the other day and the people discussed it and how it's going to bite EA in the ass, as it hurts the casual gamer a lot more than the people who pick it up used, as it will make tacking your copy of Madden over to a friends and playing online near to impossible.

So All can say is fuck them, and let them epically fail.

When in doubt


A still more glorious dawn awaits.
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way

You can fight like a Krogan, run like a Leopard
But you'll never be better than Commander Shepard
Dark Knight of the Flames

Male Number of posts : 4810
Age : 30
Location : Unknown.
Registration date : 2009-01-12

Back to top Go down


Post by TNine on Wed May 19, 2010 4:27 pm

Rotaretilbo wrote:

But that doesn't matter! Imagine for a moment that Ford made it so that whenever you bought a used car, you had to pay Ford a royalty fee. Would that be fair? No. Ford sold the car, and in doing so, relinquished any right to profit from the car. Someone else paid Ford money, and now owns the car and may do with it as they please within the bounds of the law. If they sell it to someone else, that person now owns the car, and may do with it as they please within the bounds of the law. Ford doesn't get to make money on the car each time its sold, only the first time.

The same applies here. EA sold the game, relinquishing any right to continually profit on the game. They have no right to take away people's rights to sell something they own.
But Ford isn't losing millions on people who buy their cars, get all the utility out of them, and sell them one week later at half the price.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:The people buying the games secondhand are not their customers, neither are those who like third party developers. It will not have a negative impact on EA games.

It will have a negative impact on all gamers. If the creativity of the industry dries up, all gamers will be affected. I'd further point out that purchasing a game from EA and buying a game used are not mutually exclusive. Just because you buy a game used does not automatically mean that you don't buy games from EA, as well.
EA has never really been about new ideas. They are more about mass production of identical, if very good, games.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:Steam is, from what i know, a fairly new marketing scheme that is already wildly successful. It will grow exponentially in the next few years.

It will grow, but the boundaries that keep it from consuming the entire market are not about to disappear overnight.
Neither will this. It will be a while before all companies adapt it, and still more until used games become obsolete. I'm not saying Steam will put the retailers under faster than this policy, but it was going to happen anyway while still being beneficial to third party developers.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:They weren't selling at a loss though. The beauty of online selling is that the actual distribution of a game is totally cost free. If gamestop buys for $5 and sells for $10, they are receiving $5 of profit, while when Steam sells for $7 dollars, they are selling the game cheaper and getting a larger profit.

While the distribution might be free, that doesn't mean that any price they sell at will be greater than the cost to produce the game. Distribution is not the only cost when making, marketing, and selling a game. So yes, selling TF2 at $3 a copy is selling at a loss.
As of right now, a developer is estimated to get $10 out of every $60 game. When Valve sells for half that price, they get three times the profit. And if the game, such as TF2, is wildly succesful and pays off in a few months, all future money will go right to their pockets. No more selling at a loss.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:I was under the impression that Steam carried several titles that aren't sold by Valve. Supreme Commander comes to mind, but feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

Valve isn't publishing for these companies: they are distributing for them. By your logic, GameStop is a also publisher.
GameStop is not taking the games from the developers and packaging it for consumers to buy, but Valve is taking the game from the developer and packaging it (digitally), which is the publisher's job, and then giving it to the consumer, which is the retailer's job. So Valve is taking both the publisher's and retailer's job. Take note of this, imma talk 'bout it later. Might want to reply there.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:That is, of course, if the retailers buy all the copies. If the game isn't reviewed well, retailers won't buy. And doesn't that just show how flawed and in need of change and removal retailers are?

Again, not entirely true. If the game isn't reviewed well, fairweather retailers like Wal-Mart might not buy, and devoted retailers like GameStop won't buy as much. GameStop will still buy, even if the game is a total flop. The reason they don't buy as much is because when a game fails, it is on the retailers' shelves that the game, the asset sits. The publisher was paid, the retailer was not. So it only makes sense that they wouldn't overly invest in an unsafe game. They barely make it as is.
Which shows how outdated hard copies are, no?

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:As you pointed out earlier, retailers are on their last legs, and are very open to losing tons of money. According to that logic, they need to go.

Retailers are on their last leg because the publishers are sucking them dry, and because people like you are baying for their blood because they can't even begin to understand what is actually going on in the system. By your logic, we should close down all small specialty stops where the employees have to treat their customers well to ensure continued business and just open Wal-Marts in their place.
If we can get one company that can do everything the specialty shop can do more conviently, quickly, and for a lower cost, it would be better for everyone but the specialty store to have the new store be wildly successful, no? If only there was a word for that...


Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:Read that quote again. Slowly.

Feeling like an idiot yet?

I read it as "anyway" the first time. I also missed the cite, because I'm unfamiliar with whatever you are quoting from.
Don't worry, there is no way your eyes can be as devious with seeing what they want to see than mine. I literally can't read out loud anymore, i change half the words.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:This one is, though. Actually, there are hundreds of ways to maximize profit that are illegal, but i was referring to the legal ones.

I'm pretty sure that what EA is doing is almost illegal. Right on the border.
But it's not...

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:Are you fucking five?


Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:This is big buisness, there are no morals, not at EA, not at Activision, not at Valve, not at Bungie.

And that's ok? You're down with that. Do whatever it takes to make a buck? Fuck whoever gets in your way?
I'm realistic. There is no way to change it, no haven from it. I support the companies that believe in a mutually beneficial relationship with the consumer because that is where i want the market to go.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:They are all simply using different routes to profit. EA's strategy is obvious, get a few iconic titles and hammer a new one out every year, allowing for lots and lots of games with fairly decent profits. Activision's is also obvious, take new and popular titles and use tons of hype and mass production.

And both of these strategies result in lower quality products. The only reason they get away with it is because they can buy out practically anyone who can compete with them.
And why should they care? At least it makes it easier to explain to idiots that companies are evil, if it does give them (you) a skewed view of what a company is.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:Bungie is no better. They aren't giving you weekly updates and high-quality games out of the goodness in their hearts, as you suggest. They are simply getting themselves a large group of devout fanboys that will buy their games the night they come out and follow them wherever they go, BECAUSE IT IS IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS AS A GAME DEVELOPER! It allows Bungie to make different series (plural) in different genres without too much fear of flopping, giving them much larger flexibility than EA, which is generally stuck to only a few game titles, or Activision, which is wholy reliant on new IPs coming out that Activision can milk.

You realize that making games for profit and honestly trying to please your fanbase are not mutually exclusive, right? This isn't a black and white issue. Bungie isn't some soulless company that cares only for making money.
That's exactly it, they aren't mutually exclusive, and Bungie recognizes that and capitalizes on it. Bungie provides a haven from the hyped up low-quality gaming industry because it guarantees them continued support and a constant flow of cash. They aren't souless, they are just another company with a single objective, make money.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:And Valve could possibly be considered the worst. They use a bit of Bungie's plan, where they develope good games in order to get a large fanbase. With Steam, however, they couple it with allowing of an easy-to-reach market where any game is just a click and a couple of bucks away, and the ability for Valve to receive all the money, none put into making or distributing the game and none given to any other developer.

Someone needs to check their facts. Valve doesn't sell other developer's games on Steam. Other developers do. They pay Valve for the service, but otherwise, get all of the profits.
Valve is seizing all the profits from their game, without giving anyone else a cut. Would you not consider that selfish?

Rotaretilbo wrote:
TNine wrote:Now you may point out that Valve and Bungie are improving the game industry, but do you think they really care? That's simply a biproduct, a non-profit one at that. Morals are the thinking of a idealistic brain, but wealth is given to the realistic one. It is stupid to call one company evil when they are simply trying to make a buck, and naive to call one company good when they share the same goal.

No, it is not. Because I take issue with the means, not the ends. It is perfectly fine to want to make money. It is not perfectly fine to want to make money by stepping on everyone else's head. EA steps on a lot of heads and uses a lot of dirty tricks to maximize profit. Valve caters to their customers to make profit. One is the hallmarks of a corrupt business, and the other the hallmarks of an ideal business.
Valve is stepping on more heads than EA. EA is stepping on the heads of the retailers with this new used game shenanigans, but Valve is stepping on the heads of both publishers AND retailers by making their services obsolete. Valve is doing far more to hurt retailers than publishers are, but Valve's effects are not yet obvious, as Steam doesn't carry enough games.

And there you go with the word "corrupt", as if EA has a responsibility to anyone but their stock-holders. It's not you saying this is bad for the industry that annoys me, but it's that you find so easy to villainize a company that is doing exactly what they sought out to do: MAKE MONEY. And then you say another comapny is good for doing the EXACT SAME THING. If you think that Valve will do more good for the gaming industry than EA, i wholeheartedly agree with you, but they aren't doing it for anything but the money in your pockets, and it's naive to think that the people making this decisions for EA are evil bastards while the ones at Valve are kind-hearted souls, or that they would change the companies ways if they switched places.

Think i contradicted myself? NO. I think that the direction EA is taking the gaming industry is bad, but this decision is neither unexpected nor bad. I believe that this will force the outdated retailers out of buisness, pushing more comapnies torwards online distribution, and into the future of the gaming industry.

Male Number of posts : 1200
Age : 24
Registration date : 2009-02-09

Back to top Go down


Post by Sponsored content

Sponsored content

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum