tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4625171860671748699.post7335730464991913724..comments2024-01-30T18:06:40.312-08:00Comments on Up late talking games & writing? You're...: The Problem With Blaming The GamerBrad Gallawayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09452185302281177580noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4625171860671748699.post-26624473550831159482010-11-28T11:58:49.713-08:002010-11-28T11:58:49.713-08:00Relevant:
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_value_f...Relevant:<br />http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_value_for_money/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4625171860671748699.post-11197519619962637202010-11-27T15:49:09.868-08:002010-11-27T15:49:09.868-08:00The reason for keeping prices up is 2fold.
1. A h...The reason for keeping prices up is 2fold.<br /><br />1. A higher price gives consumers a feeling of buying something exclusive. Products are mainly sold on feelings. Like a nice pair of Nike shoes, if those exist at all, cost I dunno, say 100$. Production costs is a fraction of that. I dunno if the same goes for games, but that price tag is all about exclusivity.<br /><br />2. If the industry introduces cheaper games, than consumers will get used to lower prices, and after a while will start question why certain games must cost/are really worth more than 30$, especially while other games are still 60$. It would be the start of lower prices throughout the whole industry for eventually all games in general, and would decrease profit. I think about FIFA11 which is nothing more than a small update, but makes millions of dollars. Same goes for CoD Black ops... Is it worth 60$? No! But if we are willing to pay 60$ for it, why then would they lower the prices? Your assumption that they will sell more games when they lower prices for certain games I think is wrong. People buy games when they expect to like 'm. Pricetags are (then) relatively irrelevant. <br /><br />3. <br />3 people buy a 30$ game= 90$<br />2 people buy a 60$ game= 120$<br />You do the math;-) <br /><br />Prices need to stay at a certain higher level, otherwise people will stop being willing to pay... It's psychology. <br /><br />I agree however that the industry should introduce price differences. They might give priority though to fighting the 2nd hand market. I love games, movies, music and so on, though most CEO's and managers of those same companies are jerks who have no eye for consumer interests, only for their own bonuses. Otherwise they wouldn't bring out bugged games, sequels and overpriced games.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4625171860671748699.post-59857666067606285332010-11-25T22:22:45.551-08:002010-11-25T22:22:45.551-08:00Hey J,
>>The problem is, that the gaming in...Hey J,<br /><br />>>The problem is, that the gaming industry, has no interest (anymore) in a better gaming world, or better games, let alone fairer prices. There only interest is: €€€ MONEY €€€!!!!!<br /><br />I totally agree that money is the primary concern, but that's exactly why the publishers should be more willing to be flexible. Like I said, if there are only a handful of games that actually sell a significant amount of copies for $60, that means that publishers are losing their investment on all of the games that don't sell.<br /><br />They are so hung up on the $60 price point and unwilling to let it go, that they are refusing to understand that people simply do not have the amount of money it takes to keep their business going the way it is structured now. It's been reported several times that only a small fraction of new releases actually recoup their development costs or make a profit, so if I was a publisher, it would make sense to me to restructure my business in order to make a profit.Brad Gallawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09452185302281177580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4625171860671748699.post-45243751063946874852010-11-25T10:21:37.711-08:002010-11-25T10:21:37.711-08:00Yo Brad.
You're making a mistake. You suggest...Yo Brad.<br /><br />You're making a mistake. You suggest a change in the industry, for the benefit of all. You make a suggestion to make the (gaming) world a better place.<br /><br />The problem is, that the gaming industry, has no interest (anymore) in a better gamingworld, or better games, let alone fairer prices. There only interest is: €€€ MONEY €€€!!!!!<br /><br />So, even though I agree with your basic idea, price difference, you are being a little naive. (no disrespect here!)<br /><br />Perhaps I am too European, too much of a "socialist"! But let's face it, the gaming industry is focused on money, and will only change if it benefits that goal, and that goal only.<br /><br />Think about it. FF1,2,3,4,5,6,AC1,2,3,4,HALO1,2,3,CoD1,2,3,4,5,6 and so on. It's like the movie industry, same old stories, just new faces. It's like bad popsongs, it's basicly all the same!<br /><br />Why not invent new games? Why always make-over old games? Like Rockstar with their same GTA, RDR, engine, it's a one trick pony. Why? Becuase it't the easiest way of making money with as little cost possible. <br /><br />That's also why there are a million Harry Potter movies. I'd say: a maximum of 3 games per series. A 3logy, and after that mandatory rethinking. Forbidden to make more than 3 games in a franchise, per console.<br /><br />Talking bout money. How about games you cannot play, because they are only brought out on closed systems. They call it with a positive term "exclusives", but they should call it, limited play possibility game. <br /><br />Imagine buying a movie but you can only play it either system A or B. In other words, PS3 or XBOX. <br /><br />I have only a PS3. Can't play ME1. Totally crazy if you ask me. The reason behind all this? It generates the most money for the Corporations.<br /><br />On topic again, though it is all related. The gaming industry will never let their prices drop, because the way the system is working now, is simply generating the most money. It's working the best. For them! That is also why GameCritics is a rare thing. A critical opinionated site, with real and honest reviews. <br /><br />But people don't get that. They don't see the ture value of honesty. That is also why people write that you are stupid, 4 example, that you didn't really liked or "understood" Infamous, even- "though all other sites did". <br /><br />That is why gamecritics, I assume, is a relatively small site, with little impact. Or do I underestimate people here? Looking at the direction major games are going to, I fear I am right.<br /><br />Anyway, keep up the good work though. And drop me a line and let me know you appreciate me appreciating you;-) At least you make people thinking... That's a start!<br /><br />J<br />NetherlandsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4625171860671748699.post-6242261718543598872010-11-24T00:57:44.598-08:002010-11-24T00:57:44.598-08:00Hey Ashelia!
Ashelia>
Yes, I agree that is a ...Hey Ashelia!<br />Ashelia> <br /><br />Yes, I agree that is a very interesting point. What it seems to suggest (to me anyway) is that the forces of the universe recognized pretty quickly that the game wasn't going to fly at $60. <br /><br />As you said, there were some sales and the price dropped about a month or so after it hit retail. I've also heard reports that copies were being traded back into GameStop at a pretty good clip once those who took the plunge went through it and realized that it wasn't going to tide them over any longer.<br /><br />So basically, anybody who bought it brand-new got snookered since the price dropped quickly, and anyone who held out got a great game for something more closely approximating its true value to the consumer.<br /><br />One thing I'd really like to know: how was the developer affected with all of Enslaved’s ups and downs? <br /><br />Anonymous> Thanks for the comment!Brad Gallawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09452185302281177580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4625171860671748699.post-51055229018654049202010-11-24T00:51:55.017-08:002010-11-24T00:51:55.017-08:00Interesting and well presented article. I remember...Interesting and well presented article. I remember feeling very, very angry after buying Limbo - a reasonably good game, but it was priced at around $5 an hour with no replay value to talk of. <br /><br />On the other hand, Fallout NV was as buggy as games come (though enjoyable despite itself) and Black Ops feels almost exactly the same as Modern Warfare 2 online with a really poor single player mode. Given the choice I'd rather opt for something fresh.<br /><br />$30 for Enslaved sounds good. One of my friends loves the game, says it's one of the most memorable and enjoyable games he's played in years and we rarely disagree on such things. The problem is, as you say, it'd be much like buying another Limbo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4625171860671748699.post-54548324631016434132010-11-24T00:22:45.513-08:002010-11-24T00:22:45.513-08:00Something kind of interesting is Enslaved only too...Something kind of interesting is Enslaved only took 2-3 weeks to get down to that price; Amazon had two sales where it was $25 each (I picked it up for that price) and I think GameStop had one as well. Just a minor point. I definitely agree with your whole post, I just found the marketing of Enslaved really fascinating because they immediately cut the price by half before the month mark.Asheliahttp://hellmode.comnoreply@blogger.com