Only 4 Entries to the wait what??? We can do better than that!!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
You forgot the lack of originality, these days we are buried in remakes and remastered games.
Comment has been collapsed.
It may be the case that the big releases lack originality. I'm not arguing with that. But we actually enjoy a ton of variety (and for a fairly low price) right now if you don't limit yourself to those:
Indie gaming has blown up, and is bringing us all sorts of things never before imagined. With digital distribution mechanisms, it's possible for something like Braid not just to exist, but to be a hit. And we have this to thank for everything from 'Minecraft' to 'Five Nights at Freddy's.'
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry but I don't agree completely with that, about 90% of those so called indie games that appear on Steam are utter crap. There for I think Steam should make their greenlight criteria more demanding or even get rid of it completely.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see why the percentage matters. If there are hundreds of original, quality games available, how is that fact undermined by there being hundreds more crummy cash grabs? (It seems sort of like arguing that contemporary fantasy literature sucks because there's so much bad fantasy fan fiction.)
And I'm prepared to argue at length for the quality, variety, and originality of contemporary indie games. To say there are also bad indie games just seems beside the point.
Comment has been collapsed.
10% of the boatload of games getting released on steam these days is still a lot of games ;)
And we did not see a whole lot of originality back in the days either. There were some great games that innovated, and that's what we remember, but most were just derivative garbage. One game comes along that's a huge success, and then a lot of games similar to that gets released.
Comment has been collapsed.
You make a good point. Remember all those movie spin-off platformers?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep. Ocean software in particular made a lot of those. After Super Mario Bros ended up being a huge success, there was a 10 year period where most things could be turned into 2D platformers (and those handful that could not were generally top-down shooters).
Comment has been collapsed.
Plus I usually interpret complaints about originality as partly complaints about lack of variety. But there are entire genres and styles of game often seen now that essentially didn't exist back in the day, from sims, to competitive FPS games, to RTSs. The variety of video games that's just assumed as standard is greater than it used to be.
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed. We've lost very few game types along the way. They might not get the big budgets behind them that they used to get, but they exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
So many Wolf/Doom clones, usually using Wolf/Doom engine...
Including "Religious" shooter about Noe capturing animals for his ark (hmm, was that game before or after Pokemon :P ).
Comment has been collapsed.
And there where remasters or remakes back then also, Frogger, Pac-Man and some other of the kind kept being made for newer hardware, there's also for example Super Mario All Star which was a remake of the Mario games from the NES.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is true, but we didn't get COD 1, COD 2, COD 3, COD 4, COD MODERN WARFARE, COD I EAT SLUGS, COD MILK THE COW, COD YOULL PAY FOR IT ANYWAYS - well unless you count kings quest.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, but we got Mega Man 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6, which are very similar to each other released over the span of 6 years. Churning out nigh identical games on a yearly basis is nothing new. You might prefer Mega Man to COD, but that's a matter of taste. My point is that things have not really changed in this regard. I remember the local gaming magazine I read as a kid talking about how bad things were with Mega Man and how the series was getting old and worn out, and that they really should not aim for a yearly release schedule.
Also, we got 12 Goldbox games over the course of 4 years (or 14, depending on how you count) (The Goldbox series was a series of D&D-based CRPGs).
Comment has been collapsed.
Come on Fnord, you are a sharp guy. You know the difference between Mega Man (adding game mechanics) and COD adding new multiplayer maps (THAT COULD HAVE / PROBABLY WOULD HAVE / MIGHT HAVE BEEN created by modders). Never heard of Goldbox but point taken with Mega Man.
Comment has been collapsed.
They introduce new mechanics in COD as well. More so than in Mega Man actually. It's just that the games are more complex to begin with, so newly introduced things are not as obvious as they are in Mega Man.
I can think of more examples of old game series that were popular back in the days and where they just churned out new releases. Lemmings? We got 5 very similar games there (each new game did introduce a few new things, but they were still not very different), before the game moved into the 3rd dimension. And there were also a few pack-in games and 2 holiday re-skins of Lemmings.
Wizardry? 5 games using the same engine before they felt the need to re-invent the series. The first 3 were in fact incredibly similar.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm willing to be reasonable. But I also challenge you to name one single game mechanic that COD added to the FPS market - not added to their next game version ;)
Maybe I like the old school things better because innovation - who doesn't love innovation? It seems like now a days (even in movies) everything is just a remake of something that came before - with different character wearing different costumes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Name one thing Mega Man added that had not been done before :P Level select was nothing new, and that was the "big" thing about Mega Man.
COD did implement the whole "Leveling up" in multiplayer to unlock gear, something that I can't think of an FPS doing before it, and which afterwards became commonplace. I don't dare to say that they were "first", but it sure was influential. And it's actually kinda big, considering it creates a reinforcement loop for playing MP games.
Maybe I like the old school things better because innovation - who doesn't love innovation? It seems like now a days (even in movies) everything is just a remake of something that came before - with different character wearing different costumes.
Eh, I really don't agree with you about innovation being more common back in the days. One company did something that got popular, and then we got a flood of games along that line. And most of the changes that we did see were iterative, much like they are today.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe I like the old school things better because innovation - who doesn't love innovation? It seems like now a days (even in movies) everything is just a remake of something that came before - with different character wearing different costumes.
Are you included the indie stuff I talked about above? With indie games and smaller releases we're seeing a ton of innovation in a variety of directions right now.
It seems like the critique of contemporary games as repetitive and lacking innovation usually focuses on a rather narrow subset of contemporary gaming: big budget, Xbox/PS-style releases. And I note that's where you're turning for your examples. (Even there, I'm inclined to largely agree with Fnord, but that's another issue.)
Comment has been collapsed.
It is hard to compare a small game play innovation to say the creation of the genre and the hundreds of innovations that have came between the first FPS or RTS or Open-world or Whatever and the ones being milked for profits today. I will say that Indie developers are much MUCH more apt to innovation as the mega-developers are only interested in the wash and repeat make another few billion game titles. But that wasn't always the case.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not to say I disagree about Steam Greenlight. I don't. I wish Valve exercised at least a bit of quality control.
Steam would be easier to use if it wasn't chalk full of junk. But that junk has never stopped me from finding the good games, nor even made it very hard to do so. It's not like the gems are obscured and hidden among the Digital Homicide-style trash. They aren't.
Comment has been collapsed.
As strange as it sounds I think Valve doing no additional quality control for Greenlight is the only correct way to do. As soon as they would start this developers would complain about transparency and ask why A was approved while B was not. And who determins what quality anyways. This is a highly subjective topic concerning computer games.
And for people complaining about the games coming through Greenlight: Blame the community (ourselves included). If we do not take part in the voting process we can't really complain about the games coming through Greenlight.
Comment has been collapsed.
Totally dont agree.... the indie scene is a treasure trove of imagination far better than anything you ever got in generations past.
Comment has been collapsed.
You forgot about sales. Those AAA games that have a $60 retail price can be purchased a year later for $15, or less. You can get $100+ worth of quality games from humble bundle for $15 if they have a good bundle
Hell, GOTY versions of Arkham for $5, Fallout new Vegas for $6, or Bioshock for $4
Comment has been collapsed.
Humble Bundle is legit - no doubts or complaints there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Preach!
I often don't even pay $15 for them. And, in-general, they still come down into my price range sooner than the physical copies of console games do. (I'll be picking up 'Xcom 2' any day now...)
Comment has been collapsed.
Also seems to forget to mention that $50 or 60 dollars back then would be worth more than 50-60 today if you take inflation into account.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, people seem to be really quick to forget that if it firsts their argument. 50 bucks back then, is probably around double that now (not sure, I haven't kept up with inflation at all).
Comment has been collapsed.
| System (year) | Game Cost at Launch | Adjusted for Inflation |
|---|---|---|
| Computer (1983) | 19.95-39.95 | 47.83-95.78 |
| NES (1986) | 29.99-49.99 | 65.34-108.91 |
| SNES (1991) | 49.99-59.99 | 87.64-105.17 |
| N64 (1996) | 49.99 | 76.08 |
| PS2 (2000) | 49.99 | 69.32 |
| Xbox 360 (2005) | 59.99 | 73.35 |
So, if a new game sells for $59.99 and "must-have" DLC costs $10, the game's still no more expensive than back in the day
1983 price list for computer games:
Prices convert to $47.83 / $83.79 / $95.78
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice table. So in the NES and SNES time there where games that were more expensive than getting a game today with it's season pass.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is not a very fair representation of the situation. Gaming back then was a small niche so prices had to be relatively higher (based on inflation) to support the programmers and studios. Now Gaming is a multi-trillion dollar a year business. Companies have RECORD profits. So while yes, we pay LESS today for the BASE game - the base game back in the day ALSO included ALL OF THE DAMN DLC in patches and hot fixes. So this representation while accurate does not describe the full picture.
Comment has been collapsed.
But back then, two people could make a hit game in a few months, while now there can be over a hundred people working on a game that can take 3 years to develop.
Games have gotten bigger and better, and the price has remained relatively stable throughout, even when you include the DLC especially when you consider that what would now be just a level pack or a mod would once have been sold as a completely new game
Gaming has changed, and the way its sold has changed, but it's not any worse than before
Comment has been collapsed.
"must-have" DLC costs $10
Typical Season Pass costs at least $30. It's actually interesting how to count them - without them games are cheaper, with them games go up to even $120. And then there's microtransactions on top of that...
Comment has been collapsed.
But a lot of DLC is truly an expansion, rather than stuff that's been nerfed out. Back then you had full prices "sequels" that were really just level packs and/or mods. And boulder dash 2, 3, and 4 were just as expensive as the original
Comment has been collapsed.
Back then you had full prices "sequels" that were really just level packs and/or mods
So, just like Battlefield Premium today, which costs $50? :P Or Fallout 4 Season Pass, that has one good expansiony DLC, while rest quite fill "level packs or mods" description.
Anyway it would be interesting, if someone would dare to count how many of DLCs actually are expansions, not just <2 hour long quests or just bunch of clothes/weapons/furniture/whatever.
Somehow, I'd expect that number to be pretty low...
Comment has been collapsed.
what's funny is that somewhere earlier someone was ripping Paradox for their DLC, while that's the one company I usually hold out as doing DLC right.
Looking at CKII and EUIV, yes, there's cosmetic and music DLC, but, seriously, there's no need whatsoever for anyone to buy them. But their big expansions really do add a lot to the game, and make you want to replay the game to include the new changes and the game isn't nerfed without it
Contrast that to the Total War games, which are arguably in a similar category. Looking at TW Rome II, the unit packs don't add all that much and the culture packs should have been included in the game to begin with. the campaign packs are fair.
Funnily enough, two other games that I use as counter-points are both by Bioware. Mass Effect 2 has DLC that's quite critical to the story, which is just plain bad, whereas Dragon Age: Origins' DLC is mainly just extra adventures, expanding the game for those who want more.
Comment has been collapsed.
but we also earn more, You may need to add a 3rd column with minimum wage of that year
Comment has been collapsed.
you really don't get how inflation works, do you?
Anyway, here's the average income in the U.S. for those years:
| Year | Average Income | Inflation Adjusted | Minimum Wage | Inflation Adjusted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1983 | $19,647 | $47,102 | $3.35 | $8.03 |
| 1986 | $23,457 | $51,105 | $3.35 | $7.30 |
| 1991 | $29,017 | $50,872 | $4.25 | $7.45 |
| 1996 | $34,941 | $53,176 | $4.75 | $7.23 |
| 2000 | $41,446 | $57,471 | $5.15 | $7.14 |
| 2005 | $45,770 | $55,960 | $5.15 | $6.30 |
| 2014 | $53,013 | $53,471 | $7.25 | $7.31 |
I have no idea why you'd look at minimum wage rather than average wage
Comment has been collapsed.
I do , but 2 things. not every country adjust the income for inflation and I think is easier to calculate and do compare the minimum wage/ price per game ratio instead of directly using the game (I think it is a little more fair)
Comment has been collapsed.
added it. Basically, after adjusting for inflation, minimum wage has been the same and average wage has fluctuated by about 20%, whereas the cost of games dropped by approximately 25% some time between the SNES and the N64
Comment has been collapsed.
got it . Thanks for the info :)
Also, my mistake, you are right, average wage is the one I should look at :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't even get me started on DLC schemes. What happened to releasing a full game. Now you have the Paradox DLC scheme where you have to pay more money to make your own character in the game. The real DLC scheme is, cut game features that should be part of the base game and then sell them later as DLC so we can make even more money. DISGUSTING.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, Witcher 3 seems to one of the few recent high-profile exceptions.
Comment has been collapsed.
but then game development costed around 1/5 what it costs now, not trying to justify the DLC crap, but not everything is just evil companies being evil.
Comment has been collapsed.
One example, Super Mario World was made with just 16 people. And most games back then were made by small teams.
Comment has been collapsed.
LOL. that image is great. Reminds me of when I got Civ V and everybody telling me to just wait to play until the DLC comes out.
Comment has been collapsed.
In Deus Ex defense, those micros are included in such way, most Day1 Purchase players learned about them after finishing game, when they finally jumped on internet and read outcry...
There's not much reason to buy them. Beside wanting to play as OP muthafucka from start - but then PC has trainers :P
Comment has been collapsed.
DRM, REGION LOCKS: because to many people abuse the system before.
DRM
In the 90ths and early 2000ths nearly everyone that I knew "stole" games. Torrents, Edonky, Crackpages like gcw and all that stuff pooped out and most people got a faster internet so downloading games without a "save" drm was not hard.
Region Locks:
Just rewind 3 years and take a look at the trade section. Lot of people didn't payed fullprices but other people made cash with selling keys from SA/Rus etc. Store... So there where two options: region lock or same price all over the world... I think there are some people that are happy, that they don't have the price that the "rich countrys" have to pay
Cost:
Just check how much gamedeveloping cost back in the 90ths and now. And on top of that: back than, when you released an AAA-Game you knew you can sell that game for months... Today most of the time it's the first two / three weeks and after that there is the next AAA-Game and nobody cares about your game anymore (ofc there are still games like witcher, gta or bf1)
that dosn't mean i think that this is good. just explaining...
Comment has been collapsed.
Region Locks can go both ways that is true. SA/Rus games are much cheaper due to their currency being of a much lower value. They try to sell the game at an affordable rate. That being said - the reality is much more bleak. Richer countries are subsidizing the cost of the game to poor countries. Is that how a free market is supposed to work? I am sure people from SA/RUS think the system is fair - because they are the people who benefit from subsidization. The people who pay the subsidy on the other hand - probably do not think it is a fair system. Why do I / SHOULD I pay more for a game in the USA or AUS/NZ or the EU so people in SA can get the game at a fraction of the cost? I have no inherent responsibility to ensure the people of SA have access to AAA game titles - nor should that responsibility be passed on to me by way of a forced subsidy!
Comment has been collapsed.
actually, that happens for physical products too. Items are priced based on market demand, and the same goods are often found at a lower price in poorer countries.
Pricing of goods is also done to maximize the gain to the seller. Which is why initially prices are high, but once the people willing to pay full price have all bought the game, the price comes down, so that people who weren't willing to pay that much but are willing to pay a lower price will buy it. Or are you suggesting that the people paying full price are subsidizing the people who wait a year to pick the game up on a sale? it's also why deluxe editions exist, to get more money out of people willing to pay more than the regular price
Comment has been collapsed.
At first: I'm from germany (so a rich country) and I think the system is fair.
Then you can't call this subsidizing. If they would sell Games in SA/Rus higher just nobody would buy the game. --> less gains. The game is already developed, it dosn't cost anything to sell the game in russia f.e.
It would be something different If we would only have the boxed copys...
The publishers do the "money" with us, no questions asked. The SA/Rus marked is then more as a bonus. And if you can get 50.000 10$ it's better than 7.000 50$.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is it not the definition of a subsidy? Look at Venezuela for an example. The have a national subsidy for gasoline. The consumer pays US$0.015 per liter and the government pays the rest of the cost (what they paid to produce and/or import). Germany / Australia / ETC are all paying that cost so gamers in poor nations can get their games at a cheaper rate. We just pay 69.99 for a game - and 19.99 of our game cost is removed from the SA game price. How do you propose that is anything but a subsidy? Let the game price be set by the FREE MARKET. Lot's of people can't afford to own a car - should I pay more for my car so others can get one cheaper?
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the point: the goverment "pays the rest". But we don't pay the rest. It's not that one more copy for someone in Venezuela would cost more money for the Gamepublisher. If they would not change the price, they would not sell a copy.
At the point they hit the break-even point they make money with every sold copy even if they would sell it for just few cents. That's something different than the blender or the gasoline.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really want to respond to your message.
You are right, one more copy for Venezuela does not cost the game maker more money - because they have an infinite supply and a zero cost.
No company would make a game and release it in SA or RUS only - why? because there would be a limited supply and they would not make any money. If they released the game in NA alone or EU alone, they would be able to turn a profit. So the middle ground is - release it for full price in NA and EU, and release it at 90% off in SA and RUS. THAT IS CALLED A SUBSIDY.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't want to fight about words at all but it's more like dumping and (at least in german and english definition of the word) not a subsidy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
But what do you want? That they sell the games everywhere on earth for the same price?
I earn way more than people from Venezuela so at least for me it's okay to pay more...
Comment has been collapsed.
"I earn way more than people from Venezuela so at least for me it's okay to pay more..."
Sounds like you are defending (whats commonly known as) a luxury tax.
If the developer is selling the games cheaper in Venezuela why SHOULD the developer have the right to EXCLUDE me from that market?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because we live in a more or less free world where developers have somthing called "free pricing". That's part of a free market too.
They can give "discount" to whoever they want.
You can't just ask to have all the rights and the people who try to earn money and create the stuff you want don't have any rights.
Again: What do you want? There is nearly no product on earth that has same price everywhere on earth.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you agree that a company should be able to sell the same goods and services in multiple markets but I as the consumer should be unable to purchase those same goods and services from any market that I choose to purchase from?
Why are you for limiting the consumer and empowering the company?
Comment has been collapsed.
Because I know how market economy works. Your idea might be good for you but bad for the people that don't have the money...
If you would say: okay from now on every game must have the same price all over the world what would you think would be the price?
This is still a buisnes where people have and want to earn money. It's not about tradition and the feeling to give the gamers something because they love gamers so much.
From Ubisoft to the small indie dev, they all have to earn money for a living, to make shareholders happy and all that.
But i think you don't get my point at all and we talk past each other.
It sounds like you think: everything is okay, i love greedy publishers, take my money.
But that is not my point at all. I just wanted to show you why this region locks are here and why they might be not so dumb like we think at first.
I'll end here because it's not so easy to talk about deeper market economy in english because this is not my main language...
Also I would more like to talk about something like this with a cold beer in my hand. In a forum some things might sound harsher than they should. :)
stay positive!
Comment has been collapsed.
I could talk economics all day.
I (unlike many) enjoy having conversations with people who do not inherently agree with me. I like you Kate!
Also, you should join the hidden GA!
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I think us "poor" country-dwellers are a bonus on top of the rich country users.
That is the reason why only some games came back then . The same reason why japanese people had a bigger game library that people from USA ( They love other genres a lot , like this game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5RtJ6woyag )
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a subsidy. It's a free market at play. Fair price, by definition, is an immidiate agreement between the buyer and the seller. The games are by no means the goods of first neccessity nor are they a projected status goods like latest iphone/galaxies hence it's only logical to set prices at psychologically affordable range.
I'm from Russia. Up to 2011 I've pirated every single game. I switched to buying when the prices became reasonable AND i've tired of finding working cracks for the stable non-butchered distributives. It's pay-for-convenience at its purest.
Then I proceed to buy every remotely interesting looking game that happened to be on sale, discovered Humble Bundle, etc. At one point I even spend one third of my monthly salary during steam summer sale.
Nowadays, thanks to our glorious leader (may he be hanged, gutted and burned and then throatfucked by all the blast furnaces of seven fiery hells for all eternities), even the big sale prices are drifting toward non-affordable yet again. I would not revert to piracy but my spendings on games are on steady decline.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair it is not a free market at play. It is a limited market at play. If it was a free market, then the publisher/developer of the game would be ok with me (in the USA) buying it from the Russian seller for much cheaper than it sells in the USA. When the publisher/developer limits my access to the market it is not free at all.
I am an advocate for gaming and gamers rights in general.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm agree with most of your statements in the op.
I used 'free market' ironically. Because in my personal view the modern market environment is constructed by the entities which use amassed resources solely to the purposes of 1) extraction additional resourses via any means they deem fit from the populace 2) prevent other entities to do likewise.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with your statement. Notice how companies are always the ones lining up to cry about how they need market access to other regions to sell more goods and services. Notice how companies are the first ones to cry when the consumer wants access to those other markets to buy more goods and services at the lower cost! The whole world is corrupt!
Comment has been collapsed.
'Corruption' implies intent. While i believe that corporations act like pseudo-organisms of the lowest order (ex protozoa). Expand, engulf, consume, grow. There's no concious design on that level.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not subsidy. We're not paying anything extra to subsidy gamers on those countries. If games weren't sold there we would still pay the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
EULA - been a part of software sales since forever and I've been playing since before the C64 existed
It has more to do with the nature of digital goods. If I buy a blender, I can't make a gazillion copies of the blender. Furthermore, it's impractical for me to let all my friends use my blender. But, a game can be copied very easily, can be lent out easily, etc. etc. It's a false equivalence to compare digital goods to physical goods.
Comment has been collapsed.
About prices:
Price discrimination is nothing new, it's an old thing. In Europe we pay more for a lot of thing.
Also, if something is seen as a luxury good in a certain region, it's demand will be more elastic, so if your price is lower you'll gain more.
About retail\digital download price:
we used to pay less because digital download was a new thing, a lot of people wanted the cd, dd was less demanded.
today a dd copy is more demanded than a retail copy, the price goes up.
That's how economy works, it's not a conspiracy
About DRM:
Well I agree, I think that pirates gonna pirate, a DRM won't change a thing. Nothing to do here.
About licences and ownership:
Again, that's old. I remember that the same thing was written on the retail copies I used to buy.
I guess you can do a backup, but that's all.
If you own a licence for GTA5, you can play GTA5.
If you own GTA5, you can mod it and resell it as yours, this makes no sense and thanks God is not allowed.
I really doubt that someone will revoke a legit key because someone used that key for a giveaway. There is no reason to do that.
I doubt steam will disappear anytime soon, for a simple reason, they make a lot of money and all they have to do is keep the status quo.
they don't need to develop something, or to improve, they almost have a monopoly.
Comment has been collapsed.
"today a dd copy is more demanded than a retail copy, the price goes up. That's how economy works, it's not a conspiracy"
That is simply not how economics works at all - supply and demand determines prices not DEMAND alone. In a digital product there is an unlimited supply thus demand does not change the price. That is how economics works.
Comment has been collapsed.
Demand and offer determines the price.
offer =\= supply
Comment has been collapsed.
Not quite. Supply and demand only apply if there is scarcity, ie, a finite supply of the good being sold. If supply is infinite, then demand is the ONLY thing that affects the price, because there is no scarcity. When demand is high, price will be high, because that is "the price the market can bear". If demand is low, the price will fall.
Essentially, in the the supply and demand graph, when supply is infinite the supply line is removed, and the only thing that affects price is demand. Of course, this depends on the merchant in question pricing the good according to demand, which doesn't always happen, but in broad strokes that's how the free market works when supply is infinite.
Comment has been collapsed.
All aboard a quick economics lesson - leaving the station now!
With an unlimited supply, how does demand find equilibrium?
Demand will find equilibrium when the marginal utility of consumption falls to zero.
The rules of economics for an unlimited supply simply state that - the value of the object will find its appropriate free market price when consumption of the product begins to taper and falls. Simply put - the actual free market price for a game can be seen 6 months to a year after its actual release.
This can be charted simply in economical terms on a graph.the supply curve is a flat line running horizontally on the x-axis. Infinite quantity can be supplied at zero cost.
The demand curve for any good represents the marginal utility curve for that good. The downward slope of the demand curve represents declining marginal utility of consumption of the good.
Draw the demand curve: Equilibrium occurs where the demand curve crosses the x-axis, which is also the supply curve. All units of the goods will be consumed that have positive marginal utility. Q is the point on the x-axis where the curves cross, and P is zero.
Now To explain why supply is zero cost is simple - it is called dollar cost averaging. Eventually when you spread the development cost out into an infinite supply, then the portion of each sale returning to repay the cost is at such a small number that it is considered to be zero.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay? I don't see how that contradicts anything I said. Also, a few points.
- The rules of economics for an unlimited supply simply state that - the value of the object will find its appropriate free market price when consumption of the product begins to taper and falls.
The consumption of the product is the demand for the product in this case. Thus, when demand falls, the price will fall until it hits the point of equilibrium, or the point the seller is unwilling to go below.
- Eventually when you spread the development cost out into an infinite supply, then the portion of each sale returning to repay the cost is at such a small number that it is considered to be zero.
The problem with this is that it assumes the development cost is spread out over the supply, but in the case of an infinite supply the development cost is spread out over the number of units sold. As more units are sold the portion of each sale returning to repay the cost does fall, but since there is never an infinite number of copies sold, the development cost per unit rarely reaches anything close to zero. This is the reason that there can be games that sell millions of units and yet are considered failures by the publisher, because the cost of development was greater than the return they gained from sales.
Comment has been collapsed.
this trained out off the subject which was simply that:
The digital copy of the game under no circumstances should ever have a price that is higher than the physical box copy of the same game because the digital copy of the game has an infinite supply compared to the box copy of the game that is released in a limited quantity.
I agree with what you said Jonlevir (mostly) but the development cost is not spread out over units sold, it is spread out over available units for sale - regardless of if those are sold or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Games are far cheaper, developers get a bigger share of revenue, there is more variety than ever, most games (that I care about) are constantly patched and improved. For me PC gaming has never been in a better shape.
Anyone who has too big concerns about DRM etc. can support DRM-free games (or stores, such as GOG). There still is enough variety for anyone to keep playing 24/7, you just wouldn't have access to any title you might possibly be interested in. But those are legal options that didn't even exist in previous ages.
Edit: And I got blacklisted for being a satisfied customer. I'm the devil! :p
Comment has been collapsed.
Have a whitelist from me then! I totally agree though. People need to take of their nostalgia goggles and get of the hate trains. They need to look at how gaming really is now and how it really was back then. If anything, we're way better off now. It's easier then ever to buy games and generally games are now cheaper as well, while they have way more content (especially when taking inflation into account).
Comment has been collapsed.
The difference between now and then is back then DLC WAS GIVEN FOR FREE in hot patches for bugs and features. Now you have to pay for it!
Comment has been collapsed.
That's just not true, we always had expansions. Those who kept adding content to the game via patches, only did so to keep gamers interested for when they released their bigger expansions.
And today we have bundles or GOTY editions, that offer more content for a better price than "in the good old days".
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, we did have expansions - not DLC. Even today's DLC games have expansions (which coincidentally also have their own DLC)
Comment has been collapsed.
Those additions are not like DLC now. Those additions were generally some small things, while DLC (well, the good ones at least, there are always those terrible DLC...) actually can add quite a bit of content. There are still a lot of games that add stuff for free in patches.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont blacklist people for sharing a different perspective than my own - I am not a child. So if you were blacklisted it was not from me.
Comment has been collapsed.
No worries, I didn't want to accuse you. I just expressed my general amusement. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont see Steam as a DRM. Yes, it is a DRM, but thats not important.
Steam is used more for the social aspect. I have a LOT of people I play games with. People I talk to and interact with, and steam lets me do this.
Before steam this was harder. I used to play MMO, and had to add people on Skype, Msn Messenger, Yahoo, etc and it was generally a pain.
Now, its a lot simpler. Steam also made gaming a lot affordable as well. You cant complain about steam charging us Australians more, if you have the option to purchase the game elsewhere if you want. Steam isn't the only seller for most games. Overall if you add in the sales, the games are a lot cheaper than they used to be.
And while games are digital, the budgets of games are going higher and higher. With the amount of competition, I feel that its a big risk for the devs to make games. I see developers, whose games I love playing going out of business simply because its not always easy to make money in the industry. The bigger studios are somewhat immune to this, since they market the crap out of bad games and still make enough money. While yes, I would love it if the savings are passed on, the truth it, that if you look for deals, you can usually find cheaper places to buy the games from.
As for games being tied to Steam, yes its an issue. If Steam goes bankrupt, there will be a big fallout. Saying that I don't see Steam going bankrupt. I mean, obviously I cant see the future, but if Steam shuts down, it will be due to a choice rather than not having enough funds to keep it running. And that will bring its own set of issues for Gabe. But I do acknowledge that its a risky situation. But I'm one of the people who thinks putting money in your bank is risky as well. There is always a chance for them to go bankrupt. Realistically if Steam was to shut down today, you can always pirate the games. I would love to see them try to sue someone who purchased the game and then pirates it.
Overall the fact that I have all my games in one place. I don't have to keep 650 DVDs and a DVD rom for my 650 odd games on Steam is a plus. I have had to buy games like Age of Empires 2 multiple times because the CD got scratched after so much use. Now I don't have to deal with that. I now have a lot more social interactions with other players that adds more fun to playing multiplayer games. A lot games don't bother with DRM now because Steam has its own DRM, which isn't as invasive as older ones used to be.
Despite the restrictions, I feel that PC gaming today is a lot better than it used to be 15 years ago, when I got my first PC.
Comment has been collapsed.
I use steam not for social reasons, but for library organization, maintenance and backup. I actually really like the steam client.
It means: no need for lots of discs, no need to store backups, no need to worry about forgetting passwords, always having the latest patches, no more forgetting which games I used to play and like. The client's organization could use some refinement (such as nested categories of games), but altogether does a better job of taking care of my games library.
Comment has been collapsed.
It does. I agree that Steam certainly makes it easy to keep track for people a lot of games.
While it has its bad points, there is no doubt that Steam on the whole has been positive for PC gaming.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is nice to have all the games sorted out in a library. It is not nice, however, to depend on steam to play the games i paid for. Specially now that your account could get hacked and deleted forever, and you wouldnt lose just one game, but everything you have. The same applies if they decide to ban your account. Thats a huge flaw to me. Also, the client could be way less demanding on your computer (and hence, give you better performance on your games) if they focused on the DRM part. A client prepared to do so many things (social network, advertising at the store, and such) is a bit annoying to me. And finally (i wasnt going to say it, but it literally just happened to me), it is so annoying when you feel like playing a game, you open steam, and it starts updating XD
Comment has been collapsed.
Account bans aren't handed out, willy-nilly. Although if you are unfairly banned that's a huge problem. Steam needs a way to contest bans that really don't amount to cheating.
As for getting hacked, it is very simple to secure your account with a really strong password. Write it down on a piece of paper, keep in a safe place. Yes it will be a pain to drag it out the first dozen times, but eventually your brain and fingers will remember it. Until computer security finds a widely-adoptable replacement for passwords it's the best defense you have on any account that protects valuable information or digital goods if two-factor authentication is not available.
Comment has been collapsed.
My point goes beyond beeing unfairly banned. Even if someone did something to deserve to get banned, why is it good that he lose all the games he paid for? I hate cheaters as much as anybody, but still, i dont think its fair for someone who cheated on a game to lose a 1k valued stack of games.
And when it comes to beeing hacked, nobody takes enough measures to avoid it, so its a real posibility in most cases, like, for instance, you using this site are risking a lot. A regular user might get hacked while his account could be recovered. You are probably more exposed and yours could be deleted.
Anyway, those are some aspects i dont like, not saying everything is terrible.
Comment has been collapsed.
My recent understanding of VAC bans is that you can get locked out of playing VAC games and be prevented from trading them to set up new accounts under a different user profile, but that does not equate to completely locking someone out of their library.
I also deal with computer security as a part of my daily job. Can you please describe to me how using this site puts me at a high risk for losing a lot?
Comment has been collapsed.
Im not sure i am allowed or is it a good idea to tell exactly how to delete someone´s account. Also not sure if i said it the right way (english is not my main) I didnt mean you are risking your account for using this site, not at all, I mean, if you and a guy that doesnt use it get their account hacked, your account can be deleted, his (assuming all he ever did was to open the steam account and only used it to play games) cant.
Edit: also, maybe Steam changed their security, i havent checked that in at least a month or two
Comment has been collapsed.
You do realise that Consoles are DRM in Hard- and Software form, right?? So the comparison doesnt work out quite as you seem to have thought.
But Yeah DRM and especially Double DRM is f***ing retarded
The Other Points can be applied to Consoles as well.. so the more Appropriate title for the discussion would have been
"The State of Gaming in the 21st Century"
In General i agree with everything you said.
I guess not everyone is willing to take the time and do the research and thinking you did, but instead just want to play games and of those who do, even less are willing to speak up or vote with their Wallet. I for one havent bought any EA Game Since Mass Effect 3 that requires Origin or any Ubisoft title requiring Uplay.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm aware that this is only a rant but a lot of your statements are flawed/not true. PC gaming isn't perfect but it's definitely not as bad as you make it to be.
http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=60&From=USD&To=AUD
I glanced slightly at prices in Australia and it looks like all the games published by decent publishers are actually cheaper in AUS.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really. Unfortunately he got that thing true.
For example the base version of Civilization V is $70 USD. In US, gamers would pay less than half the amount.
That's right, we pay in US dollars, and we pay more than the people in US pay for a lot of our games.
There are quite a lot of publishers who shaft us Australians with their pricing. This is why I never buy those games from steam directly. There are usually better ways of trading or buying to avoid paying the premium.
Comment has been collapsed.
But there also games that cost less. The Talos Principle and This War of Mine which are both on sale now cost less in AUS and many other games.
https://www.steamprices.com/au/s/chwS3i?p=1
These are all good games acording to reviews and this site can't filter more than 150 titles, so there are more of them.
https://www.steamprices.com/au/s/rLO3oW?p=1
Same filter and 44 titles cost more in AUS.
Comment has been collapsed.
I cant seem to open the website you linked to.
But are you saying that the US players purchase Talos for more than $40 and This War of Mine for more than $20?
Or are you saying that the sale percentages are different?
Comment has been collapsed.
Talos is 40$ in both US and AUS but the Australian dollar is worth less so you pay less.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam has no Australian currency.
When I say it's $40, its in USD. So despite our currency being worth less we pay the same for Talos.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I thought you pay in Australian dollars, Then that is really wierd, even if not many titles cost more it's very stupid.
Comment has been collapsed.
DRM
I don't have much to add here. DRM isn't great, especially double DRM is just stupid.
COST
I'm not sure in what world you live, but games are way cheaper now and have way more content. Ever heard about inflation? If game prices would have followed the inflation, they would cost double what they do now (if not more). So your argument is extremely flawed. EDIT: check dingbats comment about inflation.
REGION LOCKS
Not really a bad thing in my eyes. If there were no region locks, people in richer countries would get games way cheaper, which isn't necessarily fair towards other people that don't live in rich countries.
EULA
Yeah, games back then also had a EULA. You also can't really compare a physical product with a digital product. They're simply completely seperate things. That's like comparing a car with a house...
FIRST-SALE DOCTRINE
I think you might be right there. When you buy something, you are allowed to do with it whatever you want. If you buy a license to a game (a key), you can sell it if you want. However once you used it (so activated the key), you can't sell it anymore, which is something you agree with when activating the key!
Comment has been collapsed.
| System (year) | Game Cost at Launch | Adjusted for Inflation |
|---|---|---|
| Computer (1983) | 19.95-39.95 | 47.83-95.78 |
| NES (1986) | 29.99-49.99 | 65.34-108.91 |
| SNES (1991) | 49.99-59.99 | 87.64-105.17 |
| N64 (1996) | 49.99 | 76.08 |
| PS2 (2000) | 49.99 | 69.32 |
| Xbox 360 (2005) | 59.99 | 73.35 |
So, if a new game sells for $59.99 and "must-have" DLC costs $10, the game's still no more expensive than back in the day
1983 price list for computer games:
Comment has been collapsed.
I still wonder why games haven' increased in price.
Comment has been collapsed.
Marketing. During the recession, no one wanted to raise prices, but they figured out that money could be made through DLC, so they kept the base price the same, but added more and more DLC (and found more ways to encourage players to buy DLC)
Comment has been collapsed.
They stopped making manuals, they stopped putting them in big boxes, no additional materials when buying game (like maps), lots of other cost cuts like that.
Plus, cutting content from finished game to sell it as DLC.
For some reason, game-devs are scarred going over $60. Not sure why, maybe they've done some marketing researches etc where it showed that's what generic user will pay?
Comment has been collapsed.
They stopped making manuals, they stopped putting them in big boxes, no additional materials when buying game (like maps)
This is one of the few things i miss in gaming.
cutting content from finished game to sell it as DLC.
This doesn't happen as often as people say (it happens mostly in AAA titles)
done some marketing researches etc where it showed that's what generic user will pay?
If this is true it's really sad people are that cheap; after seeing the comments some devs talk about their big crunch time i wish they received more money because right now i feel that the gaming industry is destroying the social lives of its workers
Comment has been collapsed.
cutting content from finished game to sell it as DLC doesn't happen as often as people say (it happens mostly in AAA titles)
Well, we're talking about $60 games, which until No Man Sky was pretty much reserved for AAA titles :P
Comment has been collapsed.
ah no man sky, i was so hyped! I had the money to buy the game on day 1, so sad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Finally, some people who understand the principle of inflation. This bothered me always when people complain about the cost of computer games. People have accounts with over 1000 games and are still complaining. In my opinion we get to much to cheap nowadays. And this is not justified just by saying that those are bad games (why did people add them to the account anyway?). But yea, no point in discussing. People have different views about such things.
Comment has been collapsed.
Im from the snes era. First, I think it is unfair to consider a phyisical copy that came as a carthridge (wich is expensive to make, and expensive to ship) to games that can be downloaded all arround the world. Second, back in that day, at least in my country, there was both a market for used titles (where a 3 months old game could cost a quarter of its price as new), and also lots of stores that rented games, so for a small amount of money you could experience (and finish) every mayor title, and any game you wanted to try for that console (also, there was the option to buy super famicom games, that were original and way cheaper). So in the end, playing games back then was actually cheaper.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cartridges were more expensive to make, sure, but they were only $1-3 each (estimated manufacturing cost by people with far deeper knowledge than me on the subject). So games should have been about $2-8 more expensive to cover for this, and the shipping.
Here a used game would set you back about 70-90% of the cost of a "new" game. Which still made them expensive compared to what we pay today
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree with (almost) everything:
DRM
very few games use "intrusive" DRMs in the grand scheme of things, steam allows me to quickly download my games instead of having to put/remove CDs. That portability allowed me to keep playing when i travel.
COST
Most games are cheaper now, they have sales much sooner than ever, look at deus ex, there have been several sites selling it at 35€ and the game isn't a month old
Region locks
This is the part that i hate most the current market, that said it's easier then ever to circumvent it.
EULA
I wonder if the EULA would be as strong as people think in a "court battle", with the EU pressuring companies to give refunds and other consumers benefits, i do wonder if an EU court would side with the company
FIRST-SALE DOCTRINE
A few years ago someone that worked for valve said that they had a plan where in case steam closed they would allow you to download and keep all your games. Whether this is still true or not is anyone's guess however if that bother you that much you can buy in GOG, which is DRM free.
CONCLUSION
As a gamer nowadays we are getting more and more "rights" and less shady deals; while there are still problems like region locks, double DRMs and EULA we got a lot of benefits, like refund ,sales, ease of use (big picture, easier ways to install drivers), etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder if the EULA would be as strong as people think in a "court battle", with the EU pressuring companies to give refunds and other consumers benefits, i do wonder if an EU court would side with the company
If you agreed to a EULA and then clearly violate it (so the company should be able to give evidence), the court will side with the company as long as it's not against some other law. Basically it's law > EULA > whatever the customer thinks.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes but isn't there laws about keeping what you bought? while steam is selling licenses, couldn't we use a law to protect our use of the license?
I mean that laws that defend the costumer when he buys goods/services can also be applyed to digitalgoods/services, so a EULA could be overturned if it were an "unfair" revoke of the license.
I'm no lawyer (i work in medicine) so maybe my opinion is retarded
Comment has been collapsed.
First off, opinions are never retarded. Opinions can be misinformed or ill-informed, but not retarded.
I'm not sure if there is a law that protects you when you buy a license. If you buy a license and the creator of the product suddenly decides that you are not allowed to have that license, I don't think there is much you can do (I'm no lawyer either, so I could be wrong). The problem is that law hasn't really kept up with the speed of the digitalization and this is kind of a grey area.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam doesn't sell licenses. Steam, according to EULA, is "leasing" games - you pay for untimed access to Valve's copy of a game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can you explain the difference between a license and "leasing"?
thank you, I appreciate it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, there are three things here: license, lease and "lease".
License is when you buy game on disc for console - you get disc, you can play game, you can borrow it, you can even sell it, but you can't copy and redistribute those copies.
Lease is when you get games from Sony for paying for PSN+ - those games you lose when you stop paying for PSN+.
"Lease" is something in-between those two, Steam's not full lease since it's one time payment, but when you buy Steam-game you're buying much less than for example same GOG-game.
It's more of a grade/type-difference.
Comment has been collapsed.
i see. thank you for taking the time to explain. :)
I'm very ignorant on the law side of gaming, i prefer the DEV part then the marketing/legal part.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree, specially with your conclusion. Gamers have way less rights, because they legally own nothing now. Just a license that lets you play a game for some amount of time untill it stops beeing profitable for the dev (and they might decide to ban you from that game!!). I owned Snes as my first console, and i still can play every single game i had. I paid for many PC games and i cant play them anymore because their servers have been closed. My old PC games didnt need a server, they acted as servers and let you connect to friends through LAN. I can still play those using a windows xp virtual machine.
Comment has been collapsed.
@oczilla1 - after a bunch of replies - finally - someone who gets it!
Comment has been collapsed.
If losing "ownership" gives me smaller prices, refunds, ease of access of my game library, cloud saves, easy backup features, social features (friend invites), big picture,etc. I think it's a small price to pay since while i don't technically own the games, i'm not losing access to them any time soon. I doubt steam will go bankrupt in 2 decades.
That said if you really care about ownership you can buy on GoG, the higher the revenue they have the quicker bigger publishers will go there.
Comment has been collapsed.
I commented because you said users have more rights, i never said steam didnt offer those services that some people might find essential. Those features you like have nothing to do with license of use. Even if you owned the game as your property you could still have those features. In fact, the license of use is not a steam exclusive feature, but it is something that changed in general (for every game). For instance, No Man´s Sky probably license its use at GoG the same as it does on steam.
As a side note, in France there was a demand against steam (from a 64 years old french consumer union) where they say that this license model goes against european laws because they are abusive. If they succed, digital copies will be considered in the same way as physical ones, giving back users, among other things, their right to re sell their games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can i do something to support the french consumer union as a portuguese citizen?
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is not only if Steam goes out, but what about the DRM server?
When Game Devs mode from DRM X to DRM Y and the company owner of the DRM Server goes out, all users will be unable to play the game at all .
DRM is stupid , and it makes no sense as everything is hack-able with enough time .
Comment has been collapsed.
From my understanding steam DRM could be circumvented rather easily (by that i mean that valve probably can make steam work without online interaction easily), It's denovo you should be worried about, not steam. Which is also normally only used in AAA games (total warhammer and an indie game being the exceptions).
Again if you got to all games on steam there are very few that use "intrusive" DRM. That said most DRM now seems kinda pointless since witcher 3 sold quite a lot.
Comment has been collapsed.
DRM
You're 100% right. But in practice,since I am back to PC gaming, I have actually been bothered by DRM maybe twice in almost 4 years.The double layer thing is idotic, of course, but it's partially due to the facts that "we" insist on buying everything on Steam. :)
COST
The industry's version is that 60 worldbucks is too low for the current costs of production (hence all the DLC bullshit). The price parity between retail and digital is also not to piss off GameStop too much, until the industry can do without them. GameStop is worse than piracy, IMO.
REGION LOCKS
I think you're actually talking about regional pricing and you're right, especially about the Australian situation I wasn't really aware of.
EULA
Like you wrote at some point, you buy a licence, which has terms and conditions. This is always true: retail, Steam, CDs, DVDs... The digital world merely provides more way to enforce such terms.
FIRST-SALE DOCTRINE
Nothing to add here. Another case of the digital world moving the actual power balance while in theory everything is the same as before.
CONCLUSION
A licence is still legally binding, if Steam goes out of business you're still entitled to what you have purchased. Once again, in practice it's easier to keep playing an old disc than to regain access to a game whose seller and publisher don't exist anymore.
My conclusions:
My problems with the state of PC gaming are: DLC, the lack of a unified licensing system (buy once, own on Origin, Steam, GOG and so on) and the dependence of the press from the publishers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Meanwhile my biggest problem is finding the time to play games lately. Seriously, once you hit that roadblock all you listed seems unimportant.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't forgot about DLC bullshit (first day DLCs, or just a heck-ton of DLCs for a single game), season passes and pre-order exclusive content bullshit. Also lots of bad PC ports.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well DRM is often annoying without end. But you should always remember that DRM is a RE-action. It wasn't like: Oh look this game has a DRM let's pirate it. DRM exists because people obtained games without paying for them. You can be 99 % sure that if noone ever had pirated a game then DRM would not exist. It is as simple as that. If you want to blame DRM start with the people that started pirating.
Also for the console-DRM. It is basically the disc or the console itself. You go to another computer? You have to log in to your Steam (or whatever) account in order to play your games. You go to another TV? You have to bring your console with you. Same principle. Just that one seems like more work.
Comment has been collapsed.
I couldn't care less about DRM to be honest. It's been worse. Remember SecuROM? Which didn't even allow you to play the game you have purchased? I happily accept Steam to be honest.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do remember SecuROM - I remember when DRM was so bad that it didn't just stop pirates from playing the game it stopped legitimate game owners from playing the game. Just because Steam is better, just because everyone has broadband internet, does not make always online DRM acceptable.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let me add that often today you just buy the hype. Games dev invest a way bigger percent of cash in advertising the game (sometimes in disturbing ways, like paying youtubers to pretend they like it) than actually development (i cant remember the numbers, but when i´ve heard them the first time i was shocked on how little was spend in development compared to advertising). Then the game is released and it is just an unplayable downgrade of what you paid for pre ordering. Sometimes they dont even care to fix stuff and they proudly say "now we are going to focus on DLCs".
And the worse thing for me is the gamer community. Everything bad that happens, happens because people keep pre ordering and paying for crap. And sometimes they even defend the companies that scammed them.
Comment has been collapsed.
- DRM: Piracy
- COST: This is the same for consoles
- REIGN LOCKS: AUS has to pay twice as much for everything, not just PC.
- EULA: Use that blender to kill someone and see what happens, "Oh I'm sorry , I thought this was America!"
- FIRST-SALE DOCTRINE: Read the source
- CONCLUSION: Quit gaming now because the way the business is going, downloadable games will be the only way to buy games. Console and PC.
Source:
Comment has been collapsed.
Let me tell you something about your measures in place. Based on LAW the license provider can terminate the license purchasers license for any reason at any time without warning. I am not saying steam is going out of business... but you have literally ZERO protection by LAW to ensure you keep what you bought. If you had a game CD and no DRM... you'd still have it.
But hey, lets ignore all the games who were released and popular who have had their authentication servers shut down or multiplayer servers shut down or w/e rendering the games UNPLAYABLE today. Those don't matter do they? Yeah.
I always laugh at people who buy these MULTIPLAYER only games - your game wont be worth jack once the hype is over - coughSTAR WARS BATTLEFRONTcough
Comment has been collapsed.
Your thread's topic is about the current state of PC gaming. If you are trying to rant about PC exclusively, why are you bringing up Battlefront, a multiplatform game?
Also, many multiplayer games still have a community. Battlefront II is still active on PC. Tribe games are still active, Games that support dedicated servers are still active. Quake, TF, Counter-Strike 1.6, Diablo, etc. These games last unlike some PS3 games (MAG, Socom 4, MGS4) and the original Xbox.
Comment has been collapsed.
DRM
I can put a game disc into my PS4 and play
Can you? If you have internet connection you are required to do updates for the game and the software before you can play.
If you don't pay for PS+ you can't play online
COST
From where im from old AAA physical copies did not had a significant discount to them, it has been like for most of my consoles aside from Sony.
And still to this day, it is difficult and expensive to get second hand copies. My PS3 games came from Amazon.
Steam gave people a chance to purchase older games for a nicer price and they have continued to do so ever since.
In retrospect, the games you played in the older days where produced at a fast paced by a small team of programers, things dont work like that anymore
REGION LOCKS
On the other side of the spectrum it gives the opportunity to sell games in countries with worse economy and higher piracy rate than yours
EULA
I agree that you should agree to terms when playing online. It might be your game but its not your server to ruin
FIRST-SALE DOCTRINE
Yeah...you answered that one yourself.
This kinda goes both ways, you are being used has a consumer, obviously its a business. The gaming industry changed a lot, we keept asking more and more from them and now games are just has time consuming and expensive has movies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gamers are not freaking out about EULAs and price and not "owning" the game... BECAUSE THEY ARE GETTING WHAT THEY WANT - games to play for a while. They are not being fleeced or led to the slaughter like little lambs. They are paying customers who choose freely to pay for what they get. Most people don't even finish the games they buy, let alone want to have them 10 years and 4 Operating Systems later.
Most of your complaints are the complaints of a niche - collectors, perfectionists, angry and dissatisfied consumers. You're not really representative of gamers as a whole.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are right - I am not a representative of gamers as a whole - and that really is the true problem, that people are OK with being taken advantage of so long as they can put ass to chair and play some more COD.
Comment has been collapsed.
A long time ago when people used to buy games from physical stores, in a physical box, the game prices were around 59.99 / 49.99. And that seemed fair. Physical items have a cost to them - from CD's / CD Cases / Boxes / Manuals / Foldup Maps / Logistical costs. Yet today we are a victim of the industry status quo. Why is it that for AAA games (that still sell box copies), I pay the same price for a digital download in comparison to a boxed copy? Why is the cost savings of digital distribution not passed on to the consumer?
You can approach this from another direction. Why have games not gone up in price? Accounting for inflation, games are cheaper now than they were 15 years ago, a lot more so compared to 25 years ago.
DRM
On disk-DRM of the 80's was not fun... Off disk-DRM of the 80's & 90's was not fun...
Comment has been collapsed.
I have actually addressed the inflation issue farther up.
"That is not a very fair representation of the situation. Gaming back then was a small niche so prices had to be relatively higher (based on inflation) to support the programmers and studios. Now Gaming is a multi-trillion dollar a year business. Companies have RECORD profits. So while yes, we pay LESS today for the BASE game - the base game back in the day ALSO included ALL OF THE DAMN DLC in patches and hot fixes. So this representation while accurate does not describe the full picture."
Comment has been collapsed.
And the base game is also a lot more expensive to make these days than they were back in the days. Now you need teams of 100's of people from the big budget games, back then, a dozen or so. And good grief, games back then were short. People keep complaining about how short our modern, cheaper, 5-8h action games are. Well, that would make them longer than the action games of the 80's & 90's. You can of course find exceptions, but COD 4 is considerably lengthier than DOOM or Quake. We might get a lot of DLC, but we also get more content for a lower price.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's pretend that the world is gravy and there are no problems with games.
How is it that you are able to reconcile that 1) the consumer supposedly pays a lower price today for the same or better product while 2) the developer needs to hire and pay hundreds of more employees and 3) the developer has both record sales and profits today than in any time that they have created games in the past?
Using your logic it would seem that 1) more employees and more salaries = more cost, 2) better product for a smaller price = more cost, so that 3) no profit records would be set by the company.
Oh, whats that you say? The market is 1000 times larger today that it was back in the day? Yeah... so large in fact that the prices of games today are unreasonably high.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're not considering a very important factor: Making a game is riskier these days than it used to be. Games have become a high risk/high reward kind of market, and several publishers have been sunk because a few titles under-performed (just look at THQ or JoWood). Even for a company like EA or Activision a flop is very damaging. Thus if profits were not high, then it would be unsustainable to actually make games.
Using your logic it would seem that 1) more employees and more salaries = more cost, 2) better product for a smaller price = more cost, so that 3) no profit records would be set by the company.
My logic said no such think because I said nothing about sales volume. What you did there is known as an argument from fallacy, and is generally considered a rather dishonest way of arguing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you're missing a very important factor: am I bumping the thread so people will find the real meaning in the OP - or will they actually think that I wrote an essay and then start arguing? The logical fallacy is on purpose ;) SHHH HHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Comment has been collapsed.
So I was writing a response to you. But now I'm wondering if you were in earnest at all. Should I just assume you agree with me and move on? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I love to have discussions! I often take sides I agree with and take the side I don't. I think it is fundamental to challenge ones perceived notions about their understanding of the world. If one stops learning, one stops growing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well said, sir! (So I'll keep pushing you. :) )
It seems like you're equivocating a bit between customers being overcharged, and customers getting a good value for their money. It's entirely possible that we're getting a better value for our money while being more overcharged. You have to decide which your complaint is.
I feel like several people have made the case that we get comparable or better value for our money pretty strongly. So it seems like the one to go with is that we're overcharged.
Comment has been collapsed.
Essentially we are talking about the dynamic of implied sales. When your target market rapidly expands, the number of implied sales also must rapidly expand. If we project that 25% of gamers will buy our game in 2006, and there are no drastic changes to the mix of game genre appeal, then we should project that 25% of gamers will buy our game in 2016. The difference just happens to be about 100 million people or 5.99 Trillion dollars in projected sales.
Do must companies lower their prices to be able to financially compete? Yes. What would stop McDonald's from charging you $50 for a value meal? Competition. It seems almost like AAA game publishers should be looked at for anti-competitive price fixing schemes (which happen all the time). When the market grows, the competition stays the same (or in this case expands with indie devs) then your prices lower to stay competitive - that is just business 101.
Did the value of the game decrease based on competition? No, just like McDonald's burger value or quality didn't decrease based on competition (although you could argue there was none to begin with ahaha). So we get a good value, but we are without doubt overpaying for a product that is somehow EXEMPT from variable pricing based on competition. Understanding why that is - is really the key.
Comment has been collapsed.
But still, I feel like you're not distinguishing at least two different issues. We can think of how good a deal the consumer is getting in two ways: the first is how much your dollars get you, how much entertainment/gaming/enjoyment/what-have-you you are getting per dollar; the second is how much the consumer is paying vs how much the product costs to produce.
One can be getting a very good deal in the first sense even if profit margins are enormous. One could get a worse deal in the first sense even if there's almost no profit margin.
Personally, I don't know what profit margins are like, but I know I'm not willing to pay $60 for a game almost ever. But I feel like I'm getting a tremendous deal when, perhaps a year or two later, I pay $3-$12 for that same game. From my perspective life is pretty good under present conditions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well technically in free market capitalism, where there is competition no one should be able to sell products or services with an enormous profit margin. That normally only exists in markets that partake in illegal price fixing schemes - which is why electronic content is such an interesting market to examine from both an economics standpoint and a legal one.
People have purchased AAA game titles for full price 69.99 and put hundreds of hours into them (CS:GO is a good example) both during release and still playing them today. Is that good money for value? Yes, and it is a great deal for the consumer. But should that ultimately drive the cost of the game? Is it ethical in business to charge a historical cost basis while knowing that the future cost basis continues to decline? (Cost distributed to sales) If I had to charge 69.99 back in 2000 when I was selling (random number) 750,000 box copies, then I obviously don't need to charge 69.99 in 2016 when I am selling (random number) 12,000,000 copies of the game when development costs have not seen extensive cost scaling. If AAA game budgets have not scaled at the same rate that sales have scaled then we are obviously being overcharged despite inherent value.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well technically in free market capitalism, where there is competition no one should be able to sell products or services with an enormous profit margin.
I'm not an economist, but I suspect there are a lot of exceptions to that. One place I'd expect to see exceptions is when people want specific items, and do not feel them to be fungible with other similar items. For example, in many categories the "big name" version of something can command a much higher price that other versions which are almost functionally identical.
And I'm not sure about your ethical question. What determines what it is ethical to charge for a luxury good that nobody needs, and which is not key to anybody's quality of life? I'm having trouble generating any moral conviction on that score.
I would not approve of price fixing. But I doubt there is any. I think people just aren't creating much incentive for companies to cut prices. If more people behaved like me things would be otherwise. But, given that they don't, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say the moral failing of the videogame companies is.
Comment has been collapsed.
dLo, I disagree so much with the above about competition. We are saturated with options in which games to play, and are completely free to play whatever we want at whatever price point. If anything, everybody and his uncle is making the same type of fps at all kinds of price points. Competition is ultra intense, and I'd think most conversations with developers working at the studios will tell you they're not sitting back on their laurels raking in the money, but are fighting tooth an nail to put out the best product they can, and quickly. Yes, some studios have hit it big and have successes, but as many or more will report struggles.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, then who is directly competing with Starcraft 2 which is stopping Blizzard from overcharing? Who is directly competing with Civilization VI which is stopping Firaxis/2K from overcharging? Where is this so called competition and how is that competition unable to alter game prices?
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you arguing RTS and turn-based strategy games don't have any alternatives to Starcraft 2 or Civ VI? If so we just disagree.
It's not as if nobody can make a carbonated beverage except Coke. You speak as if there are not options.
I get that you're trolling a bit, but for example with Starcraft if they raise prices they'll sell less at higher price, they lower prices they'll sell more at lower price. At some series of prices over time is the profit maximizing level, and that's roughly where they'll try to sell it. You're saying that the chosen price is "overcharging" - because you say so. You're defining any price they set as "overcharging" unless you agree with it. ;-) I know in general you think gamers get alot of game for the price, so I'm not sure why you argue here. In the absence of market power (which I argue is minimal/limited based on multitude of options that show up when I search google for "best RTS game"). If you argue that a best of breed developer should not try to earn some type of premium for producing the best game of its type, then we'll just have to disagree.
Comment has been collapsed.
Im taking either side of the coin stance to bump my secret GA's scattered through the post.
But.....
How many Coke alternatives are there? What options do you have? There is Pepsi... or Coke - sure there is RC Cola, Faygo Cola, whoever's brother in-law's mother's Cola but who buys that crap? And more importantly, you won't find it on the global market.
Sure there are other RTS games, there always have been - and yet throughout the late 90's and through 21st century no one cared about RTS's outside of Blizzard and Westwood (oh RIP westwood - I still love Dune II - should have made a PROPER remake not that emporer crap game). Sure some games snuck into popularity like Age of Empires and others (who all sold at relatively like prices despite most of them being garbage) but realistically no real competition.
Earning some type of premium for being the best and 1.57 Billion in a single business quarter are really two different stories are they not?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I love Diet Mountain Dew, but usually end up drinking Wal-Mart's Diet Mountain Lightning (or Kroger's generic) because it's cheaper. Yeah, it's not as good, but I'm cheap, so... :-)
I don't follow the RTS genre much (too hard for me), but
Not sure which company you're referring to, but studios go through boom/bust cycles. I just pulled up stats for EA and while they've made alot of money in the past couple of years, from 2009-2013 they lost money or barely made any. Other studios went under or had to merge, so the risk is there. Take Two Interactive has in total lost money for the past 7 yrs, and only had 1 decently profitable year during that time period. As a serious hobby I study/analyze stocks and my general impression is these businesses are very risky and dependent on blockbuster hits to pay for the failures. Alot like movie studios in that regard. I have not invested in video game companies that I can recall, and currently am not. I don't think it's generally that good of a business. I just pulled up Activision to look and they actually look a little bit like a somewhat steady company, but even their ROE is only 8-10% over the years, and they've only achieved that by increasing the debt load making their return on total capital fall. Simply from a business perspective these businesses don't look that good to me as an investor. Yeah, you might have a homerun, but you also might strike out. They have franchises as cash cows which help, but they're certainly not earning any sustained above normal return compared to what I'd consider good businesses.
Comment has been collapsed.
As an investor they are terrible businesses - I am a huge investor and I would only ever consider activision blizzard but still do not. IMO game companies are not something you can invest in because they don't provide an actual product that has any intrinsic value.
Kroger huh, you must be in the mid-west.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've lived around the Southeast. Nashville was my home for long time.
I actually have and do invest in software companies - intangible or not, there can be huge value in the software and it scales so well, w/ network effects/echosystem building around. But I don't put video game developers in that category. It seems so difficult to create any lasting competitive advantage, and financial results seem to validate that it's a tough, hard business. But I do currently invest in some media/content/TV networks, so I'm not strictly averse to entertainment content, and that's pretty tough business too - so I could see myself investing in gaming - I just haven't seen market dynamics shape up into something I can understand. I'd guess traditional media will ultimately integrate with the video game studios. Business models are similar, and the content is begging to become more interactive.
That said, I do think there's possibility of something pretty powerful to grow up around virtual reality. I'm a fan of walking sims, and can think of so much entertainment that can break to mass audience. Instead of watching a TV show, I imagine people in the future putting on VR helmets and walking through Egyptian pyramids, or scuba diving, or sitting courtside at the NBA finals, or walking around the Battlestar Galactica ship, fantasy worlds, etc. It'll probably be cutthroat competition, but there might be a possibility for one company that out-executes the others by so much that they could reap huge rewards for long time as content producers flock to support a particular technology/approach. The advantage might not last for long, but I could see that period being dramatically profitable and spawn supporting infrastructure around it.
Comment has been collapsed.
When I first started playing games on a commodore 64 things were much different. Later moving into a PC and playing games like Dune II, Doom, Warcraft, and anything that I could afford to play... things were still much different than they are today. This is my rant at how disgusted I am with the current state of PC Gaming directed mainly at Publishers and Developers. I have tried to keep each point limited (I could go on for days) so hopefully people will actually read it.
DRM
This is as obvious a place to start as any. Always online DRM. Steam, UPlay, Origin, etc. Authentication servers. Is this REALLY necessary? We have games on Steam that require you to 1) be logged into steam to open then 2) open a second DRM such as UPlay to validate you AGAIN? Why is this acceptable to consumers? It is not acceptable to me. I can put a game disc into my PS4 and play - nothing else required - just like the good old days of PC Gaming. PC Master Race? DRM Slave Race might be more fitting.
COST
A long time ago when people used to buy games from physical stores, in a physical box, the game prices were around 59.99 / 49.99. And that seemed fair. Physical items have a cost to them - from CD's / CD Cases / Boxes / Manuals/ Foldup Maps / Logistical costs. Yet today we are a victim of the industry status quo. Why is it that for AAA games (that still sell box copies), I pay the same price for a digital download in comparison to a boxed copy? Why is the cost savings of digital distribution not passed on to the consumer?
REGION LOCKS
I will just use AUS/NZ as an example. A long time ago when games were released at 59.99 / 49.99 the AUS Dollar was worth less than the USD (FOREX Exchange) so game publishers sold the games in AUS at around 110 AUS Dollars (or 59.99 USD). That seemed fair. But then the AUS Dollar became even in price with the USD and is worth more than the USD today yet the games still sell at around 110 AUS Dollars. Victim of the industry standard quo. Why should the people in AUS pay twice as much (or in reality 2.3 times as much when you convert the currency back into USD) as the American gamer for the exact same product. This is completely unacceptable - yet ignored by anyone outside of AUS/NZ. I personally have no dog in the fight as I am from the USA - but I can recognize how much BS this practice is.
EULA
So I paid money for something and now you are going to tell me how I can or cannot use the product that I just purchased? Give me a break. If I go to Wal-Mart and purchase a blender, the blender manufacturer cannot say - if you use this blender to blend carrots then we will reposses the blender because it was not intended to blend carrots. Yet lawfully the game developer has the right to tell you in what manner their product can be used - unbelievable, unethical, basically criminal.
FIRST-SALE DOCTRINE
I hear a lot these days about 'authorized sellers'. Well it might be time that people educate themselves as to what the law has to say. The law enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder put the products on the market - that is to say that if I own something, I have every right to sell it to another person (anywhere in the world) so long as the product itself is legally for sale in the market. (don't respond yet read the next paragraph.)
The problem is that you don't own a game when you purchase a game. You are given a license to the game itself. So you have no ownership over anything. Your 1000+ game steam library can vanish tomorrow... for no reason other than your licenses have been revoked and you have no legal recourse against such an action. The reality is that softward copyright owners not only own the work embodied in every copy of the program they sell, they own every copy too. Consumers are left with both empty pockets and empty hands. If Steam goes out of business, you are not robbed of all the games you purchased, your licenses are simply revoked.
(If you want to read about the above google: Vernor v. Autodesk.)
CONCLUSION
As a gamer you are being taken to the cleaners - both in your right of use and in your right of fair and free market prices. Yet somehow despite that, people actually applaud Steam and Battle.net and whoever else. You not only willingly give away both your rights and money, but you do so without any reluctance... you do so with thunderous applause. If you cannot recognize this then what else can be done?
Technically most of the titles that are listed here as GA's break the games EULA and your GA title could be revoked by the developer without cause - but lets ignore all of it anyways - because it hasn't happened to me yet and we can all laugh at the guy it will happen to and go on our merry way thinking 'it wont happen to me because I am special'.
Comment has been collapsed.