The recent comments made by Naughty Dog co-founder Jason Rubin on The Bonus Round has sparked more than a little discussion among gamers. Subscriptions, micro-transactions and other alternative business models for the game industry seem like an inevitability at this point. We discussed our thoughts at length for this week’s show and wound up with enough material to fill an entire skirmish of EBC. For those of you who are interested in hearing our full discussion, we bring you an EpicBattleCry On Tap dedicated to the debate on the future of the gaming business. Please share your thoughts in the comments below, we really are interested to hear how everyone feels about this.
Stay sharp.
About time I got to hear u guys swear. I just wanna buy a game. More stuff comes out (DLC) and i have the option to buy it to prolong the experience, that is good. Nuff’ said really. Fuck bleeding gamers dry on every game. Fuck buying stuff for games (eg. guns and costumes). Make better games, you’ll make more money. Simple.
In the not-too-distant future, where games, cost us more! (Sha lah lah) We have a man called Jason Ruben, who’s trying to steal our gold! We tried and tried to work it out, but it didn’t quite go our way! We lost the fight to subscriptions, and now we have to pay!
Oh Mass Effect 3 now costs us, three thousaaaand! (dollars)
Hahaha, I’m really tired but that’s the first thing I thought of when I heard “in the not-too-distant future”. I hope at least one person gets it.
Guys, you pay for MMOs because the cost of maintaining the servers. In PC community, you have dedicated servers. What’s to pay for? Well, you can go MW2 and throw dedicated servers away and screw the gamers; then you can go and charge them per month/hour to play on your servers…
One more comment: Farmville example is STUPID. Its like saying “Hey, lets all make Youtubes and sell it to Google for $300mil” (*or whatever the price was). You can do it ONCE, its not a sustainable business model
Great On Tap guys, keep them coming. Like you said, this is not something we can control, it’s happening already. I don’t think subscription models work outside MMOs space, heck even MMOs have problems with it, and they require huge teams to just support one game.
Is inevitable the feeling that giving away for free a AAA title makes it looks “cheap” in the eyes of most players. Even if it doesn’t, do you really think that the gaming industry will start giving away games ? Hell no, is much easier and less “traumatic” for them to just start offering more and more farmvillesque in game upgrades/items; plus it counts as a “feature” to have all those upgrade options, that’s how people will see it, not as a money sink.
The way I see it the way they’ll make more money OVERALL (not per person or per copy sold) is this:
Someone who isn’t interested in a game or doesn’t know what it’s about will never pay $60 up front. They would however pay 5-10 dollars just to give it a shot. A couple of hours later, that person might think the game’s great or that it sucks.
Now if they don’t like the game, they won’t pay $60 but they’ve already paid $10! That’s $10 the developers would never see if they only sold the game at full price!
Now if the person loves the game, they might put $60 or even more into it to play more levels, get better items, skills, etc. So in that sense, you make the same $60 from fans of your game PLUS less money from non-fans who would otherwise not have given you ANY money.
That’s how you make more money overall by offering a cheap or free game up-front. It makes perfect sense and it works already. Relatively more mainstream games like Gunbound and League of Legends do this and it worked great for them. They’re both free online games where you can buy items and unlock things with real money if you don’t want to play for 2 weeks to raise the game money for X or Y character or item.
Sorry for spamming comments, but have one more thing to say: usually, when you play a subscription based game, you play one game. Or two max I guess. I doubt there are many people that have a number of subscription games going. So you pick the one you like the most and you stick with it. People seem to stick with WoW and as we’ve seen, its not feasible to do anything with that. If Modern Warfare 2 became the WoW of FPS games, there will be no space for any other FPS game. You can only sustain a very, very limited number of games this way.
I doubt any of these new revenue models being suggested recently will lead to greater profits for game companies.
Even DLC which has become common may be having a negative effect on sales in that some gamers might pass on a new release to wait and see what the DLC for it is like. Or wait until the game gets re-released with DLC included in a “Greatest Hits” pack for cheap late in the console cycle.
I like the idea of unlocking Call of Duty guns earlier by paying. I’ve played the fuck out of Modern Warfare 2, have all the weapons and play with my friend every now and then that doesn’t have as much time to play as me because he is in the military. Every time we play he mentions how he loved the M16 from CoD 4 and wish he had it unlocked now. If he had the option to unlock guns early by paying, I’m sure he and many other people would do it, and I wouldn’t mind because I would get the gun eventually anyways. I would be totally fine with the next Call of Duty being $60 and them experimenting with the formula in a way like the example above, I don’t see how it would hurt the experience because like Tony said most of the guns in CoD are fairly balanced, including early level guns.
First off, its great to hear more of this, and the Heavy Rain, discussion.
I think the problem here is everyone’s applying it to multiplayer games and overlooking the single player games. Michael Pachter does mention that the Dantes Inferno soul packs were (near the) top of the XBox market place. Those help buy upgrades to weapons / skills, which by certain arguments, is cheating.
I think, if its a single player experience, totally off line, like Dante, like Darksiders, like GOW3, then why not. Its not affecting anyone except your enjoyment of the game. It’s then about how you play the game, do you play to finish it for the story, or for the challenge?. Dante IS hard, maybe too hard for some, and maybe life would be a little easier with that next skill tier.
I also think that DK’s idea of buying a share, as in investing in a games development, is a great idea. Say I bought a £100 share in GOW3′s development. In return I’d get a demo, get the game earlier then general release, get a “share holder” only copy of the game, which is signed and has MY NAME on it, or in it somewhere, has weapons ONLY avaliable to me. Has maps / DLC / whatever. Basically your paying for the GOW ultimate chest a year in advance, but you get all that at completion, and no one else does. Some people would pay that.
With online stuff its harder. Maybe selling stuff which has no effect on the game, like uniforms, accessories – ok, paying for pink camouflage in MW2 might be a bit camp, but screw it, for £1 it could be a laugh.
Its not tha bad an idea buying either the single / multiplayer and then paying extra or DLC the other half at a later date. Look at the Dantes Inferno DLC – a co-op challenge mode WITH an arena editor. That sounds like value, but is it worth £10…the POP Epilogue wasn’t, but it was only an hours worth of play.
Someone, like Radioheads inRainbow’s album, need to break the mold, step outside and say here. Pay £50 for the game, instead of normal £40, or buy the solo for £20, the multi player for £20, both of which will have DLC included in the retail game, that you can buy for £10 IF YOU WANT. I buy the bit I want, maybe the DLC, they score because I;ve payed over half for half the game. I’m Happy. They’re happy.
You wait, as soon as blizzard announce that you can buy a WOW approved lvl 70 character (15 levels bellow the soon the be maximum) people will part with cash like they part with shit – happily.
Sorry for the long post, food for though maybe or my ramblings.
Laters
***Opps, error in post.
I mean, at the end, you pay £50 for the full game – all maps, skins, weapons, characters, skill tree’s etc etc. You can choose to buy the solo campaign for £20, or the online portion, for £20, both of which are missing content that can then be bought for £10.
If I was forced to compete with my time and effort versus someone else’s money, in a MP game…I’d give up that game, no question. I don’t care if the unlockables make me a better player or not, I just care that I put in the effort to get them. It’s bad enough that people cheat for unlockables by going into MP games with friends, but just being able to buy that stuff with no effort?!?!
In terms of RPG’s and story-based games in general – I like the fact that game worlds are not directly related to the real world. Micropayments destroy that. How do you escape to an alternative reality if you’re constantly reminded that you need to do some real-life overtime this week if you want a new upgrade for your online character…
I’d rather just pay more for a game and keep the system as it is. For casual games on social networks etc, it’s way different…but for serious games I don’t think any of the current suggestions will work, for me at least.
Looking at all the chatter about the Bonus Round episode all over the place, I have to say everyone is naive about this. Prices will and are going to rise period. It doesn’t matter what your argument is or how anyone tries to justify not having a price hike but it’s going to happen because we don’t make decisions of what we should be charged for. Most of the people crying foul don’t realize that less than years ago a game cost $40 and the thought or introduction of a higher price was ludicrous, So how did that work out? Speaking with our wallets is a very altruistic and oftentimes unrealistic goal to avoid price hikes. How well or effective is the gaming community going to halt this if there full of it? How well was the boycott of CoDMW2 or L4D2? It’s like the fat kid blaming everyone but himself for being fat and then finding him an hour later at an all you can eat buffet. Nobody and I mean nobody is going to claim that if they raise prices they won’t pay, their gonna bitch and moan and pout and cry and whine but they will open their wallets and accept it because they have to. I remember when it was cheaper and I remember when a gallon of gas was $1.75, just like gas you don’t need to buy a videogame if you don’t want to but if you do your going to pay whatever the price falls at.
@Cuckoo4CocoaPuffs
I certainly don’t harbor the illusion that we can somehow rise up and prevent price increases from happening. It’s going to happen.
But wouldn’t you agree the microtransaction model has the greatest chance of being abused? Say the standard price of a new title goes up to $70 (the average price of a new SNES cart in the 90s), at least it’s a known value for a complete game.
With the microtransaction model, you stand to lose a lot more in the long run. Oh, a new armor set ($3.00). Oh, a new dungeon ($5.00) Yes, developers already do this with DLC, but at least you’re getting a complete game to begin with. What’s to stop developers from creating stripped down games and selling the core necessities piece by piece?
Mind you, “core necessities” are going to differ greatly between casual and hardcore gamers. This model may cater well to the casual audience, but it totally screws those who actually care about the medium.
There are a couple of things I agree with that will reflect the way I think about the issue.
First off: U used to buy a console and a game and you hook them up to your tv. That is something I have and maybe still got and no one can take away from me. So that means I can still hook up my NES and play Batman on it.
If I don’t got that physical material I cant do that.
So theoretically I sunk a lot of money in something that I cant enjoy anymore in future years. (I am talking singleplayer offline experience here). Because theoretically I don’t even own the game or have the physical material to do so.
Secondly: I agree with the argument that if a triple A title cant break-even or turn profit with the current business model, paying x amount to cover the cost and perhaps (what we see the past few years) charge for DLC on top off the x amount, then you wont be able to do so with a model that doesn’t even charge someone for the core experience.
So then it may lead to raising the base x amount costs for the purchase or (and this is what im really afraid off) they keep there development costs low by producing a very short core experience and floot the market with potentially overpriced DLC to feed there greed to feel well compensated.
And as for what DK was saying, I can see people support there franchises by paying an x (lets say 5 bucks) amount to them perhaps a month. But I own a lot off games and I want to support them if necessary but if that leads to supporting lets say 10 franchises than that will cost me 50 bucks a month on top off every other cost I got in my life. In that case no way.
I already think I am supporting them by buying there game original and paying them the x amount base costs.
Greetings my fellow concerned gamers.
Truth is gent’s. Game prices are higher then 60$ between DLC and other development costs… Here is the skinny. Do you think a game like ricochet cost 40Million dollars to make like God of War 3 or Alan wake cost? Farmville probably took 5 guys a couple of weeks to make. If Farmville cost 100 million dollars to make they wouldn’t have made it free and might not have made their money back. It’s not anything like we have on the market today. There are a few models that are followed to make money these days. i.e. Capcom putting DLC on game discs and asking you to buy a key. DLC items that were supposedly “In the game already and were cut” and get sold later for profit. If they truly want to make money they need to start making deals like cutting out gamestop. Force gamestop to be a used games only store. Thats where they make their profit anyway. If it has to be physical media have gamers buy direct(From Sony, Nintendo or MS). That will save money in the end or use Amazon or something. It would greatly lower the cost of games and cut out the huge profits that GS tack onto every game. If a game doesn’t have to be physical media then make it downloadable. Plain and simple but allow gamers to DL it as many times as they want for their console to save disc space. Then you cut out Amazon or Gamestop or whoever elses cut.
There are models they can use without upping the price of games. Besides nickle and diming you for every hour you play.
The only other thing would be to force console DRM. Would cut the used game industry completely out… Then they would make their money.
Also Pachter is a mornon. He says “We are the only industry with replayability”… Really? You never read a book twice or watched a movie(dvd/blu) twice? You only ever play a board game one time? You only ever put one model airplane together then paint it 10 different ways? Why the hell does he get paid again? There are a ton of hobbies/ experiences/ entertainment mediums that offer “replay” in some way.
It’s all about bang for your buck and anymore I’m only buying one game a month so that I know I am buying the best of the best there is out there. If they raise the prices I will be buying even fewer games. Plain and simple. The more they charge the fewer people will buy. The more they nickle and dime the fewer people will play. They need to be better with their game models. Example. Buy from Sony Direct and you get uncharted for 55$ vs going to Gamestop and getting it for 70… I guarantee they will make more money.
That was an epic debate!!. I don’t see game developers offering their single player for free. ever. There’s to much work that go’s into the campaign to even consider as “free”, I mean the really well directed titles like HL2 and Killzone 2 amazed me with their take on close quarter firefights and vehicle sequences as well as the scripted cinematic in game sequences, but for something like killzone’s multiplayer you could adopt the example of Halo and Tf2. Halo released a map pack for 2 and 3 that you had to pay for. You want more money? follow this example. Tf2 has class updates that you sometimes have to aspire to achievement to acquire, so your new business model could be that the player can either work for the update, or just pay up front to get it, this combined with little expansion packs,DLC and your game not sucking my balls I will happily give you my money and so will everyone else (who enjoys the game) There’s nothing wrong with the current model, just expand on it, more DLC, more updates and a ten dollar raise on the current price of the full game and you’ll be able to fill a swimming pool with the benefits, which is obviously what you so badly want. BTW what was that song at the begining?
@Jinxstar:
Before I continue, I will say, for the record, I am not a fan of Gamestop, their employees, or their policies. I’m merely concerned with the facts. Anyway…
You greatly overestimate the amount of profit Gamestop, or any other retailer for that matter, makes on new product. You suggest the difference in price between buying from Gamestop and buying directly from Sony, if they did such a thing, would be $15.
$15? Gamestop is pretty evil, but I can tell you with certainty they don’t have a $15 mark up. No retailer does. Whenever you see new titles selling for $40 or $50 at a mega retailer, like Walmart, they’re either selling at cost or, more likely, taking a loss.
$3-$5 is a more realistic profit margin on new titles. Ask any Play & Trade franchisee and they’ll tell you the same thing. It’s the reason why they rarely deal in new product. It’s the reason why Gamestop has built an empire on used product.
If Gamestop stopped selling new games, it would do nothing to bring down the cost of games in general. Hell, it would be business as usual at Gamestop.
Also, what makes you think buying directly from Sony or Microsoft will cost any less than going to a shop? We’re general consumers and they’re going to charge us retail prices, regardless. The only way you can buy games directly from any publisher, at cost, is by purchasing large quantities and receiving volume discounts.
Case in point: MS games on demand. All of the games sold through MS’s digital platform are sold at retail prices despite the fact you’re only receiving a digital copy (no DVD case, no instruction manual, etc.). I doubt Sony would be any more benevolent.
Again, I’m not trying to shield Gamestop from the spears and daggers it deserves, but they’re not the biggest problem in this issue.
I don’t really like the idea, and I would prefer the current model or the Fable 2 model that Brent mentioned, but I’m surprised no one has mentioned what is quite possibly the best example of this.
Dungeons and Dragons Online, in its current iteration, is free up to a point, just like the topic. You can play the base game and even experience a good amount of it for free. And then you can buy new adventures (single player example: side quests), xp boosts, items, classes and races.
Here’s the thing, you gain the store points just by playing the game, so with enough work, you can get store-exclusive stuff without paying, or you can save yourself a lot of time and pay for content and items. Or you can get a premium subscription which gives you access to all the quests.
The key thing is, this WORKS. Since it was already linked in a sidebar, http://kotaku.com/5481290/a-million-players-flock-to-dungeons–dragons-online-seeking-freedom. This design, which from my understanding perfectly matches the sort of business model that you guys are discussing, can be successful.
Also, for a game like MW2, I think the best way of adding this to the multiplayer would be the ability to add xp boosts. Let’s say you’re going to play the game for a weekend, or you’ve rented it and want to experience as much as possible before you return it. Let them pay, say, $5, and get a time and a half or two times the experience for two days. That way, you can experience more of the game faster if you like, without getting level 60 weapons at level 5, or something.
Let me reiterate this, I DO NOT agree with this business model. I’m just mentioning an example which I have not seen mentioned AT ALL, despite the fact that it seems like a perfect example of how this would work in a multiplayer game.
Lastly, in terms of money, it’s been said that Assassin’s Creed 2 will be made a lot quicker since the assets are in place. If developers want to save money, do that. Every generation, make a single engine for all your games, and tweak it as you need. Valve makes this work with source, and if I’m not mistaken, a lot of cost involves developing or licensing an engine, so just make one at the start of the generation, and your subsequent games will be a lot cheaper.
@ Wakingeverygod.
Well. I don’t compare walmart but I look at Amazons prices for a new DVD or a new TV and then look at other retailers like best buy or something. Case in point.
The hangover on Bluray at Amazon is 20$ and at best buy its 30$
This is not in anyway uncommon. Try it with TV prices and you’d be amazed.
I do know that not only does gamestop have to pay their employees and pay rent on their building, utilities, shipping of all products, Advertising, and then all the little things like promotional deals and otherwise. I would say a 10-15$ mark up for a game is not out of reason…. Either way no matter how you cut it selling direct would still make Sony, MS or Ninty a ton extra cash. I mean multiply Uncharted 2 sales(What is it 3 mil now?) by 5$ pure profit… Kinda a no brainer.
It’s just the point that there are plenty of ways to not raise the cost of games because as it is if games were still 50$ I would have been buying quite a few more games then I used to. I feel that used games sales would be less in general and companies would profit overall if their product was good quality… 60$ Is no longer impulse where as 50$ was the sweet spot and much more of an impulse…
Buying direct is fine if they want to charge current prices… I am saying “Instead” or raising prices use alternative means(Not asking for a reduction even though that would be sweet) of selling your product so that the developers can make their money back instead of giving everyone a piece of the pie…. Because as it is right now I will be buying red dead redemption. If the price goes up to 70$ plus tax… I will not be buying it. If they have day 1 DLC I will not be buying it. I do not support that kind of junk. Thats one of the reasons I didn’t buy RE5. I wont support that kind of a sham.
Physical media is not what makes it for me. All I am saying is if they forced gamers to buy say red dead redemption only via digital DL then they would make much much much greater profits simply due to the fact that there would be no used games down the line… Not to mention cutting out gamestop and cost for physical media production. In the end this kind of profit would benefit me as a gamer and bring me better quality products at a good price point… If Rockstar sold direct they could make a killing as opposed to going through game stop because that cut they get, no matter how small, is huge in the end…
Thats all my point is really. That being “Prices don’t NEED to go up. Companies just need to get better at selling their products”
Why is it things are so much cheaper on Amazon then going to best buy?
I know what your saying about the games for windows thing but look at this. Get a steam account and tell me the price for Mass Effect 2. Whats that? 50$ you say? How can this be? How about Battlefield Bad Company 2? 50$ For the limited edition you say? Incredible…. How is this possible? oh yeah it’s Digital… Weird how when they cut out the middle man and the physical disc prices go down…. Not to mention the constant sweet deals. i.e. I got Bioshock 2 and went in with a couple of friends and got it for 35$ and they even threw in the 1st game free(You can have it if you like just let me know. I bought it a long time ago off steam for 10$(compare to XBL price) so it’s a spare copy I can gift)… Weird right? I don’t know how developers ever make money… Selling games for 35$… Impossible. Must have been a fluke…
Just because MS charges retail prices doesn’t mean they need to. Seriously bro it’s MS. They charge you 100$ for a wifi adapter and 100 dollars for a hard drive and 50$ a year to play games online….
I’m really not trying to come off as all knowing or a sooth sayer. Just tellin it how I see it. The games on steam are cheaper then consoles and even the guys at steam get a chuck of change from it too. It’s a great way to buy games. everyone is happy and developers get almost pure profit… Granted you don’t have an instruction book but at the same time open any random games cases you have and look at the cheap 4 page instruction books they come with… Digital DL’s never scratch. CD drives never break. You never lose the game… The only downfall is taking the game to a friends to play kind goes out the window… Thats it though.
So all I am saying is prices and price models don’t need to go up… The proof is in the pudding. Gamestop does have a lot of overheard just like any other retail store. To make profit they need to price games on PSN/XBL at impulse prices and market better. Thats it. Easy as pie =D
@ Wakingeverygod.
Well. I don’t compare walmart but I look at Amazons prices for a new DVD or a new TV and then look at other retailers like best buy or something. Case in point.
go to best buy and amazon and check prices for any blurays.
This is not in anyway uncommon. Try it with TV prices and you’d be amazed.
I do know that not only does gamestop have to pay their employees and pay rent on their building, utilities, shipping of all products, Advertising, and then all the little things like promotional deals and otherwise. I would say a 10-15$ mark up for a game is not out of reason…. Either way no matter how you cut it selling direct would still make Sony, MS or Ninty a ton extra cash. I mean multiply Uncharted 2 sales(What is it 3 mil now?) by 5$ pure profit… Kinda a no brainer.
It’s just the point that there are plenty of ways to not raise the cost of games because as it is if games were still 50$ I would have been buying quite a few more games then I used to. I feel that used games sales would be less in general and companies would profit overall if their product was good quality… 60$ Is no longer impulse where as 50$ was the sweet spot and much more of an impulse…
Buying direct is fine if they want to charge current prices… I am saying “Instead” or raising prices use alternative means(Not asking for a reduction even though that would be sweet) of selling your product so that the developers can make their money back instead of giving everyone a piece of the pie…. Because as it is right now I will be buying red dead redemption. If the price goes up to 70$ plus tax… I will not be buying it. If they have day 1 DLC I will not be buying it. I do not support that kind of junk. Thats one of the reasons I didn’t buy RE5. I wont support that kind of a sham.
Physical media is not what makes it for me. All I am saying is if they forced gamers to buy say red dead redemption only via digital DL then they would make much much much greater profits simply due to the fact that there would be no used games down the line… Not to mention cutting out gamestop and cost for physical media production. In the end this kind of profit would benefit me as a gamer and bring me better quality products at a good price point… If Rockstar sold direct they could make a killing as opposed to going through game stop because that cut they get, no matter how small, is huge in the end…
Thats all my point is really. That being “Prices don’t NEED to go up. Companies just need to get better at selling their products”
Why is it things are so much cheaper on Amazon then going to best buy?
I know what your saying about the games for windows thing but look at this. Get a steam account and tell me the price for Mass Effect 2. Whats that? 50$ you say? How can this be? How about Battlefield Bad Company 2? 50$ For the limited edition you say? Incredible…. How is this possible? oh yeah it’s Digital… Weird how when they cut out the middle man and the physical disc prices go down…. Not to mention the constant sweet deals. i.e. I got Bioshock 2 and went in with a couple of friends and got it for 35$ and they even threw in the 1st game free(You can have it if you like just let me know. I bought it a long time ago off steam for 10$(compare to XBL price) so it’s a spare copy I can gift)… Weird right? I don’t know how developers ever make money… Selling games for 35$… Impossible. Must have been a fluke…
Just because MS charges retail prices doesn’t mean they need to. Seriously bro it’s MS. They charge you 100$ for a wifi adapter and 100 dollars for a hard drive and 50$ a year to play games online….
I’m really not trying to come off as all knowing or a sooth sayer. Just tellin it how I see it. The games on steam are cheaper then consoles and even the guys at steam get a chuck of change from it too. It’s a great way to buy games. everyone is happy and developers get almost pure profit… Granted you don’t have an instruction book but at the same time open any random games cases you have and look at the cheap 4 page instruction books they come with… Digital DL’s never scratch. CD drives never break. You never lose the game… The only downfall is taking the game to a friends to play kind goes out the window… Thats it though.
So all I am saying is prices and price models don’t need to go up… The proof is in the pudding. Gamestop does have a lot of overheard just like any other retail store. To make profit they need to price games on PSN/XBL at impulse prices and market better. Thats it. Easy as pie =D
Charging for every hour or day you play? I think that’s fucking insane, damn if that happens I’ll just stick with Nintendo, their games still are at $50.
I disagree with Daniel when he was talking about the “support your favorite industry” idea. This would keep new IPs from forming in the industry, most franchises wouldn’t take risks, and innovation would be seriously stunted.
However, I think that idea would work as a preorder bonus.
With all these companies getting into subscriptions and DLC add ons and stuff they could run the risk of alienating some customers who don`t know or are not interested in going through all the steps to buy all this content through microtranactions. If a new player is interested in video games and get`s into this model, then I could see some getting frustrated with chipping in for LIVE and-or whatever PSN is going to be, then setting up for purchases in game. Obviously some will, but the core gamers are really the only target. Farmville might work, but the user base on a PC for that game is much larger than any console and does not require much thought to access.
If I asked my woman to set up LIVE and download a map pack, first she`d wonder what machine to use, take 10 min to set the TV on the right mode, get frustrated trying to get a user name, finally god forbid actually navigate around and find the map pack. On Facebook or even the Wii, you turn it on and it`s there. Nintendo is making money hand over fist with basically the sames game and pricing models.
Well I think the ‘fair’ argument also aplies to the game developers themself. If you want to earn money from the game that you make, you just gotta have to make a good fucking game!!! There are a ton of mediocre, and crap games out there. Devs and publishers should make good games, and then people will buy them! they you wont have to worry about people buy your game. The quality will be better overall. EA, Activision, etc. should invest money in games that have good potential and not just every game that is made by a developer. Remember Rogue Warrior?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That was one hell of a shitty game!! They should put the money in the games, ie idea’s that will look good and come together good, not everything should be made, thats why companies lose money…
surely if they just released a DECENT demo rather than one that is not “representative” it would be the same thing.
i was thinkin about checking out Darksiders so i DLd the demo. now i won’t be buying it, but at least i had the chance to play it and make my mind up.
on a serious note tho: DK, if you don’t stop turning every conversation in to a conversation about Mass Effect then i’m gonna have to stop listening. it’s very boring.
Fuck, I could writte an all night essay about this whole thing. I’ll just say that things like the internet are slowly (yet super fast) becoming a part of gaming as it becomes a part of who we are, not as the old school sense “we fucking play videogames and we’re proud” but we’re getting “oh gee *insert facebook friend name here* look at the size of my farm!!” (DK’s probably gonna pull a pun on this one)
@WakingEveryGod Q:”What’s to stop developers from creating stripped down games and selling the core necessities piece by piece?”
A:Nothing
If they end up trying that route it depends on what happens with the experiment if it’s a new game it might not work but if it’s the next huge installment to a huge game they might make it a new industry standard. People are paying $60 plus another $20 in DLC, they proved they can do it so what to say that both prices increase concurrently? This isn’t about how gamers feel this is about making money.
It appears people like Cuckoo4CocoaPuffs are underestimating the consumer. They can raise game prices all they want. But if I deem $70 is not worth the price of entry to buy a game I simply won’t buy it. Or I will just buy it for PC or wait until it’s used. The consumer has many options hell I buy about 1 new console game a year. The rest of my purchases are $25-$50 from Steam. Also as mentioned on the Battle Cry the market only has so much available money just as mentioned in a previous comment $50 a game means gamers can distribute the flow of money to more developers. If prices rise as you predict then less developers/publishers receive the market share thus reducing the quality titles produced. On the other spectrum there could be a consumer backlash where the Parents\relatives ext. decides $70 is to much for a game for junior or hubby and opt for another purchase. Why do you think the Wii and PS2 did so well? And on one last note the iea that gaming prices have to increase is not an ultimatum what you think publishers make these games and sell them at $60 because they lose money? Use common sense people.
People that buy used a part of the problem, why does everyone forget that? None of the used money every gets to the industry it’s going to the retailer and the retailer only.
A company sells a 100 copies at $60, 100 copies are pirated and 100 copies are bought used. The company makes $6,000 but is losing $12,000. This is true for no matter how much is charged, the losses from piracy and used are hurting the industry. The option of lowering the cost to make games will lead to the regression of quality across the board, i.e. saving money by going the non HD route and sacrificing graphical power to decrease cost. Even if the price of games drops to $50 the used version will drop to $40, because it will still make profit for the used market. Which do you think consumers end up choosing?
I like the “shiny gun” thing. Many, many people just love to spend money on really unnecessary things. Look at WoW and these useless pets. Or look at this stupid Farmville. Or even Battlefield Heroes. And Second Life. Etc.
What I’m saying is that if in next Call of Duty we’ll be able to buy additional skins or “shiny weapons” or avatars and other useless stuff – there will be plenty of people who will want to spend their money on that.
Farmville cant be compared to the gaming norm, sure they may make decent money, but their development is done so easily and cheap compared to full console titles, and if they changed the norm to be like that, with constant updates and upgrades, we’d never get any new games!! they’d have to allocate resources to keep the first game fresh so not to disappoint and lose their followers, so if they’d ever release a new game they would lose buyers and followers, so it’d make more sense NOT TO create new games.
I say they should raise the price in america to European prices, wich is here in Norway 100 usd and its worse in other countries, like the Netherlands, we’we prevented this money problems in the gaming industry this far with our hard earned cash, now its your turn, right? by doing that, 1 million earned normally would be 1.5 million earned and definatly would help, or even, cure the financial problem in developing.
OR they could hire better q&a staff and make better games, and by that i mean that yeah, there are alot of new games coming out that are mind blowing, but for every 1 really good one there are 2 bad or mediocre ones.
I like to blow through a game then move on the next one, I don’t won’t to sit around and wait for chapters or sort through them and buy each one even if thay are ready to go, just give them to me.
What I do want is to just beat the sp in a month maybe spend 4 or 5 months on MP and move on to the next game.
I don’t see nothing wrong with gamers buying shiny guns as long as there is still some weapons you have to earn, a reward you can show off. let me put it this way, if every one has a shiny gun whats the point?
it should be separeted files for each block.
but, its ok.
Hey Epic Axe-men!
Actually the money and revenue models was not the most interesting part.. I mean, come on… it’s been discussed before right? That one definitely comes down to Adam’s (Smith) invisible hand in the market.
I actually post a question on the ‘Ask Pach’ page on GT.com about the same Bonus Round episode, which probably will be interesting to think about for you guys as well.
Here’s my post:
[Start]
Referring to episode 402 of the Bonus Round, with Shane Satterfield, Jason Rubin and you on the panel, you guys talked about the publisher paradox. Jason explicitly mentioned his believes that current strategies of big boy publishers are good for their stockholders in the short run, but will come back to them in the long run, due to innovation inertia.
Do you think there is a difference between North American, European and Japanese publishers on how they generally balance this exploitation-exploration paradox (March, 1991)? e.g. Do they tip towards either side of the scale?
How will this affect those companies? Do you think Western and Eastern publishers need to consciously learn from each other to manage this balance better or do you think market mechanisms will do this for them? Because, in part 3 you did make mention of laid off employees starting their own small and innovative studios, to be acquired again later on, when a large publisher has an eye on them.
[End]
My perspective:
I think an interesting difference is that on the one hand, Western publishers usually – except e.g. Blizzard – try to almost yearly (or every 2 years) milk out any successful big IP, to the detriment of the IP’s long term value (e.g. Call of Duty, Assassin’s Creed, Sports and Music games). While on the other hand, Japanese companies are generally much more careful about releasing sequels for big IPs (e.g. Zelda, Resident Evil and Metal Gear Solid). Another example is Sony’s motivation to support and publish innovative IPs such as ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, LBP, Flower and Heavy Rain, While Microsoft generally supports more traditional hardcore titles in the action/adventure genre, by getting exclusive titles and content, such as Gears of War.
Of course exceptions to my statement can be found, but I’m talking about the general strategic directions of those organizations.
So what do you guys think about this and do you share my perspective?
Now that I’m typing anyway, I want to relate my Member Battle Cry to this topic, because from a subjective point of view, I want to dedicate it
“to all those Japanese companies that value their great IPs and keep on publishing and developing such innovative titles, in stead of pumping out another shooter or music game, based on old IP, each year”
Of course there are exceptions such as Mass Effect, with the sequel being way much better than the original (Daniel, were did you get those PJs?)
Thanks, and keep on axing!
-PocketStation
PS. I hope you guys can still respond to my request of helping me out with my research for my dissertation.
With Games hitting 1 billion dollars in sales, which is the case with modern warfare 2. I think its hypocritical for gaming companies to cry about development costs.
Sure not all games achieve that mark of 1 billion dollars, but are they really complaining if they get a 50 million profit from a game that they produced?
I mean 50 Millions.
Let’s keep in mind that game went up in price at the beginning of this generation from 49,99 to 59,99 exactly to offset those extra expenses.
My point is make a GOOD game, and you will get ton of revenue. Make a crappy game, and there will be no revenue.
Even if a game cost 100 million to make, and they “only” make 200 million, that’s double the investment. That’s an incredible margin.
I think publishers are just trying to scam consumers, and cry when they are making large sum of cash.
Just make good games and the profits will come. And leave my pockets alone. We only have so much to invest in this thing. If they get to greedy, a lot of gamers ” me included” will say screw this, and will not buy any more games. Therefore the industry will fail due to pure greed.
At some point one of the guys compared the gaming industry to cars, in that when you sell your used car the people who made it don’t get any money off of that transaction. I think that there are other comparisons to be made. What if to make more money, when you buy a game, like a new car, instead of paying for it up front which rarely happens with a new car, you pay a certain amount every month you play it, and “interest” can be added so that the final amount paid is more than what it was originally. But this way there is a cap on how much you pay so it does not go on indefinitely. Game developers make more money, but gamers dont have to worry about if they can afford their modern warfare account this month because they didnt get enough hours at work.
Talk about shooting yourself in the leg. If all game developers end up following this, pay while playing formula, the gamers just end up buying and subscribing to the good ones anyway.
Cut development costs and take a marketing 101 course.