This is a very very long post. You've been warned.
@squid5580,
Three things. First, I don't think it's the guys who make the content that decide how much to charge for it. Bungie have repeatedly stated that they didn't set the price for their bonus maps. So it may not be the fault of Mistwalker that their bonus content costs that much.
Second,
squid5580 said:
I have no problem with in-game ads as long as they are suitable for the game. I expect to see a billboard in a city enviroment advertising McDonald's. I don't want to see a huge Subway sign on the side of a castle in a fantasy game though. Or Bawls vending machines in every hallway of some abandoned space station overrun with aliens.
I agree with you completely. It has to be suitable for the game. Which is why it's used so rarely - it's honestly not very common to find a game set in the middle of some random english speaking city. My fortresses of doom, my galaxy-conquering space stations, these are places that are inappropriate, and all too common for in-game ads to be worth it. It's disappointing, kind of, because I do want in-game advertising to work. It makes sense for developers to solicit companies for ingame ads. It's just so very rarely appropriate, and often immersion-breaking. GTA would be appropriate, except that it's a parody world, so it's entirely not appropriate. Halo is set in 2550 or so, if I recall correctly, so it'd crush the setting to put contemporary companies into the game's setting.
Third,
squid5580 said:
I think that it isn't the time of year that causes the high traffic but more related to the quality of games coming out at that time of year that causes the high traffic.
It's the same thing. They would be releasing all the triple-A titles at that time of year because of the percieved increase in traffic, which is caused by all the triple-A titles, which is caused by the traffic, etc, etc. But I certainly agree that I'd be much happier if companies sprinkled their released throughout the year. Having it all bunched into the September-January months is... irritating, to say the least.
@L.B. Jeffries,
L.B. Jeffries said:
They could try to boost the quality of the Tie-ins a bit more. If a game has a cool soundtrack with stuff beyond background music there is potential revenue there. The GTA soundtracks would be an interesting example.
I agree. Game music happens to be some of the most emotive, I find. Title dependant, of course, but nothing gets me going like music from games I really enjoyed. I mean, I've got literally gigabytes of music from games sitting on my hard drive. Noone actually stocks it, locally, except for Gametraders, where I picked up the Halo OST.
That said, when you proposed that they start their own fashion labels... that's a little extreme, I think. As was said elsewhere, gamers don't usually want to be identified as gamers in public. It's not socially acceptable to walk around with a shirt that's got a gaming connotation on it. Not if you want people to take you seriously anyway. I honestly do see people at the local EB with "I pwn noobs" written on their shirt... and my opinion of them is pretty instantly formed.
Other forms of merchandise, like miniatures, etc, are all either extremely niche or extremely kiddy. Because if they're like miniatures (detailed and expensive, like books, models, etc), then they're for the hardcore fans, and if they're toys, they're kiddy. And why would a kid want a Mario action figure when he can just go play Smash Bros? There's a place for both of those forms of merchandise, but they're not massive revenue raisers, I think.
@Sean,
Sean Sands said:
You say charging for demos is obscene, but I think EA's idea to release a free and premium demo of Spore's upcoming creature editor is a fantastic way to generate revenue.
I agree with you. Charging for a premium demo,
as well as releasing a normal one, is a good idea. What EA are not doing is charging for a demo, fullstop.
Sean Sands said:
Overall, I still strongly contend that the problem is that gamers have clear ideas about what they think they are entitled to. They regularly underestimate the monetary value of the things they take for granted, and it's going to be an unpleasant transition for many as these entitlements and freebies are necessarily transformed into a money making stream.
Since we're all so fond of parallelling the film industry, parallel this, then. When was the last time that the movie industry, as a whole, started charging consumers for something previously given as free?