30 Percent of Gamers Never Pay to Play
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
The art is a similar style but calling it a copy is simplistic. If anything I would call the Allods are a refinement. WoW is 6 years old and has a lot of baggage to bring forward. It looks like they are doing an update with Cataclysm but comparing character models you will see Allods is more detailed. If you actually play the game you will see the animation variety, particularly the idle animations are much more complex. The fact that they are comperable at all is a achievement considering WoW is $50 + 15 a month after the first month and Allods is free as in beer.Asehujiko said:
There's a great difference in having a similar style and directly ripping off environments. I watched the trailers on their site and the first thing that came to my mind was "Arathi Highlands" "Western Plaguelands" "Silithus" and not "wow's art style". And idle animations are one thing I specifically think shouldn't need any special attention at all. The fact that despite the advantages of 6 years of technology and being up against something that very specifically sacrificed poly counts for wider system accessibility they are still within comparable quality is quite the opposite of an achievement.rembrandtqeinstein said:
Oh no, gaimng for free? It's madness! Almost as bad as used game sales. People need to pay for the industry! Pay Pay Pay!
I wish we could all go back to playing with wooden blocks.
I wish we could all go back to playing with wooden blocks.
A woman came in to my book store once and asked if we had a book that explained how to steal her neighbors internet for free. She had just been given a hand-me-down laptop and had "heard that you could do that." I explained to her that stealing is wrong and then told her what wireless hotspots are.
I think you misunderstand. I'm not a great writer.boholikeu said:
What I am saying is that if these studies are going to use games like Farmeville as examples, then they should use Windows Solitaire as well, which would probably eclipse them all. However studies do not use games like Windows Solitaire, and I think they should be omitting a lot of these "Farmville" type games for the same reason you don't see Windows Solitaire or Minesweeper brought up in serious discussions about video gaming. Especially seeing as they have been around a LOT longer than games like Farmville.
It's not me saying they don't use Farmville, but rather that if they are going to do so, they should also bring other games into the picture that are also ommitted. However I also think that this "level" of gaming has been omitted from serious discussion until recently for good reason.
Somewhere out there, Bobby Kotick just vomited with disgust at hearing this statistic, then ordered another map pack for $15/£11 to be released, now entirely rehashed user maps from COD4.
I really do think that games are overpriced at $60/£40, that is four times the price of a DVD yet Hollywood movies typically cost four times as much as video games.
There are combined 74 million PS3s and Xbox 360's out there, yet only 7 million copies of Assassin's Creed II have been sold (again combined, and global sales) which shows one of the biggest multiplatform games of the year barely 10% of potential buyers bought new.
Again, THE biggest release of past year, Modern Warfare 2, only 18 million out of a possible 74 million. A quarter.
I definitely think the RRP for console games needs to be cut, the market is not like it was in 2007, there are a huge number of users out there now but quite simply they cannot afford $60 to buy the game new at launch, so they just wait to buy it pre-owned and "project $10" isn't going to change that as likely they will just ignore the DLC.
The proportion of people happy to pay certain prices follows a normal curve, I am certain that if they half-the launch price or just reduce it to $45 then sales will more than double, they'll easily quadruple.
I mean think about it, you can get an ENTIRE CONSOLE for $180, who is going to pay one-third the cost of the hardware for the cost of a single game?
So much effort has gone into cutting the cost of the hardware yet everyone is ignoring the software aspect. Console are likely going to see bigger and bigger price cuts with hardware revisions you are only going to draw in customers who are less willing/able to pay. They HAVE to cut cost of games and get greater number of sales to increase overall revenue.
I really do think that games are overpriced at $60/£40, that is four times the price of a DVD yet Hollywood movies typically cost four times as much as video games.
There are combined 74 million PS3s and Xbox 360's out there, yet only 7 million copies of Assassin's Creed II have been sold (again combined, and global sales) which shows one of the biggest multiplatform games of the year barely 10% of potential buyers bought new.
Again, THE biggest release of past year, Modern Warfare 2, only 18 million out of a possible 74 million. A quarter.
I definitely think the RRP for console games needs to be cut, the market is not like it was in 2007, there are a huge number of users out there now but quite simply they cannot afford $60 to buy the game new at launch, so they just wait to buy it pre-owned and "project $10" isn't going to change that as likely they will just ignore the DLC.
The proportion of people happy to pay certain prices follows a normal curve, I am certain that if they half-the launch price or just reduce it to $45 then sales will more than double, they'll easily quadruple.
I mean think about it, you can get an ENTIRE CONSOLE for $180, who is going to pay one-third the cost of the hardware for the cost of a single game?
So much effort has gone into cutting the cost of the hardware yet everyone is ignoring the software aspect. Console are likely going to see bigger and bigger price cuts with hardware revisions you are only going to draw in customers who are less willing/able to pay. They HAVE to cut cost of games and get greater number of sales to increase overall revenue.
Ah okay. I suppose that's a valid observation then. Do we know for sure that they didn't include games like Solitaire in this study though?Therumancer said:
Also, regardless as to what you think about software like Windows Solitaire and Farmville, they still are games. Saying they shouldn't be considered in a study about the popularity of computer games is a bit like saying Transformers shouldn't be considered in a study about the popularity of movies.
Actually, I am sort of saying that.boholikeu said:
It's sort of like how when looking at the popularity of board games throughout the years and anylyzing them you could bring up things like Chess, Checkers, Backgammon, Othello, and others. However it demeans the entire thing if you bring up a transient pop culture pop culture relic like say the "Happy Days Board Game" or something of the sort, I have no idea how well that sold (though I've seen it), but there have been legions of games like that created. Even if it sold well for it's time period, it's kind of demeaning, especially to people who get REALLY serious about board games, to take it seriously.
I see casual games in a similar vein, they might sell well, but I think they fail as serious games. It's sort of like how people draw a line between "culture" and "pop culture". Casual games are the banal pop culture of the gaming industry.
I know many are going to disagree, but I see it as being similar to music arguements about "real music" and souless teen pop crud that comes and goes, and will be dead in a few years, even in the minds of the people who made it popular to begin with. For the most part today's "cool" pop-music band, is tomorrow's joke.
That's simply my opinion of course.
I also mention that Solitaire, because is struck me as a common sense exception that has been around for a very long time. Also I figure that if it was included it would arguably have scewed the numbers well away from the casual games being lionized like "Farmville". I mean common sense seems to dictate that Solitaire which was in pretty much every copy of Windows for like forever, would not only have had a higher circulation, but have endured longer, and probably taken up more time. Of course by and large being a "free" game (or included in a Windows games pack) it can be argued that it didn't make as much money, but then again it wasn't really trying to, being more of a feature attached to Windows which was what was making the money and well... we all know about Microsoft.
Like many discussions I'm involved in, I imagine ultimatly me and those I debate with will have to agree to disagree.
Thing is though, some of those games are actually pretty good. Solitaire is not some crappy game with borked mechanics. It's a port of a classic card game that's actually pretty fun. Minesweeper is another one that's brought up a lot in discussions like this, and it's actually a pretty good game as well. I haven't played Farmville so I can't really say anything about it, but it must be passable if it got so many non-gamers to spend a lot of time playing it.Therumancer said:Actually, I am sort of saying that.boholikeu said:
It's sort of like how when looking at the popularity of board games throughout the years and anylyzing them you could bring up things like Chess, Checkers, Backgammon, Othello, and others. However it demeans the entire thing if you bring up a transient pop culture pop culture relic like say the "Happy Days Board Game" or something of the sort, I have no idea how well that sold (though I've seen it), but there have been legions of games like that created. Even if it sold well for it's time period, it's kind of demeaning, especially to people who get REALLY serious about board games, to take it seriously.
I see casual games in a similar vein, they might sell well, but I think they fail as serious games. It's sort of like how people draw a line between "culture" and "pop culture". Casual games are the banal pop culture of the gaming industry.
I know many are going to disagree, but I see it as being similar to music arguements about "real music" and souless teen pop crud that comes and goes, and will be dead in a few years, even in the minds of the people who made it popular to begin with. For the most part today's "cool" pop-music band, is tomorrow's joke.
That's simply my opinion of course.
I also mention that Solitaire, because is struck me as a common sense exception that has been around for a very long time. Also I figure that if it was included it would arguably have scewed the numbers well away from the casual games being lionized like "Farmville". I mean common sense seems to dictate that Solitaire which was in pretty much every copy of Windows for like forever, would not only have had a higher circulation, but have endured longer, and probably taken up more time. Of course by and large being a "free" game (or included in a Windows games pack) it can be argued that it didn't make as much money, but then again it wasn't really trying to, being more of a feature attached to Windows which was what was making the money and well... we all know about Microsoft.
Like many discussions I'm involved in, I imagine ultimatly me and those I debate with will have to agree to disagree.
I dunno, I just think it's kind of silly when gamers complain about the "plague of casuals". Shouldn't you be happy that people are sharing your hobby? If you think there are better games out there, why don't we introduce them to these newcomers rather than ridiculing their taste?
Well "good" is like always subjective. In this case, it takes away from time, effort, and development funds that could otherwise be being directed at making more serious games, as eveyrone rushes in to "cash in" on the casuals.
Again, I point to a comparison with a lot of the "pop music" out there. It makes monsterous, short term cash returns, but as far as music goes it's pretty bad once it gets beyond the initial hype. Heck, half the time it isn't even about the music, but the promotion of the latest teenie bopper or boy band who succeed based on their youth and physical attributes (so to speak) more than any real talent. That's money that could be spent on promoting and touring other "real" bands.
On top of this, there is the "kids and candy" analogy which has been used (with music and other things). Basically if you give your kids on nothing but candy and always make it availible, that's all their going to eat. They're going to grow up, get sick, and die without ever having learned about other food like a good porterhouse.
Or to put it another way, simple, casual, introductory games are okay for people that are just starting out, but the idea is to be introduced to gaming, not simply stay at that level. If people keep producing this casual software by the truckload, there are going to be people who otherwise would have moved on to more "serious" games, but won't due to both social networking (this stuff being tied to things like Facebook and it's peer pressure), and a lack of incentive. Sort of like how it's the parents that ultimatly have to be the ones to take the training wheels off their kid's bike.
When it comes to the industry, casuals also breed other problems. If someone can make a boatload of cash for minimum effort by creating what would be a mini-game/side activity in a more serious offering, they're going to gravitate towards doing that as opposed to developing more serious software. Sort of like for how all of it's advantages (interface, etc...) game companies are moving towards consoles, too much of the Zynga stuff and I have a very real fear that your going to see them move from serious games, to casual games the same way.
I think that the whole "they're gamers too" is sort of like telling a Special Ed. kid that he's just like everyone else, and that his floundering around with a football is the same stuff that the actual school football team is doing, or whatever. Except a Special Ed. kid can't usually help being what he is, but I think casual gamers CAN be serious gamers given the proper motivation.
Simply put, I think all of this "Self validation" stuff with casual gamers is more in the interest of certain aspects of the gaming industry that want to make fortune from casual software, and less in the interests of the gaming community that has been here for decades.
Also on a final note, consider that there is a lot of effort to defend games worthy of being adult entertainment, and how they are needed for the gaming populance. Some 40 year old Farmville addict sends a message that could potentially be picked up by censors, that it's okay to censor games, because obviously adults can be just as entertained by something simple enough for young children.... thus it's okay to lock video games to a "kiddie" level. There are a lot of things wrong with this, but I see it as a distinct possibility, it's just that politicians are slow to adapt. If it keeps up, I'm waiting for that Salvo to be fired. Companies like Zynga could on some levels be seen as an unscrupules arms producer who is effectively manufacturing the weapons today, that will be used against the games industry tomorrow.
It's not often that I agree with Derpy here, but have we even considered gamers who own no legitimately-purchased games in the mix? In other words, what percentage of the gamer population is made up of people whose habit consists entirely of piracy?Hurr Durr Derp said:
rembrandtqeinstein said:
I've played loads of free mmorpgs and most of them are crap and I've played this Allods but for alot of people there is a strange paranoia that they would get infected by a virus through this or they try to suck up your credit card information.
But I play WoW because of the fact that you know it's a stable community with hardworking people trying to make it better and better and also you have some interesting fluff ony my matter most of these free mmorpg fluffs are made up in seconds.
Besides I support the company I like (Blizzard) you can't blame them for raising prices because of A.Inflation and B.Their a company for god sakes they are not for your need but for their own.