Activision Joins the Anti-Used Games Crusade
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Maybe they don't like the fact that If I have 60 dollars of store credit at Gamestop, Vintage Stock or Hastings I can get Modern Warfare 2...
FOR FREEEE!!!!!!!!
FOR FREEEE!!!!!!!!
Yeah, Games are way to expensive to always buy a new copy. And Activision has the nerve to do this after the money they made via Modern Warfare 2.AvsJoe said:
See this reminds me of a point I made before that is in no way unique and I openly admit that probably a million people have mentioned it before me on forums just like this.
First they blame piracy, people pull the bullshit rug out from under them (even impervious DRM doesn't raise the sales of a product higher than its piratable competition for the entire duration of its imperviousness), then they blame used game sales, next they'll simply be blaming the cost of making video games.
You don't have to make your damn game cost 100 million dollars, there is such thing as an incredibly good game that didn't cost the annual income of a third world nation to make. Minecraft comes to mind, so does Dwarf Fortress, and frankly tons of games from the 90's were amazing even by todays standards (though the framerates now are too slow to deal with).
They'll continue to cut content and raise prices and the vast majority of there customers will just take it because after all "It's the pirates and used game folks that caused it." Which is patently false.
At any rate, I guess I shouldn't complain too much, I don't pirate and I don't buy used games, but I do read more. Why? Because the constant nickle and diming caused me to start reading (a cheaper hobby), in the end I think I should thank the buggards really.
The rest of your argument is pretty nice, but calling Blizzard games low quality is about as close to being wrong you can have when speaking an opinion.
Other opinions like "flaying babies is a great idea" come to mind, but that's not gaming related so we'll just stick with trying to call WoW or SC2 "low quality".
First they blame piracy, people pull the bullshit rug out from under them (even impervious DRM doesn't raise the sales of a product higher than its piratable competition for the entire duration of its imperviousness), then they blame used game sales, next they'll simply be blaming the cost of making video games.
You don't have to make your damn game cost 100 million dollars, there is such thing as an incredibly good game that didn't cost the annual income of a third world nation to make. Minecraft comes to mind, so does Dwarf Fortress, and frankly tons of games from the 90's were amazing even by todays standards (though the framerates now are too slow to deal with).
They'll continue to cut content and raise prices and the vast majority of there customers will just take it because after all "It's the pirates and used game folks that caused it." Which is patently false.
At any rate, I guess I shouldn't complain too much, I don't pirate and I don't buy used games, but I do read more. Why? Because the constant nickle and diming caused me to start reading (a cheaper hobby), in the end I think I should thank the buggards really.
There are few games in the market (or in existence) that are deeper and provide more solid content than Blizzard games.Pugiron said:
The rest of your argument is pretty nice, but calling Blizzard games low quality is about as close to being wrong you can have when speaking an opinion.
Other opinions like "flaying babies is a great idea" come to mind, but that's not gaming related so we'll just stick with trying to call WoW or SC2 "low quality".
Or..You could stop sinking millions into graphics and make your games affordable.
You know, it might mean taking a step back from photo-realistic military kill-simulators and using your imagination to work with certain graphical constraints, but...
You know, it might mean taking a step back from photo-realistic military kill-simulators and using your imagination to work with certain graphical constraints, but...
Churchill actually said "fuck you"? He's more badass than I thought...Scrumpmonkey said:
OT: This is bullshit. I don't want to pay whole for half a game and pay EVEN MORE once the other parts of it come out.
Minecraft has sold 49586 copies at 9.99 euros. For the sake of me not doing the math we'll just act like it is dollars (I believe a euro is more than a dollar).similar.squirrel said:
This game is made by ONE DUDE! A really damn nice dude, but ONE DUDE. I paid one price months ago and he still updates and adds new features weekly.
49,586 x 10 == 495,860 dollars.
That's half a million dollars in sales for a game with one guy working on the whole thing. Activision could really do something great if they'd, as you eloquently put it (no sarcasm honestly), stopped trying to make the games hyper realistic.
The necessity for extreme graphics stopped being really necessary after PS2 got to the end of its stride. FF12 looks better than I ever need a game to look.
I've never heard of Minecraft, but Captain Forever is similar. Not entirely sure about the figures, but that thing had me [and presumably many others] hooked to an uncomfortably MMORPG-esque extent.theultimateend said:
It's also subject to updates [perhaps not as persistent, but with every update, the previous version becomes available for free].
This is a game that has you manipulating coloured cubes on a two dimensional plane.
I don't think I've ever heard of something Activision did that wasn't either malicious or foolish. Or both. This is no exception.
The issue with the former is that it's bad long term. Consider; how many gamers -really- buy only used or only new? Most gamers have pet genres... those kinds of games you really can't help but like and buy. And many gamers have pet series... where even the bad games out of the lineup have a place in their gaming shelf. When the two cross, for many gamers, the will ain't that strong, and the rational of spending the extra money for new becomes easier to swallow.Raesvelg said:
Unless... they know they're getting screwed by the company in question. Imagine if you wanted to start playing a long running series... let's say Call of Duty. You want to start from the start, especially since said games are cheaper and they'll give you a feel for what the series runs like, a sort of used-older-game-as-demo option. Now let's imagine that way back then, they'd instituted this policy. All of a sudden, you're locked out of content because it's not a new game... regardless of the age of said title. Your first experience is soured, and as a result, you're less likely to buy future games in said line-up or from said company.
That's the biggest issue with efforts like Project Ten Dollars. You NEED to balance carefully between what IS core to the game and goes on the disc, and what ISN'T. Because even if a used sale doesn't equal dollars in the bank account today, they could mean trust in the brand tomorrow. And especially for a genre like FPS where the solo gaming experience can be knocked off on a lazy Sunday, that trust-tomorrow can be very literal.
The point I'm making here is the situation is not binary, a fact many game companies seem adamantly oppossed to admitting. EA's gotten better about it; in spite of Project Ten Dollar, they still produce a full game's worth of material, then support their big titles with extensive DLC options. The guy who just wants to pick up a game and play is happy, the guy with money to burn who wants more is happy, and either way they both gain a little more faith in the brand.
Even in the games industry, brand recognition goes a long way, for well or woe. Just ask anyone their opinion on Bethesda or Sega or Atari. Activision is suffering a lot in the press these days, and for a company that's pretty hardcore-friendly, that can be bad down the line, regardless of how today looks. They need to counteract that negative image, and statements like this don't help, even if they're how the company feels internally.
Also, as for your latter point, nice job suggesting all the folks who don't game online literally have no right to be gamers. Stay classy.
If retailers and publishers could wring more pennies out of you, they would, and seeing which direction the market is going, they will.
The goal isn't to keep prices as low as possible, it's to hike prices as high as they can go since 5 publishers own virtually all of the market.
If used game sales go, specialized game retailers will die out for good. Your choices will be Target, Wal-Mart, and Best Buy (in America anyway).
If retailers win out over publishers, they will milk it for all its worth, and the publishers will hike prices anyway to "cover the difference".
Taken from that perspective, there is no real ethical argument to be made here. Same with legal. So...there really isn't much of a topic here.
The goal isn't to keep prices as low as possible, it's to hike prices as high as they can go since 5 publishers own virtually all of the market.
If used game sales go, specialized game retailers will die out for good. Your choices will be Target, Wal-Mart, and Best Buy (in America anyway).
If retailers win out over publishers, they will milk it for all its worth, and the publishers will hike prices anyway to "cover the difference".
Taken from that perspective, there is no real ethical argument to be made here. Same with legal. So...there really isn't much of a topic here.
Activision.. just sigh.
MW2 was nowhere near worth the $69.99 most Xbox 360 games are at new release. I could pay $60 for Pac-man, and get a more interesting story/longer gameplay. Let's face it, MW2 was for multiplayer popularity. The story was a cluster-fuck of nonsense.
MW2 was nowhere near worth the $69.99 most Xbox 360 games are at new release. I could pay $60 for Pac-man, and get a more interesting story/longer gameplay. Let's face it, MW2 was for multiplayer popularity. The story was a cluster-fuck of nonsense.