Jimquisition: Better Does Not Mean Good

[CaptOfSerenity]

I don't believe Jim is corrupt. However, there are concerns that have been raised that people are not necessarily wrong for thinking corruption would be a possibility. Schmoozing with industry people, free swag/games, insulting viewers/readers, scores being far from the average, reviewed games not being played to completion, handling pretty much all the reviews on Destructoid when there are many talented writers on staff, articles written with blatant trolling attempts... And there is probably more.

Jim is a good writer. I genuinely enjoy most of his reviews. I just feel like there is a disconnect in there somewhere.

Scores being far from the average:

Wow, funny how opinions work. It's almost like sometimes, one person's opinion doesn't line up with others.

Free swag/games:

Journalists always get pissed at this because it implies that they can be bought with free fucking gift bags and a game. They have more integrity than that. That's why they're journalists.

Reviews editor:

He's the reviews editor. That's his job.

Trolling attempts:

Every time I read a "troll" article by Sterling, he's trolling dumbass, knee-jerk fanboys.

Schmoozing with industry people:

It's called interacting. It happens

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Better Does Not Mean Good

Things in the game industry could be worst. We could all be living in the 80s, or we could be in Australia, beset by high prices and restricted ratings. We could also have no arms. We could have porcelain eyes. We could be killed by a Terminator to stop our children leading a revolution against a genocidal artificial intelligence.

Things could always be worse, but saying that to counter an argument about the North American videogame industry doesn't really prove a bloody thing.

Watch Video

I'm actually curious about people's claims of corruption? What games did they say you seemed like you were advertising? because it seems completely unfounded to me.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

Did love Jim's shout-out to the Jimquisition vs. Extra Credits thread, complete with his usual brand of 'seriousness'.

But, of course, he brings up a good point as usual, a point that actually reminded me of something I heard a long while back and I firmly believe in:

Comparing anything, ANYTHING to the past is absolutely and completely stupid, because, in the end, that stuff was in the PAST, and there's a better chance of you winning the lottery than there is of the stuff in the past ever, ever coming back. If we should be comparing what we have right now to anything, it's comparing what we have right now to alternatives that we could have instead, and I can think of a couple of things that would be far more preferable to the system we have now.

Is the system better than it was before in the past? Yes, probably. I don't care, though, because the system by which we're charged for (and receive content for) games is still not AS good as it could be, therefore I am still going to have a problem with it. We can stop caring and stop complaining and say that something is completely, utterly GOOD and say it can be worse when there is no way that that something can become better.

 

[Something Amyss]

I was mostly referring to the FTC comaplaints and the whole cupcakes thing.

You mean a formal complaint is extremism? It's one of the most civil things you can do.

And you know what? I'm just gonna say it. Maybe more gamers should file complaints with the FTC and BBB. The gaming industry is really ridiculous sometimes, and it needs to be reigned in. But perhaps that's another discussion for another time. So let's just stick with what's going on here.

The gamers had every right to feel lied to, and the BBB (while non-government)has validated that. Based on what they felt was false marketing, they contacted a government outlet that specialises in just this sort of thing. So basically, you're saying going to the group that regulates and/or investigates exactly what was alleged is extremism?

I hate to see what else false into your view of extremism.

Right or wrong, if you feel wrong it is your right to approach the authorities to investigate.

And the cupcakes thing was pretty clever and definitely civil. It got the point across in an original but non-threatening way.

Trolling the devs or more or less counting on the opinion of a figure of authority who may or may not understand how game pitches are structured to prove that BioWare made false claims doesn't change the fact the property remains in EA and BioWare's hands, and that they alone have the power to choose how to handle the series' ending.

You have a very loose definition of "trolling."

The fact that the property remains in their hands does not give them the right to lie. Please don't try and distort the problem people are having. It's not that they can choose to do what they want with the property, it's that they deliberately misled people.

Also, I didn't exactly refer to "extremists". This was much more a case of people investing far too much time and effort into something that's ultimately trivial.

Right, you referred to people and contrasted them in terms of being "uncivil." That does of semantics aside, you're taking some of the most civil forms of protest and treating them AS extremists.

Call it trivial if you want. Consumer rights have been eroded by people saying that same thing over just this sort of thing.

You know what? I'm gonna amend this, too. A friend of mine had a good point. If you've been playing the series, you've probably spent 180 bucks on it, bare minimum. Some of the content that is "optional" is really vital, so you may have spent even more. But let's just go with the basics. 180 bucks. Each game tends to run into the 30 hour playtime range, according to just about everyone online.

Almost 100 hours. That's over four days of your life, stacked together.

A few minutes to order cupcakes compared to 100 hours and 180 bucks.

Yeah, this is really a disproportionate amount of effort.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I must be pregnant, I have the strange urge for shrimp with two scoops of raisins.

I think what Jim is overlooking is that for many gamers money just isn't an issue either because they or their parents have (always had) lots of money and don't really care how much is charged because it's always in their budget. And that's fine until someone comes along and says that they're being taken advantage of. So they need to defend their purchases so they can continue to buy whatever they like without feeling like they've been taken advantage of.
It's the same reason some consumers defend the obscene used game prices at gamestop.

The problem is that when people try too hard not to look like suckers, they end up really looking like big suckers.

 

[jovack22]

Extra Credits became a total drag after a while... and I do not miss them at all.

They often became patronizing and just spoke a lot without saying much in the end -- stroking their own ego essentially.

Jimquisition has good ideas, and does it tongue in cheek.

 

[J.d. Scott]

I've had a lot of talks on this with my brother on the fact that I thought if Game Companies/Developers/Publishers (or just the Sellers of Games, I guess) just reduce the price for their games that they would get far more people to buy those games, because the "bar to entry" would be lower in terms of trying to get those games. Sure, you aren't getting something like $60 dollars per game, but for each person who would have bought the game for $60, you instead get something like 5 customers if the game was priced at $20, wouldn't that pay off in the end? It just seems to make some good business sense to me, at least from my perspective.

Unfortunately, it seems like the collective Sellers of Video Games seem to rather want as much money from people as they can and I get the feeling that a lot of people seem to be okay with it, which isn't a bad thing for them. There are probably people out there who could pay for the price of these games as they are no problem because they have jobs and are probably able to manage their money well to buy the games they want. It's very hard for me to find a reason to blame these people then as obviously, the price of the game isn't an issue with them.

However, as I was saying about the "bar to entry" as before, there are still a lot of people who probably would like to buy games but the price is just too high at the moment. While I guess a lot of people who pirate games are real people who just don't want to pay a dime for anything, I think it is equally possible that a lot of the pirates are people who would have bought the game if they could have. To me, it just seems like lower the price for games anywhere would help the Sellers of video games a lot more than it might hurt them.

It's because of this that I am curious as to the breakdown of what the $60 dollars might be for each video game, or perhaps a dynamic pie-graph of some kind that can be applied to all games. I'm just curious in where that money for that $60 dollar game or whatever that is just coming out and exactly where it might be going to pay for the game. I know some of it has to go into the production cost of the game, but I just wonder what else is to that price that might prevent the Sellers from reducing the price to games and make things nicer for all; besides just general greed.

Here's the thing - there's a point where the consumer's demand and the profits hit the rubber. They have determined based on sales, that $60 is the price point the US market will bear. And realize, while super games make a lot of money, a great deal of other games, while critically acclaimed and good ideas fail to sell. Not ever game makes money, so the bigger titles provide revenue for the publisher.

 

[J.d. Scott]

Extra Credits became a total drag after a while... and I do not miss them at all.

They often became patronizing and just spoke a lot without saying much in the end -- stroking their own ego essentially.

Jimquisition has good ideas, and does it tongue in cheek.

I think they're two different things. Extra Credits is a teacher at DigiPen offering stripped down, user-friendly versions of some topical lectures that entry level game programming students would receive for free. Of course it's sort of patronizing - it's a teacher lecturing students. It also takes the position of being knowledgeable about the industry. James Portnoy is trying to educate you. Some of the episodes are more informative then others, but that's the general goal, aside from occasional forays into some opinion based commentary, and mailbags.

Jim's a populist. He's snarky, self-effacing, and rarely diverts from the opinions of gamers who consult gaming media - what one would call in wrestling, a "smart mark". He presents opinions on hot-button topics, as well as his own personal things, but rarely presents a nuanced opinion, or even one buoyed by facts. It's a confident opinion based on mostly conjecture. He can be mostly right, and sometimes he mentions things you do not know, or may not have formed a complete opinion on, so the show can be educational, but that's not the point. It's basically snarking at the industry for it's perceived slights in a way that caters to the niche audience provided by the Escapist. Jim Sterling is offering commentary.

 

[Sovereignty]

Great episode. Sometimes I have no idea what you're thinking, then you drop a bomb like this one, and make me glad I watch this series weekly.

Thanks.

 

[OldRat]

Ah, yes. I hate that argument. "Well, it could be worse!" used as an argument for quality. Just a few back, I called someone out on using it as her only argument for the supposed good quality of a certain TV show adaptation of a certaing thing I myself didn't like and that, factually, did not do very well with the fans of the original. It devolved into a hissy fit and stomping out angry.
See, the thing is, "Well, I thought it was good since there's been a lot worse series with the same theme!" is not an argument for quality. Ok, no, that's not true, it's an argument for the thing in question being not the absolute worst in quality. But, just by itself, "it's not the worst" does not, by its very nature, imply any kind of good quality. How could it, it fucking compares it to the worst thing possible. Saying you're better at running than a paraplegic ground sloth doesn't mean you're fast. It actually tells NOTHING about your actual placement in the scale of things.


Personally, I find it as much of an annoying copout as the good old "Well go watch Citizen Kane if you wanted QUALITY in a movie!" or the ilk. Because apparently some people can only express themselves through strawmanning extremes.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

ITT: lots of people saying a bunch of rhetoric who will no doubt fail to change their spending habits at all.

The average life of an Escapist forum goer seems to consist of flaming EA, buying EA games, complaining that games are too expensive, flooding forums with rage and doing nothing at all to solve the problem.

 

[wezzipooh]

Jim is such a fucking sell out. Look how much shrimp was shown in this episode.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I am pleased with who I am and thank God on a daily basis for Jim. Great show as always Jim. Speaking of Batman; anybody know yet if all of the new content for the Game of the Year edition of AC is all on-disc or will it need to be unlocked using an online pass?

 

[Timmey]

wtf was with the shrimp? what was that for?

Better we shrimp the videos, than let the videos shrimp us.

Aint that the truth

For some reason I love the fact that Jim not only refers to the forums during the video, in reference to that EC vs Jim thread, but also posts in them after haha.

Ot: great video, loved the bran

 

[Thoric485]

Fuck yeah, Comix Zone!

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I can somewhat tolerate people who say things like "it could be worse". I can tolerate them on the internet. In real life I'd probably break their fingers. But people who defend publishers and developers on a daily basis are fuckin' retarded and I have to speak up when I see one of those fucktards. What surprises me is that The Escapist is full of people who defend day 1 DLC, on-disc DLC, day 1 on-disc DLC and shit like that. How stupid do you have to be to defend someone who's taking your money and fucking you in the ass at the same time.

 

[Tel_Windzan]

Here's the thing - there's a point where the consumer's demand and the profits hit the rubber. They have determined based on sales, that $60 is the price point the US market will bear. And realize, while super games make a lot of money, a great deal of other games, while critically acclaimed and good ideas fail to sell. Not ever game makes money, so the bigger titles provide revenue for the publisher.

When you mention "bigger titles", I assume you are referring to games that are well known that the Sellers should know will sell pretty well, such as Diablo, Pokemon and many others. While I see where you are going with this, I still think there is a huge problem with this and it is because of the bigger name games that I have this problem.

You?re implying that the Publishers/Developers of video games should know if the game they are working on will sell well, so they know that they could slap on a $60 price tag and still probably come out even. But the thing I don't quite get is again, why place the price so high? If you know people are going to buy the game as soon as it comes out, you already know that probably covering the production costs of that game should be met in probably a few days or so based on the demand. So why not try to make that pool even bigger by reducing the price? That way, the fans of the game could recommend it to new players who in turn will probably buy the game because it is at a reasonable price. If you get more people to buy the game, that means profit would go up, wouldn't it? Because you already have a base of people you know will buy the game at any given price, just make the price a bit fairer and I think the companies should still come out even.

This is just I thought I had on the whole pricing of video games. I'd be lying if I said I really understood the whole thing as to why some Sellers do the things they do because I don't know a lot about economics. I just find it hard to believe that these companies are ignoring the idea that reducing the price for games is a good thing for everyone involved.

 

[Versuvius]

Shut up Raisin Bran Man and take my money!

Also we do get shafted more for just about every digital product (Like charging 1 pound for every 1 dollar because certain services cannot be arsed to convert it). But, this does not mean our brothers in the US shouldn't complain. Far from it. It just means we from the EU can complain louder. And swear more. Also fuck living on a bastard island where everything is taxed to shittery.

Thank god for Jim.

 

[J.d. Scott]

Here's the thing - there's a point where the consumer's demand and the profits hit the rubber. They have determined based on sales, that $60 is the price point the US market will bear. And realize, while super games make a lot of money, a great deal of other games, while critically acclaimed and good ideas fail to sell. Not ever game makes money, so the bigger titles provide revenue for the publisher.

When you mention "bigger titles", I assume you are referring to games that are well known that the Sellers should know will sell pretty well, such as Diablo, Pokemon and many others. While I see where you are going with this, I still think there is a huge problem with this and it is because of the bigger name games that I have this problem.

You?re implying that the Publishers/Developers of video games should know if the game they are working on will sell well, so they know that they could slap on a $60 price tag and still probably come out even. But the thing I don't quite get is again, why place the price so high? If you know people are going to buy the game as soon as it comes out, you already know that probably covering the production costs of that game should be met in probably a few days or so based on the demand. So why not try to make that pool even bigger by reducing the price? That way, the fans of the game could recommend it to new players who in turn will probably buy the game because it is at a reasonable price. If you get more people to buy the game, that means profit would go up, wouldn't it? Because you already have a base of people you know will buy the game at any given price, just make the price a bit fairer and I think the companies should still come out even.

This is just I thought I had on the whole pricing of video games. I'd be lying if I said I really understood the whole thing as to why some Sellers do the things they do because I don't know a lot about economics. I just find it hard to believe that these companies are ignoring the idea that reducing the price for games is a good thing for everyone involved.

Here's the thing - there's only a limited amount of growth one can get. Eventually, the growth curve and the price curve stop meeting up properly. At $60, 5M copies generates $300M in gross revenue. To get the same at $10, they'd have to sell 30M (and there's a physical cost with each disc, so it's more like 35M...) There's only so many buyers. So many physical machines out there. So many people willing to buy your game, irregardless of price.

And here's the thing - 5M is Modern Warfare 2 - an incredibly, incredibly popular game. People would have bought that game at pretty much whatever price, so there's only so much wiggle room.

 

[AbstractStream]

Wow, I just realized that buying 2-3 new games that were just released cost almost as much as a handheld (talking about the 3DS).

That's...pretty ridiculous. Especially when at least one of them isn't gonna be as great as you hoped.

Yeah, I'm hoping things get better. Way to go, Jim!