I read this and then looked at your avatar. It fits very well. I think I posted in that guy's thread.Eri said:
Jimquisition: Videogames Are A Luxury
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Some people do, that's something that's impossible to prove if enough forget about a game to lose money, so I'll stick with the fact that the current model works for the companies and the patient. Also you have to look at the other side of the open market pricing sure some games will get priced under $60 but what of games like Zelda, Call of Duty, and Elder Scroll, that have a large enough fan base to say are games worth $100+ and get away with it.mike1921 said:
Games pricing is part of an issue of what economists call "Economic surplus" - basically, to get the maximum profit possible, businesses have to decide how much their product should cost. It's a balancing act - too expensive and not enough people will be willing or able to pay for it, too cheap and the devs won't reap the maximum profit.
So when it comes to games, the devs pick those prices based on how much profit they expect to turn from it. That is why they can get away with charging higher prices for Skyrim or COD - because they know that there are enough people willing to part with the extra cash to justify the higher price. You can't convince a business to go cheaper unless you and everyone else stop buying the games. Then they are basically forced to.
So when it comes to games, the devs pick those prices based on how much profit they expect to turn from it. That is why they can get away with charging higher prices for Skyrim or COD - because they know that there are enough people willing to part with the extra cash to justify the higher price. You can't convince a business to go cheaper unless you and everyone else stop buying the games. Then they are basically forced to.
I'm poor. I have never pirated a game. Waited till the price has fallen, trawled the bargain bins, taken advantage of a sale or bought second hand, but I have never pirated a game.Rabidkitten said:
The same reason that some people want to watch something other than cut price indie flicks and b-movies. Sometimes people want to watch big expensive films with high profile stars and glossy set pieces or special effects. Cut price games are limited a lot by their smaller budgets - which is why there are so many damn 2D, indie platformers these days. Sure, you may get some very good $5 games, but a cheap title will struggle to create something as pretty, atmospheric, and technically proficient as, say, LA Noire. Cheap titles can't deliver everything.rembrandtqeinstein said:
Trust me, I was poor my entire fucking childhood, I know what it feels like, but I never expected much more than books, pencils and paper, and toy cars off my parents, even in my teen years.
Hm, there's one thing... Most luxury goods, those that define the meaning of "luxury" goods - such as luxury cars and airplanes, designer clothing, limited editions of gadgets with gold and diamonds as decorations, jewelery etc.... This stuff usually not expected to sell many millions of copies. Now, if games were priced at at least $500-1000 and not mass produced, I would say they'd be luxury goods.
What I'm trying to tell is that games are unessential goods, but not exactly luxury. The difference is - when it comes to luxury goods price doesn't matter. Even more, the higher the price the better the good is, as they're supposed to reflect owner's wealth. So when someone buys a limited edition golden phone this person likely wouldn't care if he pays 500% the cost, it would actually be welcome - that phone will show others that this person can afford such expensive stuff. The big difference in case of the games is that being unessential yet not luxury they're being subject to scrutiny when it comes to their worth. As in, people actually consider if, say, NeverDead is worth $60 price when it comes to entertainment. They consider how it stacks against other entertainment options.
When you buy a limited edition golden watch people will say "well, you're a really wealthy man". And if you buy Bodycount for $60 people will say "wow, you're an idiot will buy any turd if someone tells him it's good".
What I'm trying to tell is that games are unessential goods, but not exactly luxury. The difference is - when it comes to luxury goods price doesn't matter. Even more, the higher the price the better the good is, as they're supposed to reflect owner's wealth. So when someone buys a limited edition golden phone this person likely wouldn't care if he pays 500% the cost, it would actually be welcome - that phone will show others that this person can afford such expensive stuff. The big difference in case of the games is that being unessential yet not luxury they're being subject to scrutiny when it comes to their worth. As in, people actually consider if, say, NeverDead is worth $60 price when it comes to entertainment. They consider how it stacks against other entertainment options.
When you buy a limited edition golden watch people will say "well, you're a really wealthy man". And if you buy Bodycount for $60 people will say "wow, you're an idiot will buy any turd if someone tells him it's good".
The game industry is too stupid and greedy to make smart decisions in favor of consumers. Basically:
>tell customers not to buy their product over legitimate complaints
>claim video games are a luxury and non-essential to avoid changing practices
>watch profits take a hit when people don't spend what's expected
>blame used games and piracy over poor sales of shitty sequels and games
>treat customers with even less regard
>use more online requirements that will make games unplabyable in 5-20 years without servers online.
They'll never get it, and they'll always blame used games and piracy because admiting problems are their own is bad for shareholders meetings and quarterly reports.
>tell customers not to buy their product over legitimate complaints
>claim video games are a luxury and non-essential to avoid changing practices
>watch profits take a hit when people don't spend what's expected
>blame used games and piracy over poor sales of shitty sequels and games
>treat customers with even less regard
>use more online requirements that will make games unplabyable in 5-20 years without servers online.
They'll never get it, and they'll always blame used games and piracy because admiting problems are their own is bad for shareholders meetings and quarterly reports.
I think going over this thread, it has become really obvious to me that what's causing so many of the troubles with modern AAA gaming is the absurd standards that publishers enact (I know that seems obvious, bear with me).
From what I can see, although publishers slowly and eventually lower the prices of new games to accommodate incrementally lower-income markets, this doesn't matter in the big picture as they consider the failure/success of a game and its developer within the first week-month of sales. Hell, entire studios have been canned due to a low number of pre-order and first week sales!
It almost creates the perception that the only way to support the developers is to pre-order or buy it within the first month at $60. This is bizarro logic by the publishers where they're considering a $20-40 new game sale to reflect the value of the game the developer made, not the fact that some people can only find the purchase financially feasible at that price point. IMHO, they could do the whole industry a favor by not acting so "do or die" on the immediate and highest initial bang and consider the figures for awhile as they reach the wider consumer base through price drops.
Concerning the video game crash of the 80s, a main contributor to the problem was the lack of widespread internet and magazines/other media dedicated solely to the medium. Back then, a game purchase was a gamble where you could only look at the box art, or see if it was a license you already enjoyed (Star Wars, E.T.). Atari and others knew this, and did a lot of their planning based on the idea of "Well, millions of people saw E.T. in the cinema, so we can expect millions to see E.T. on the game box and buy it on that premise alone". Reviewers, magazines, and websites have done a lot to mitigate that problem (for better or worse), as crap shovelware is called out on it practically before its released.
Sorry for the wall of text, I suppose I had a lot to say about this : )
From what I can see, although publishers slowly and eventually lower the prices of new games to accommodate incrementally lower-income markets, this doesn't matter in the big picture as they consider the failure/success of a game and its developer within the first week-month of sales. Hell, entire studios have been canned due to a low number of pre-order and first week sales!
It almost creates the perception that the only way to support the developers is to pre-order or buy it within the first month at $60. This is bizarro logic by the publishers where they're considering a $20-40 new game sale to reflect the value of the game the developer made, not the fact that some people can only find the purchase financially feasible at that price point. IMHO, they could do the whole industry a favor by not acting so "do or die" on the immediate and highest initial bang and consider the figures for awhile as they reach the wider consumer base through price drops.
Concerning the video game crash of the 80s, a main contributor to the problem was the lack of widespread internet and magazines/other media dedicated solely to the medium. Back then, a game purchase was a gamble where you could only look at the box art, or see if it was a license you already enjoyed (Star Wars, E.T.). Atari and others knew this, and did a lot of their planning based on the idea of "Well, millions of people saw E.T. in the cinema, so we can expect millions to see E.T. on the game box and buy it on that premise alone". Reviewers, magazines, and websites have done a lot to mitigate that problem (for better or worse), as crap shovelware is called out on it practically before its released.
Sorry for the wall of text, I suppose I had a lot to say about this : )
I think the point of this week's episode has been somewhat missed. I don't think he was really banging on so much about the price of games as he was the industry's bewilderment at people waiting to buy used or looking to get things on sale. I can see how Jim can complain so much about this - I too live on trade-in credit., but today's AAA publishers only see day-one sales on new games, and are utterly baffled as to why their game isn't selling as well as it could.
Yes, games are a luxury. I have entirely too many bills and rent to even think about getting most games on release. Diablo III comes out tonight and I've been looking forward to it for years. Do you think I'll be getting it at midnight? No. I'll be finishing some games I don't mind parting with and trading them in. Today's gaming market would tell me "fuck you, poor person! You'd best stick to your basic cable and old games." If publishers had their way, I wouldn't be able to do that.
The point is, times are tough and money is tight. The game industry is suffering right now and that's exactly why they are cracking down on used sales. It frustrates me, but part of me has to see why they are doing it. But I've always utilized trade credit, and every GameStop I go to is packed full of used games, so a whole lot of other people must be doing it too. Something has got to change between publishers and consumers, but something tells me next generation's games will be priced even higher than they are now.
Yes, games are a luxury. I have entirely too many bills and rent to even think about getting most games on release. Diablo III comes out tonight and I've been looking forward to it for years. Do you think I'll be getting it at midnight? No. I'll be finishing some games I don't mind parting with and trading them in. Today's gaming market would tell me "fuck you, poor person! You'd best stick to your basic cable and old games." If publishers had their way, I wouldn't be able to do that.
The point is, times are tough and money is tight. The game industry is suffering right now and that's exactly why they are cracking down on used sales. It frustrates me, but part of me has to see why they are doing it. But I've always utilized trade credit, and every GameStop I go to is packed full of used games, so a whole lot of other people must be doing it too. Something has got to change between publishers and consumers, but something tells me next generation's games will be priced even higher than they are now.
The accompanying visuals to the monologues are getting more and more tangential. The hilariously awful doodles and Photoshops are more amusing to watch, more relevant to what's actually being said, and much more personal than random, unremarkable game footage.
That's using your noodle. It always helps to know or at least have a reasonable guess as to what the target population is going to be. So like any ODE looking into previous trends, making a call on the median k(arry) value... is all a part of the fun. Stuff you mentioned such as a reduction to the pool, interest levels, so on and so forth entail a multivariate dimension to the problem.mike1921 said:
Addressing it is normally the offset by including some gimmick or collectible, data is collected using reservation information, advertisements, optional DLC, running specials or deals helps rekindle interest. Of course, people vote the wallet, so price dumps always spark an interest. Once the price gets low enough traditionally even a crap thing will sell like gangbusters. So... there we are. The trick is figuring the schedule on it.
This is pretty critical especially if one only has the one thing to sell. Like anything though, it is an extrapolation... which is fancy word of educated guess, which is a fancy way of saying a guess. As time rolls on the new data will have the changes in the trends and the price will be structured accordingly, closer to interpolation.
Folks that are slow with the math get an all expense paid trip to bankruptcy. So, market forces do what they do... sort the wheat from the chaff. Then again there are always those pesky "black swans" such as Day Z for Arma II mod. Now Arma is selling again, but it has nothing to do with Bohemia Interactive being innovative or courting its audience. It has EVERYTHING to do with a fan kicking out a freebie...
As far as Team Bodi... whatever they were called, I read/heard bad management and a lack of a skeletal rigger which crippled the production of L.A. Noire. The first one is not here or there, the second was clearly a lack of a professional for the position.
Shit like that is hard for marketing people to get their itty biddy little heads around. A) A typical business management degree rarely ever goes past Calculus 1 (if that), and multivariate Calculus isn't introduced till Calc II. B) Typically they are very poorly educated as to what it is they are actually selling... ahh the list is endless. If I had to call it one way or the other it is a pretty piss poor approach to management of transmedia. It will be interesting to watch going forward how much a negative audience reaction lingers and contaminates other products.
Bottom line... it's whatever the market will bare. Right now it seems to hold 60 clams to 80 clams per unit. To go any further with a discussion really would need to "see" the numbers... but real information is rarely offered up. If it gets into a free fall it could be a boon for the independent who can offer a product for a lot less money... Corporate recession always opens up some profit avenues for a smaller more nimble business model.
Thing is, larger publishers are already keenly aware of the situation and are quickly, methodically positioning themselves to act as distributors. So the peanut gallery is going to be just that.
If ya don't like it, don't buy it. As far as games go, there are thousands available for next to nothing... sure it's not the hot new thing... but they still exist. So luxury item... eh, I dunno about that. Outside of some crappy plastic toy and an art book, they are not even collectible much anymore. It's like the fake economy... a bubble... now will it burst?
Me: Oh no I can't afford this game. Game companies should lower their prices!
Game Company: No! Games are a luxury, if you can't afford said luxury then don't buy the game!
Me: Oh, ok I guess that's true. Oh hey look a copy for 10 bucks on ebay!
Game Company: Oh noes! We've gone bust because no one bought out game, don't buy used, it's killing the industry!
Think about it game companies!
Game Company: No! Games are a luxury, if you can't afford said luxury then don't buy the game!
Me: Oh, ok I guess that's true. Oh hey look a copy for 10 bucks on ebay!
Game Company: Oh noes! We've gone bust because no one bought out game, don't buy used, it's killing the industry!
Think about it game companies!
That's it Jim, the point isn't mainly that people are whining just because they can't afford every new game that's coming out. It's that the industry is trying to kill one of the more viable sources for obtaining legal copies of their games.
I work two jobs and still can't readily afford games until they hit a nice sale or come down on used price after trading in other games. But, I don't think I'm killing the market by buying used games no matter how publishers whine and bemoan that I am. Some of those used games turned into New Game sales when part two of the series rolled around. Publishers need to back off because the gaming market is supported by everyone, not just people who can buy day one sales.
I work two jobs and still can't readily afford games until they hit a nice sale or come down on used price after trading in other games. But, I don't think I'm killing the market by buying used games no matter how publishers whine and bemoan that I am. Some of those used games turned into New Game sales when part two of the series rolled around. Publishers need to back off because the gaming market is supported by everyone, not just people who can buy day one sales.