Not Greedy, Just Clueless
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
You know when you did the combo meal analogy all I could wonder is why don't companies offer DLC for free when you buy a new game. Then I thought... oh wait Valve already does that (or did that) with Team Fortress 2. You bought the game and then they kept expanding on it for free. You basically felt like you got the best value in the world. And once that system started to dwindle they switched it to F2P with hats.
Why don't more companies do stuff like this? From my limited knowledge of games sells the best way for a developer and publisher to get money is when you buy a game new. They get more of the profit and if you buy it from their service (Origin, Steam and the like) they get a much bigger share. So why not offer any existing and future DLC free when you buy new from their service? And whenever new DLC comes out for a game just drop the price of a game by just a small fraction so people think they are getting a better deal.
It seems like people would buy the thing in droves when it first comes out on your service. And then every time a new DLC pack would come out you would experience a small bump in sales.
I don't know how well this would work, but it seems a better idea then selling everything piecemeal. I mean I love Bioware games but I NEVER buy them new anymore. I wait until the price drops by a whole lot so that I can use that extra money to buy the DLC. And even then I rarely buy all the DLC. So it used to be I would buy a Bioware game for 60 bucks. But now EA is lucky if I pay them 30 bucks to play a Bioware game.
Why don't more companies do stuff like this? From my limited knowledge of games sells the best way for a developer and publisher to get money is when you buy a game new. They get more of the profit and if you buy it from their service (Origin, Steam and the like) they get a much bigger share. So why not offer any existing and future DLC free when you buy new from their service? And whenever new DLC comes out for a game just drop the price of a game by just a small fraction so people think they are getting a better deal.
It seems like people would buy the thing in droves when it first comes out on your service. And then every time a new DLC pack would come out you would experience a small bump in sales.
I don't know how well this would work, but it seems a better idea then selling everything piecemeal. I mean I love Bioware games but I NEVER buy them new anymore. I wait until the price drops by a whole lot so that I can use that extra money to buy the DLC. And even then I rarely buy all the DLC. So it used to be I would buy a Bioware game for 60 bucks. But now EA is lucky if I pay them 30 bucks to play a Bioware game.
I wouldn't say they're less transparent, I'd say they're better about keeping their needs out of the way of players' experiences. As the article said, the perception of being satisfied/ripped off is a powerful thing; with EA&others on one hand you have always-online DRM, and/or hidden malware-like measures such as securom, that are only 'out of the way' until the moment they decide to pop up, wreck your machine, disable your antivirus, etc. With Valve on the other side, the controls and measures are upfront but unintrusive, while using the limited-window sales to give an incentive to impulse buy in exchange for amazing prices.albino boo said:
I was literally seconds from launching a bile-spewing raging response at this before it finally clicked this was a joke >_<. Been reading too much EA-spammer/apologist rhetoric recently I guess.hentropy said:
Then again, I should have known better something was up the second I saw your avatar.
They have done exactly the same thing as EA. They sold a game with microtransactions that enabled you to gets items at quicker pace than you could have done by scraping unwanted items and crafting.zinho73 said:
I was referring to that fact that EA have to publish there figures but Valve as an LLC doesn't have to. Also Steam and origin work in exactly the same fashion, the only difference is that origin has less social network features.MoltenSilver said:
yes. I loved the value meal comparison, it's very apt.
And the entire article was just fantastic.
And the entire article was just fantastic.
That analogy with the fast food restaurant leaves a bit to be desired; EA would introduce Napkins with their new kind of Food which is a combination of Spaghetti and tacos.
And with EA, i'd fear that they would devise new way to make it more and more difficult to eat their food without dousing my entire shirt in sauce in order to sell more napkins.
And i'd probably be right.
So EA isn't extragreedy and despises the Customerbase, they're merely inept. And have been for two decades now.
At this Point, what does it matter?
The Probability that you buy a Product from EA and find something in it that might be rather unfortunately implementet or whatever you want to call it is very high.
Most product from EA will have something rather undesireable in it. People should get tired of this enduring ineptitude, if it isn't a deep hatred for their customers.
Buying games from EA isn't a very good Investment. Regardless of the Reasons you think EA has for doing what they're doing, you should stop keeping them afloat.
And with EA, i'd fear that they would devise new way to make it more and more difficult to eat their food without dousing my entire shirt in sauce in order to sell more napkins.
And i'd probably be right.
So EA isn't extragreedy and despises the Customerbase, they're merely inept. And have been for two decades now.
At this Point, what does it matter?
The Probability that you buy a Product from EA and find something in it that might be rather unfortunately implementet or whatever you want to call it is very high.
Most product from EA will have something rather undesireable in it. People should get tired of this enduring ineptitude, if it isn't a deep hatred for their customers.
Buying games from EA isn't a very good Investment. Regardless of the Reasons you think EA has for doing what they're doing, you should stop keeping them afloat.
I still think it's greed, or rather, the quest for absolute control over their information.
But it's also "cluelessness" in the sense that if they weren't chasing absolute control, they could make more money and secure more trust from their paying customers.
Consider the goals from the publisher's side of things: EA (and Blizzard) is trying to train the market into accepting Always-Online DRM, just as Steam trained users to accept Online-DRM before them.
The rest of the groundwork is laid already...price-gouging DLC on a drip-line, near-free self-advertisement on a closed system, even the threat of loss to encourage users to stay attached to the system. The one remaining key to total-control is getting the market to accept Always-Online DRM.
I could do a whole treatise on the matter of control, and how consumers have been ceding control (both practically and legally) to publishers in the last decade, but I'll just leave it at that.
But it's also "cluelessness" in the sense that if they weren't chasing absolute control, they could make more money and secure more trust from their paying customers.
Consider the goals from the publisher's side of things: EA (and Blizzard) is trying to train the market into accepting Always-Online DRM, just as Steam trained users to accept Online-DRM before them.
The rest of the groundwork is laid already...price-gouging DLC on a drip-line, near-free self-advertisement on a closed system, even the threat of loss to encourage users to stay attached to the system. The one remaining key to total-control is getting the market to accept Always-Online DRM.
I could do a whole treatise on the matter of control, and how consumers have been ceding control (both practically and legally) to publishers in the last decade, but I'll just leave it at that.
I think several people in this thread are missing the point. When EA nickle and dime you you feel cheated, because EA makes no attempt to disguise their contempt for their customers. On the other hand, when Valve nickle and dime you, you feel like you have received a series of bargains because Valve's publicity is not run by a bunch of drooling morons.
Well, you did make me interested... But the fact that steam is easily put up with by most people is probably telling enough.Atmos Duality said:
Still, I'd kind of like to hear a bit more about how 'consumers have been ceding control (both practically and legally) to publishers in the last decade.'
This is true so much.
I actually really like the new season pass model.
Dlc's sucks, but it's something that won't go away and while i pay for something that i actually don't get right away, what i do get and like is the feeling of having the complete game, no matter what the developer is going to make in dlc in the future, i will always have the complete game.
Although it's not really important nowadays, because i never buy AAA games on release anymore.60 bucks for 8 hours of fun is just not worth it.
I actually really like the new season pass model.
Dlc's sucks, but it's something that won't go away and while i pay for something that i actually don't get right away, what i do get and like is the feeling of having the complete game, no matter what the developer is going to make in dlc in the future, i will always have the complete game.
Although it's not really important nowadays, because i never buy AAA games on release anymore.60 bucks for 8 hours of fun is just not worth it.
Well this is little solace.
This just means our foe is Wheatley rather than SHODAN.
Arguably malice would be preferable, you can make a deal with the devil to avoid mutually assured destruction, but an idiot will drive the flaming train right off the cliff at full speed, adamant that they are doing the right thing even as they plunge everyone to their doom.
They have no TV ads, no magazine ads, no internet banner ads, no pre-roll ads.
They depend almost entirely on their reputation spreading by word of mouth. They have a website where they promote things and fun youtube videos but you have to seek them out. Their "meet the team" videos entirely depended on everyone who would watch them to track them down.
Steam didn't buy their reputation from a marketing firm to be artificially created...
... they earned it.
This just means our foe is Wheatley rather than SHODAN.
Arguably malice would be preferable, you can make a deal with the devil to avoid mutually assured destruction, but an idiot will drive the flaming train right off the cliff at full speed, adamant that they are doing the right thing even as they plunge everyone to their doom.
Steam wasn't the first to offer games they sell for download and they in fact have NO marketing.hentropy said:
They have no TV ads, no magazine ads, no internet banner ads, no pre-roll ads.
They depend almost entirely on their reputation spreading by word of mouth. They have a website where they promote things and fun youtube videos but you have to seek them out. Their "meet the team" videos entirely depended on everyone who would watch them to track them down.
Steam didn't buy their reputation from a marketing firm to be artificially created...
... they earned it.
Except that if anyone in the gaming industry (be it a company or a fan) should have learned anything by now, it's that scorn from gamers doesn't mean jack squat. Gamers will ***** to no ends about something they heard a new game is going to do, then make it a best seller when it comes out anyway. EA could have delayed Sim City for months if they needed to, it would have had minimal impact on their initial sales. In fact, arguably it would have helped their sales, since I'm sure that there are tons of people who specifically aren't buying Sim City because of the server issues. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. They stand to lose customers either way, but they opted for the option that will make it harder to win them back in the future.Thunderous Cacophony said:
But then it's painfully obvious that the whole game is going to cost you $120 ($60 + $60) and the last half is for the smallest little things.Amaror said:
Games generally cost less than movies to make, so WHY DO PUBLISHERS WANT TO CHARGE x15 AS MUCH!!?!?
It's like a person who sells water from a well trying to convince ten-in-a-thousand to pay $100 for a measly glass of water while another 1000 go thirsty, rather than just charging $1 each to the 1100.
It's madness when Publishers have an infinite supply of product, they can make as many copies of their game as they like.
$60 base price may not have increased much over the years. But when you got a $60 game it was expected to be a major purchase, now single-player games are usually so short with little to no replay value. Very few have any multiplayer that will hold the critical number of people to have a sustainable community. Once the number of players dips below a certain level, then those who are still playing find it harder and harder to get a match... so less play it... making it harder to get a match.
The price is wrong. Steam sale prices, those are right. Gog's multibuy deals, those are right.
Bioshock Infinite had been in development since 2007... even then the fans were understanding that they kept delaying it.Thunderous Cacophony said:
All the jokes about Half Life 3's delays are that... jokes. Generally the fans-base is supportive of the time and effort Valve put into things.
What they are mad at is when a game is delayed by years and is still terrible and the developers listened to none of the warnings.