Now That You're Done Firing Everyone...

[BloodSquirrel]

I disagree. While I accept, that the customer base has only a limited amount of money to spend on games, I don't think that natural selection, "let only the strongest survive" way is for the good of the industry.

Why should lousy developers survive? How is pulling the weight for developers who can't produce games that people want good for the industry?

I'd rather go with symbiosis. You said it too, that people only have a set amount of money to spend on video games. If every studio were to cut the prices, the people could actually buy more games! I think you know, that most people don't actually buy video games because of the price, right? They rather torrent the shit out of them, because they can't or won't afford to buy them. Not everyone can afford to spend $60 on a few hours of entertainment, in reality, most people just won't do it even if they could, because that's a fucking lot of money, even if the feeling of having the original game, the jewel case, the support and the online multiplayer ability is in the price (you don't get those in the pirated copy). If the price of something is greater than the estimated value of that something for the customer, they won't buy it. What the big companies try to do is to balance this by huge marketing campaigns to raise that estimated value to the level of the pricetag. When the dazzled customers buy their shit, then realize they've been had, that doesn't concern the companies anymore, since the customers already did what they've been indoctrinated to do, they payed. Then the scammed customer realizes he is left with a $60 piece of crap, they won't be too happy. They'll try to like it, they'll try to enjoy it, because "Goddamit, I payed $60 for this! I need to like it!", but the damage is done. One thing is for certain, that customer will think twice before buying anything from that company from now on.

Exploitation works only in the short-term. It brings in huge profits on the expense of the customer base. The disillusioned customers will discontinue buying their games, the customer base will shrink, so they need to raise the prices and cut budgets even more to sustain the profits. That only results in shittier and more expensive games, until no one will buy them. It's called hunting/farming to extinction. But symbiosis on the other hand, is maintainable. When there are many good developers releasing good games for an affordable price, the customers can buy many games and every developer will get their share.

You're constructing a fantasy world here, full of unsubstantiated speculation. You're trying to use anecdotal evidence, minus the anecdote actually having happened. There's no evidence that game prices have actually shrunk the market, which in fact by most accounts seems to be growing (minus the current recession).

Take a look at Valve, they had the balls to lower the price of a game by 75% and they still had a fucking 1470% increase in sales on that game alone (according to THIS INTERVIEW). That means that (if I calculated correctly) more than 1100 percent more people bought that single game, than when it was sold at full price! HOLY SHIT! That means the customer/player base grew eleven-fold over the period of the sale. Are you reading this? 11 times more people, who never bought that game before, suddenly decided to pay up. For this, in the middle ages, Valve would've been burned for witchcraft.

Now, based on this, it's not too far fetched to estimate, that if the rest of the publishers would lover their prices by, say, 50%, their revenues would rise by at least 300%, given that the games are of high quality and that people want to play them. And the people do want to play them, because, and now hold onto something, the global piracy rate is above 90%! That means, for every copy sold, there is at least 9 torrented. So the potential customer base is there, obviously. Wouldn't it be rational to lower the prices, so they would be able and willing to buy those games?

You're not analyzing the situation. First off, it was a temporary promotion. Sales will always be concentrated when you have a limited-time offer; that level of sales would not be sustainable for a longer peroid of time. It was also done over the holidays, which is when the industry makes most of it's money anyway. And the revenue numbers don't include retail. In fact, the whole article is full of cherry-picked numbers half-assed finantial analysis. How can you say that brick-and-mortar sales were not affected when you would have no workable baseline (it being the holidays and all)? What about people who simply bought the game now rather than later? What are those % sales increases based off of? A new release that's in it's period of high initial sales or a game that's mostly run it's course and is on it's "slow burn" period? They only thing they've really proved here is that a sale can be a good promotional tool.

How many instances have you heard of where the retail price being cut (which happens with most games within a year or so) has led to more revenue being made than at launch? If Valve was so sure of these numbers, how come they aren't permanently cutting their game prices?

Also, counting pirates as potential customers is an automatic fail. Game companies will never be able to compete with free.

But not just the games, the platforms too. There are huge crowds of people, who really wanna play a certain game, but can't, because they don't own the platform to play it on, like a certain console. Buying a console is a much harder decision than buying a single game. It's very naive to think, that everyone will just go buy the console if they spot a great platform-only game or games. Take me for example. I'd really like to play Heavy Rain when it comes out, but I don't own a PS3. Now, the PS3 console costs a lot, that alone would deter me from buying it, but I don't even have a TV, or a couch for that matter, nor a room to fit all that into. I live in a small apartment, but I do have a brutal gaming rig (for reviewing PC games, that's what I do). Even if I had that kind of money, I simply wouldn't buy all that stuff, because I don't have the free space, and it's too much hassle for one game anyway (there are no other PS3 only titles I really want). Now, I know at least 11 other people who has the exact same problem as me, and God know how many are there around the world. I would, however, most certainly buy the PC version. You see the problem here? Some other people only have a certain console and no gaming PC for example, so they can't play PC-only titles, same predicament but from the other side (I admit, gaming PCs cost more). Now, we are lost revenue to the makers of these games. Even if there are some people who own every gaming platform or willing to buy them, I'm dead certain that there are far too many people who just can't or won't bother buying other platforms for a game or some games.

My solution: why not have only one platform? Let the huge console and PC companies join forces and develop a single, robust system, that is in every way designed to run video games. It will be easy on the customers since they won't need to choose between them and miss the good games on the other platforms (very few people can afford all the platforms nowadays), and far much easier on the developers, since they only need to learn one system to develop to. Alternatively, port every game to every system. I know it's expensive, but if, using the real-life example of Valve above, they price the games to be affordable, they would rake in huge profits regardless.

Horrible idea. Without competition, there will be no drive to improve the system or keep costs low. Even with competition, Sony built a $600 dollar console because they thought they had the market locked. As it is, they're still selling the system at a loss, meaning that without the 360 it would still be selling for $400-$500 dollars. Having one system also shrinks your market tremendously. People want different features from different systems; a lot of Wii owners wouldn't have bought a 360 or a PS3. Many PC gamers (especially ones that don't play that many games) don't want to have to buy a separate system to game on. Trying to force everybody to play one way will simply lead people to walking away.

Also, let's make peace between developers. The more diversity, the more ideas and potential the industry has, the better games could be made. Nowadays, the video game world is shrinking, small studios are bought or shut down by big ones, great ideas and concepts go down the drain, and for what? Market share? Fuck that! Using the above examples, every can get their share, and still be alive and well. More diverse games, more awesome ides and concepts, more happy gamers. Thats symbiosis for you. If you do stuff for the customers and each other, the better the world will become.

I am utterly uninterested in participating in one giant industry group hug. I am, in fact, quite fine with the current arrangement of good developers producing good games that I buy with money.

 

[noiser]

Whatever happen last year all because of recession .Recession directly effect general public . But we have entered in year with thought and its to move on And forget all whatever happened in last year.
Acai Elite Extreme [http://ezinearticles.com/?Acai-Elite-Extreme-Review---Does-it-Work?&id=3435140]

 

[Playbahnosh]

Why should lousy developers survive? How is pulling the weight for developers who can't produce games that people want good for the industry?

First of all, none of the developers today started out as industry leaders. They started out small, every single one of them. The fact, that they got here first, and had time to saturate the market, doesn't give them the right to push everyone else off the table. It shouldn't be "first come, first serve". Small, fledgling developers only have a few people a few good ideas at best. They need time and opportunities to learn and grow, and there is no telling what might become of them, what awesome games they will design one day. The developers, as everyone, learn from their mistakes the most. They need giant flops to realize and then correct problems, refine their ideas and methods in developing games. Just think back to the days when it all started, video games were mostly crap. EVERY major video game company today has games in it's past that embarrassingly backfired, yet here they are, learned from past mistakes, they became good developers. But today small studios are not even given a chance to fail. One failure means going bust, there is no room to learn. It's an unforgiving dog eat dog world now in the video game universe, which is bad.

You're constructing a fantasy world here, full of unsubstantiated speculation. You're trying to use anecdotal evidence, minus the anecdote actually having happened. There's no evidence that game prices have actually shrunk the market, which in fact by most accounts seems to be growing (minus the current recession).

Sure, there is no hard evidence the video game market shrunk, because, as always, "market" means the customer base who actually pays for games. But in reality, the number of people who play video games increased to many, many times over since the last decade. Are you catching my drift? If the people who buy games did stay the same (or grown a little, as you said), but the number of people who play games grew exponentially, that means, they lost most of the growth to piracy. In this regard, compared to the actual number of gamers out there, the paying customer base actually shrunk, considerably.

You're not analyzing the situation. First off, it was a temporary promotion. Sales will always be concentrated when you have a limited-time offer; that level of sales would not be sustainable for a longer peroid of time. It was also done over the holidays, which is when the industry makes most of it's money anyway.

Not sustainable for longer periods of time? Steam begs to differ. They have running sales, almost every day of the week continuosly, the midweek-mayhem, the weekend sales, etc. The holiday sale is just the biggest one, spanning more than half a fucking month. I think thats a longer period of time. Anyway...

And the revenue numbers don't include retail. In fact, the whole article is full of cherry-picked numbers half-assed finantial analysis. How can you say that brick-and-mortar sales were not affected when you would have no workable baseline (it being the holidays and all)?

Seriously, did you even read the interview?! I haven't said those things, Gabe motherfucking Newell did! I couldn't pull those numbers outta my ass, even if I wanted to, because they are so fucking ridiculous (albeit true)! The interview is dated February 19, which is well after the holiday sales, they had ample time to put the numbers together.

What about people who simply bought the game now rather than later? What are those % sales increases based off of? A new release that's in it's period of high initial sales or a game that's mostly run it's course and is on it's "slow burn" period? They only thing they've really proved here is that a sale can be a good promotional tool.

Mr. Newell also mentions the Left 4 Dead 50% off weekend sale, during which the sales of the game increased by 3000%. Three-thousand fucking percent! The sale was in the beginning of February 2009, and the game was released in November 2008, so the initial sale was well in it's high-noon.

How many instances have you heard of where the retail price being cut (which happens with most games within a year or so) has led to more revenue being made than at launch?

At least one, the above L4D sale actually made more than what they got at launch. Also, there is that mysterious third-party game, that made 18,000 percent more during the holiday sale on Steam. If that's not enough evidence, I don't know what is...

If Valve was so sure of these numbers, how come they aren't permanently cutting their game prices?

They are getting there, one step at a time. They started out with small sales, and then came the huge holiday sale. They grew balls of steel and went even for the 90% off. Now they have sales almost every day of the week, all year long. I think it won't take long until they'll start to permanently cut the prices. Just wait and see...

Also, counting pirates as potential customers is an automatic fail. Game companies will never be able to compete with free.

How shortsighted of you. Pirates are customers already (they are playing the games, aren't they?), they are just not paying, for one reason or another. What do you think, where did all those extra (3000% more) customers came from during the sale? Outta thin air? No, the great majority of them are pirates!

As I said, if the price of something is greater than the perceived (estimated) value of that something for the customer, they won't buy it. But there is a way to obtain games other than buying, free but with obvious trade-offs (no jewel case, no online multiplayer, etc). Hence, piracy. It's not a question of competing with "free", it's a question of either raising the perceived value for the customer up to the level of the price tag, or lowering the price to level of the value. The pirated copy is a multiple amputee, an incomplete thing, it only has the game itself, and even that in a very limited working order. In reality, if you want these pirates to actually buy your games, you need to look at the difference between the pirated copy and the legit one, since that's what you are demanding them to pay for. For pirates, when considering to actually buy a game, the perceived value for them is not the whole game itself, but mostly the difference between the pirate copy and the real thing. They can get the game for free, that has no value for them, you want them to pay for the extra features the legit game has over the pirated one. In most of the cases, that's 50% of a game, and a 50% reduction in prices can very well mean that those pirates will actually buy the game.

Horrible idea. Without competition, there will be no drive to improve the system or keep costs low.

What the hell are you talking about? That's a typical capitalist propaganda, and not a single bit true. You are looking at everything from a very narrow, purely financial point of view. Try to think about it this way: without competition, there will be no fighting. No need to over-bid the other systems with pointless features, no need to fight over patents and game licenses or devise elaborate control schemes that are even worse than the old ones...etc. There will be the drive to develop the most advanced and sophisticated, streamlined (no needless or retarded features just for the sake of it), robust and easy to use system they can. Why? Because they want to! Because not everyone is a money-hungry, profit mongering, greedy asshole, that's why. Most of the game developers develop games because they love games, and they want to share their love for these games with others. There are people who actually love to design and engineer stuff, and they want to design the best they can, in this case, the best damn gaming platform there ever was. Why? Because they can and they want to! Progress never stops, just the incentives change...

Having one unified system, that is fully designed to play video games would be awesome in every way. Like I said, much easier on the customers, no need to choose, no need to make sacrifices. You can have all your gaming needs in a single system. Much easier on the developers, since they don't need to learn many different systems and their tools, only one. That would considerably lower development times and resource costs, so there will be more to spend on quality and great ideas.

People want different features from different systems

No. They just don't have one that has them all! What if there was a system, that had every feature you've ever wanted? No need to choose!

Many PC gamers (especially ones that don't play that many games) don't want to have to buy a separate system to game on.

And they don't need to! Ever heard of platform-bridging and backwards compatibility? The best thing in the unified platform, that it's avaliable to everyone. It could be a modular system, that you only need to hook up to your PC and you are all set. Later, the gaming system would be integrated into the future equivalent of PCs. There would be no hassle with different architectures or disks or whatever, all games will be available as digital downloads and an emulator will be built into the system, so you could play your older games, every one of them.

Trying to force everybody to play one way will simply lead people to walking away.

Quite the contrary, it would bring people together. No more console wars, no more PC vs consoles, nothing like that. One unified system, that will have a myriad of peripherals to choose from, you can play your games any way you like, keyboard+mouse, gamepads, wii-motes, whatever. Actually, there will be new control mechanisms designed for the system, that will merge all the great things about these old control schemes into one, streamlined and easy to use device.

I am utterly uninterested in participating in one giant industry group hug. I am, in fact, quite fine with the current arrangement of good developers producing good games that I buy with money.

That's your biggest problem, IMHO. You don't care about progress. Without progress, there can be no life. Instead of trying to protect the status-quo, think about the future. Your future. Everyone's future.