Obsidian: Forget "Gimmicks" Like On-Disc DLC
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Sorry, but I don't do three-ways.DustyDrB said:Hey...can we make this a three way high-five?Irridium said:CM156 said:
HEYOO!
But really, sure. High five for you too, DustyDrB!
OT: I gotta say, NWN2, MotB is my favorite game of all time. And Fallout NV is in the top twenty, at least. Maybe even the top ten. Things like this make me happy to buy from you guys. It's good PR, to say the least
Yes. All I said was that in my social sphere of lower to middle class 17 to 21 year olds, nobody talks about trading in games. It wasn't supposed to be a global statement.Baldr said:Did you not read this article:violinist1129 said:I don't really hear of people trading in games very often. Granted, most of my friends play on PC through Steam/OnLive where it's impossible to trade in, but even with my console playing comrades, it seems like they keep just about all of their games if they have any aspect of replayability or multiplayer as long as it isn't total crap.Baldr said:
Personally, I have played through NV 5 times for over 200 hours with only one crash, so I'm willing to agree with just about anything this guy says
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/114009-56-of-American-Gamers-Dont-Buy-Games
I'm sure that'll keep you warm at night when no matter how hard you try people eventually get tired with it and trade it in.
I like this but I don't think "design better" is ever going to fix everything. Games have finite entertainment values, its not something you can out-design, its a universal constant. You can never be good enough that there won't be a trade-in market. That's compounded by the fact that the notion of "good" has become a nebulous monster that everyone seems to condemn games that fail of being. It's like people just believe if games were somehow designed better everything would be sunshine and rainbows and nobody knows how to get to better or what better looks like. I mind as well say that the game industry will be saved when we find the white lepricons at the bottom of the Oceania for all it seems to mean.
I like this but I don't think "design better" is ever going to fix everything. Games have finite entertainment values, its not something you can out-design, its a universal constant. You can never be good enough that there won't be a trade-in market. That's compounded by the fact that the notion of "good" has become a nebulous monster that everyone seems to condemn games that fail of being. It's like people just believe if games were somehow designed better everything would be sunshine and rainbows and nobody knows how to get to better or what better looks like. I mind as well say that the game industry will be saved when we find the white lepricons at the bottom of the Oceania for all it seems to mean.
You don't play dark side and put it back on the shelf to play light side. You play dark side then immediately start again as light side, then trade it in. Well that's what I did anyway. I ended up buying both kotors back again on PC 6 years later but it was still the cheapest way to do it. These days I keep everything cos im so far behind the that my the time I finish a game its only worth about £2 trade value.
*Checks $20 in Pounds*Irridium said:
Jesus that's pretty low, god dammit. If it's that cheap I will definitely buy from Steam over Christmas.
Move over, make room for the new industry good guy.
Never would have figured Obsidian for that, but hey when your entire competition seems intent on turning on their customers like rabid dogs to squeeze out every last penny they can then saying you just want to make good games wins you the top spot.
I don't get rid of games anyway, but I have to admit almost all Obsidian titles I own have been dusted off and replayed from time to time.
Never would have figured Obsidian for that, but hey when your entire competition seems intent on turning on their customers like rabid dogs to squeeze out every last penny they can then saying you just want to make good games wins you the top spot.
I don't get rid of games anyway, but I have to admit almost all Obsidian titles I own have been dusted off and replayed from time to time.
Don't go jumping the gun there buddy. We all know the rest of the world gets screwed over price wise. That's for 'marry cans only, maybe some Canadins too.CardinalPiggles said:
That's cause England and Wales are pretty much states these days, no wonder Scotland and N. Ireland want out.Irridium said:
Kidding, of course, maybe. I think I am?
Nah, I'm just making fun of what has pretty much become a standard response these days when price comes up. The rest of the world chimes in with their prices and tells everyone they can't complain because they pay more.
It's a sentiment I can agree with: Make more satisfying classic games that people would be willing to pick up and enjoy again later, and you will see more hard-sales (and less trade-ins).
This logic works, so why aren't more Publishers adopting it?
Because the Publisher suits are (primarily) concerned with two things:
1) Profits (duh)
2) Market control (Or Controlling market behavior. YOUR behavior, specifically)
Profit-margins come first, and is the focus of their short-term strategy. Business 101.
While the publishers don't want their customers trading their games in (it exposes their revenue to the effects of arbitrage), they also don't want them content just playing those games unless they're willing to pay for it. (Enter: DLC).
So, the publishers will commission their developer minions to craft relatively short and flashy games: Good enough to remember so the inevitable sequel does well, but short enough to ensure it doesn't tread on other games they publish, especially the sequels and DLC for that franchise.
Call it "economic pacing" and know that it's a form of market conditioning.
By keeping their market share stuck in this loop, they can milk them for more cash. It's smart business.
This is why we don't get very many "Instant Classics" anymore from AAA gaming; only sequels and their DLC.
Tangentially: This is also, as I've come to realize, why there are so many Bethesda fanboys (who at this point have probably jizzed themselves dry. being this close to Skyrim's launch). As much as I hated my experiences with Oblivion and Fallout 3 (for technical reasons), those games are bloody HUGE and they lend themselves towards further expansion.
It's why you hear about people playing them to this day, yet nobody is going to spare a thought to Call of Duty 4.0; I mean, why bother with that game when you have Black Ops, and Modern Wankery 3 is just around the corner? But I digress...
Thus, things have changed: From the suits' perspective, they don't want "satisfied" customers anymore; they want "addicted" customers instead, because addicts are NEVER truly satisfied. Addicts will continue to spend and spend on the same regurgitated crap, year after year, sequel after sequel.
And that makes them more money in the long-term. "Satisfying" doesn't look so popular in comparison.
ASIDE: If you treat gaming (or any creative medium) purely as a business, then this is what you get: a stagnant factory-line stamping out sequel after sequel while demanding more and more of the player's money for the same stuff.
I cannot accept the oft-repeated "Capitalism/Profit" cop-out argument, because of this: From my perspective (and many other gamers') I just want some satisfaction and believe me, I'm willing to pay for it.
...But I'm not willing to get stuck in this dirty cycle of economic entrapment and psychological conditioning.
[sub]I will be shocked if anyone has the patience to read through that mess.[/sub]
This logic works, so why aren't more Publishers adopting it?
Because the Publisher suits are (primarily) concerned with two things:
1) Profits (duh)
2) Market control (Or Controlling market behavior. YOUR behavior, specifically)
Profit-margins come first, and is the focus of their short-term strategy. Business 101.
While the publishers don't want their customers trading their games in (it exposes their revenue to the effects of arbitrage), they also don't want them content just playing those games unless they're willing to pay for it. (Enter: DLC).
So, the publishers will commission their developer minions to craft relatively short and flashy games: Good enough to remember so the inevitable sequel does well, but short enough to ensure it doesn't tread on other games they publish, especially the sequels and DLC for that franchise.
Call it "economic pacing" and know that it's a form of market conditioning.
By keeping their market share stuck in this loop, they can milk them for more cash. It's smart business.
This is why we don't get very many "Instant Classics" anymore from AAA gaming; only sequels and their DLC.
Tangentially: This is also, as I've come to realize, why there are so many Bethesda fanboys (who at this point have probably jizzed themselves dry. being this close to Skyrim's launch). As much as I hated my experiences with Oblivion and Fallout 3 (for technical reasons), those games are bloody HUGE and they lend themselves towards further expansion.
It's why you hear about people playing them to this day, yet nobody is going to spare a thought to Call of Duty 4.0; I mean, why bother with that game when you have Black Ops, and Modern Wankery 3 is just around the corner? But I digress...
Thus, things have changed: From the suits' perspective, they don't want "satisfied" customers anymore; they want "addicted" customers instead, because addicts are NEVER truly satisfied. Addicts will continue to spend and spend on the same regurgitated crap, year after year, sequel after sequel.
And that makes them more money in the long-term. "Satisfying" doesn't look so popular in comparison.
ASIDE: If you treat gaming (or any creative medium) purely as a business, then this is what you get: a stagnant factory-line stamping out sequel after sequel while demanding more and more of the player's money for the same stuff.
I cannot accept the oft-repeated "Capitalism/Profit" cop-out argument, because of this: From my perspective (and many other gamers') I just want some satisfaction and believe me, I'm willing to pay for it.
...But I'm not willing to get stuck in this dirty cycle of economic entrapment and psychological conditioning.
[sub]I will be shocked if anyone has the patience to read through that mess.[/sub]
It's an interesting marketing situation that the publishers are caught in:
On one hand they want to sell you a new iteration of the same game every year, to keep their monies rolling in.
But also they want you to keep playing that game for the maximum length of time so you won't trade it in and enable second-hand sales.
It's a tight line.
[EDIT]
Project $10 is not DRM, but it's from the same family of business practices- that of coercing the customer into a pattern of behaviour rather than enticing them. The prospect of buying a game and then being told I have to pay another $10 to unlock it fully is concerning, especially as I doubt 2nd-hand vendors will be forthcoming with this information.
Feargus Arquhart should be applauded for pointing out the obvious: if you make good games, people will buy them and treasure them, and want to buy more from you. I'm glad that someone in the gaming industry has sense.
On one hand they want to sell you a new iteration of the same game every year, to keep their monies rolling in.
But also they want you to keep playing that game for the maximum length of time so you won't trade it in and enable second-hand sales.
It's a tight line.
[EDIT]
Project $10 is not DRM, but it's from the same family of business practices- that of coercing the customer into a pattern of behaviour rather than enticing them. The prospect of buying a game and then being told I have to pay another $10 to unlock it fully is concerning, especially as I doubt 2nd-hand vendors will be forthcoming with this information.
Feargus Arquhart should be applauded for pointing out the obvious: if you make good games, people will buy them and treasure them, and want to buy more from you. I'm glad that someone in the gaming industry has sense.
I hate to be a tiny bit sarcastic here, especially since I did like KotOR 2, but when he speaks of dropping gimmicks, like on-disc DLC, I wish someone would mention that in exchange for that, they might want to actually FINISH the game in mention and not have a stiched-together end-game, along with a whole entire missing planet, for instance.
Or leaving the work process to mod developers is the gimmick they prefer instead?
Or leaving the work process to mod developers is the gimmick they prefer instead?
Personally, I find this remark somewhat unfair.
Why? well, let me put it this way, is Obsidian (like every developer I know aside somewhat from Bioware, Bethesda and Lionhead Studio) forgetting, or simply not acknowledging, that not all current gen console players can connect their consoles online?
What do you expect us 360 and PS3 users that can't connect to do, Obsidian? psychically teleport DLC packs into our consoles with our minds?
On-disc DLC packs, in my opinion, play nearly as big a role as physical copies of the actual game. I still don't get how it's gimmicky when games like Fallout New Vegas have their replayability strongly enhanced by additional content
And isn't it hypocrtical to say that when you're releasing an 'Ultimate Edition' of New Vegas that includes all DLC packs?
Why? well, let me put it this way, is Obsidian (like every developer I know aside somewhat from Bioware, Bethesda and Lionhead Studio) forgetting, or simply not acknowledging, that not all current gen console players can connect their consoles online?
What do you expect us 360 and PS3 users that can't connect to do, Obsidian? psychically teleport DLC packs into our consoles with our minds?
On-disc DLC packs, in my opinion, play nearly as big a role as physical copies of the actual game. I still don't get how it's gimmicky when games like Fallout New Vegas have their replayability strongly enhanced by additional content
And isn't it hypocrtical to say that when you're releasing an 'Ultimate Edition' of New Vegas that includes all DLC packs?