I miss my avatar
- Feb 18, 2010
That's capitalism ideas. Democracy is a political system, not an economic systemShamanic Rhythm said:Oh hey, it's this argument again.
To individual consumers, some of them may only be worth that much. Or are you saying you're against free market economics? Funny stance for someone who publishes the game 'Democracy'They create the perception that games are only worth $5 or $10
A bad first week or month can drive a smaller developer out of business. No one who works on the game cares if the publisher puts it on sale come December if a flop in June shut down the studio. If a company release its game at $30, and few people buy it thinking it'll go on sale in a few months, that can lead to layoffs or just one fewer game maker. That's why its a problem.
and walk away from them the moment they run into difficulty, rather than persevering and finishing them.
This complaint does have some merit, but I know I've stopped playing Humble Bundle games or Steam games because I picked them up for dirt cheap in addition for something I actually wanted, got frustrated, and stopped (see most adventure games, most PC racing games, and specifically VVVVVV). I didn't see a reason to continue, or find some artistic theme or point (adventure games more so than the other examples), as I hadn't spent much on the game. If the developer had something to say, I missed it to move on to my back catalog.This one is bullshit. I paid three dollars for Faster Than Light, a 70% discount, and I persevered. I kept playing despite flying ships that never found extra weapons, got boarded by FIVE mantis at once, had a missile knock out my teleported while all my guys were on the enemy ship, etc... why? Because it's a good game.
That said, games do need to be worthy of keeping my attention and time. If I'm looking for excuses to get out of a game (more actively than a gradual interest loss as time goes on), the developers failed.
Yet, your FTL example is interesting. Roguelikes are marketing and designed as incredible challenging games. No one complains when Dark Souls is hard, because its expected. By the same token, FTL has a quick single player. If someone bought it expected a huge story driven narrative and complained, they'd be laughed out of the room for buying it for the wrong reasons. Saying FTL lives up to its promises made in advertising doesn't really help the argument here. A better example would be someone who bought Hotline Miami and quit due to the difficulty. They made have expected the visceral combat (which the steam page advertises), but not the quick deaths or TERRIBLE stealth level. I could easily see someone throwing away the game in disgust during a boss fight or the hospital, missing out on the point and message emphasized in the end game.
They also commodify games,
Well, a developer's a little more likely to rely on the interpretation that games are art more than generic commodities, and could feel a shift of "commodifying" games would only lead to games rolling out like Combo #5, instead of allowing innovation and change in the industry. Part of this could be an over inflated sense of self worth, the other could be trying to legitimize a line of work, and fearing games being turned into commodities just undermines that whole effort.Because we all know right now they're not a commodity. Fascinating.
making purchase decisions about price rather than quality,
While he does pull this stance out of his ass with no supporting evidence, I can see his point. A look at TotalBiscuit's recent SaleBoxes sees him make multiple points that he wouldn't recommend game X at the normal price, but its worth it at heavy discount Y. This does emphasize the price over the quality, and TotalBiscuit is just one (big) personality among many who share that opinion.Again with this straw man. It's about price to quality ratio.
Personally, I believe that in a price/quality ratio, as I don't even want to spend one dollar on a bad game (cough Hydrophobia cough), but I see the quoted view spreading. Just recently, one of my friends (a massive fan of Dark Souls) was talking about how he didn't want to get Dark Souls II because he knew it would be really good (and worth it to him) at $60, but would be even better at $30 in a few months. He didn't care about how much fun he expected to have with the game, but that its price was at $60.
with the knock-off effect of "handing power" to people who run the sales as opposed to those who actually make the games.
I agree with this, especially because Steam's new approach is to give developers/publishers (not sure who controls it, kind of an important distinction) control. However, he still doesn't have enough power to direct his games future, as he is reliant on Steam (or other distributors) giving a spotlight on deals (in featured items or dailies on the front page).And yet he goes on to admit that, presumably because of his own decision, his game has never been discounted below 50%. Sounds like he retains more than enough power.
Overall, I see the Positech guy has a point, but it certainly won't be a popular one. Targeting a charitable organization is just bad form, and he neglects people who can't reliably spend even $30 on a game. I've bought into plenty of series and developers off of a steam sale, looking forward to future games I would have never cared about. It seems that he's deciding to expand on only the negative aspects on deep sales, and his lack of solid data hurts his stance. I'd be interesting to see if Valve or GOG ever release stats on how game sales or general purchase statistics have changed as sales become more regular and standard.