Capo Taco said:
Therumancer said:
I don't like the idea in general. Truthfully with big Russian companies like "1C" I'd imagine they have a fairly healthy gaming market despite some of the claims.
My immediate suspician is that they are justifying what amounts to an experiment in a test market to see if they can get people to pay fees for RTS games at all.
I think this is part of the reason.
If it wasn`t a test bed, they would probably have done the same to areas like Brazil and China, which have similar problems.
But I also think the other side of the coin is true and it makes a lot of economic sense that you want to offer people with less money a cheaper version, while maintaining a higher price for those that have more money. I don`t think 60$ is a high price for the value you get from a blizzard game and I`m betting that this russian model will have a bunch of internetcafes consider the licensed version where they don`t have to get the hacked update after every patch.
If this means more money in activision-blizzard pocket, that is good news!
They will be less likely to divert their energy to world of warcraft or world of starcraft and keep spending energy in making quality strategy games, even though it`s probably 5-15 years before we`ll see the next strategy game from brazil.
Well, my opinion is that I want to see more money in MY pocket.
Right now the gaming industry is big business. Like the casinos I worked for we get contridictory messages. On one hand the game industry is screaming "OMG, we're making monster profits. Growth, growth, growth!" and you see fortunes being dropped to make deritive shooter games. On the other hand the game industry is screaming at the same time "Oh noes, we are losing money, we need to downsize and lay off all these people" (which could just be a ruthless optimization based on a lie).
Given that there certainly isn't any lack of people willing to sling fortunes at the gaming industry to make games (ie for all whining we have not seen anything close to a video game crash), I take all the claims of poverty and "victimization by pirates" with a serious grain of salt. If you want to know how skeptical I am, read some of my back messages where I've argued about how much guys in the industry are doubtlessly making, and then look at some of the articles here on the subject despite the arguements I've gotten (like a fairly recent one cross-posted from Maxim).
Simply put, I'm all for capitolism. The game industry exists to make a profit. I do not begrudge them this, no matter how it might sound at times. I simply feel that at a certain point it goes from making a fair profit, to ridiculous levels of greed, with us (the consumers) being treated as little more than pea-brained money bags with legs. The focus ceases to be on developing new games and technologies that are worthwhile, but increasingly on how to wring every possible penny out of the consumers while having to do very little.
I do not think that Activision/Blizzard needs any more money in their pocket, they are making some serious bank already just with what they are doing. I find the very idea of them experimenting with monthy fees for non-MMORPG video games to be somewhat offensive. What's more if they do succeed, that money is just likely to go into paying themselves higher salaries (increasing development costs further and continueing the cycle).
It's sort of like the whole digital download idea for games. The idea is that if they remove shipping, packaging, etc... from the equasion they can produce games cheaper. That was a good idea when a big part of the focus was on lowering prices to us consumers. However the reality has been that digitally sold games cost the same as physical media ones, and the company pockets the extra money as pure profit. The Escapist ran an article where the guys at "1C" were talking about how much extra they could make via digital download compared to selling physical media (where they were already making a profit). This isn't a socialist "public service" venture, but I think there is definatly room to both lower prices to consumers and increase profits there, but greed means that nothing is being passed on to us.
Now yes, I am perhaps overreacting, but even within a "test market" justified like this article is, I do not like this idea at all. If it works there to any extent, guaranteed it's going to find it's way to other markets.