Yeah, pretty much that. PC version didn't get shafted this time, that's a first.uppitycracker said:
THQ Using Online Pass for Homefront Multiplayer
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Ehhhh... feels like a slippery slope. What would they be charging for next? It kind of reminds me with what airplanes are doing, sneaking in hidden charges. I think that if they want more money, they should just raise the price of their game instead of doing the sneaky things such as releasing an unfinished game and then making bank on the DLC later, or making you pay for online, etc.
Sorry but no. Publishers need money to pay the developers. The average multiplatform game costs over 30 million to make, and that's not counting ads, commercials, and everything the publisher does to market the game. It's not as draconian as some DRM we've seen on the PC, nor is it as bad as EA's project $10. Buying the game used hurts developers a lot more than it hurts publishers. Publishers generally have more money than developrs as the can affords to pay millions to different developers for multiple projects. So you bought BFBC2 for half price. Why should you get as much content as the gamer who: A) bought it new and is therefore supporting the developers and publishers by making sure that they get money off of their creation, and B) paid twice as much as you did? You gave money to the retailer, %100 of it to retailer, and all they had to do was hand out store credit and place a sticker on the used game case. Most of the time you see a used game trade in and a just released game you'll see a used copy of the same game for five dollars less. Why the hell should the retailer get more money off of the game percentage wise then the developers, publishers, manufacturers, etc?strangeotron said:
Finally! Someone is making sense.strangeotron said:
I don't care, nor should I if THQ (or whoever) makes money from me reselling a game. As a consumer it's not my responsibility. As a consumer I'm not interested in making the company a profit. As a fan I might be, but a lot of people confuse consumer with fan.
The industry, in this example THQ, must maintain their profits, of course. But it's not the consumer that has to take crap like this in order for them to make an extra buck. They need to find a viable business model, not to cry foul because people resell what they bought at a high price, trying to recuperate some of the money.
And as for Baby Teas argument ad infinitum about buying used: you shouldn't care. Don't confuse consumer with fan. The industry (whenever did such a nebulous term become so common?) is not some precious flower that we must care for and nurture. It's a business. That means than when I buy a game I make a transaction with that business. When that is concluded, as a consumer, my involvement ends.
If THQ has a crummy business plan and needs "potential profit" to stay afloat they are doing it wrong. Even if a million people buys the same copy in some huge chain of resells and THQ only made the original sale it's not a loss for THQ. It really isn't. They just failed at doing their job.
As a fan I might want to see a company do well. As a consumer I don't care. And as the industry treats me like crap I have even less incentive to care what happens after I purchase a game.
At this point it would seem things like Online Pass are here to stay, so systems like this one certainly take a more reasonable approach than simply cutting off multiplayer entirely until you fork over that $10, so I can get behind this sort of move. Not that it would have ever impacted me in the first place, it's not like I actually have the option to buy use on the PC, heh.
Also I haven't really been sold on Homefront at all to begin with - what I've seen about the multiplayer sounds interesting but I don't actually buy games for the multiplayer, so I am decidedly on the fence over whether I'll acquire it or not. This move won't be driving me away though!
Also I haven't really been sold on Homefront at all to begin with - what I've seen about the multiplayer sounds interesting but I don't actually buy games for the multiplayer, so I am decidedly on the fence over whether I'll acquire it or not. This move won't be driving me away though!
What the hell are you talking about? I can't buy Homefront second-hand on the PC because nobody sells used PC games anymore, and that has absolutely nothing to do with things like Online Pass - the used PC games market died out years ago when stores started assuming that anyone returning opened software must have copied it, so they would only allow you to exchange things, never return them.strangeotron said:
Online Pass is therefore effectively irrelevant to PC gamers, since we'd be buying it new whether or not they bundle one-use activation codes in the box. As for your assertion that moves like this provide disincentives for buying the game new... that is also crazy talk, the entire point behind such techniques is to make new copies of a title more attractive than the used copies that will start showing up the same week that new copies hit store shelves - it does nothing at all to prevent people from selling the game on, they can and will I'm certain do just that, same as always, because (and this is key here) they're the ones who purchase new games and then sell them back once they've used them.
Seriously, from the perspective of people who always buy new (the ones Gamestop and its ilk rely on to provide the 'initial influx' of games so their glorified pawnshop model works), things like this change nothing. The only people that systems like this impact are the ones who are buying used, and here's a newsflash for you that you apparently don't get despite people telling you it OVER AND OVER:
[HEADING=1]People who purchase games used ARE NOT customers of the publishers that release games.[/HEADING]
THQ doesn't care if a move like this leads to a total dry up of ALL used sales, because when you buy your games used you are not their customer - they didn't receive any money from you, there is no commercial relationship established, you are a NON-ENTITY to them. The only time they make any money is via new sales, or if they can find a way to monetize content that people who've purchased the game used will want to buy.
This is therefore a (fairly reasonable when compared to other implementations) move to make sale of new units more attractive, and potentially make some money from the used segment instead of no money at all from the used segment - unless such a move discourages sale of new copies of their games, they literally cannot lose. All the people inclined to get angry and start talking about how they're never going to buy a game from THQ again, yadda yadda? Those are the folks who aren't buying games from THQ now, because there is no reason to get mad at publishers for moves like this if you were going to pick up a new copy - new customers are not negatively impacted in any way by things like Online Pass. All the sound and fury these news articles generate is effectively irrelevant to the publishers because the complainers aren't their customers.
In case I've been too subtle, I'm strongly implying here that you only care about this because you were never planning on buying the game new, but somehow don't quite grasp that publishers don't care what YOU think because you never buy anything from them - it's the only logical reason to be so upset and/or nonsensical in your arguments.
QFTteh_gunslinger said:
I am always amazed at how many people are willing to line up for a royal reaming from Big Business.
The fact that self-labeled fans seem to think their mental loyalty means anything to large publishers must be some sort of mass delusion. Keep supporting The Man, man and someday you really will be a part of the process. As their fuel source.
(Yes the preceding was hyperbole. I'm trying to make a point.)
Sorry, you said you bought it at half the RRSP. You should've specified whether or not that meant you bought it used. But in your case you have nothing to complain about. The publishers still got some of your money as profit. BFBC2 was a big success selling 6 million in a year, of course it can afford a price drop. But my point still stands. Also price reduction is an ass backwards idea. You have realize that off of a brand new game, only $27 of the $60 goes to publishers. The retailer takes $15. The retailer already takes more than half as much of the $60 than the publisher does. $7 goes to whichever console company it is that owns the console you're buying it for. (Which is why PC games tend to be arounf $10 cheaper than their console counterparts). The rest goes to distrubution and other business aspects. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2068-Project-Ten-Dollar <---this video proves all that.)strangeotron said:
So cutting down costs would be counterproductive for the publishers. They'd make much less off of their games. And the video game industry is too competetive to be not making any money off of your product to be lowering it's costs. So in the used game market when the publisher gets non of the profit when their games get sold, publishers have found a way to get some money off of used game sales. Homefront's model seems to be the best, and most reasonable model for this as opposed to the infamous Project Ten Dollar from EA. By lowering the costs of the games in this market, you put your business at risk. It usually takes $30 Million to make a video game of quality these days. You'd have to sell around 1.1 million to make that back. To lower the costs would mean to increase the difficulty of breaking even. It's already rare to sell 1.1 million copies of a game quickly in the video game market. Knock even $10 of the price and you'd have to know the profit that publishers would make to $17.
Now watch this, and you'll realize that lowering the price is not an option for anyone that isn't a major video game company.
Now at a $17 profit selling around 1.1 million is no longer the break even point.
The would only make the publisher $18,700,000. They would need another $11,300,000 to break even.
They would need to sell another 664,706 (or 664, 705.88 whatever) to break even. That $10 drop in price alone makes the break even point jump from 1.1 million to over 1.76 million sales needed.
Now how many games from smaller companies do you know can sell that much in a reasonable time? Not many. Selling just under two million copies of a game these days without it being an established IP or coming from a reputable company is damn hard. That's why lowering the price of brand new games won't just rise sales.
NO! THEY! DON'T!AzrealMaximillion said:
You seem to be completely mistaken at how retail works. Once the game is on shelves or in shipping warehouses the publishers have been paid. From the wholesalers. Money from retailers is NOT divided up after sale amongst producers of packaged entertainment. If a game goes on sale it's so the store can generate sales from a loss-leader or clear out inventory that is taking up valuable space.
You ever check out Amazon Marketplace or ebay small resellers for slightly older games? Noticed how cheap they are? It's because they got a lot at discount from a wholesaler who needed the space more then they needed a profit from the games. These games are brand new still in the shrink wrap. None of that money goes from the seller to the publisher because the wholesaler bought the games a long time ago.
I agree with strangeotron. If they really are not turning a profit then they are doing it wrong. Since they are still in business I guessing they aren't as destitute as they claim. Expecting customers to pay for each piece that used to be a part of the complete package is pure greed. The masses and the fanboiz will allow this to continue. One out of ignorance the other out of I can only guess insanity.
HAHAHAHA... god you gave me a laugh. No you dont deserve the same content for paying half of what I pay. You are cheap therefore you get the cheapseats.strangeotron said:
I pay more at the theater for better seats. I pay more when I travel for 1st class tickets. I pay $50 for a game and just what I need. You pay $25 and wonder why you dont?
The industry is exactly where it would be without used games sales. No one but brick and mortar make that money and last time I check they dont give any to the Devs or Pubs.
Your opinion is obvious, but that is all it is. Just like mine is just an opinion. I think you are also verging on trolling? Just saying.