Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

328 Comments

Heavy Rain Developer Thinks Games Are Too Expensive, Is Annoyed More People Didn't Buy His Expensive Game

Quantic Dream co-founder Guillaume de Fondaumiere believes more than a million people played used copies of Heavy Rain.

The etymology of the idiomatic phrase "to have one's cake, and eat it too" can be traced all the way back to 1546 and English writer John Heywood, who, in his multi-volume work A dialogue Conteinyng the Nomber in Effect of All the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue, wrote, "wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?" The meaning, of course, pertains to the notion of one wishing to consume one's cake, while hoping to maintain the steady ownership of the aforementioned cake, post-consumption, a scolding question posed to those who, when faced with a one-or-the-other choice, demand to have things both ways.

Quantic Dream developer Guillaume de Fondaumiere, declaring that the price of games is
Quantic Dream developer Guillaume de Fondaumiere, declaring that the price of games is "too damn high!"

A number of variations on this phrase have appeared over the years, from the Italian expression "vuoi la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca" ("you want your bottle full of wine and your wife drunk"), to the famous YouTube philosopher Debbie whose love of felines spawned the phrase "You can't hug every cat," and now Quantic Dream developer Guillaume de Fondaumiere, with his own spin on the old idiom that goes, "Video games are too expensive, but I want people to buy my expensive video games new."

I'm paraphrasing, of course. Specifically, I'm paraphrasing de Fondaumiere's comments to GameIndustry.biz (quoted accordingly in non-registered form by Eurogamer), in which he laments the fact that out of the roughly three million players who registered online trophies in his company's PS3-exclusive mystery thriller Heavy Rain, only two million of them actually bought the game new.

"We basically sold to date approximately two million units. We know from the Trophy system that probably more than three million people bought this game and played it.

On my small level it's a million people playing my game without giving me one cent. And my calculation is, as Quantic Dream, I lost between €5 and €10 million worth of royalties because of second-hand gaming."

While de Fondaumiere's math seems a bit...fuzzy, he is probably not incorrect in assuming that a number of players did opt to pick up used copies of Heavy Rain, or borrow copies from friends. Story-based games unfocused on multiplayer have traditionally been the biggest sellers in the used market, given most players' reluctance to hold onto games that don't contain traditional methods of replay value.

Ultimately, de Fondaumiere believes the issue is that games are simply too expensive, thus driving players to the used market, like poverty stricken peasants desperate to attain the luxuries afforded the upper class.

"I've always said that games are probably too expensive, so there's probably a right level here to find, and we need to discuss this all together and try to find a way to reconcile consumer expectations, retail expectations and also the expectations of the publisher and the developers to make this business a worthwhile business."

But, at the moment, "we're basically all shooting ourselves in the foot", he declared.

"Because when developers and publishers alike are going to see that they can't make a living out of producing games that are sold through retail channels, because of second-hand gaming, they will simply stop making these games," he said, or move exclusively online.

The basic idea of what de Fondaumiere is suggesting is not balls-out ludicrous or anything. Yes, games being overly expensive is probably what is driving players to pick up used titles, and perhaps an open discussion among publishers and console-makers to figure that situation out is a good idea. That said, the notion that developers will simply stop making games sold at retail because they aren't making enough money strikes as slightly insane, given the fact that games are still selling, including Heavy Rain, which apparently sold over two million copies new. That's a huge number for any game, a number that any studio would kill for.

Also, talking about the move to online sales over retail as though it were some kind of coming apocalypse seems more than a bit Chicken Little-ian, given that plenty of developers have been thriving via the various downloadable channels on consoles and the PC, and many publishers have found reasonable success pushing both retail and downloadable games.

Furthermore, de Fondaumiere is essentially complaining that two million copies of a game sold is somehow detrimental to his studio's health. Using his own math, that means that Quantic Dream earned between €10 and €20 million in royalty profits alone. Of course every company's goal is to make more money, to devour every remaining penny it could possibly squeeze out of its consumer base for the sake of continued success. But still, complaining in this fashion doesn't engender much sympathy.

In effect, de Fondaumiere has declared his annoyance with the fact that games are too expensive, and simultaneously complained about a million players not paying retail price for his game. When he figures out how to reconcile that one, maybe he can then work on the formula for self-replenishing cake.

Alex Navarro on Google+

328 Comments

Avatar image for kato
Kato

191

Forum Posts

421

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Kato

Why not make downloadable (XBL, Steam, and PSN) games?

They're cheaper and cannot be sold used.

Avatar image for zels
zels

213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By zels

@TheMasterDS: While I do agree that online passes for games that have an online component make sense, I just can't agree on the online passes for single player games part.

First of all, it doesn't make any sense from a technical perspective - there's simply no way to apply that, since:

1. Not all console users are connected to the internet or have such a connection.

2. People may have multiple consoles with multiple accounts of their own and they should be able to play on all of them and not have to buy a new copy for each system.

Secondly, I just don't see why the users who bought a used product should owe any money to the developers or publishers - the cost of producing that copy of the game, manual and case included was covered in the initial sale and no further loss of money was sustained. If there is a problem with the way the copy was acquired it should be taken up to the retailer that offers used copies and an agreement should be reached with them, not the customer.

Also, I'd like you to see my first point as the stronger one of the two, since it's less of an opinion and more of a fact.

Avatar image for sharpless
Sharpless

505

Forum Posts

51

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Sharpless

I really wish he looked like the guy in that image.

Avatar image for quipido
Quipido

1618

Forum Posts

5417

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Quipido

@ModerateViolence said:

@TekZero said:

I've said it all along, buying used games is no different than piracy.

You've been wrong all this time then.

I agree. Used games are entirely legal. Piracy is not. If developers feel it's the same thing, there must be change in law. I am living in a state where everything is determined by law, so if you want me to change my behavior, make the law apply to this problem and I will start to think about game purchases as licences to play, not a physical copy which I am free to do whatever I want to with.

Also I bought Heavy Rain new and I am still waiting for the promissed DLC, which should have explained at least some of the majoyr plotholes. That DLC will never come, right?

Avatar image for boopie
Boopie

197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Boopie

Heavy Rain was OK but I would have felt raped at 60 bucks, robbed at 40 bucks, and consensually cornholed at 30 so borrowing it for free from my rich brother worked out just fine

and I won't cry any tears if they never make a sequel or another game

Avatar image for xyzygy
xyzygy

10595

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By xyzygy

Heavy Rain was not worth 60 dollars. I rented it and got the complete experience with 5 days left to return the game.

Avatar image for themasterds
TheMasterDS

3018

Forum Posts

7716

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 31

Edited By TheMasterDS

@zels: 1. Yeah, that's definitely true, and also possibly the only reason it hasn't already happened on consoles. On the PC it's a standard practice if you don't just buy it digitally, but consoles aren't there yet.

2. Multiple consoles with multiple accounts has to be a series fringe case, but even then I'd say that the general Xbox Live Game rules apply - you can play it with any account on the system you downloaded it to first, or any console with the account on it. Then again, I don't know how that works if you're taking one stick around everywhere.

And a policy of only buying games used is as bad as a policy of only pirating games because when you buy a copy of a game, you're not paying for the box or the disc, but the content that's on the disc, and that content is not Gamestop's to sell, it belongs to the people who spent a ton of money and time making it.

Avatar image for plaintomato
plaintomato

616

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By plaintomato

He should be bitching at MS & Sony for sheltering brick & mortars with their (I assume it's "their", correct me if it's not MS/Sony) refusal to release new games for download the same day as the retail release. I don't know, maybe it's publishers that are trying to avoid the MS/Sony cut, but either way, lazy sods like me would buy games online for consoles if they were available just to avoid the drive to the store.

As long as they make me drive to the store, I'll buy and sell used games and call it their own damn fault for not taking advantage of my laziness.

Avatar image for cyberfr3akgamer
cyberfr3akgamer

26

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

Edited By cyberfr3akgamer

I bought it, i play it, and sell it again, and i bought it again its a great game ^^

Avatar image for cl60
CL60

17117

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By CL60

Off topic, but related to picture. Does anybody else find it hilarious that the "rent is too damn high" guy got kicked out of his apartment because his rent was too low?

Avatar image for sopranosfan
sopranosfan

1965

Forum Posts

35

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 8

Edited By sopranosfan

I buy 90% of my games new and half of the games that I buy used are simply games that I can't find new anywhere and I may have traded or sold 5-10 games used. I literally had a Gamestop employee ask me why I had the card if I wasn't going to buy a used copy when available. HOWEVER, after I buy something I own it and I'm not paying $60 for something that I don't own and if I can't sell if I choose to then I don't truly own it.

Avatar image for yukoasho
yukoasho

2247

Forum Posts

6076

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 7

Edited By yukoasho

@Rasgueado said:

Perfectly valid to disagree with his sentiments... but was it necessary to be such a dick about it?

I don't often think highly of Alex Navarro. In fact, I think he's a piece of shit writer who would be laughed out of Kotaku, let alone any respectable establishment. That said, he's got a point. The video game industry isn't a "victim" of anything in the used games market, save to a fundamentally broken and unsustainable business model. Tell me, why is it you only ever hear complaints from the game industry. No one's bitching about used movies or anything, and no one's trying to ban libraries. If game companies don't want to deal with the First Sale Doctrine, then they're more than welcome to leave the US market, but they're not entitled to any of my sympathies if they make a $60 semi-interactive movie that can be burned through in a night, especially when they made as much money as they did.

Avatar image for rasgueado
Rasgueado

838

Forum Posts

2324

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 6

Edited By Rasgueado

@YukoAsho said:

@Rasgueado said:

Perfectly valid to disagree with his sentiments... but was it necessary to be such a dick about it?

I don't often think highly of Alex Navarro. In fact, I think he's a piece of shit writer who would be laughed out of Kotaku, let alone any respectable establishment. That said, he's got a point. The video game industry isn't a "victim" of anything in the used games market, save to a fundamentally broken and unsustainable business model. Tell me, why is it you only ever hear complaints from the game industry. No one's bitching about used movies or anything, and no one's trying to ban libraries. If game companies don't want to deal with the First Sale Doctrine, then they're more than welcome to leave the US market, but they're not entitled to any of my sympathies if they make a $60 semi-interactive movie that can be burned through in a night, especially when they made as much money as they did.

Perfectly valid argument. Let me posit this...

I would argue that movie companies do actually have problems with used sales, but the number of open marketplaces where the practice takes place is limited in terms of its scope when compared to video games. Most retailers--even major retailers like Best Buy--have taken stabs at used video game sales. I have yet to see a major retail chain (take note I live in Canada) that executes this practice with movies. The stores that I know of who deal in used sales are small, community based propositions.

Libraries again fall into the same vein as video rental stores. As someone else in this thread already pointed out, these businesses pay a higher premium for the games they rent out which generate royalties for the publisher/developer to receive. Libraries are also generally public affairs that are linked with multiple branches throughout a single municipality. Authors who have their books stored in libraries (the number of copies of which are generally *very* limited throughout the library system) are usually agreed to be there as a means of archival and public access. With one or two books in a system with a 14-30 day policy for checkout, I would argue that this is generally viewed as not being a detriment to printing sales as these constitute a fraction of the press run. Books make back money on the number of physical copies that they sell. If a publisher sells out of an entire run of books they will print more to meet demand, but generally the practice has been to not monitor the marketplace for used sales as they have already made their money on the initial purchase of the printed book.

This is where, I believe, Guillauame's argument comes into play. He is suggesting that the economics of producing a big budget title are outstripping the size of the marketplace for the price point they are charging. Part of the problem they have at the moment is that they might produce 3 million copies of the game, but only 2 million of them are sold because a large segment of the marketplace is accustomed to acquiring games at a lower price through the vehicle of used sales. This practice, unlike with most major media industries (music, movies, books) is openly supported by the major retailers in the business (again... Best Buy doesn't sell used CD's, and Chapter's/Indigo/Barnes & Noble don't sell used books... at least *in* the store). Making this kind of direct comparison at this juncture of the retail marketplace isn't making a good comparison between like products, or markets.

Your arguments as to the direct value of the game in your mind are perfectly valid. For many people the proposition of spending that much money for the type of title that the game is would be something that anyone cannot argue with due the subjective nature of "want." That being said... many people still wanted to play it enough to acquire it via *some* means, so the value is there to be derived, just not for the asking price of the manufacturer. This I believe, again, is where Guillaume's statements come into play. He is openly stating that he agrees with this point of view, and feels that games are far too expensive. At the same time, he would like to explore other means of locking his product down so that his company can benefit from each sale of the game, as opposed to a retailer that had nothing to do with the development (like Gamestop).

My original post did not, in fact, disagree with the idea that there were issues to be discussed with the statements made from Quantic Dream. I clearly stated that it was perfectly valid to disagree with those sentiments. My issue was purely with Alex mischaracterizing the statements made, and painting the developer as a cry baby.

Avatar image for vexidus
vexidus

126

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By vexidus

This was a great read, thanks for this article Alex. Of course, being drunk might have something to do with that, but not too much. I loved Heavy Rain, but I feel no need to replay it again, so I definitely understand how so many copies weren't bought "new". Also, I'm surprised it sold 2 million copies new, and agree with the general consensus that a developer should be happy with a number like that. I'm sorry to say, but this guy kind of soured me to future new purchases from Quantic Dream. I feel like my money is somehow not good enough for him.

Avatar image for zels
zels

213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By zels

@TheMasterDS: @TheMasterDS said:

And a policy of only buying games used is as bad as a policy of only pirating games because when you buy a copy of a game, you're not paying for the box or the disc, but the content that's on the disc, and that content is not Gamestop's to sell, it belongs to the people who spent a ton of money and time making it.

I will never agree that it's as bad as piracy. Piracy creates multiple copies of 1 disc and as a result both parties end up with a copy of the game. When a used game is sold the first owner no longer has access to it, and as a result if he ever wants to play that game again he'll have to buy it for the second time. I firmly believe that used media market should follow the very same rules as any other used market. Saying that because a certain product doesn't diminish in value due to use, the creator should therefore have a cut each time it is sold is imo ridiculous - like a painter getting a cut each time his work moves from hands to hands.

Avatar image for sooty
Sooty

8193

Forum Posts

306

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By Sooty

@zels said:

@TheMasterDS: @TheMasterDS said:

And a policy of only buying games used is as bad as a policy of only pirating games because when you buy a copy of a game, you're not paying for the box or the disc, but the content that's on the disc, and that content is not Gamestop's to sell, it belongs to the people who spent a ton of money and time making it.

I will never agree that it's as bad as piracy.

Then don't. But in the eyes of publishers it is still money they are not getting, it's as simple as that.

Piracy is worse because of the easy methods of distribution and the ability to make multiple copies, but the end result is the same: No money to the developer. Unlike piracy used games don't require modified consoles either which is a barrier that your average joe can't be bothered to pass, so if they want the game cheap they will buy it used or borrow it instead.

If you primarily buy used games and only play offline you might as well just pirate them instead. Save yourself money because you're not supporting the developer either way unless you intend to buy DLC or purchase an online pass for certain titles. Personally I can't be bothered with having a modified 360 anymore, I got banned from Xbox Live twice so I'm legit now, I just buy used games now and then instead of taking risks with my consoles. Still buy plenty of games new, though. I buy all my games new on PC. (you kinda have to anyway)

Just speaking frankly. In the UK we have a big store called CeX who sell a ton of second hand stuff, they have huge gigantic stores with DVDs, consoles, dvd players, computer parts, games...you name it. I would rather pirate a game than give money to a store like that, I really don't like places where you can trade almost anything into, I worry where a lot of it comes from. (home invasions!)

Avatar image for yukoasho
yukoasho

2247

Forum Posts

6076

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 7

Edited By yukoasho

@Rasgueado said:

Perfectly valid argument. Let me posit this...

I would argue that movie companies do actually have problems with used sales, but the number of open marketplaces where the practice takes place is limited in terms of its scope when compared to video games. Most retailers--even major retailers like Best Buy--have taken stabs at used video game sales. I have yet to see a major retail chain (take note I live in Canada) that executes this practice with movies. The stores that I know of who deal in used sales are small, community based propositions.

Libraries again fall into the same vein as video rental stores. As someone else in this thread already pointed out, these businesses pay a higher premium for the games they rent out which generate royalties for the publisher/developer to receive. Libraries are also generally public affairs that are linked with multiple branches throughout a single municipality. Authors who have their books stored in libraries (the number of copies of which are generally *very* limited throughout the library system) are usually agreed to be there as a means of archival and public access. With one or two books in a system with a 14-30 day policy for checkout, I would argue that this is generally viewed as not being a detriment to printing sales as these constitute a fraction of the press run. Books make back money on the number of physical copies that they sell. If a publisher sells out of an entire run of books they will print more to meet demand, but generally the practice has been to not monitor the marketplace for used sales as they have already made their money on the initial purchase of the printed book.

This is where, I believe, Guillauame's argument comes into play. He is suggesting that the economics of producing a big budget title are outstripping the size of the marketplace for the price point they are charging. Part of the problem they have at the moment is that they might produce 3 million copies of the game, but only 2 million of them are sold because a large segment of the marketplace is accustomed to acquiring games at a lower price through the vehicle of used sales. This practice, unlike with most major media industries (music, movies, books) is openly supported by the major retailers in the business (again... Best Buy doesn't sell used CD's, and Chapter's/Indigo/Barnes & Noble don't sell used books... at least *in* the store). Making this kind of direct comparison at this juncture of the retail marketplace isn't making a good comparison between like products, or markets.

Your arguments as to the direct value of the game in your mind are perfectly valid. For many people the proposition of spending that much money for the type of title that the game is would be something that anyone cannot argue with due the subjective nature of "want." That being said... many people still wanted to play it enough to acquire it via *some* means, so the value is there to be derived, just not for the asking price of the manufacturer. This I believe, again, is where Guillaume's statements come into play. He is openly stating that he agrees with this point of view, and feels that games are far too expensive. At the same time, he would like to explore other means of locking his product down so that his company can benefit from each sale of the game, as opposed to a retailer that had nothing to do with the development (like Gamestop).

My original post did not, in fact, disagree with the idea that there were issues to be discussed with the statements made from Quantic Dream. I clearly stated that it was perfectly valid to disagree with those sentiments. My issue was purely with Alex mischaracterizing the statements made, and painting the developer as a cry baby.

A few things. Firstly, at least in the states, there really isn't much of a "higher premium" with game rentals. Rental chains straight up buy the game at retail prices, but even with all your other points being equal, it does point to the fact that, for many, $60 is way too damned much money.

Also, with regards to Best Buy entering the used games market, while it's true they're testing the waters, it's not the first time they've tried it, and the selection there for used games tends to be outright pathetic compared to new, which is different from the situation where you can get damned near anything after a month used at the Stop.

This brings us to the issue we both agree with, and that we both share Guillauame's point - price. $60 is simply asking too much, and if game prices go up to $70 in the next generation, we're going to see major market contraction, at least in the new games market. At the end of the day, the used game "problem" is simply a creation of the games industry living well beyond its means and expecting everyone else to come along for the ride. No one's buying used movies, books or CDs in part because they're pretty damned cheap nowadays, $10-$15 for a CD, $15-$20 for a DVD, $25 for a Blu-Ray, $10-$20 for a paperback book, maybe $40 for a hardcover. Video games are the only entertainment home entertainment that asks for so damned much money per item. The others don't even come close, and until that changes, the problem's not changing. Maybe the problem would be less if games were $30 or $40, but at $60, people are going to cop deals wherever they can.

And honestly, I don't much take issue with your opinions on Navarro's patently unprofessional reporting, but you have to admit that when a game hits 2 million in sales (a rarity in the present game industry) and the devs cry poor mouth, it doesn't make for good PR.

Avatar image for beritbunny
beritbunny

33

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By beritbunny

He should have made a better game that people didn't want to sell. Look at it this way: Somewhere around half of people who purchased the game didn't like it enough to keep it.

Neither I nor my BF sell games from The Library, but I hustled this one out the door in disgust within 6 months of buying it. We were so excited about this one, but I feel that it was not As Advertised. Do I remember why? No. I've put my precise reasons for dissatisfaction and self-loathing at the money I wasted out of my head.

I sold it not for money, but to get the visual reminder of a disappointment out of my home. At some point, the collection needs culling. (I also pruned some PS2 and Wii shovelware. Your Dreamcast's Samba de Amigo is not your Wii's SdA.)

Make a game that people want to keep close and you'll starve the secondhand market.

Avatar image for brackynews
Brackynews

4385

Forum Posts

27681

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 48

Edited By Brackynews

I pre-ordered my copy of Heavy Rain sight unseen from HMV in ENGLAND, I wanted the proper box so much.

If I wasn't so sure, I probably would have rented it, and then decided to buy. Pity his math doesn't account for all the possibilities of where that extra 1 million trophy accounts comes from.

I already ranted my face off over on the GameSpot article and don't care to repeat it here. Generally I feel every developer and author and artist (including myself) has a right to complain when it's "food off their table". But that doesn't make the complaint any less hypocritical, because it's fairly likely we all have purchased college textbooks used, and used cars, and go to garage sales, and watch movies at friends' houses... The notion that our society in all its capitalist glory should become 1 sale = 1 experience is demented, and a very significant reason of why I chose library sciences as a career.

Avatar image for prv8j0k3r
Prv8J0k3r

3

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Prv8J0k3r

There are already too many DRM's on PC games...are they going to try to transfer that to console too?(It's not slowing down pirating either, where there is a will there is a way, so stop complaining) It reminds me of that South Park about pirating music(Faith Plus One), I'm not saying that these dev's shouldn't be rewarded for their work, but how greedy are you? Games are already over-priced to begin with you have to spend a small fortune for a couple of hours of enjoyment these days. I.E. - if you bought COD: Black Ops brand new thats roughly you paid roughly $59.99(USD), then if you want all the DLC(including the new Rezurrection DLC) it's another $59.96 for all of that bringing you to a total of 119.95 for a complete game with a lot of stuff that would have just been included back in the day.

Avatar image for cretaceous_bob
Cretaceous_Bob

552

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Cretaceous_Bob

If that man is expecting everybody who plays a short singleplayer game to pay full price for it, he'll always have quotes about people pissin' on his pancakes.

Avatar image for miva2
miva2

240

Forum Posts

1105

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Edited By miva2

Games aren't too expensive for me. But I don't think I buy as many games as most other 'hardcore' players.

I would gladly give €50 for a good singleplayer game.

Many of those 1 million people who didn't buy the game at retail price would probably never have played the game at all if it wasn't cheaper. If I was in his place, I would be happy i reached another 1 million players besides the 2 million that bought the game at retail price.

Avatar image for wokiie
Wokiie

2

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Wokiie

i feel sorry for Guillaume, it should not be allowed to buy used games! can't you see that he wants the money?!

Avatar image for alex_carrillo
Alex_Carrillo

321

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Alex_Carrillo

Funny. I'm mad Heavy Rain contained so many plot holes.

Avatar image for thekreep
TheKreep

97

Forum Posts

88

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheKreep

I'm sure that this has been said, but clearly, his two complaints aren't unrelated.

He thinks Heavy Rain didn't sell as well as he would've liked BECAUSE it was too expensive, and the price is something that's entirely out of the hands of him and his company.

Avatar image for thekreep
TheKreep

97

Forum Posts

88

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheKreep

@TekZero: Except it's not anything like piracy at all?

Avatar image for fresherthanair
FresherThanAir

12

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By FresherThanAir

LOL I bought this game on day of release and took me about a day and a half to complete it (Inbetween School etc). Then after its completion the only thing left to do was collect the other trophies. I feel a total fool for paying £50 for a game that once you have played through once it leaves hardly anything left. Those who bought it second hand had the right idea. It's not really Sonys fault or the gamers fault, It's the game itself. If it had some stronger replay value than just a linear story line this game would have sold more.

Avatar image for fini_fly
fini_fly

789

Forum Posts

639

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By fini_fly

In the last 5 years I have only bought a handful of game on or near the launch date. Heavy Rain was one of these. I beat it in 2 days, had no desire to go back and acquire trophies, then sold it to a friend. Games are expensive and multiplayer has justified the price of some games due to their continued use.