@excast said:
@hunkulese: Another empty threat. Publishers aren't going to start charging huge amounts for games because it will put a big dent in their sales.
And no, it isn't better for me to get rid of used games. I like being able to go to a Redbox and rent a game like Bioshock Infinite that I can beat in 2 or 3 days. I like being able to loan a game to a friend or neighbor and get one in return. I like knowing that my console will work even if I am having issues with my internet.
This is not a positive for gamers no matter how much some, mostly Microsoft employees, wished it was.
It's a shame that close minded egocentric viewpoints like your rule the internet. Can you really see nothing else beyond your personal interest? Why should you be able to enjoy something that a company has spent years making without giving them anything as compensation? If everyone shared your way of thinking there would be nothing but multiplayer only games.
It's positive for the people making the games because they'll be getting paid for everyone who is enjoying their game. In case you haven't been paying attention the gaming industry is feast or famine right now. You either have a blockbuster that sells 5 million copies or you're losing money. Yes I understand that Indie games are successful but if things continue the way they are we will only be seeing massive AAA sequels and single person indie games and not much in between. Ensuring that developers are seeing more money from every game played gives more studios a chance to succeed.
It's positive for gamers because we'll stop seeing ridiculous cash grab attempts that have started creeping into most games. New games can stay at $60. If they had raised the price to $70 people would still buy them and the price of used games would also go up. There's also a far greater chance that we'll see steam like sales coming to the Xbox One since it's the best way to encourage sales after people have forgotten about certain games.
The only people it isn't good for is the people who don't care about who is making their games and just want to play everything they can as cheaply as possible. If you like something support it or it'll go away.
I've heard this line of thinking a thousand times. It basically blames consumers for all the problems in the industry and it's egocentric in its own way. If the game industry were to unionize like Hollywood then a lot of these problems would go away. Not all problems because obviously Hollywood is having its own problems dealing with distribution over digital platforms but still they are way ahead of the game industry in terms of how they treat their workers. At least that's what I hear.
Second, it's hard to have sympathy for developers and publishers when most AAA titles are predictable, imitative, 8 hour experiences more or less indistinguishable from their counterparts. Why should gamers pay $60 dollars for that?
Third, "ridiculous cash grab attempts" are probably the best solution to the problems you complain about, provided they are done tastefully. Micro-transactions allow consumers to acquire a product at discount or free, and then judge for themselves whether it is something worth investing more money in. I bought Mass Effect 2 used for $40 or so. I probably spent another $30-$40 on downloadable content. As a consumer, that felt like a much better decision than when I bought Resident Evil 6 new on day one for ~$65 and I ended up not liking it. It also worked out just fine for Bioware.
And fourth, I think that if you take all these discussions to their logical conclusion then you will find that in the future, most gamers will subscribe to streaming content providers, a sort of netflix for video games. It will probably allow for gamers to "rent" new releases while giving them unlimited access to older and small time releases. That is the direction things are headed if you buy into the digitalization of media because that is what's happening with movies.
Log in to comment