So, games are costing more these days...

Post by **dzjepp** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:41 pm

It can't be all about royality fees, since there are budget games out for consoles that are under $30 out of the gate (you won't find many though...) so they cost less to make, they can sell them for less.

Post by **MKJ** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:44 pm

console games are never budgettitles out of the gate unless e.g. MS says so. at the very least theyll sell it full price first, then rerelease it as their equiv of Platinum.
remember, MS/Sony/Ninty have to earn something too. they wont sell a game for only 20 just because it was easy to make.

Post by **dzjepp** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:45 pm

I've seen a few. I can't really give you a list right now because I don't remember.

But I know there are a bunch of those games designed for 3-year olds, like elmo teaches counting or something, that I've noticed are considerably less at retail.

Post by **dzjepp** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:47 pm

2k sports lineup is $19.99 out the gate. Their nba game was/is (I haven't checked recently if the same holds for 2k6 series), and so was football. Untill ea took their right to make a licensed football game that is.

Post by **MKJ** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:47 pm

educational games fall under a different category i think. also, there arent any educational games for consoles are there?

Post by **MKJ** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:48 pm

dzjepp wrote:2k sports lineup is $19.99 out the gate. Their nba game was/is (I haven't checked recently if the same holds for 2k6 series), and so was football. Untill ea took their right to make a licensed football game that is.

and why did it go up? royalties again

2k games also published serious sam which is a budget title - just not for console

Post by **dzjepp** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:49 pm

I don't know if it went up, lemme check, I know 2k4/2k5 was, I owned their excellent football game

Post by **Chupacabra** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:50 pm

R00k wrote:
Jackal wrote:It is totally true for intellectual property. If the person goes and dl's the program they sure as hell aren't going to buy it. They will however get entertainment out of it, something which they are supposed to pay for.
It's stealing, and it's really quite cut and dry.
And your analogy is clumsy as hell. Even I do steal a diamond, it isn't one less diamond for the world to have, sure it is my diamond but someone could just as easily take it from me. When it comes to IP the person that steals it has the ability to retain it even after passing the product along.
Precisely. The 'thief' has the ability to retain it even after passing it along. By the same token, the company also has the ability to retain it and make the same amount of profit from it even after it has been taken.

Which was the point of the analogy.

uh no.

im not totally against piracy (and at the same time im not really into it either) but your analogy is pretty poor.

the company cant make the same amount of profit from it.

think of it this way. i have a diamond, you copy it and can make as many copies of it as you want. do you think the value of my diamond is still the same? i cant make as much profit from it because youre copying it at little to no cost. if anyone can do that, who in their right mind would buy it from me at my original price?

Post by **dzjepp** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:50 pm

Still less than ea? http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp ... 4432236168

Live 06: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp ... 2652837348

Although seeing its 3 months old, sports game DO drop in price rather quickly.

Post by **dzjepp** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:52 pm

This probably reflects eas/2k games rivarly in the sports arena more than anything though. Win for the consumer.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:18 pm

Chupacabra wrote:
R00k wrote:
Jackal wrote:It is totally true for intellectual property. If the person goes and dl's the program they sure as hell aren't going to buy it. They will however get entertainment out of it, something which they are supposed to pay for.
It's stealing, and it's really quite cut and dry.
And your analogy is clumsy as hell. Even I do steal a diamond, it isn't one less diamond for the world to have, sure it is my diamond but someone could just as easily take it from me. When it comes to IP the person that steals it has the ability to retain it even after passing the product along.
Precisely. The 'thief' has the ability to retain it even after passing it along. By the same token, the company also has the ability to retain it and make the same amount of profit from it even after it has been taken.

Which was the point of the analogy.
uh no.

im not totally against piracy (and at the same time im not really into it either) but your analogy is pretty poor.

the company cant make the same amount of profit from it.

think of it this way. i have a diamond, you copy it and can make as many copies of it as you want. do you think the value of my diamond is still the same? i cant make as much profit from it because youre copying it at little to no cost. if anyone can do that, who in their right mind would buy it from me at my original price?

That's a valid point in the diamond market, where demand drives prices. But in the video game market that's not the case - the company can make as many video games as they want, and still charge the same price for them. Reproducing a copy of the game does not affect retail market prices of said game.

But don't get me wrong guys - I'm not advocating warez by any means. I pay for games. I'm just saying there IS a difference between copyright infringement and legal theft, as far as the legal semantics go. I don't know if that would hold up in court or not, but I don't believe they are exactly the same thing.

Post by **Chupacabra** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:30 pm

i see what youre saying, but i think you might have confused making the same amount of profit with charging the same price.

i think a big issue is that these things cost very little to reproduce (especially after the market has gone digital). its hard for people to understand why they have to pay 16 dollars or whatever for an album when the artist is making 10 million dollars a year or whatever (which is gazillions more money than the average person. its beyond what is needed to have a comfortable lifestyle). people have very little sympathy for that.

anyway, i think thats straying a bit from the main idea (that of video game prices). i still find it hard to believe that so many video game companies lose money.

is EA (and perhaps one or two other companies) making all the money and driving other people's products out of the way or what?
or are people just too wowed by flash (audio/visuals)? and only certain companies can make flashy games, promote them and still make a profit? the topic of good gameplay doesnt even come into the picture...

im going to reread GKY's post again here in a bit.

Post by **dzjepp** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:40 pm

Blame the actors/songwrites/whoevers unions.

Post by **Jackal** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:53 pm

dzjepp wrote:Blame the actors/songwrites/whoevers unions.

why not blame the shitstain parasites who never pay for anything?

Post by **dzjepp** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:13 pm

Yeah because it was quite easy to divulge out of my above posts made on an internet bulletin board no less, that I never pay for anything. I probably download less shit off the net out of anyone here, I don't care if you believe me or not. The comments I made above where more of a reflection of the general opinion(s) shared by a good number the people that download software (or illicit contraband as most of you lot would put it).

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:40 pm

dzjepp wrote:Blame the actors/songwrites/whoevers unions.

Actually I blame the consumers.

People are constantly wanting more. It doesn't matter if it's the way a tree moves and the amount of polygons that make up its leaves and branches or HDR effects, people demand more.

This creates a huge competition for the consumer's entertainment dollar.

This drives the industry to create bigger games to compete with the likes of movies where every year the CG visual effects are more convincing. This quick tech advancement of CG in movies can relate to the tech advancement of the gaming industry.

What this means is that - for a large percentage of the audience - this leaves an expectation upon the consumer that games should keep pace visually with movies in terms of better and better graphics/detail to justify spending $400 on a new vid card.

Viability of the games industry in the overall grab for your wallet means constant innovation.

So again...I blame the consumers for being gluttonous whores that bitch and whine if GTA doesn't look better every iteration.

Post by **R00k** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:44 pm

Now now, even if you made the perfect game with realistic pubic-hair physics, there would still be people bitching because the semen doesn't gargle realistically.

That doesn't mean hundreds of thousands of people can't be swayed to buy a game that has great gameplay - like FarCry.

Post by **dzjepp** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:48 pm

Blame whoever made the first 3d/polygonal world.

The desire of consumer for better visuals has always been there has it not? Take a NES mario bros. game, vs. a super nintendo mario game. Now back then people thought it looked a whole lot better, but the cost of production still didn't amount to anywhere near of what it does today.

Or maybe blame nvidia/ati/intel/amd for making new graphics/cpu cores every year? If the consumer is going to buy their product then of course they will expect a game to look better in order to justify that hardware purchase. You devs/publishers are sleeping in bed with these companies anyway, always marketing to the end-user that the overall experience will be BIGGER AND BETTER OMG! if we buy the new geforce2442. Let's not forget nvidia showing off their latest and greatest graphics in their pr videos (which never make it into the current-gen cards. game-span anyway. Remember those videos of the rusting farm truck and the equipment? Or the faggot fairy? lol, we still don't have that. Maybe after the unreal 3.x fiasco is over).

EDIT: Damn you rook.

This was a respone to gky's comments.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:51 pm

It was more of a piss take than a cynical, bitter rant.

While I agree gameplay is king, screenshots do a large job in selling the box. The game may suck...but if it looks purdy it has a better chance of selling.

Post by **DRuM** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:51 pm

Ok, I don't think foo will mind me saying this, but we had a heated discussion over MSN about my statements.

Yes, we discussed the differences between copyright infringement and stealing, and though foo made some good points, it doesn't IMO make downloading apps, songs and games which are intended to be paid for, excusable or justifiable be it copyright or stealing. Which was my whole point in the first place.

As far as I'm concerned, it still amounts to stealing. It's just words, but what counts is the fact that it's illegal BEEE-CAUUUUS........
it costs profit to the product owners. Some of you say taking a physical object would cause harm to the owner. Well taking away profit from an owner by downloading their product in digital form is also harmful dontcha think? A robber who steals jewellery certainly wouldn't have paid for them if he didn't intend to steal the jewels.

People who say they downloaded a game to 'try it out' but then bin it is, to me, a bit like walking into a shop, nicking something without consent, getting home, deciding it's not for them, and then throwing it away. One is physical and one is virtual. What do they both have in common? Loss of profit. A product is made to gain profit. You wanna pay for it? Pay for it. You don't wanna pay for it? Don't assume you're allowed to have it.

Jackal got it right.

Jackal wrote:

If you download a game illegally it is stealing. Just because you weren't going to buy it doesn't make it right. People still worked to make that game and they should be being compensated for doing so.
If I go and steal a diamond then say "Well I sure wouldn't have bought it.", it's the same thing.

You sir, need to realign your logic.

Post by **Chupacabra** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:53 pm

i do think that the average consumer is dumb, but you do have to wonder if its up to the companies to figure out costs for themselves and make sure they dont go overboard yeah?

so what do you think will happen? more companies will develop for the revolution or something?

Post by **R00k** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:59 pm

GONNAFISTYA wrote:It was more of a piss take than a cynical, bitter rant.

While I agree gameplay is king, screenshots do a large job in selling the box. The game may suck...but if it looks purdy it has a better chance of selling.

That's true. But sometimes I think game publishers forget how powerful a good demo and community buzz can be.

Personally, I had massive amounts of video problems with Far Cry, but I played that game for hours and hours and hours and hours anyway. It was just so damn fun the glitches couldn't distract from it enough to keep me from playing.

If you can show the community that your game is fun before it is released, you will have good sales regardless of the eye-candy.

Post by **dzjepp** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:03 am

Chupacabra wrote:i do think that the average consumer is dumb, but you do have to wonder if its up to the companies to figure out costs for themselves and make sure they dont go overboard yeah?

so what do you think will happen? more companies will develop for the revolution or something?

For the revolution? That would be a long shot. They will probably be number 3 again in terms of sales like they've been for the last 2 or 3 consoles, so in terms of maximizing profit for game makers that prolly won't be a realistic option.

Post by **The Butcher** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:19 am

dzjepp wrote:It's not stealing if you download the game off the net and never had any previous intentions of buying it in the first place.

This is perhaps one of the most retarded comments i've ever had the mispleasure of reading. You are completely incorrect in every way possible.

It's stealing if you download the game, end of story. Whatever state of mind you may be in (intending to buy the game or not) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever.

"No Judge don't send me to jail, it's not theft just because I downloaded because I was planning on never buying it!"

Post by **DRuM** » Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:21 am

The Butcher wrote:
"No Judge don't send me to jail, it's not theft just because I downloaded because I was planning on never buying it!"

LOL