-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusGAF IV - A No Hope, Government - Double the price, region locked and now adults
- Thread starter VOOK
- Start date
codswallop
Member
I have home made hummus and am making no one jealous.Omi said:
elfinke said:
I must say I half expected it. This gen has gone to complete stupid. EA, Sony, Ubisoft, no doubt many others.
Still, there are always lots of other games to play and it means I'll save $80 by getting it when its second hand in a triple pack.
jambo said:
I've found it is not productive at all to argue over who lived a worthwhile life or who didnt, who is worthy of mass mourning or not. If people did it for Amy Winehouse, they sure as shit are going to be doing it en masse for Jobs.
But trinest does have a point (indirectly) in that there are way too many people who die forgotten and unmourned despite all the good they do.
But in a world of 7bn people, it's not practical to mourn everyone nice since it's probably of the order of thousands per day who were genuinely good, hundreds of thousands who never had a chance to be good or bad, and one or two arseholes who caught a cold and had a runny nose.
It's just not something to get worked up over, imo. It's a debate I have no interest in getting involved in.
Ruthless_Barbarian
Member
Cool, just look at jambos last post.codswallop said:
Fredescu said:
I just hate the fact that publishers think they have a right to a slice of the second hand game sales pie. It's not like it's the norm anywhere else in any other industry. You don't see Holden or Ford making people pay a fee to get a car running after it's bought from a second hand car yard.
Yes, I understand that it is a little different, what with gaming companies running servers and online systems that the second hand users will access, but it's still a bullshit way to go about things.
So just reduced resale value. Fair enough. I've never factored resale into my game purchases, mostly because 90% of my purchases are for PC and can't be resold. I know people that do though.RandomVince said:
Holden and Ford make money on second hand cars by selling parts and service.jambo said:
Fredescu said:
Yes, but if the original owner kept the car they'd still have to pay fro the repairs and parts and Holden and Ford would get the same money. An online pass is an extra cost outside of subscription costs and DLC.
RandomVince said:
I just hate it when people on forums, or people anywhere for that matter, automatically think they know it all, especially when it comes to feelings and emotions.
I cried on the tram when I found out that Rick Wright from Pink Floyd died, and I've never met him in my life.
OP demonstrated this nicely I think.
Online pass doesn't bother me too much with Uncharted 3 because apparently the multiplayer sucks after the latest beta, when it was fine in the first beta!
I remember Uncharted 2's multiplayer being awesome before they just kept patching it and patching it until the health resembled CoD levels. I don't know why Naughty Dog keeps changing it but they really need to decide on what they want and stick to it.
Also I'm getting KDRs of 2 on the console version of BF3 while I'm sucking big time on the PC version. Maybe I'll buy the PS3 version of the game :-/
I remember Uncharted 2's multiplayer being awesome before they just kept patching it and patching it until the health resembled CoD levels. I don't know why Naughty Dog keeps changing it but they really need to decide on what they want and stick to it.
Also I'm getting KDRs of 2 on the console version of BF3 while I'm sucking big time on the PC version. Maybe I'll buy the PS3 version of the game :-/
Tntnnbltn said:
So instead of buying it with the online pass included for $99 ... I am going to buy it second hand sans pass for $20 or $30.
Makes sense when I have plenty of other good games to choose from.
Online pass is a business practice I don't agree with. Same as PSN DRM games from Capcom. Same as MMOs with subscription fees. Same with 1200 spacebuck map packs. Same with on-disc DLC.
edit: Fredescu gets it.
You buy PC games already knowing what you are getting. When I bought into this gen (got all 3 systems) I bought in expecting improvements on last gen. I did not buy in expecting day 1 DLC stripped from the game. I did not buy in expecting hardware with an 8 month working lifecycle. I did not buy in expecting to be told what I can and cannot do with games I own.
Publishers seem to have a sense of increased entitlement and resentment for their customers, bar a select few. Valve and Nintendo are probably the two main examples of companies that get it.
elfinke said:
Pretty much sums it up perfectly.
If 100,000 people buy a game, then 10,000 people trade it in and those 10,000 copies get bought second-hand, the population of the game will still only be 100,000, meaning the publisher/developer incurs no extra costs.
Utter bullshit, the latest in a long line of money grabbing tactics this console gen.
Ruthless_Barbarian
Member
I'm hungry since morning.codswallop said:
no time for food.
jambo said:
I must have missed the day we all traveled to an alternate universe where game publishing is a not-for-profit business. Why do we all expect game developers and publishers to give us everything for nothing and price their product/service to just meet operating costs? It's the same sense of entitlement that makes people think they own every piece of data stamped on a disc they buy because they can hold it in their grubby hands.
Online passes are not going away. Retail stores are making money selling second hand copies of games and publishers are attempting to adjust the distribution of revenue from those sales. Either retail drops their second hand prices to make the total outlay competitive with new copies or consumers buy the new copy. If you're whining about this, you probably weren't weren't buying new copies anyway, which means you're either not going to buy it or buy the new copy. If you don't, the publisher loses nothing as you wouldn't have bought it from them and if you do, they claim a share of the second hand market's revenue.
RandomVince said:
Sounds like you don't agree with exchanging money for things and would rather just have the things for no money.
Marshmellow
Member
legend166 said:
Who is Steve Jobs and what does he do?
Agyar said:
Whatever you say bucko.
It worked fine in the previous two decades of gaming not to gouge out every last cent from customers. And with so many games available now, why would I choose to buy the ones that are deliberately compromised by cut content only so it can be sold later on for extra profit?
Some blatant examples include Oblivion, Prince of Persia Epilogue 2008, Call of Duty map packs, Battlefield BC2, EA Sports games and now Sony PSN Pass games.
I muy 99% of my games new at a price I deem worth it. I resent your bullshit accusations and smarminess to be quite frank.
It is well within my rights to choose to buy what I want and from whom I want, and no-one has the right to tell me that I cannot, or that my choice is "wrong".
Agyar said:
The largest retailers of videogames new are also the ones with large preowned presence. If you undercut that, you undercut the ability of the company to operate as many stores, as many staff and in as many good locations as currently they do.
So if the games industry wants to take on games retailers, they will only be hurting themselves in the long run.
And if they want to attack the retailers by waging war on consumers, then I can only hope more of these publishers wind up going out of business.
Agyar said:
Unfortunately this I think is the elephant in the room that no one talks about. Publishers need to come up with a better business model that incorporates retail, ala Steam and direct publishing methods. Customers shouldn't be caught in the crossfire here, especially when they're merely exercising their rights as consumers.
Project $10 is unashamedly an attack on the used sales market. Unfortunately for customers, retail and publishing share a symbiotic relationship that is so far entwined it won't be changing in the short term. And so customers are the pawns here, between publishers fighting the used game market and retail fighting their need to have said market.
Agyar said:
You agree that there is no benefit at all to the consumer, so it's understandable that people are angry right? It's pretty much game companies transferring money from consumers and gamestop to themselves.
The way I see it consumers can either be indifferent or unhappy to this move. There is no way a consumer should be happy about an online pass unless they are crazy or a corporate cocksucker.
hamchan said:
Blunt and to the point. Excellent post.
To simplify my thoughts even further: I owe the game industry and companies within it absolutely nothing. I pay what I think is fair.
If I don't like it, there is plenty of great content to be found elsewhere. And if current trends continue, I'm just as likely to find that entertainment outside of the games industry altogether.
Agyar said:
They already got their fucking money when the first person bought the game. After that point, the person selling it is selling something they own. Why should the publisher get any of that money? That's madness.
If Sony started charging people to unlock second had DVD's there would be worldwide uproar.
Agyar said:
When did we ever say we wanted games for nothing. All of the used copies in stores have already been bought by someone, so the pubs have already gotten their money. If I finish playing a game and don't want it any more and decide to sell it to my mate for $20, they shouldn't have to pay another $10-$15 to be able to access all of the features.
You're a consumer, so unless you have shares in every single publisher I have no idea how you can think this is anything but a terrible, money grabbing idea. I can't believe I'm seeing someone who thinks that it's good for publishers to be doing this. I'll have to put on my "this is neogaf dude" shirt when I get home tonight.
Agyar said:
Don't tell me you agree with the "buying a license" shit?
Planet_JASE
Member
The Online Pass is something that I'm quite ambivalent towards. I can definitely see where both parties are coming from and don't know where my allegiances will finally come to rest, if they ever do. this is mainly because I don't think I'll really be affected by this. I rarely buy second hand and even more rarely play online. I also don't maintain a server for people to play my game on and don't see companies making more money reselling my game than they paid me for the original copy.
I don't quite agree with the OP of the thread that was linked to. While they state that costs will never increase based upon number of copies sold they seem to forget that duration is also a factor.
So a game sells 100 000 copies which means there will never be more than that number in circulation is absolutely correct. The important part from a business point of view is how long that support needs to last and how much that will cost them.
It is possible for a company to project how long someone will potentially play the game for, how much that will cost them in infrastructure to maintain and factor that into a price for a game, but should they then factor in how many times that game will change hands? Should they pass this added duration that the servers have to be active for to the original purchasers or absorb those costs?
I don't know; like I said, I don't have a particular stance. What I do know is that the OPs justification does not fully factor in the complete costs that any company needs to bear for the games lifespan. I can also see why their chagrin in 2nd hand retailers making continued profit of of a games resale when it potentially means further financial burden.
Thoughts?
I don't quite agree with the OP of the thread that was linked to. While they state that costs will never increase based upon number of copies sold they seem to forget that duration is also a factor.
So a game sells 100 000 copies which means there will never be more than that number in circulation is absolutely correct. The important part from a business point of view is how long that support needs to last and how much that will cost them.
It is possible for a company to project how long someone will potentially play the game for, how much that will cost them in infrastructure to maintain and factor that into a price for a game, but should they then factor in how many times that game will change hands? Should they pass this added duration that the servers have to be active for to the original purchasers or absorb those costs?
I don't know; like I said, I don't have a particular stance. What I do know is that the OPs justification does not fully factor in the complete costs that any company needs to bear for the games lifespan. I can also see why their chagrin in 2nd hand retailers making continued profit of of a games resale when it potentially means further financial burden.
Thoughts?
Yeah I have to admit that someone in the office asked me who he was when I broke the news.
><
I wish I was detached and aloof enough to not be inspired by anyone. But alas, I know I am going to lose my shit the day Miyamoto dies, or Minter, or Sim, or Rignall or any number of people that have and continue to inspire me every day. Some of these people I've met, some I haven't, but they've pushed me to become a better person and have improved my life in ways they will never know.
I tell you what though, it's been a really good day for figuring out who to remove from my FB / Twitter / G+
><
I wish I was detached and aloof enough to not be inspired by anyone. But alas, I know I am going to lose my shit the day Miyamoto dies, or Minter, or Sim, or Rignall or any number of people that have and continue to inspire me every day. Some of these people I've met, some I haven't, but they've pushed me to become a better person and have improved my life in ways they will never know.
I tell you what though, it's been a really good day for figuring out who to remove from my FB / Twitter / G+
Planet_JASE
Member
If you played the DVD in a Sony owned DVD player that they maintained and displayed it on their provided television which they also maintained then it that would be a better analogy.jambo said:
Sony assumes no further costs if you play their DVD.
Likewise, if you don't play online you don't need an online pass and the publisher doesn't take on additional infrastructure costs.
Similar threads
- Locked