Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Vivi22- If that's the case, then what;s the point of boasting about big revenues, umpteen million copies and games X, Y and Z being sold and all that?

Again, I'm no market strategist. But if they bled cash despite this, isn't that a bit like jumping up and down celebrating that you got hit by a car?

I haven't taken a close enough look at their financial reports to know how well they may or may not be doing based on them. It's always possible that the 12 month loss was largely due to the down turn in the economy and things may have trended back up for them in the last few months.

But as far as why a company would trumpet high revenues while they are actually struggling, safe bet is always on them trying to spin things for investors. Not that it would necessarily work (in fact, it probably wouldn't), but when things are going wrong executives like to try and point out the things that are going right. Their jobs tend to depend on it after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

just because you own the disk/entire collection doesn't mean you actually own the software it contains. you usually just have a license to use it..the designers still own the rights to the software and its code. just like computer software.

that being said, I've noticed many products allow you to transfer that license such as by deactivating your product and letting someone else activate it under their name, like NI lets you do with their libraries. Maybe the incentive there is if you like a product enough, you'll be likely to upgrade/spend money on their other products in the future. DLC (reasonable stuff; if we're talking MMOs: not game-breaking equipment but expansion packs or access to new missions/areas) is the equivalent, I'd say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
just because you own the disk/entire collection doesn't mean you actually own the software it contains. you usually just have a license to use it..the designers still own the rights to the software and its code. just like computer software.

this is the key thing, if the online content of these sport titles is on their own servers they have right to do what they want. Charge you 10$ to use them, maybe we should be greatful it's not 12$ a month like a certain other game genres... ;p

Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that in retail, games have basically zero profit margin. They cost $50 or $60 or whatever from the warehouse, and of course retailers charge the same. Places like Wal-Mart or EB probably get some bulk discount, but even then, profits on actual games are razor-thin.

So really, with this plan, studios are effectively running places like EB Games out of business. Not necessarily a BAD thing, really, because EB/Gamestop is their own band of crooks altogether. But I do like finding used games that are difficult to find new.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So really, with this plan, studios are effectively running places like EB Games out of business. Not necessarily a BAD thing, really, because EB/Gamestop is their own band of crooks altogether. But I do like finding used games that are difficult to find new.

I don't think I'd go that far. At most I could see a $10 fee driving the prices of used games down $10 to match once your average consumer gets wise to what's going on. So instead of charging $55 dollars for a used copy of a normally $60 game, they'd drop the price to $45. Considering the pathetic amount of credit they give people who trade the title in they're still working with a pretty good profit margin. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if most games saw a drop in their trade in value of at least a couple of dollars to match.

Now if publishers tried to go much farther than this system then yeah, good chance the used market crashes. But since that would put specialty stores like Gamestop out of business I don't think publishers will push it that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, sadly, this had to happen one day. Games are a relatively new media (compared to film and music), and after 20 or so years of finding its feet, the industry is huge. With the size that it is, it attracts attention from big corporations - corporations like EA that have been bred from its own growth - and inevitably these corporations put pressure on the market to squeeze out as much profit as possible. Not that anyone apart from the people at the top really like this, but that's the perils of a capitalist society.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for giving people credit for their work in the form of sales, but as an artist, wouldn't you want your work to bring enjoyment to people? As long as you still had a job of course, but surely on a website like this that offers professional quality music entirely free, you see my point.

I'm not sure where EA stands in the whole process either. My understanding of a publisher was that they distribute the material as well as promote it, then use the funds to finance another game from the developers. Surely a lot of developers nowadays can extricate themselves from this system, in the age of digital distribution? Valve seem to be doing OK with Steam, and the community feel is that Steam is a fair distribution platform in terms of price and service (God knows it wasn't at first, though!) Bypassing publishers like EA and ActiBlizz would surely give developers more freedom and allow for a better consumer experience, wouldn't it?

I understand that games can take hundreds of people to make them, and they deserve rewarding for their work, but this just smacks of corporate greed. There is nothing wrong with the industry - only the shareholders' profits. The massive inconvenience to the consumer is not worth it, but sadly we only have ourselves to blame for allowing Gamestop etc to make such large profits from used games and make EA jealous. Just swap games with your friends, people!

As an aside, I've never bought an EA sports title as I find any kind of team sporting game the most frustrating gaming experience in the world. So this doesn't affect me yet, but I can see it swiftly becoming an industry-wide thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
this is the key thing, if the online content of these sport titles is on their own servers they have right to do what they want. Charge you 10$ to use them, maybe we should be greatful it's not 12$ a month like a certain other game genres... ;p

But I'm not talking about the software on the server; I'm talking about what's on the disc(s). You can own a disc or a cartridge or a memory card or a digital download that contains a game, but you don't "own" the rights to that game..you can use it, but you can't call it your own work or (in the case of like 99% of commercial console titles) reverse engineer/modify it. If they want to charge each unique person who plays the game (by account on the console's network), then that's their call under the terms of the license.

Er.. hm, where is the license in boxed console games? I imagine there has to be one somewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it IS your problem. When games get really expensive to make, any failure means developers closing up shop, layoffs, less risks taken, more sequels, ports and knockoffs, less innovation, longer development cycles, etc. And guess what? We're seeing tons of that stuff now. FF13 took what, 5 or 6 years to develop? Next generation it might take 7 or 8, if not more. Does anyone really want that?

Don't take any of this personally....

Again, maybe it's time to think more on how to save money than keep risking financial ruin because of spending so dang much on making the game. I know that there are gamers who "demand" this stuff, and I wholeheartedly admit that it's nice, but it's just bells and whistles, fluff, if you make a crappy game that's rich in physics, "great" voice acting, and forgettable orchestral score, nothing is going to save that game, of course that's entirely a matter of opinion. ;-)

Do I like seeing sequel after sequel after sequel? Of course not. But the fact for me remains the same, evaluate cost, and find better ways to make a game. To me, companies have put themselves into this position, to keep putting themselves into financial risk every time they release a "blockbuster".

And Zircon, I do understand that there's TONS of work that goes into making games, more than I would ever even want to get into. But I have to ask, who else besides hardcore gamers ever asked for this? Of course it's going to be a natural progression with games, but I'm still under the belief that this shouldn't have to be a necessity for a game to be good. Mario Bros. Wii didn't have a bunch of frills, and while I highly believe that game could have been even better from them, it was a well made game (again that's opinion). Was it costly? I have no doubts of that, but as costly as Mario Galaxy? I highly doubt it. And look at which one sold more overall...

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread sure has taken quite a turn from just being about EA's Online Pass system.

Oh c'mon now, you didn't think it wouldn't grow into a bigger discussion?

I honestly think there could be more to all of this, if used game sales hurt these companies, and they don't ask why they buy them, other than the fact that they're a bit cheaper, here's what I think it could be, and it's what I think I've been basically saying when it all comes down to it...

Consumers don't feel these HD games are worth the $60 price tag. And I'm not talking hardcore gamers, I'm talking average joes and josies that play games, not really delving much into them, but rather, are occasional players.

And that could bring a bigger question into play, content. If the consumer doesn't think the product is worth the price, than what is that to say of the content itself?

Just a question I thought about with thinking about this thread...

Link to post
Share on other sites
as mentioned before, EA's move could be the start of a movement that could affect the way the industry operates in the future.

Except maybe not. Keep in mind this only affects brick-and-mortar stores and physical media, if the trend is to move to mostly digital distribution as a lot of analysts have been predicting for a while now then this is just a pinch compared to what will happen later on. We're not looking at a long-term solution to a problem but rather something to start chipping away at the used games market until the technology/platform exists for total digital distro.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Except maybe not. Keep in mind this only affects brick-and-mortar stores and physical media, if the trend is to move to mostly digital distribution as a lot of analysts have been predicting for a while now then this is just a pinch compared to what will happen later on. We're not looking at a long-term solution to a problem but rather something to start chipping away at the used games market until the technology/platform exists for total digital distro.

But the concern over price of that future content is still a serious issue. When XBLA started, prices weren't high, just barely $10, and look where it's gotten to now. Braid's price point anyone? COD MW 2 maps? Price hikes will abound. Hardcore gamers will get whatever's thrown at them without question, and lap up anything magazines and developers may try to spin, but consumers who are more discerning than that will disagree.

I guess since I don't follow suit with the "what's good for the industry is good for gamers" I'm an outsider to all of this...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't take any of this personally....

Again, maybe it's time to think more on how to save money than keep risking financial ruin because of spending so dang much on making the game. I know that there are gamers who "demand" this stuff, and I wholeheartedly admit that it's nice, but it's just bells and whistles, fluff, if you make a crappy game that's rich in physics, "great" voice acting, and forgettable orchestral score, nothing is going to save that game, of course that's entirely a matter of opinion. ;-)

I'm not using the term "demand" in the sense of "We demand this, or else!" I'm using the economic definition. EA can put out a new sports game every year for numerous franchises and generate a lot of revenue. There are millions of people who have demand for such products. They can choose from any game out there, including indie games, as well as any other kind of entertainment to spend their discretionary (luxury) money on. Yet they choose these games, and games like GTA4, Uncharted 2, Final Fantasy 13, etc. instead. There is no argument here. The market has a lot of demand for these higher end games. Games which do not have polished voice acting, great graphics, bugfree code, and realistic physics are much less appealing than the competition and there is thus less demand for them.

Do I like seeing sequel after sequel after sequel? Of course not. But the fact for me remains the same, evaluate cost, and find better ways to make a game. To me, companies have put themselves into this position, to keep putting themselves into financial risk every time they release a "blockbuster".

They have to try to create blockbusters because it's so expensive to make games to begin with. What would happen if a game company released a game with PS1 graphics on the PS3? Or PS2 graphics? It wouldn't sell. Gamers want more evolved games in every way. They won't settle for anything less. Again, you can point to indie games, but indie games don't generate anywhere near the revenue or sales figures. There is less demand for them. More people would rather play a cinematic adventure like Uncharted 2 or a brilliant platformer like Super Mario Galaxy 2 than Braid. Simple as that.

And Zircon, I do understand that there's TONS of work that goes into making games, more than I would ever even want to get into. But I have to ask, who else besides hardcore gamers ever asked for this? Of course it's going to be a natural progression with games, but I'm still under the belief that this shouldn't have to be a necessity for a game to be good. Mario Bros. Wii didn't have a bunch of frills, and while I highly believe that game could have been even better from them, it was a well made game (again that's opinion). Was it costly? I have no doubts of that, but as costly as Mario Galaxy? I highly doubt it. And look at which one sold more overall...

True, NSMB Wii had more sales. But it also had the 'install base' of people who had already played NSMB DS, which was among the most popular DS games ever, and the DS has an extremely large fanbase. In effect, you're proving MY point, which is that developers are more likely to develop low-cost sequels (NSMB -> NSMB Wii) than take risks (SMG1) though again as you can see, SMG2 is sticking very closely to SMG1 - something Nintendo has never done on their main consoles since the days of the NES.

Anyway, here's a fun image:

10glffn.jpg

But the concern over price of that future content is still a serious issue. When XBLA started, prices weren't high, just barely $10, and look where it's gotten to now. Braid's price point anyone? COD MW 2 maps? Price hikes will abound. Hardcore gamers will get whatever's thrown at them without question, and lap up anything magazines and developers may try to spin, but consumers who are more discerning than that will disagree.

I guess since I don't follow suit with the "what's good for the industry is good for gamers" I'm an outsider to all of this...

The game industry will simply continue to do things in its own best interest. If gamers show (with their wallets) that they are more than willing to pay higher prices, premium DLC fees, $15-20 for a game like Braid, or whatever, and if those things pull in ideal revenue for developers and publishers, then those things will continue. But the game industry as a whole cannot cater to strictly the small subset of hardcore gamers that are willing to pay far more than the average gamer. Again think of my previous example. EA could easily find buyers for a $100 sports game, but they'd get far fewer sales, thus making it not worth it. The market, in this case, corrects itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem is sport game values drop drastically once a new year hits. And no one here think's EA will keep this to sports games only. What if they do this with ME3? Or they mess with ME2? WCS what if they pull something with TOR?

The used game market is the only way for people who have limited incomes to be able to play some of the better games out there. I'm sorry if that pisses you off but thats the way it is. Most of us dont feel like spending 60 dollars for a game to begin with.

Now it'll be 70 for an EA sports title. I wasnt willing to pay 50 before what makes you think i'd pay 70? I was seriously thinking of getting a Madden this fall. Not going to happen. Not now probably not ever at this point.

This is another trend in general gaming that i'm really afraid of. Activision with SC2's paid maps and its now legendary chaos concerning the latest call of duty are another warning light.

If this kind of fee had been on FF13. I wouldnt have bought. Had it been on Forza 3 i would have kept my money and gone elsewhere. If it spread to every game on consoles i'd pawn my xbox and upgrade my computer and renounce console gaming all together. This aint good for anyone. And the long term implications of something like this should scare people.

that's a lot of acronyms

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just stick to goozex, get games for great prices, and this shitty online payment mode can suck it. Kthx. All of you whining about price costs can continue to be raped by gamestop, and all the people sucking up to the gaming industry can justify it. I'll just game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just curious

can anyone name any games EA has made recently that are worth buying

Dead Space, Battlefield Bad Company 2, Mirror's Edge, and if you're into BioWare stuff then pretty much everything they've done in the last few years (EA bought them in 2008 ).

Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody should be credited with the creation or production of something that they only publish, that is simply ridiculous

that's like saying that in the liner notes of a Queen album they should write 'Parlophone' under composer instead of 'Freddie Mercury'

also, so your opinion is objective but mine isn't

cool logic bro

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...