Sign in to follow this  
zircon

Video game survey for class - ULTRA SHORT - win an album

Recommended Posts

Again, thanks everyone!

BTW, this has nothing to do with Hellgate: London or any other existing game. Also, HG:L doesn't have procedurally generated storylines and events - those are set in stone. Only the areas and items are random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, thanks everyone!

BTW, this has nothing to do with Hellgate: London or any other existing game. Also, HG:L doesn't have procedurally generated storylines and events - those are set in stone. Only the areas and items are random.

true that; I've played the beta and it's hella good, though of course it had its glitches. Retail Version is gonna rock the socks out of current PC games so badly :D...so...stoked. K I'm done rambling now ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm feeling generous, so it's time for TWO giveaways!

Winners are...

* Kureejii Lee

* Turraken

Let me know what you want!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question six could have used a fourth option... "I'd rather not pay". That whole downloadable content, or "pay us more and you'll get these extra things" deal that some companies are trying to push forward, is a very lame money making scheme. Things that used to be free with patches, earned with a lot of play time, and/or included with the game upon its release, are now being held back and charged for by some companies. Considering you have to pay for the game, and pay to play it on-line every month, I see no reasonable explanation for having to pay for a new weapon, section of land, or spell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coop, because development costs are increasingly higher and the level of competition is far greater than it previously was? Companies need more methods of revenue. Part of the research for this project involved getting statistics for the industry, and we found that something like only 5% of all released games even turn a profit. You also have to consider that there is a GREAT deal more content being offered in games these days than previously.

Gameplay time and replay value has generally risen across the board; I've just been playing "Megaman ZX" for example and while I've spent over an hour on it, I've only just beaten what is essentially the intro. In MMX, I probably could have completed half the entire game in that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coop, because development costs are increasingly higher and the level of competition is far greater than it previously was? Companies need more methods of revenue. Part of the research for this project involved getting statistics for the industry, and we found that something like only 5% of all released games even turn a profit. You also have to consider that there is a GREAT deal more content being offered in games these days than previously.

If a game isn't turning a profit, then I believe the question isn't "What else can we charge the consumer for to turn that around?", it's "What went wrong?". Many games that don't turn a profit do so because they didn't sell well. Why it didn't could be for a number of reasons, ranging from a poorly made game (roughly 30 - 50% of what's on the shelves), to a game that simply didn't click with the consumer despite getting good reviews (Beyond Good and Evil anyone?).

Now, if you're "5%" is true, then I think you should look into just what's in that other 95%. I'll bet you'll find a lot of movie tie-in games, badly programmed games, quick cash-in titles that are knock offs of something that did sell well, and those cheapy CD jewel case things that get sold for $9.95 at Walmart. And even if you take games like BG&E into account, that's still no justification for micro transactioning the hell out of games that were once offered as a complete package from day one. Charging for little things like a character, a weapon, a stadium, or a different car chassis (things that would have normally been added before release) simply wreaks of a cheap means to try and drill deeper into the consumer's pocket.

People can go for expansion packs when it's a lot of fresh content that builds on an already finished game. But the idea of charging a dollar here and a three dollars there for pissy little additions doesn't sit well with folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it does, as many respondents to the survey said they would be willing to pay for extra content in that regard.

Plus, you're assuming that by offering such additions, the developer is restricting content on release. That certainly isn't a given. What if the developer releases a wonderful, polished game with lots of content, and simply wants to add more later? You might say 'free patches', but again, I argue that development and maintenance costs are higher than ever, particularly for any game with an online component. I see absolutely nothing wrong with offering additional paid content. I think it's a wonderful delivery system. Of course I agree that devs shouldn't release crippled games, but who's to say that offering MORE stuff later means that you have to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently it does, as many respondents to the survey said they would be willing to pay for extra content in that regard.

Plus, you're assuming that by offering such additions, the developer is restricting content on release. That certainly isn't a given. What if the developer releases a wonderful, polished game with lots of content, and simply wants to add more later? You might say 'free patches', but again, I argue that development and maintenance costs are higher than ever, particularly for any game with an online component. I see absolutely nothing wrong with offering additional paid content. I think it's a wonderful delivery system. Of course I agree that devs shouldn't release crippled games, but who's to say that offering MORE stuff later means that you have to?

I'm sure game costs have gone up. Bigger staffs and all that. But the fact that we pay anywhere from $50 to $90 for a game tells me that companies are already charging enough as it is. Plus, many on-line games require a monthly/yearly fee to play on their dedicated servers, or to even be able to get into the game you just paid for to make a character. How much more do they "need" to charge us? Annual server fees are understandable, as those things take constant maintenance. But considering how many large and small companies have released patches filled with new content for free over the years, I just don't agree with the view you're putting forth. To me, "development costs" comes across as flimsy an argument for micro transactions, as the "free patches in the past" argument against them might seem to others.

If they want to add new content, then let them make an expansion pack... something that contains a lot of new quests, goodies, characters, and such. People will happily pay $20-30 for that. But charging $3 for a classic football team, or $1 for a damned helmet is just asinine.

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this