Publishers and their used games gripes.

[jp1]

At what point did I say they should sell the game for a 1% markup?

I bet digital distribution would be a lot more popular if it proved more cost effective.

The only way retailers are going to be pissed about the publishers selling a game for less when you purchase it directly is if it starts to cut into their business significantly. If it sells enough copies to do that then it seems like a viable business model for providing the consumer with better prices.

Personally I believe they sell the game at the same price as the store because they can. Which again is fine but don't start using the x% goes to the retailer and associated costs if when you bypass that retailer you sell it at the same price. If they would provide a $5-10 discount because of your directly purchasing from them I seriously doubt it would piss anyone off.


This is going nowhere.

These companies make huge profits. I'm not saying they shouldn't, that is the whole point of making the game in the first place. They could find a way to sell the games for less and still make huge profits. That won't happen because people are generally content with the current pricing scheme as illustrated by all the defense of it here in this thread.

I can't really wrap my head around it honestly. I think gamers might be the only consumer on the planet that will actually be happy to pay whatever the company says is fair and not only not question that dynamic but defend it. You would think that some of you guys are shareholders.

I mean seriously, I haven't really bashed the publishers at all. I have simply said that they make some mistakes in their business model and they could do a better job to provide the same quality games at lower prices to us if they tried.

But that isn't even acceptable. I should submit that these people are the only perfect people on the planet and they have precisely whittled down to the penny the fairest price for the product they are selling while minimizing their own profits to keep the consumer happy. Each and every one of them works for pittance and they all do it for the love of their craft. If the price point of these games dropped by $5 tomorrow the entire video game industry would collapse.

I swear if I was to say that they could use cheaper toilet paper to lower costs ZeroAX, you would chime in about how they can't do that because the butt chafing would lower productivity. You honestly believe they have the perfect business model?

[ZeroAX]

You ever heard of risk being part of the cost? Don't just look at the profitable games. A company can make a game that sells 20 million copies, and then make 10 games that sell 200.000 copies.

We are not defending the publishers. Their business plan is broken as hell. But when one company gets a decent business plan, by catering to the casuals, everyone starts whining that they forgot about them. Games are expensive to make, and have a very limited market.

You are saying that their business plan is broken, but the only thing you have brought to the table, is that lower prices would sell more games, only that isn't true.

Look at casual games. They sell because of their lower prices, but do they sell as much as high profile releases?

[Flake]

We are not defending the publishers. Their business plan is broken as hell. But when one company gets a decent business plan, by catering to the casuals, everyone starts whining that they forgot about them. Games are expensive to make, and have a very limited market.

That is a group of sentences I can get behind. It all comes down to this: The 'hardcore' gamers, by constantly demanding more sequels and better graphics have literally bought themselves and the industry into a corner. Games cost a fortune to develop and even a game that sells a hundred thousand copies might not break even.

Of course, this is where used games become attractive to the gamer and an anathema to the developers. The problem is that A) You can't explain this to some guy who is already pre-ordering Madden 12 or Halo 17 and B) Even knowing this, gamers and companies are unlikely to stop and say 'hey, let's stop pushing expensive graphics and instead focus on story or gameplay mechanics that can be improved with a lower variable cost'.

[ZeroAX]

Even knowing this, gamers and companies are unlikely to stop and say 'hey, let's stop pushing expensive graphics and instead focus on story or gameplay mechanics that can be improved with a lower variable cost'.

You know for an industry that is mostly about ripping others off, it baffles me that companies don't look at Nintendo, Valve and Blizzard (with the exception of WoW their other games were pretty cheap to make, compared with the competition), and decide to do what they do. Less games per year, with graphics that "work" (SMG, TF2, WoW are perfect examples of that) without costing too much, and just replace graphics with excellent gameplay.....ooooooooooooh yeah that's the problem. The industry is run by idiots who don't know the first thing about making fun video games. (not the people working for the industry, the ones with the large bank accounts)

[jp1]

You are saying that their business plan is broken, but the only thing you have brought to the table, is that lower prices would sell more games, only that isn't true.

I have made several points about different ways that they could cut costs or at least areas of the process that could be looked at as problem areas. Because you don't agree with that doesn't mean that I haven't offered anything.

Unless you are an industry insider your knowledge of these things is second hand just the same as mine. Anyone can pick and choose the articles that fit their point of view and take them at face value that doesn't necessarily represent the whole truth.

It certainly feels as though you are defending them when every point that I bring up about manufacturing, distributing, or marketing you have the same excuses that they do. You are saying that nothing can be done but that isn't true. Your last point about Nintendo, Blizzard, and Valve is exactly the point I've been making it is possible to do it right. Just because the publishers are too lazy, unwilling, or scared to change things to make it happen doesn't mean that it is the consumers fault that things are screwed up.

The funny part about your whole argument is that you are saying that the consumers that want these crap games like "Madden 12 or Halo 17" are to blame for the entire problem but those games should be the cheapest to produce I mean they are nearly carbon copies of the previous version of the game. Tweak a little something here or there slap a new coat of paint on it and there you have the next big $60 hit.

I will never believe that a game that is nearly identical to it's predecessor cost the same amount of money to produce. If I have to hire an architect to design a house for me then it is going to cost a lot more than just rebuilding the same house with the same blueprints and changing the light fixtures and color schemes. It's even more prominent with video games because that would be the equivalent of just dropping the whole framed in house in place for free and then making the small changes needed to pretend it is a whole new product.

[yomomma1]

Halo reach cost nothing to make? Even with 3 years of development... Dang they must be paying those developers 2 cents an hour.

[jp1]

By the way, take a look at some of the different lists online showing the best selling games of all time and tell me that the casual market isn't just as big or important as that of the ones drooling for Call of Duty. There is certainly a market for these companies to expand into games focusing on great game play instead of whoring out to graphics.

[Flake]

Halo reach cost nothing to make? Even with 3 years of development... Dang they must be paying those developers 2 cents an hour.

You are assuming that it actually took 3 years to develop. The game was probably developed from existing Halo 3 assets in less than a quarter of the time it took to make Halo 3. That no one saw or played the game until the recent Beta isn't a measure of the games actual development cycle...more that Halo 3 sales were still strong enough that it wasn't yet time to push the game to the market.

And c'mon, using Halo to defend a pricing scheme? Halo ODST was the same game as Halo 3. Of course, it also had the same price...

[jp1]

Halo reach cost nothing to make? Even with 3 years of development... Dang they must be paying those developers 2 cents an hour.

You are really starting to get on my nerves. I didn't say it costs nothing to make. Do you even bother to process what you read before you respond? I said it should cost less to make than the game that came before it because it will be a near copy of it and a lot of the same building blocks (if you will) are already in place. I also didn't say "Halo Reach" anywhere.

[yomomma1]

Did you even read what I said? You read things too literally. Have you SEEN halo reach? damn it looks EXACTLY THE SAME yep. You didn't say halo reach, but you said halo, and I used that as an example. Considering that Halo 3 was released in 2007, It isn't an exact copy due to oh, everything.