|
On May 02 2011 21:02 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 20:44 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 20:31 Gheed wrote:
Disclaimer: I have an active WoW subscription. For that, I get fairly responsive customer service, weekly server maintenence, and semi regular content updates. I'm not averse to the idea of fees or DLC, but a lot of what companies like Activision or EA put out is horse shit, or in the case of Bethesda, 2 dollar horse armor. What if you could get that in SC2? Better customer service, regular maintenace, better feedback and info from the devs, a bigger more indepth integration with different tournaments directly in battle.net, more content in the form of custom games and such. Some of these things are in the works, but they would have come sooner if they had the added revenue AND pressure that comes with a monthy fee. ($5 or something, not as much as WoW) I think you're overestimating how giving them more money would speed up their development times. Blizzard is a pretty small company, speaking relatively, and paying designers and programmers more money is not going to make them work faster, and hiring more would not necessarily improve the quality. As to whether I'd ever accept a fee for SC2, no. Any sort of fee for a game like SC2 would be wholly unpalatable. It's like on-disc DLC. I refuse to buy it out of principal; they would be making me pay for something they've proven they have the capability of giving me for free, on top of making me pay for the game itself.
I disagree. If i could have a better SC2 with faster updates i'd gladly pay a small monthly fee even though i rarely play. Comparing SC2 to BW isn't that great as BW only had a couple of patches total and no real custom game/tournament support from Blizzard.
I guess we just see things differently. I see a huge difference between charging for DLC on release and paying a small montly fee IF it would lead to a better overall experience.
Of course Blizzard can hire more people to work on stuff in SC2. They are probably one of the biggest dream jobs of game programmer/designers everywhere.
|
|
|
On May 02 2011 20:49 LittLeD wrote:
We just gotta wait some years until these old capatilistic men, who practically understands nothing of today's youth and what's going on in the different communities and where the interests are, fade away and the new generation of entrepreneurs and businessmen, who actually understands something, enters the topspots. Maybe by then, the tides have turned once again, who knows.
I guess what im trying to say is, these CEOs shouldnt just look for stuff that can squeeze out the most money, they should look for what people want, where the interest are, and how well people respond to different stuff and act accordingly. That'd be a company that people like, and that will stay strong for the future.
They made Wow didn't they? I'd say thats pretty much in tune with todays youth. Do you expect the future generation to be a generation of charitable donors or something so all gamers in the world can run through endless poppy fields of free titles with unlimited support?
Most of the views here are so inconsistent. People pile in to belittle the publishers, saying we get shit games. Go to another thread on anticipated games of the year and the same people are gushing about how they can't wait for the following 5 titles...
God forbid that CEO's should chase profit. Profit is generally a sign of a healthy business (as long as you aren't doing something like recycling orphans into the packaging material) If the companies do not turn a profit they can't pay for talent and they don't attract capital. In other words, they fold.
I don't understand how many people in this thread can love a product enough to spend a few hours a week in its company but then proclaim how utterly shit its creators are.
|
On May 02 2011 20:58 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 20:48 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:40 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:44 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:19 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:02 GizmoPT wrote:On May 02 2011 19:00 Fission wrote:On May 02 2011 18:56 Inori wrote:
[quote]
Because of people like you there are now stupid money milking strategies like DLC, monthly fees and etc. Feel free to blame me in particular, but there are a legion of people who feel similarly to me. Explain to me why you feel that you are entitled to persistent monthly service for something you pay a small nominal fee for? What other industry works in a similar manner? if you feel so bad for not paying it monthly why dont you just send money to blizzard to help them pay their bills Look at it this way. Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes. Buy a book, same deal. Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time. Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it. Movies cost more to produce than video games, yet cost less. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect continued support when you shell out 60 bucks for a video game versus 15 bucks for a DVD. Movie also sell on theaters, on DVD's, on Blu-ray and to all the movie-channels on TV. Die Hart 4 had a budget of 110 million dollars, Killzon 2 had about 20 million dollars. So sure movies have a higher budget, they are also a bigger medium and appeal to a much bigger audience. Yeah 60 bucks for a game where the campaign alone is at least 10 hours with potentially endless gametime online compared to a 15 buck 1.5-2 hour movie. Not a great comparison. You pay 60 dollars because of all those countless hours spent online. It's not some added perk of buying the game, that's what you're buying. It costs a production company 0 dollars when I rewatch a movie. It costs blizzard an extremely tiny amount for me to use battle.net. That extremely tiny amount is bundled into the cost of the game. It is not free. Like when you buy a bottle of shampoo, and it says "30% free," that stuff isn't free. You just paid for it when you bought the shampoo. It's a marketing trick. If a Directors Cut is released or a remaster you have to rebuy the same movie with slight changes. You get these changes for free with a game. Yes you pay $60 for a videogame, a interactive medium with at least 10+ hours of singleplayer. You pay $15 for a movie with 1.5 hours of entertainment. The game also has unlimited online potential for at least 50-100 more hours. The game also has updates, improvements, new maps and is constantly being improved upon. A 10-15 hour long singleplayer game for 60 bucks is comparable to a 1.5 hour 15 buck movie. A game with constant updates, improvements AND huge online is a better deal AND could potentially be worth a small monthly fee. IF, and only if, it means that devs get the chance to do it their way and not sell out due to pressure to gain more profits. The amount of "entertainment time" you get from a purchase was immaterial to my argument. I am not arguing whether or not video games give you more entertainment hours per dollar spent over movies. Undoubtedly they have the potential to. I am arguing that because video games cost more than movies, it is not unreasonable to expect extended support, in the form of an online service, e.g. battle.net, and is, in fact, expected. I'm sure there's a disclaimer in the EULA that battle.net service is not guaranteed, but the expectation at the time of purchase is that battle.net will be available to the purchaser. That's what you're buying when you're buying SC2. It's not a free service. It's not bleeding Blizzard dry. I can log on to my BW account right now, years after purchase. To say that a monthly fee is needed is wrong, the reason why some higher ups at Activision are bemoaning the Blizzard model for non WoW games is that it is not as profitable as it could be, not because they could sell us more stuff, but because they could charge more for the same stuff. And that's bullshit. So a game that has more entertainment per dollar should also provide alot of other services. Sounds like to me like unwarranted entitlement.
You aren't renting a car, you're buying a piece of plastic with a game on it. How much time you spend on it is irrelevant to how much it costs at the store. If 10 years ago, I could buy a game and get unlimited online access, and now I can't, then that's wrong. If the costs of development are truly that limiting, then make the game itself cost more, don't nickel and dime people with fees and DLC. Or, more reasonably, market the game better, since at a certain breakpoint the game will cost so much as to lose sales.
|
On May 02 2011 21:06 biggestnoob wrote:Show nested quote +If you honestly believe that map updates, custom game development, multiplayer balancing and other services don't cost blizzard money you're naive. ??? You are the naive one. Blizzard pays its employes on a monthly basis, meaning the only relationship between profits and losses is time and quality. I think Blizzard has taken the quality over quantity approach that has lasted them 20 years with huge success and are not a crap company like Activision that had 3 years success with Rock band or shit and then it burned out all consumers, now a shitty rock band can't even sell half a million copies on 3 platforms, while SC2 sells 5 million copies on 1 platform the PC, which arguably is the lowest one. And again the only thing that really costs blizzard money is the online server they are paying, but hey its their choice, they can always return to the P2P model like WC3.
I'm pretty sure there's alot of other things to work on beside SC2 at blizzard. Costs are costs, it's not like they earn a monthly salary sitting rolling their thumbs if the would be no more SC2 work to do.
|
On May 02 2011 21:11 Gheed wrote:
You aren't renting a car, you're buying a piece of plastic with a game on it. How much time you spend on it is irrelevant to how much it costs at the store. If 10 years ago, I could buy a game and get unlimited online access, and now I can't, then that's wrong. If the costs of development are truly that limiting, then make the game itself cost more, don't nickel and dime people with fees and DLC. Or, more reasonably, market the game better, since at a certain breakpoint the game will cost so much as to lose sales.
This post has a lot of truth in it. The standards dropped A LOT nowadays. The things that were free aren't and they're not that cheap. Companies go for quantity,not quality. The games that are coming out are a big disappointment for me,starting with Spore,ending with games such as COD series..
|
On May 02 2011 21:11 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 20:58 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 20:48 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:40 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:44 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:19 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:02 GizmoPT wrote:On May 02 2011 19:00 Fission wrote:
[quote]
Feel free to blame me in particular, but there are a legion of people who feel similarly to me. Explain to me why you feel that you are entitled to persistent monthly service for something you pay a small nominal fee for? What other industry works in a similar manner? if you feel so bad for not paying it monthly why dont you just send money to blizzard to help them pay their bills Look at it this way. Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes. Buy a book, same deal. Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time. Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it. Movies cost more to produce than video games, yet cost less. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect continued support when you shell out 60 bucks for a video game versus 15 bucks for a DVD. Movie also sell on theaters, on DVD's, on Blu-ray and to all the movie-channels on TV. Die Hart 4 had a budget of 110 million dollars, Killzon 2 had about 20 million dollars. So sure movies have a higher budget, they are also a bigger medium and appeal to a much bigger audience. Yeah 60 bucks for a game where the campaign alone is at least 10 hours with potentially endless gametime online compared to a 15 buck 1.5-2 hour movie. Not a great comparison. You pay 60 dollars because of all those countless hours spent online. It's not some added perk of buying the game, that's what you're buying. It costs a production company 0 dollars when I rewatch a movie. It costs blizzard an extremely tiny amount for me to use battle.net. That extremely tiny amount is bundled into the cost of the game. It is not free. Like when you buy a bottle of shampoo, and it says "30% free," that stuff isn't free. You just paid for it when you bought the shampoo. It's a marketing trick. If a Directors Cut is released or a remaster you have to rebuy the same movie with slight changes. You get these changes for free with a game. Yes you pay $60 for a videogame, a interactive medium with at least 10+ hours of singleplayer. You pay $15 for a movie with 1.5 hours of entertainment. The game also has unlimited online potential for at least 50-100 more hours. The game also has updates, improvements, new maps and is constantly being improved upon. A 10-15 hour long singleplayer game for 60 bucks is comparable to a 1.5 hour 15 buck movie. A game with constant updates, improvements AND huge online is a better deal AND could potentially be worth a small monthly fee. IF, and only if, it means that devs get the chance to do it their way and not sell out due to pressure to gain more profits. The amount of "entertainment time" you get from a purchase was immaterial to my argument. I am not arguing whether or not video games give you more entertainment hours per dollar spent over movies. Undoubtedly they have the potential to. I am arguing that because video games cost more than movies, it is not unreasonable to expect extended support, in the form of an online service, e.g. battle.net, and is, in fact, expected. I'm sure there's a disclaimer in the EULA that battle.net service is not guaranteed, but the expectation at the time of purchase is that battle.net will be available to the purchaser. That's what you're buying when you're buying SC2. It's not a free service. It's not bleeding Blizzard dry. I can log on to my BW account right now, years after purchase. To say that a monthly fee is needed is wrong, the reason why some higher ups at Activision are bemoaning the Blizzard model for non WoW games is that it is not as profitable as it could be, not because they could sell us more stuff, but because they could charge more for the same stuff. And that's bullshit. So a game that has more entertainment per dollar should also provide alot of other services. Sounds like to me like unwarranted entitlement. You aren't renting a car, you're buying a piece of plastic with a game on it. How much time you spend on it is irrelevant to how much it costs at the store. If 10 years ago, I could buy a game and get unlimited online access, and now I can't, then that's wrong. If the costs of development are truly that limiting, then make the game itself cost more, don't nickel and dime people with fees and DLC. Or, more reasonably, market the game better, since at a certain breakpoint the game will cost so much as to lose sales.
So you would rather have everyone pay extra for a game rather than only certain people who have the money to spend pay for the DLCs/custom maps/portraits/skins? What ? Not only does that probably reduce sales revenue, it would be even worse for the average consumer and reduce the growth of the industry.
|
On May 02 2011 21:11 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 20:58 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 20:48 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:40 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:44 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:19 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:02 GizmoPT wrote:On May 02 2011 19:00 Fission wrote:
[quote]
Feel free to blame me in particular, but there are a legion of people who feel similarly to me. Explain to me why you feel that you are entitled to persistent monthly service for something you pay a small nominal fee for? What other industry works in a similar manner? if you feel so bad for not paying it monthly why dont you just send money to blizzard to help them pay their bills Look at it this way. Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes. Buy a book, same deal. Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time. Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it. Movies cost more to produce than video games, yet cost less. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect continued support when you shell out 60 bucks for a video game versus 15 bucks for a DVD. Movie also sell on theaters, on DVD's, on Blu-ray and to all the movie-channels on TV. Die Hart 4 had a budget of 110 million dollars, Killzon 2 had about 20 million dollars. So sure movies have a higher budget, they are also a bigger medium and appeal to a much bigger audience. Yeah 60 bucks for a game where the campaign alone is at least 10 hours with potentially endless gametime online compared to a 15 buck 1.5-2 hour movie. Not a great comparison. You pay 60 dollars because of all those countless hours spent online. It's not some added perk of buying the game, that's what you're buying. It costs a production company 0 dollars when I rewatch a movie. It costs blizzard an extremely tiny amount for me to use battle.net. That extremely tiny amount is bundled into the cost of the game. It is not free. Like when you buy a bottle of shampoo, and it says "30% free," that stuff isn't free. You just paid for it when you bought the shampoo. It's a marketing trick. If a Directors Cut is released or a remaster you have to rebuy the same movie with slight changes. You get these changes for free with a game. Yes you pay $60 for a videogame, a interactive medium with at least 10+ hours of singleplayer. You pay $15 for a movie with 1.5 hours of entertainment. The game also has unlimited online potential for at least 50-100 more hours. The game also has updates, improvements, new maps and is constantly being improved upon. A 10-15 hour long singleplayer game for 60 bucks is comparable to a 1.5 hour 15 buck movie. A game with constant updates, improvements AND huge online is a better deal AND could potentially be worth a small monthly fee. IF, and only if, it means that devs get the chance to do it their way and not sell out due to pressure to gain more profits. The amount of "entertainment time" you get from a purchase was immaterial to my argument. I am not arguing whether or not video games give you more entertainment hours per dollar spent over movies. Undoubtedly they have the potential to. I am arguing that because video games cost more than movies, it is not unreasonable to expect extended support, in the form of an online service, e.g. battle.net, and is, in fact, expected. I'm sure there's a disclaimer in the EULA that battle.net service is not guaranteed, but the expectation at the time of purchase is that battle.net will be available to the purchaser. That's what you're buying when you're buying SC2. It's not a free service. It's not bleeding Blizzard dry. I can log on to my BW account right now, years after purchase. To say that a monthly fee is needed is wrong, the reason why some higher ups at Activision are bemoaning the Blizzard model for non WoW games is that it is not as profitable as it could be, not because they could sell us more stuff, but because they could charge more for the same stuff. And that's bullshit. So a game that has more entertainment per dollar should also provide alot of other services. Sounds like to me like unwarranted entitlement. You aren't renting a car, you're buying a piece of plastic with a game on it. How much time you spend on it is irrelevant to how much it costs at the store. If 10 years ago, I could buy a game and get unlimited online access, and now I can't, then that's wrong. If the costs of development are truly that limiting, then make the game itself cost more, don't nickel and dime people with fees and DLC. Or, more reasonably, market the game better, since at a certain breakpoint the game will cost so much as to lose sales.
You got unlimited online access from old games but the support, content and dev-customer relations were rarely if ever there. If you don't see the problem with a huge up front payment instead of incremental payments you don't really understand how sales or the market works at all.
How can time spend on a game not be important i relation to how much it costs? I see reviewers hammer this point home many times. If a game is only 5 hours long it's probably not worth 60 bucks. All reviews take the costs/content aspect into consideration because it's a HUGE deal for most people.
|
On May 02 2011 21:21 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 21:11 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:58 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 20:48 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:40 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:44 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:19 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:02 GizmoPT wrote:
[quote]
if you feel so bad for not paying it monthly why dont you just send money to blizzard to help them pay their bills Look at it this way. Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes. Buy a book, same deal. Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time. Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it. Movies cost more to produce than video games, yet cost less. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect continued support when you shell out 60 bucks for a video game versus 15 bucks for a DVD. Movie also sell on theaters, on DVD's, on Blu-ray and to all the movie-channels on TV. Die Hart 4 had a budget of 110 million dollars, Killzon 2 had about 20 million dollars. So sure movies have a higher budget, they are also a bigger medium and appeal to a much bigger audience. Yeah 60 bucks for a game where the campaign alone is at least 10 hours with potentially endless gametime online compared to a 15 buck 1.5-2 hour movie. Not a great comparison. You pay 60 dollars because of all those countless hours spent online. It's not some added perk of buying the game, that's what you're buying. It costs a production company 0 dollars when I rewatch a movie. It costs blizzard an extremely tiny amount for me to use battle.net. That extremely tiny amount is bundled into the cost of the game. It is not free. Like when you buy a bottle of shampoo, and it says "30% free," that stuff isn't free. You just paid for it when you bought the shampoo. It's a marketing trick. If a Directors Cut is released or a remaster you have to rebuy the same movie with slight changes. You get these changes for free with a game. Yes you pay $60 for a videogame, a interactive medium with at least 10+ hours of singleplayer. You pay $15 for a movie with 1.5 hours of entertainment. The game also has unlimited online potential for at least 50-100 more hours. The game also has updates, improvements, new maps and is constantly being improved upon. A 10-15 hour long singleplayer game for 60 bucks is comparable to a 1.5 hour 15 buck movie. A game with constant updates, improvements AND huge online is a better deal AND could potentially be worth a small monthly fee. IF, and only if, it means that devs get the chance to do it their way and not sell out due to pressure to gain more profits. The amount of "entertainment time" you get from a purchase was immaterial to my argument. I am not arguing whether or not video games give you more entertainment hours per dollar spent over movies. Undoubtedly they have the potential to. I am arguing that because video games cost more than movies, it is not unreasonable to expect extended support, in the form of an online service, e.g. battle.net, and is, in fact, expected. I'm sure there's a disclaimer in the EULA that battle.net service is not guaranteed, but the expectation at the time of purchase is that battle.net will be available to the purchaser. That's what you're buying when you're buying SC2. It's not a free service. It's not bleeding Blizzard dry. I can log on to my BW account right now, years after purchase. To say that a monthly fee is needed is wrong, the reason why some higher ups at Activision are bemoaning the Blizzard model for non WoW games is that it is not as profitable as it could be, not because they could sell us more stuff, but because they could charge more for the same stuff. And that's bullshit. So a game that has more entertainment per dollar should also provide alot of other services. Sounds like to me like unwarranted entitlement. You aren't renting a car, you're buying a piece of plastic with a game on it. How much time you spend on it is irrelevant to how much it costs at the store. If 10 years ago, I could buy a game and get unlimited online access, and now I can't, then that's wrong. If the costs of development are truly that limiting, then make the game itself cost more, don't nickel and dime people with fees and DLC. Or, more reasonably, market the game better, since at a certain breakpoint the game will cost so much as to lose sales. So you would rather have everyone pay extra for a game rather than only certain people who have the money to spend pay for the DLCs/custom maps/portraits/skins? What ? Not only does that probably reduce sales revenue, it would be even worse for the average consumer and reduce the growth of the industry.
Those sorts of things are things that years ago would have been free. More specifically, they would have polished the game better before selling it. DLC promotes games to be shipped ahead of deadlines, with cut content released for money as new content. Rather than dishonestly obfuscate the cost of video games, I would rather they spend time, finish them, and sell them like they used to, even if that means they cost 10 dollars more because of the millions more it costs to produce them. I'd much rather wait an extra six months for Mass Effect 3 and buy a whole game then have to buy 1.8 games in the form of game + DLC(s) because EA decided to pressure the devs to ship out early, or worse, purposely hold back content so they could repackage it and sell it later.
|
On May 02 2011 21:31 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 21:21 teamsolid wrote:On May 02 2011 21:11 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:58 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 20:48 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:40 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:44 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:19 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 karpo wrote:
[quote]
Look at it this way.
Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes.
Buy a book, same deal.
Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time.
Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it.
Movies cost more to produce than video games, yet cost less. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect continued support when you shell out 60 bucks for a video game versus 15 bucks for a DVD. Movie also sell on theaters, on DVD's, on Blu-ray and to all the movie-channels on TV. Die Hart 4 had a budget of 110 million dollars, Killzon 2 had about 20 million dollars. So sure movies have a higher budget, they are also a bigger medium and appeal to a much bigger audience. Yeah 60 bucks for a game where the campaign alone is at least 10 hours with potentially endless gametime online compared to a 15 buck 1.5-2 hour movie. Not a great comparison. You pay 60 dollars because of all those countless hours spent online. It's not some added perk of buying the game, that's what you're buying. It costs a production company 0 dollars when I rewatch a movie. It costs blizzard an extremely tiny amount for me to use battle.net. That extremely tiny amount is bundled into the cost of the game. It is not free. Like when you buy a bottle of shampoo, and it says "30% free," that stuff isn't free. You just paid for it when you bought the shampoo. It's a marketing trick. If a Directors Cut is released or a remaster you have to rebuy the same movie with slight changes. You get these changes for free with a game. Yes you pay $60 for a videogame, a interactive medium with at least 10+ hours of singleplayer. You pay $15 for a movie with 1.5 hours of entertainment. The game also has unlimited online potential for at least 50-100 more hours. The game also has updates, improvements, new maps and is constantly being improved upon. A 10-15 hour long singleplayer game for 60 bucks is comparable to a 1.5 hour 15 buck movie. A game with constant updates, improvements AND huge online is a better deal AND could potentially be worth a small monthly fee. IF, and only if, it means that devs get the chance to do it their way and not sell out due to pressure to gain more profits. The amount of "entertainment time" you get from a purchase was immaterial to my argument. I am not arguing whether or not video games give you more entertainment hours per dollar spent over movies. Undoubtedly they have the potential to. I am arguing that because video games cost more than movies, it is not unreasonable to expect extended support, in the form of an online service, e.g. battle.net, and is, in fact, expected. I'm sure there's a disclaimer in the EULA that battle.net service is not guaranteed, but the expectation at the time of purchase is that battle.net will be available to the purchaser. That's what you're buying when you're buying SC2. It's not a free service. It's not bleeding Blizzard dry. I can log on to my BW account right now, years after purchase. To say that a monthly fee is needed is wrong, the reason why some higher ups at Activision are bemoaning the Blizzard model for non WoW games is that it is not as profitable as it could be, not because they could sell us more stuff, but because they could charge more for the same stuff. And that's bullshit. So a game that has more entertainment per dollar should also provide alot of other services. Sounds like to me like unwarranted entitlement. You aren't renting a car, you're buying a piece of plastic with a game on it. How much time you spend on it is irrelevant to how much it costs at the store. If 10 years ago, I could buy a game and get unlimited online access, and now I can't, then that's wrong. If the costs of development are truly that limiting, then make the game itself cost more, don't nickel and dime people with fees and DLC. Or, more reasonably, market the game better, since at a certain breakpoint the game will cost so much as to lose sales. So you would rather have everyone pay extra for a game rather than only certain people who have the money to spend pay for the DLCs/custom maps/portraits/skins? What ? Not only does that probably reduce sales revenue, it would be even worse for the average consumer and reduce the growth of the industry. Those sorts of things are things that years ago would have been free. More specifically, they would have polished the game better before selling it. DLC promotes games to be shipped ahead of deadlines, with cut content released for money as new content. Rather than dishonestly obfuscate the cost of video games, I would rather they spend time, finish them, and sell them like they used to, even if that means they cost 10 dollars more because of the millions more it costs to produce them. I'd much rather wait an extra six months for Mass Effect 3 and buy a whole game then have to buy 1.8 games in the form of game + DLC(s) because EA decided to pressure the devs to ship out early, or worse, purposely hold back content so they could repackage it and sell it later.
It doesn't matter how it was "years ago". Costs have changed, thus the industry changes along with it. "It was free before, so it should be today" is not a valid argument. Since the DLC model has been shown to be superior to simply increasing box prices, that's how it's gonna be.
|
this stupid quote at 50:00 comes with all these qualifications
"apparently"
"is not really worth it"
"I'm just paraphrasing"
"CFO of Activision"
"one thing i heard recently"
NO NAMES
NO EXACT QUOTE
NO DATE
No one else has breathed a word of this quote except this guy.
IF
Activision-Blizzard cares to throttle this knob and call him a liar who has misquoted an executive in their employ and damaging their reputation
THEN
all these "qualifications" provide this dweed with "plausible deniability"
Soren Johnson's currect project "StrategyStation.com" is an EA project.
Follow the money people.
Wait until Diablo 3 starts cannibalizing WoW customers. Then we'll see how dedicated Blizzard is to doing nothing but making money.
|
On May 02 2011 21:31 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 21:21 teamsolid wrote:On May 02 2011 21:11 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:58 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 20:48 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:40 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:44 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:19 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:06 karpo wrote:
[quote]
Look at it this way.
Buy a movie, you get what you buy and nothing changes.
Buy a book, same deal.
Buy a game, expect updates/patches/maps/improvements for free for a unlimited time.
Sounds weird to me. I think what he's saying is that no other provider of that kind of service do it for free, so if supporting game devs like Blizzard with a small monthly fee means a stable development and no money hungry CEO's ruining the franchise i'm all for it.
Movies cost more to produce than video games, yet cost less. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect continued support when you shell out 60 bucks for a video game versus 15 bucks for a DVD. Movie also sell on theaters, on DVD's, on Blu-ray and to all the movie-channels on TV. Die Hart 4 had a budget of 110 million dollars, Killzon 2 had about 20 million dollars. So sure movies have a higher budget, they are also a bigger medium and appeal to a much bigger audience. Yeah 60 bucks for a game where the campaign alone is at least 10 hours with potentially endless gametime online compared to a 15 buck 1.5-2 hour movie. Not a great comparison. You pay 60 dollars because of all those countless hours spent online. It's not some added perk of buying the game, that's what you're buying. It costs a production company 0 dollars when I rewatch a movie. It costs blizzard an extremely tiny amount for me to use battle.net. That extremely tiny amount is bundled into the cost of the game. It is not free. Like when you buy a bottle of shampoo, and it says "30% free," that stuff isn't free. You just paid for it when you bought the shampoo. It's a marketing trick. If a Directors Cut is released or a remaster you have to rebuy the same movie with slight changes. You get these changes for free with a game. Yes you pay $60 for a videogame, a interactive medium with at least 10+ hours of singleplayer. You pay $15 for a movie with 1.5 hours of entertainment. The game also has unlimited online potential for at least 50-100 more hours. The game also has updates, improvements, new maps and is constantly being improved upon. A 10-15 hour long singleplayer game for 60 bucks is comparable to a 1.5 hour 15 buck movie. A game with constant updates, improvements AND huge online is a better deal AND could potentially be worth a small monthly fee. IF, and only if, it means that devs get the chance to do it their way and not sell out due to pressure to gain more profits. The amount of "entertainment time" you get from a purchase was immaterial to my argument. I am not arguing whether or not video games give you more entertainment hours per dollar spent over movies. Undoubtedly they have the potential to. I am arguing that because video games cost more than movies, it is not unreasonable to expect extended support, in the form of an online service, e.g. battle.net, and is, in fact, expected. I'm sure there's a disclaimer in the EULA that battle.net service is not guaranteed, but the expectation at the time of purchase is that battle.net will be available to the purchaser. That's what you're buying when you're buying SC2. It's not a free service. It's not bleeding Blizzard dry. I can log on to my BW account right now, years after purchase. To say that a monthly fee is needed is wrong, the reason why some higher ups at Activision are bemoaning the Blizzard model for non WoW games is that it is not as profitable as it could be, not because they could sell us more stuff, but because they could charge more for the same stuff. And that's bullshit. So a game that has more entertainment per dollar should also provide alot of other services. Sounds like to me like unwarranted entitlement. You aren't renting a car, you're buying a piece of plastic with a game on it. How much time you spend on it is irrelevant to how much it costs at the store. If 10 years ago, I could buy a game and get unlimited online access, and now I can't, then that's wrong. If the costs of development are truly that limiting, then make the game itself cost more, don't nickel and dime people with fees and DLC. Or, more reasonably, market the game better, since at a certain breakpoint the game will cost so much as to lose sales. So you would rather have everyone pay extra for a game rather than only certain people who have the money to spend pay for the DLCs/custom maps/portraits/skins? What ? Not only does that probably reduce sales revenue, it would be even worse for the average consumer and reduce the growth of the industry. Those sorts of things are things that years ago would have been free. More specifically, they would have polished the game better before selling it. DLC promotes games to be shipped ahead of deadlines, with cut content released for money as new content. Rather than dishonestly obfuscate the cost of video games, I would rather they spend time, finish them, and sell them like they used to, even if that means they cost 10 dollars more because of the millions more it costs to produce them. I'd much rather wait an extra six months for Mass Effect 3 and buy a whole game then have to buy 1.8 games in the form of game + DLC(s) because EA decided to pressure the devs to ship out early, or worse, purposely hold back content so they could repackage it and sell it later.
You focus only on the bad parts of DLC or monthly fees, i think that good DLC can easily extend the life of a game and be alot of fun. Games being shipped ahead of being 100% finished is not something new as there's loads of great old games that were near impossible to play at launch due to bugs and the like. Piracy is also a big factor when releasing games, if you wait to long you might lose alot of sales to due early versions being leaked on torrent sites (like Doom 3 as a example). Other than that you also say that years ago dlc, updates and custom maps would all be free. I can't really remember many games where this is true. Games released years ago usually sold well then we saw a tweak patch or two and not much else.
|
On May 02 2011 21:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
this stupid quote at 50:00 comes with all these qualifications
"apparently"
"is not really worth it"
"I'm just paraphrasing"
"CFO of Activision"
"one thing i heard recently"
NO NAMES
NO EXACT QUOTE
NO DATE
No one else has breathed a word of this quote except this guy.
IF
Activision-Blizzard cares to throttle this knob and call him a liar who has misquoted an executive in their employ and damaging their reputation
THEN
all these "qualifications" provide this dweed with "plausible deniability"
Soren Johnson's currect project "StrategyStation.com" is an EA project.
Follow the money people.
Wait until Diablo 3 starts cannibalizing WoW customers. Then we'll see how dedicated Blizzard is to doing nothing but making money.
Holy shit, did not notice that.!
|
On May 02 2011 21:36 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 21:31 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 21:21 teamsolid wrote:On May 02 2011 21:11 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:58 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 20:48 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:40 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:44 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:19 Gheed wrote:
[quote]
Movies cost more to produce than video games, yet cost less. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect continued support when you shell out 60 bucks for a video game versus 15 bucks for a DVD. Movie also sell on theaters, on DVD's, on Blu-ray and to all the movie-channels on TV. Die Hart 4 had a budget of 110 million dollars, Killzon 2 had about 20 million dollars. So sure movies have a higher budget, they are also a bigger medium and appeal to a much bigger audience. Yeah 60 bucks for a game where the campaign alone is at least 10 hours with potentially endless gametime online compared to a 15 buck 1.5-2 hour movie. Not a great comparison. You pay 60 dollars because of all those countless hours spent online. It's not some added perk of buying the game, that's what you're buying. It costs a production company 0 dollars when I rewatch a movie. It costs blizzard an extremely tiny amount for me to use battle.net. That extremely tiny amount is bundled into the cost of the game. It is not free. Like when you buy a bottle of shampoo, and it says "30% free," that stuff isn't free. You just paid for it when you bought the shampoo. It's a marketing trick. If a Directors Cut is released or a remaster you have to rebuy the same movie with slight changes. You get these changes for free with a game. Yes you pay $60 for a videogame, a interactive medium with at least 10+ hours of singleplayer. You pay $15 for a movie with 1.5 hours of entertainment. The game also has unlimited online potential for at least 50-100 more hours. The game also has updates, improvements, new maps and is constantly being improved upon. A 10-15 hour long singleplayer game for 60 bucks is comparable to a 1.5 hour 15 buck movie. A game with constant updates, improvements AND huge online is a better deal AND could potentially be worth a small monthly fee. IF, and only if, it means that devs get the chance to do it their way and not sell out due to pressure to gain more profits. The amount of "entertainment time" you get from a purchase was immaterial to my argument. I am not arguing whether or not video games give you more entertainment hours per dollar spent over movies. Undoubtedly they have the potential to. I am arguing that because video games cost more than movies, it is not unreasonable to expect extended support, in the form of an online service, e.g. battle.net, and is, in fact, expected. I'm sure there's a disclaimer in the EULA that battle.net service is not guaranteed, but the expectation at the time of purchase is that battle.net will be available to the purchaser. That's what you're buying when you're buying SC2. It's not a free service. It's not bleeding Blizzard dry. I can log on to my BW account right now, years after purchase. To say that a monthly fee is needed is wrong, the reason why some higher ups at Activision are bemoaning the Blizzard model for non WoW games is that it is not as profitable as it could be, not because they could sell us more stuff, but because they could charge more for the same stuff. And that's bullshit. So a game that has more entertainment per dollar should also provide alot of other services. Sounds like to me like unwarranted entitlement. You aren't renting a car, you're buying a piece of plastic with a game on it. How much time you spend on it is irrelevant to how much it costs at the store. If 10 years ago, I could buy a game and get unlimited online access, and now I can't, then that's wrong. If the costs of development are truly that limiting, then make the game itself cost more, don't nickel and dime people with fees and DLC. Or, more reasonably, market the game better, since at a certain breakpoint the game will cost so much as to lose sales. So you would rather have everyone pay extra for a game rather than only certain people who have the money to spend pay for the DLCs/custom maps/portraits/skins? What ? Not only does that probably reduce sales revenue, it would be even worse for the average consumer and reduce the growth of the industry. Those sorts of things are things that years ago would have been free. More specifically, they would have polished the game better before selling it. DLC promotes games to be shipped ahead of deadlines, with cut content released for money as new content. Rather than dishonestly obfuscate the cost of video games, I would rather they spend time, finish them, and sell them like they used to, even if that means they cost 10 dollars more because of the millions more it costs to produce them. I'd much rather wait an extra six months for Mass Effect 3 and buy a whole game then have to buy 1.8 games in the form of game + DLC(s) because EA decided to pressure the devs to ship out early, or worse, purposely hold back content so they could repackage it and sell it later. It doesn't matter how it was "years ago". Costs have changed, thus the industry changes along with it. "It was free before, so it should be today" is not a valid argument. Since the DLC model has been shown to be superior to simply increasing box prices, that's how it's gonna be.
It's only shown to be superior in that it generates more profits for the publishers. It's clearly not better for the consumers, as they get unfinished, rushed, or even more expensive products. Just look at battle.net 2.0, itself a vehicle designed to control all aspects of the game to support future DLC and thwart piracy. It is inferior in numerous aspects to the old battle.net, which was totally free and completely unable, except for a small advertisement at the top, to extract any further money out of customers.
|
On May 02 2011 20:13 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 20:10 anilusion wrote:On May 02 2011 20:02 teamsolid wrote:
People who call companies "money grubbing" if they try to monetize their game beyond the purchase price are hypocritical, because they are the same. Think about how much development costs have increased for (non-web based browser) games nowadays. It costs at least 10x or more of what it cost 10 years ago, yet we still pay the same price.
What reason do you have for not supporting your favorite game company financially for a product you enjoy for hundreds if not thousands of hours besides saving a few measly bucks yourself? Games also sell more than before. Not by enough. You might want to take a look at a list of the best selling games. BW still has more total sales than SC2 atm.
Don't forget the sad folks who still refuse to buy brood war even though it's like ten bucks.
They've had years of enjoyment out of the thing but still continue to play a pirated copy on Iccup or other free servers.
Still , Blizzard will make far more out of sc2 than sc1 due to there being more expansions and all the other junk they are in the process of monetizing.How long before we see a $25 portrait being sold ala the $25 mount sold in WoW? I remember that stupid mount raking in millions.
|
On May 02 2011 21:43 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 21:36 teamsolid wrote:On May 02 2011 21:31 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 21:21 teamsolid wrote:On May 02 2011 21:11 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:58 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 20:48 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:40 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:44 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 karpo wrote:
[quote]
Movie also sell on theaters, on DVD's, on Blu-ray and to all the movie-channels on TV. Die Hart 4 had a budget of 110 million dollars, Killzon 2 had about 20 million dollars. So sure movies have a higher budget, they are also a bigger medium and appeal to a much bigger audience.
Yeah 60 bucks for a game where the campaign alone is at least 10 hours with potentially endless gametime online compared to a 15 buck 1.5-2 hour movie. Not a great comparison.
You pay 60 dollars because of all those countless hours spent online. It's not some added perk of buying the game, that's what you're buying. It costs a production company 0 dollars when I rewatch a movie. It costs blizzard an extremely tiny amount for me to use battle.net. That extremely tiny amount is bundled into the cost of the game. It is not free. Like when you buy a bottle of shampoo, and it says "30% free," that stuff isn't free. You just paid for it when you bought the shampoo. It's a marketing trick. If a Directors Cut is released or a remaster you have to rebuy the same movie with slight changes. You get these changes for free with a game. Yes you pay $60 for a videogame, a interactive medium with at least 10+ hours of singleplayer. You pay $15 for a movie with 1.5 hours of entertainment. The game also has unlimited online potential for at least 50-100 more hours. The game also has updates, improvements, new maps and is constantly being improved upon. A 10-15 hour long singleplayer game for 60 bucks is comparable to a 1.5 hour 15 buck movie. A game with constant updates, improvements AND huge online is a better deal AND could potentially be worth a small monthly fee. IF, and only if, it means that devs get the chance to do it their way and not sell out due to pressure to gain more profits. The amount of "entertainment time" you get from a purchase was immaterial to my argument. I am not arguing whether or not video games give you more entertainment hours per dollar spent over movies. Undoubtedly they have the potential to. I am arguing that because video games cost more than movies, it is not unreasonable to expect extended support, in the form of an online service, e.g. battle.net, and is, in fact, expected. I'm sure there's a disclaimer in the EULA that battle.net service is not guaranteed, but the expectation at the time of purchase is that battle.net will be available to the purchaser. That's what you're buying when you're buying SC2. It's not a free service. It's not bleeding Blizzard dry. I can log on to my BW account right now, years after purchase. To say that a monthly fee is needed is wrong, the reason why some higher ups at Activision are bemoaning the Blizzard model for non WoW games is that it is not as profitable as it could be, not because they could sell us more stuff, but because they could charge more for the same stuff. And that's bullshit. So a game that has more entertainment per dollar should also provide alot of other services. Sounds like to me like unwarranted entitlement. You aren't renting a car, you're buying a piece of plastic with a game on it. How much time you spend on it is irrelevant to how much it costs at the store. If 10 years ago, I could buy a game and get unlimited online access, and now I can't, then that's wrong. If the costs of development are truly that limiting, then make the game itself cost more, don't nickel and dime people with fees and DLC. Or, more reasonably, market the game better, since at a certain breakpoint the game will cost so much as to lose sales. So you would rather have everyone pay extra for a game rather than only certain people who have the money to spend pay for the DLCs/custom maps/portraits/skins? What ? Not only does that probably reduce sales revenue, it would be even worse for the average consumer and reduce the growth of the industry. Those sorts of things are things that years ago would have been free. More specifically, they would have polished the game better before selling it. DLC promotes games to be shipped ahead of deadlines, with cut content released for money as new content. Rather than dishonestly obfuscate the cost of video games, I would rather they spend time, finish them, and sell them like they used to, even if that means they cost 10 dollars more because of the millions more it costs to produce them. I'd much rather wait an extra six months for Mass Effect 3 and buy a whole game then have to buy 1.8 games in the form of game + DLC(s) because EA decided to pressure the devs to ship out early, or worse, purposely hold back content so they could repackage it and sell it later. It doesn't matter how it was "years ago". Costs have changed, thus the industry changes along with it. "It was free before, so it should be today" is not a valid argument. Since the DLC model has been shown to be superior to simply increasing box prices, that's how it's gonna be. It's only shown to be superior in that it generates more profits for the publishers. It's clearly not better for the consumers, as they get unfinished, rushed, or even more expensive products. Just look at battle.net 2.0, itself a vehicle designed to control all aspects of the game to support future DLC and thwart piracy. It is inferior in numerous aspects to the old battle.net, which was totally free and completely unable, except for a small advertisement at the top, to extract any further money out of customers.
Again, in what way is making EVERYONE pay more for a game better than simply making those who have extra pocket money pay for DLCs? Your points are way too idealistic and not grounded in reality.
|
If SC2 will require a monthly fee then I won't pay for it that's for sure, I don't play sc2 that much anyway, I just like to follow the pro scene. If anything I would move to wow, I've always been the mmo kinda guy, but didn't get into wow because of the monthly fee. However if I would have to pay to enjoy a great game, then wow is where I would go.
On the other hand, look at Valve they are releasing their first Portal2 DLC for free on all platforms.
|
It's just a vague word-of-mouth thing, I wouldn't take that quote seriously at all.
|
On May 02 2011 21:43 Gheed wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 21:36 teamsolid wrote:On May 02 2011 21:31 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 21:21 teamsolid wrote:On May 02 2011 21:11 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:58 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 20:48 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 20:40 karpo wrote:On May 02 2011 19:44 Gheed wrote:On May 02 2011 19:27 karpo wrote:
[quote]
Movie also sell on theaters, on DVD's, on Blu-ray and to all the movie-channels on TV. Die Hart 4 had a budget of 110 million dollars, Killzon 2 had about 20 million dollars. So sure movies have a higher budget, they are also a bigger medium and appeal to a much bigger audience.
Yeah 60 bucks for a game where the campaign alone is at least 10 hours with potentially endless gametime online compared to a 15 buck 1.5-2 hour movie. Not a great comparison.
You pay 60 dollars because of all those countless hours spent online. It's not some added perk of buying the game, that's what you're buying. It costs a production company 0 dollars when I rewatch a movie. It costs blizzard an extremely tiny amount for me to use battle.net. That extremely tiny amount is bundled into the cost of the game. It is not free. Like when you buy a bottle of shampoo, and it says "30% free," that stuff isn't free. You just paid for it when you bought the shampoo. It's a marketing trick. If a Directors Cut is released or a remaster you have to rebuy the same movie with slight changes. You get these changes for free with a game. Yes you pay $60 for a videogame, a interactive medium with at least 10+ hours of singleplayer. You pay $15 for a movie with 1.5 hours of entertainment. The game also has unlimited online potential for at least 50-100 more hours. The game also has updates, improvements, new maps and is constantly being improved upon. A 10-15 hour long singleplayer game for 60 bucks is comparable to a 1.5 hour 15 buck movie. A game with constant updates, improvements AND huge online is a better deal AND could potentially be worth a small monthly fee. IF, and only if, it means that devs get the chance to do it their way and not sell out due to pressure to gain more profits. The amount of "entertainment time" you get from a purchase was immaterial to my argument. I am not arguing whether or not video games give you more entertainment hours per dollar spent over movies. Undoubtedly they have the potential to. I am arguing that because video games cost more than movies, it is not unreasonable to expect extended support, in the form of an online service, e.g. battle.net, and is, in fact, expected. I'm sure there's a disclaimer in the EULA that battle.net service is not guaranteed, but the expectation at the time of purchase is that battle.net will be available to the purchaser. That's what you're buying when you're buying SC2. It's not a free service. It's not bleeding Blizzard dry. I can log on to my BW account right now, years after purchase. To say that a monthly fee is needed is wrong, the reason why some higher ups at Activision are bemoaning the Blizzard model for non WoW games is that it is not as profitable as it could be, not because they could sell us more stuff, but because they could charge more for the same stuff. And that's bullshit. So a game that has more entertainment per dollar should also provide alot of other services. Sounds like to me like unwarranted entitlement. You aren't renting a car, you're buying a piece of plastic with a game on it. How much time you spend on it is irrelevant to how much it costs at the store. If 10 years ago, I could buy a game and get unlimited online access, and now I can't, then that's wrong. If the costs of development are truly that limiting, then make the game itself cost more, don't nickel and dime people with fees and DLC. Or, more reasonably, market the game better, since at a certain breakpoint the game will cost so much as to lose sales. So you would rather have everyone pay extra for a game rather than only certain people who have the money to spend pay for the DLCs/custom maps/portraits/skins? What ? Not only does that probably reduce sales revenue, it would be even worse for the average consumer and reduce the growth of the industry. Those sorts of things are things that years ago would have been free. More specifically, they would have polished the game better before selling it. DLC promotes games to be shipped ahead of deadlines, with cut content released for money as new content. Rather than dishonestly obfuscate the cost of video games, I would rather they spend time, finish them, and sell them like they used to, even if that means they cost 10 dollars more because of the millions more it costs to produce them. I'd much rather wait an extra six months for Mass Effect 3 and buy a whole game then have to buy 1.8 games in the form of game + DLC(s) because EA decided to pressure the devs to ship out early, or worse, purposely hold back content so they could repackage it and sell it later. It doesn't matter how it was "years ago". Costs have changed, thus the industry changes along with it. "It was free before, so it should be today" is not a valid argument. Since the DLC model has been shown to be superior to simply increasing box prices, that's how it's gonna be. It's only shown to be superior in that it generates more profits for the publishers. It's clearly not better for the consumers, as they get unfinished, rushed, or even more expensive products. Just look at battle.net 2.0, itself a vehicle designed to control all aspects of the game to support future DLC and thwart piracy. It is inferior in numerous aspects to the old battle.net, which was totally free and completely unable, except for a small advertisement at the top, to extract any further money out of customers.
While that is true, publishers like Activision mostly care about the money, and not the fact that the product is unfinished, they know that if they make a game in a state that it will make them a shitton of money, no matter how dumbed down that game is or how featureless that game is, if it will make money, why should they spend 1+ year in development for no larger profit gain, the reviewers are still gonna be bought, and still gonna give that game a 9.5/10...And people, retarded or not, will still buy those games..
|
On May 02 2011 16:04 Tokay wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2011 16:02 Fat.Cat91 wrote:
Listen to companies that makes shitty games like call of duty more... When the company that makes shitty games owns blizzard, listening to them can be quite important.
And when this company doesn't own blizzard? Activision has "merged" with blizzard to create Activision-Blizzard, but they each have their division and do what they want with their own games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
