The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just watched this which I thought was very interesting.Arguments seem to stack up on all sides (Customer,Developer/Distributor & Retailer). Just wondered what you guys make of it, would you happily part with £40 of your hard earned cash for a game if there was no way to sell/trade it on when you were done with it? On the other side with games development costs constantly rising is it really fair that developers should not receive a penny from this part of the industry? (we've just witnessed the demise of Bizarre Creations could other developers be heading for a similar fate if things do not change?). As for EA's (and I believe now also THQ's) controversial online pass system, I think the fact that neither distributor seemed willing to comment on it proves that they must be only too aware how just unpopular it is with gamers. Perhaps games should be about £10 - £20 and any online features (mutliplayer,DLC) paid for on top of this? That way developers would get their share of the revenue, while people just wanting to play the basic game could do so without the need for waiting to buy a cheap used copy? One thing I felt this feature slightly overlooked was the plummeting cost of new titles, very often a game will be available for around half it's initial asking price and just a few weeks after it's release. What about rental?, apart from the revenue from the sale of each individual disc developers currently do not get any money from this. Then again you could argue if someone rents a game and likes it they may then buy it?, I know I have done that on quite a few occasions. There are many titles I own that I would definitely not have bought blind. While these mentioned practices may have become commonplace for many of us in recent years, could we pay for it in the not too distant future in the form of rushed substandard games? Be really interested to hear peoples comments on this.
Page:
pete_21 wrote:
Hi DL,
Please bear in mind that I played MOH during over the firs**t weekend of it's release so the issues I encountered may well have been fixed by now.
Issues and issues pete...we cannot win. PC BOps MP 'sh*t*', PC MOH no problemo...no connection problems, no game selection problems, no lag problems (I could see others having problems 'in game', but what the heck..shoot them aswell ha ha..all's fair in love etc etc). I hope you get the chance to see if XBox problems have been 'sorted' as one of my son's has jus**t s**tarted to play MOH MP on XBox and he hasn't reported any problems as yet :¬)
But then, we now return to a s**tate of 'cyclic gaming conundrum' :¬)
Hi DL,
Please bear in mind that I played MOH during over the firs**t weekend of it's release so the issues I encountered may well have been fixed by now.
Issues and issues pete...we cannot win. PC BOps MP 'sh*t*', PC MOH no problemo...no connection problems, no game selection problems, no lag problems (I could see others having problems 'in game', but what the heck..shoot them aswell ha ha..all's fair in love etc etc). I hope you get the chance to see if XBox problems have been 'sorted' as one of my son's has jus**t s**tarted to play MOH MP on XBox and he hasn't reported any problems as yet :¬)
But then, we now return to a s**tate of 'cyclic gaming conundrum' :¬)
Hi DL,
Please bear in mind that I played MOH during over the first weekend of it's release so the issues I encountered may well have been fixed by now.
Right with that disclaimer out of the way,I thought the multiplayer (on the 360 version that I played) was garbage.I experienced horrendous lagging problems and the game had one of the worst spawning systems that I have experienced on any game.I would get killed and the game would throw me back in right at the exact same place I had just been killed only to be killed all over again! Match selection wasn't great either,seemed to take forever to get a game on it.I played it for around an hour before I gave up and returned it to the shop that I rented it from.I would be curious to see if these issues have been sorted as I could see that it could be a decent game.On the other hand I thought the 360 version of Black Op's was great,had no issues with it at all.
Please bear in mind that I played MOH during over the first weekend of it's release so the issues I encountered may well have been fixed by now.
Right with that disclaimer out of the way,I thought the multiplayer (on the 360 version that I played) was garbage.I experienced horrendous lagging problems and the game had one of the worst spawning systems that I have experienced on any game.I would get killed and the game would throw me back in right at the exact same place I had just been killed only to be killed all over again! Match selection wasn't great either,seemed to take forever to get a game on it.I played it for around an hour before I gave up and returned it to the shop that I rented it from.I would be curious to see if these issues have been sorted as I could see that it could be a decent game.On the other hand I thought the 360 version of Black Op's was great,had no issues with it at all.
Evening pete,
Surprised to say the least...I pre-ordered MOH and was really disappointed with the SP but then tried MP. At that time BOps had been released, tried that and MP and you know my views. Have since given MOH a second chance and believe me....really enjoyed the MP game, so much so that I've 'max level' Rifleman class (far superior class) and am at lv8 on Spec Ops (only 15 levels)....dumps BOps totally :¬D Only problem is that the maps need updating or increasing at the moment.
Surprised to say the least...I pre-ordered MOH and was really disappointed with the SP but then tried MP. At that time BOps had been released, tried that and MP and you know my views. Have since given MOH a second chance and believe me....really enjoyed the MP game, so much so that I've 'max level' Rifleman class (far superior class) and am at lv8 on Spec Ops (only 15 levels)....dumps BOps totally :¬D Only problem is that the maps need updating or increasing at the moment.
Good points you made there Nin,agree with all of that.I rented Medal Of Honor when it came out last year (which I did initially intend to buy).I completed the single player campaign in 2 nights and didn't care for the multiplayer at all.I was so glad I didn't buy it for £40,especially as it was down to £17.99 within a few weeks (at a few retailers inc. Play.com & Zavvi), which meant at that point second hand copies would have been worth sod all.
pete_21 wrote:
Some could argue that the rental/used market had always been around so what's the problem now? I believe it is the fact that in recent years this market has grown at an alarming rate
And why has it done that? Because people don't see gaming as value for money anymore.
I've been a console gamer for over 20 years now and there were always places you could trade in games but it was never a big market because
1) Most of my games weren't being completed
2) By the time they had been completed they were reasonably old and not worth so much
The issue is longevity, it's literally the only thing that's changed in 20 years. If game companies spent more time on making games last and less time on the graphics the buyers wouldn't feel so ripped off.
Something like Final Fantasy XIII is a great example in comparison to Final Fantasy VII. The former is linear, shorter, prettier and has little to no replay value. The latter is open-ended, took me 3 months to finish and I've still not 100% completed it. Even now, 14 years after it's release I would rather spend £20 on 7 than on 13, because I know I'd be getting my money's worth. The same goes for Metal Gear Solid 4, which was ridiculously short.
Some could argue that the rental/used market had always been around so what's the problem now? I believe it is the fact that in recent years this market has grown at an alarming rate
And why has it done that? Because people don't see gaming as value for money anymore.
I've been a console gamer for over 20 years now and there were always places you could trade in games but it was never a big market because
1) Most of my games weren't being completed
2) By the time they had been completed they were reasonably old and not worth so much
The issue is longevity, it's literally the only thing that's changed in 20 years. If game companies spent more time on making games last and less time on the graphics the buyers wouldn't feel so ripped off.
Something like Final Fantasy XIII is a great example in comparison to Final Fantasy VII. The former is linear, shorter, prettier and has little to no replay value. The latter is open-ended, took me 3 months to finish and I've still not 100% completed it. Even now, 14 years after it's release I would rather spend £20 on 7 than on 13, because I know I'd be getting my money's worth. The same goes for Metal Gear Solid 4, which was ridiculously short.
Some very good posts guys,thanks for those.
Some could argue that the rental/used market had always been around so what's the problem now? I believe it is the fact that in recent years this market has grown at an alarming rate and this has caused what some are seeing as a now distorted marketplace.From the retailers point of view I suppose they have had to evolve or face the prospect of losing serious business to their competitors,hence we have seen non gaming specialist retailers such as Asda,Tesco,Argos,HMV,Blockbuster etc. trading in this way.For the consumer it is basically now the 'the norm' to either subsidise their new purchases by means of trading in or waiting a few weeks after a games initial release to pick up a cheap used copy.
As for Sony's much rumoured serial code ,that would clearly stop PS3 titles from being rented/traded.I can see quite a few unhappy PS3 owners changing to a different gaming platform if that goes ahead.I've no doubt that Sony would indeed do such a thing,remember what they did to Hong Kong games retailer Lik-Sang? ,that was their 'punishment' for selling Sony products to the western world much cheaper than they could buy them in their own countries.You could ask why were they available so much cheaper in Hong Kong in the first place?
Some could argue that the rental/used market had always been around so what's the problem now? I believe it is the fact that in recent years this market has grown at an alarming rate and this has caused what some are seeing as a now distorted marketplace.From the retailers point of view I suppose they have had to evolve or face the prospect of losing serious business to their competitors,hence we have seen non gaming specialist retailers such as Asda,Tesco,Argos,HMV,Blockbuster etc. trading in this way.For the consumer it is basically now the 'the norm' to either subsidise their new purchases by means of trading in or waiting a few weeks after a games initial release to pick up a cheap used copy.
As for Sony's much rumoured serial code ,that would clearly stop PS3 titles from being rented/traded.I can see quite a few unhappy PS3 owners changing to a different gaming platform if that goes ahead.I've no doubt that Sony would indeed do such a thing,remember what they did to Hong Kong games retailer Lik-Sang? ,that was their 'punishment' for selling Sony products to the western world much cheaper than they could buy them in their own countries.You could ask why were they available so much cheaper in Hong Kong in the first place?
The 2nd hand market has existed for as long as I can remember, the price of new games has been set at £40 for at least 20 years, so where has this problem sprung from?
In my view it's has become the wide perception that games are no longer value for money and it's this dissatisfaction that is fueling the 2nd hand market. It's a strange paradox because the cost of actually making the games has risen, the price being charged is the same and yet people are increasingly unhappy with the quality, or rather, they're unhappy with the quantity and I think that is the major problem.
Somewhere around the end of the 16 bit generation, there was a philosophical change in the attitude of gamers and subsequentially producers. The "graphics w****s" took over, costs spiralled and longevity (and to a lesser extent gameplay) suffered as a result. Ever since that point, games have become increasingly style over substance and I think people are just now starting to wake up to the monster they've created. Unfortunately there is no going back now as the casual gamer, the curse of the industry, flock to whatever looks prettiest.
The entire industry needs to look at their business model and focus on making their games value for money. Games like GTA IV sold millions not only because of the subject, but because people knew it would take more than a couple of days to finish. As a result there were far fewer 2nd hand copies available. This is actually a key factor in pretty much any big selling game and it's something that needs to become more widespread.
If you want to minimise the 2nd hand market, give people an actual reason to keep hold of their games. Or you could just screw over your customers with short games, raise the prices, and withold features for the 2nd hand market. All of which damage the industry. Your choice.
In my view it's has become the wide perception that games are no longer value for money and it's this dissatisfaction that is fueling the 2nd hand market. It's a strange paradox because the cost of actually making the games has risen, the price being charged is the same and yet people are increasingly unhappy with the quality, or rather, they're unhappy with the quantity and I think that is the major problem.
Somewhere around the end of the 16 bit generation, there was a philosophical change in the attitude of gamers and subsequentially producers. The "graphics w****s" took over, costs spiralled and longevity (and to a lesser extent gameplay) suffered as a result. Ever since that point, games have become increasingly style over substance and I think people are just now starting to wake up to the monster they've created. Unfortunately there is no going back now as the casual gamer, the curse of the industry, flock to whatever looks prettiest.
The entire industry needs to look at their business model and focus on making their games value for money. Games like GTA IV sold millions not only because of the subject, but because people knew it would take more than a couple of days to finish. As a result there were far fewer 2nd hand copies available. This is actually a key factor in pretty much any big selling game and it's something that needs to become more widespread.
If you want to minimise the 2nd hand market, give people an actual reason to keep hold of their games. Or you could just screw over your customers with short games, raise the prices, and withold features for the 2nd hand market. All of which damage the industry. Your choice.
Yes, the second hand market and the rental markets are harming gaming, but there are factors to consider as to why those two markets are so large in the first place.
Firstly, there is the cost of games new. Yes, they are on the pricey side, and when compared to PC games especially it looks like console players get a raw deal. This is an issue and many people will just go for the cheaper version if there's no significant reason not to do so.
Secondly, retailers make more money of second hand games. This is probably one of the main reasons, in all honesty, to the increasing size of the market. Retailers can buy in second hand copies of games at a fraction of the market price and, in most cases, sell it on with a minor reduction from the "new" price and make almost pure profit. This serves two purposes, actually: Increasing profit from second hand sales, and ensuring that some people will actually pay that little bit extra for the new copy to ensure that the industry doesn't die...quickly anyway, the retailers need them to stay in business to stay in business.
Thirdly, games aren't been made to a value for money standard anymore. Rather, I should clarify, not been made to a "single player" standard. For players like me, especially the rental sector, makes it much cheaper and easier for me to get hold of a game for a lot less in cases when I would be playing it for a lot less time. It also allows me to experience some games that I wouldn't have thought about doing otherwise, and in cases turn into actual purchases (I rented LittleBigPlanet before buying it, and probably would have just given it a miss otherwise, which has obviously led to me [albeit winning] owning two copies of the LBP2 Collectors Edition) but generally for games that aren't going to have me bored of them within days, I'll buy them instead because I'd feel like I had cheated myself out of the ability to play by not owning it.
Quickly wrapping up for now since I do need to be at university early tomorrow/today: The markets have their place in the market infrastructure, but for several reasons, they are growing too large. The second hand and rentals markets need the gaming industry more than the industry needs those markets (by a long way). But for now, there isn't a quick fix (and that rumoured serial code system that Sony are apparently going to be implementing isn't really going to help anyone [nor do I believe it'll help Sony in the battle against piracy, either])
Firstly, there is the cost of games new. Yes, they are on the pricey side, and when compared to PC games especially it looks like console players get a raw deal. This is an issue and many people will just go for the cheaper version if there's no significant reason not to do so.
Secondly, retailers make more money of second hand games. This is probably one of the main reasons, in all honesty, to the increasing size of the market. Retailers can buy in second hand copies of games at a fraction of the market price and, in most cases, sell it on with a minor reduction from the "new" price and make almost pure profit. This serves two purposes, actually: Increasing profit from second hand sales, and ensuring that some people will actually pay that little bit extra for the new copy to ensure that the industry doesn't die...quickly anyway, the retailers need them to stay in business to stay in business.
Thirdly, games aren't been made to a value for money standard anymore. Rather, I should clarify, not been made to a "single player" standard. For players like me, especially the rental sector, makes it much cheaper and easier for me to get hold of a game for a lot less in cases when I would be playing it for a lot less time. It also allows me to experience some games that I wouldn't have thought about doing otherwise, and in cases turn into actual purchases (I rented LittleBigPlanet before buying it, and probably would have just given it a miss otherwise, which has obviously led to me [albeit winning] owning two copies of the LBP2 Collectors Edition) but generally for games that aren't going to have me bored of them within days, I'll buy them instead because I'd feel like I had cheated myself out of the ability to play by not owning it.
Quickly wrapping up for now since I do need to be at university early tomorrow/today: The markets have their place in the market infrastructure, but for several reasons, they are growing too large. The second hand and rentals markets need the gaming industry more than the industry needs those markets (by a long way). But for now, there isn't a quick fix (and that rumoured serial code system that Sony are apparently going to be implementing isn't really going to help anyone [nor do I believe it'll help Sony in the battle against piracy, either])
Sonic Chris wrote:
What's stopping them not releasing FIFA 12 and just updating FIFA 11 right now?
The terrible profit margins? But then these terrible practices only continue because gamers allow them too. I only pay prices I feel are acceptable for games, haven't bought anything from EA in years.
What's stopping them not releasing FIFA 12 and just updating FIFA 11 right now?
The terrible profit margins? But then these terrible practices only continue because gamers allow them too. I only pay prices I feel are acceptable for games, haven't bought anything from EA in years.
Just a thought, but would you consider this "quote" as a reason why console games cost more than PC games:
QUOTE:
"At a consoles launch, the hardware is partly subsidised and this is clawed back by the extra charge added onto the game - the business case being that over the life of the console, enough users will buy enough games with this added premium to re-coup that loss and turn a tidy profit.
Secondly, a console is a proprietary platform designed to make money for the platform owner as well as the game producer/distributor. Accordingly the 'console premium' covers the licence fee payable to Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo for release on that platform.
You shouldn't really compare it to the PC because it is a different business model. Ironically it is almost reversed - with the PC Nvidia and AMD pour money into the games developers to encourage them to support their latest/greatest new feature and therefore some hardware has a slight premium to accommodate that. "
:¬)
EDIT:
It leads you to believe that the consoles themselves are sold 'on the cheap' in the understanding that future game sales will recoup the 'real' cost...no wonder the games are priced as they are! Strange, when you compare the price of mid-range and high-end PC graphics cards ... more than your average console!
QUOTE:
"At a consoles launch, the hardware is partly subsidised and this is clawed back by the extra charge added onto the game - the business case being that over the life of the console, enough users will buy enough games with this added premium to re-coup that loss and turn a tidy profit.
Secondly, a console is a proprietary platform designed to make money for the platform owner as well as the game producer/distributor. Accordingly the 'console premium' covers the licence fee payable to Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo for release on that platform.
You shouldn't really compare it to the PC because it is a different business model. Ironically it is almost reversed - with the PC Nvidia and AMD pour money into the games developers to encourage them to support their latest/greatest new feature and therefore some hardware has a slight premium to accommodate that. "
:¬)
EDIT:
It leads you to believe that the consoles themselves are sold 'on the cheap' in the understanding that future game sales will recoup the 'real' cost...no wonder the games are priced as they are! Strange, when you compare the price of mid-range and high-end PC graphics cards ... more than your average console!
Page: