The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Don't.
The people who make one ofthe largest sums of revenue from the sale of a game is usually the developer. But this is revenue, not profit. The developers don't actually make that much profit at all, after having spent potentially thousands of man hours putting the game together, market rate for someone with the required skills to develop a game from scratch being in several hundred pounds per day, the eventual cost for putting a game together is actually quite high.
Now, the media come up with this fantastic idea to lower the price of games by vetoing the purchase of them for a week, and trying to get as many people to sign up to it as possible. But have they really considered what they are doing?
If games don't sell in a highstreet store such as, say, Woolworths or Curry's, then Woolworths aren't going to think "oh, they aren't selling, let's drop our profit margin", they'll replace the games with something that WILL sell, and won't cause controversy over pricing policies.
This will limit the availability of games, since fewer stores will stock them, leaving the market pretty much to the dedicated games retailers, who don't have to think about dropping the prices because of the increased sales they'll have when people flood over from Woolworths or Dixons etc.
As for the games developers, this is all very bad news. With fewer retailers to sell to, they may be forced to push down their own prices, their own revenues, since the games retailers can afford to be more aggressive. Th retailers of course, won't drop their prices, and so effectively will be INCREASING their profit margins.
Having to lower their prices and having fewer retailers to sell to will inevitably lead to some developers leaving the industry, either through lack of profits or through necessary wage cuts. Once this starts to happen, there are fewer and fewer new games on the shelves, but the retailers, with higher profit margins than before, really aren't that bothered, because what does hit the shelves sells well enough to keep them comfortable.
Obviously, I'm sure you will all agree that this is not a favourable situation for gamers. Some because they don't live close enough to dedicated games retailers, others because of the reduced number of games on the market. So, common sense dictates that you DO in fact buy games over the veto period, if you have the intention of doing so.
But if you want to make a difference, if you want cheaper games and you still want the developers to make their share of the cash, then you could try to as often as is prudent to do so buy games direct from the developers. Unfortunately, not all developers do this unless you're buying wholesale, but if there is a shift from high street retail to online developer purchasing, then more developers will start picking this up. The developers will actually make MORE money, recieving RRP for games they would usually only get about 40% of RRP for. Sure, as a result, there may be some loss of business in the high street sector, but it won't put developers out of business, and any retailers still stocking games will be forced to compete directly with the game developers for business.
Everyone wants things a little cheaper, but how you go about protesting for it is a very delicate thing. Please don't be foolish, and in your rush to save a few quid put some hard working developers out of business. Be sensible.
Gaz
The people who make one ofthe largest sums of revenue from the sale of a game is usually the developer. But this is revenue, not profit. The developers don't actually make that much profit at all, after having spent potentially thousands of man hours putting the game together, market rate for someone with the required skills to develop a game from scratch being in several hundred pounds per day, the eventual cost for putting a game together is actually quite high.
Now, the media come up with this fantastic idea to lower the price of games by vetoing the purchase of them for a week, and trying to get as many people to sign up to it as possible. But have they really considered what they are doing?
If games don't sell in a highstreet store such as, say, Woolworths or Curry's, then Woolworths aren't going to think "oh, they aren't selling, let's drop our profit margin", they'll replace the games with something that WILL sell, and won't cause controversy over pricing policies.
This will limit the availability of games, since fewer stores will stock them, leaving the market pretty much to the dedicated games retailers, who don't have to think about dropping the prices because of the increased sales they'll have when people flood over from Woolworths or Dixons etc.
As for the games developers, this is all very bad news. With fewer retailers to sell to, they may be forced to push down their own prices, their own revenues, since the games retailers can afford to be more aggressive. Th retailers of course, won't drop their prices, and so effectively will be INCREASING their profit margins.
Having to lower their prices and having fewer retailers to sell to will inevitably lead to some developers leaving the industry, either through lack of profits or through necessary wage cuts. Once this starts to happen, there are fewer and fewer new games on the shelves, but the retailers, with higher profit margins than before, really aren't that bothered, because what does hit the shelves sells well enough to keep them comfortable.
Obviously, I'm sure you will all agree that this is not a favourable situation for gamers. Some because they don't live close enough to dedicated games retailers, others because of the reduced number of games on the market. So, common sense dictates that you DO in fact buy games over the veto period, if you have the intention of doing so.
But if you want to make a difference, if you want cheaper games and you still want the developers to make their share of the cash, then you could try to as often as is prudent to do so buy games direct from the developers. Unfortunately, not all developers do this unless you're buying wholesale, but if there is a shift from high street retail to online developer purchasing, then more developers will start picking this up. The developers will actually make MORE money, recieving RRP for games they would usually only get about 40% of RRP for. Sure, as a result, there may be some loss of business in the high street sector, but it won't put developers out of business, and any retailers still stocking games will be forced to compete directly with the game developers for business.
Everyone wants things a little cheaper, but how you go about protesting for it is a very delicate thing. Please don't be foolish, and in your rush to save a few quid put some hard working developers out of business. Be sensible.
Gaz
Page:
FantasyMeister wrote:
> If they want to drive the prices of games down, they should veto
> piracy for a week instead.
Agreed.
> If they want to drive the prices of games down, they should veto
> piracy for a week instead.
Agreed.
I'm planning to buy all my games for next year during the first week of December.
If they want to drive the prices of games down, they should veto piracy for a week instead.
If they want to drive the prices of games down, they should veto piracy for a week instead.
Don't.
The people who make one ofthe largest sums of revenue from the sale of a game is usually the developer. But this is revenue, not profit. The developers don't actually make that much profit at all, after having spent potentially thousands of man hours putting the game together, market rate for someone with the required skills to develop a game from scratch being in several hundred pounds per day, the eventual cost for putting a game together is actually quite high.
Now, the media come up with this fantastic idea to lower the price of games by vetoing the purchase of them for a week, and trying to get as many people to sign up to it as possible. But have they really considered what they are doing?
If games don't sell in a highstreet store such as, say, Woolworths or Curry's, then Woolworths aren't going to think "oh, they aren't selling, let's drop our profit margin", they'll replace the games with something that WILL sell, and won't cause controversy over pricing policies.
This will limit the availability of games, since fewer stores will stock them, leaving the market pretty much to the dedicated games retailers, who don't have to think about dropping the prices because of the increased sales they'll have when people flood over from Woolworths or Dixons etc.
As for the games developers, this is all very bad news. With fewer retailers to sell to, they may be forced to push down their own prices, their own revenues, since the games retailers can afford to be more aggressive. Th retailers of course, won't drop their prices, and so effectively will be INCREASING their profit margins.
Having to lower their prices and having fewer retailers to sell to will inevitably lead to some developers leaving the industry, either through lack of profits or through necessary wage cuts. Once this starts to happen, there are fewer and fewer new games on the shelves, but the retailers, with higher profit margins than before, really aren't that bothered, because what does hit the shelves sells well enough to keep them comfortable.
Obviously, I'm sure you will all agree that this is not a favourable situation for gamers. Some because they don't live close enough to dedicated games retailers, others because of the reduced number of games on the market. So, common sense dictates that you DO in fact buy games over the veto period, if you have the intention of doing so.
But if you want to make a difference, if you want cheaper games and you still want the developers to make their share of the cash, then you could try to as often as is prudent to do so buy games direct from the developers. Unfortunately, not all developers do this unless you're buying wholesale, but if there is a shift from high street retail to online developer purchasing, then more developers will start picking this up. The developers will actually make MORE money, recieving RRP for games they would usually only get about 40% of RRP for. Sure, as a result, there may be some loss of business in the high street sector, but it won't put developers out of business, and any retailers still stocking games will be forced to compete directly with the game developers for business.
Everyone wants things a little cheaper, but how you go about protesting for it is a very delicate thing. Please don't be foolish, and in your rush to save a few quid put some hard working developers out of business. Be sensible.
Gaz
The people who make one ofthe largest sums of revenue from the sale of a game is usually the developer. But this is revenue, not profit. The developers don't actually make that much profit at all, after having spent potentially thousands of man hours putting the game together, market rate for someone with the required skills to develop a game from scratch being in several hundred pounds per day, the eventual cost for putting a game together is actually quite high.
Now, the media come up with this fantastic idea to lower the price of games by vetoing the purchase of them for a week, and trying to get as many people to sign up to it as possible. But have they really considered what they are doing?
If games don't sell in a highstreet store such as, say, Woolworths or Curry's, then Woolworths aren't going to think "oh, they aren't selling, let's drop our profit margin", they'll replace the games with something that WILL sell, and won't cause controversy over pricing policies.
This will limit the availability of games, since fewer stores will stock them, leaving the market pretty much to the dedicated games retailers, who don't have to think about dropping the prices because of the increased sales they'll have when people flood over from Woolworths or Dixons etc.
As for the games developers, this is all very bad news. With fewer retailers to sell to, they may be forced to push down their own prices, their own revenues, since the games retailers can afford to be more aggressive. Th retailers of course, won't drop their prices, and so effectively will be INCREASING their profit margins.
Having to lower their prices and having fewer retailers to sell to will inevitably lead to some developers leaving the industry, either through lack of profits or through necessary wage cuts. Once this starts to happen, there are fewer and fewer new games on the shelves, but the retailers, with higher profit margins than before, really aren't that bothered, because what does hit the shelves sells well enough to keep them comfortable.
Obviously, I'm sure you will all agree that this is not a favourable situation for gamers. Some because they don't live close enough to dedicated games retailers, others because of the reduced number of games on the market. So, common sense dictates that you DO in fact buy games over the veto period, if you have the intention of doing so.
But if you want to make a difference, if you want cheaper games and you still want the developers to make their share of the cash, then you could try to as often as is prudent to do so buy games direct from the developers. Unfortunately, not all developers do this unless you're buying wholesale, but if there is a shift from high street retail to online developer purchasing, then more developers will start picking this up. The developers will actually make MORE money, recieving RRP for games they would usually only get about 40% of RRP for. Sure, as a result, there may be some loss of business in the high street sector, but it won't put developers out of business, and any retailers still stocking games will be forced to compete directly with the game developers for business.
Everyone wants things a little cheaper, but how you go about protesting for it is a very delicate thing. Please don't be foolish, and in your rush to save a few quid put some hard working developers out of business. Be sensible.
Gaz
Page: