Eh, I wouldn't expect anything less from the guys who stole the Operation Flashpoint franchise.
WHAT IS IT WITH GAME COMPANIES AND HATRED FOR PRE-OWNED GAMES
No other industry actively fights to have their products not sold second-hand. You can buy books, cars, furniture, movies, hell even CDs or vinyls secondhand. What makes video games special? Why is this particular industry so [i]fucking greedy?[/i]
[QUOTE=johan_sm;26106239]I wouldn't mind paying 15$ for a 6 month trial since most games don't last even a month.
Instead of paying $60 for 2-3 days of game.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I agree. 6mo sounds about right for what I would play out of starcraft 2. If I wanted to play more and if it holds my interest for that long, then I'd gladly drop the cash for full price (or whatever price it is at that time), or "renew" for $15 more.
Actually $15 comes off as EXTREMELY cheap to me even if it is only for 6 months that you can play it. If you think about it, it's like renting a game for half a year, except instead of paying $8 for a week and then having to return, it's $15 for 6 months.
I wouldn't want to do this for games that I wish to keep and could see myself coming back to, but for games like Call of Duty or Starcraft (which I don't mind but it's gameplay doesn't grab me enough to play long term or beyond "first play") this would be perfect.
Steam needs to do this.
[editline]17th November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=BlueFlash;26106020]If half the game is half the price, it'd be good since if the game sucks, you paid half the cost.[/QUOTE]
Also this. I wouldn't feel so bad paying $25 for a half of a shit game than $50 for whole of a shit game. Would drive sales more I think too, cause it being cheaper makes it easier to buy.
Only problem is that sale prices would be a bitch to handle. What if steam has a game on sale for $5 and it's second half is still being charged full price on the developer's website? Or what if the company goes out of business?
I wouldn't mind alternate payment options for my games. For example, I don't ever play multiplayer in 90% of the games that contain it. If I could pay less for an edition of the game with no multiplayer access, I'd be all for it. Even episodic gaming is an interesting option for customers.
However this type of tactic is quite low, though pretty smart from a business view. "Cheaper" games will hit store shelves, encouraging more people to buy it initially (most likely new as well). However, they increase the chances of making profit off of the used customer base, since they have no choice to buy the second half of the game from them. Then if customers proceed to pay for the DLC, they just ensured two things. One is that the customer is less likely to resell the game, since the rest of the DLC will loose all value. Second, they ensure that they are the only ones making profit off of the second half of the game, since it literally can't be resold.
Welcome to the future of gaming folks.
Why can't video games be sold normally without all these crazy pricing schemes?
[QUOTE=Inspector Jones;26106793]I wouldn't mind alternate payment options for my games. For example, I don't ever play multiplayer in 90% of the games that contain it. If I could pay less for an edition of the game with no multiplayer access, I'd be all for it. Even episodic gaming is an interesting option for customers.
However this type of tactic is quite low, though pretty smart from a business view. "Cheaper" games will hit store shelves, encouraging more people to buy it initially (most likely new as well). However, they increase the chances of making profit off of the used customer base, since they have no choice to buy the second half of the game from them. Then if customers proceed to pay for the DLC, they just ensured two things. One is that the customer is less likely to resell the game, since the rest of the DLC will loose all value. Second, they ensure that they are the only ones making profit off of the second half of the game, since it literally can't be resold.
Welcome to the future of gaming folks.[/QUOTE]
This doesn't sound so bad as long as it is an option.
Like I said, some games I would just want to get the "full game" like open world games. Other games I wouldn't, and it would work out better to "buy cheap before you buy full" in my eyes (like Call of Duty).
For my personal tastes that is.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;26106380]WHAT IS IT WITH GAME COMPANIES AND HATRED FOR PRE-OWNED GAMES
No other industry actively fights to have their products not sold second-hand. You can buy books, cars, furniture, movies, hell even CDs or vinyls secondhand. What makes video games special? Why is this particular industry so [i]fucking greedy?[/i][/QUOTE]
Movies, books and music have partly to mostly moved to digital download, I'd say that counts as fighting secondhand sales.
Cars and furniture are completely different.
Lots of crying around here.
What if you have no internet?
[QUOTE=Armotekma;26105412]activision will pick up on this
CALL OF DUTY PART 1: $99.99
CALL OF DUTY PART 2: $99.99
CALL OF DUTY PART 3: $99.99
CALL OF DUTY: EXTR3ME MAP: $99.99
CALL OF DUTY: ULTRA MAP: $99.99
CALL OF DUTY PART 5: $99.99
PATCH: $99.99[/QUOTE]
Fixed.
I remember when Codemasters used to be good and published games that weren't shit, like the original Operation Flashpoint or Soldiers: Heroes of World War II.
Want to prevent second hand sales? Publish on steam if on pc.
And consoles need some kind of marketplace too that sells full games, not only indie and arcade.
[QUOTE=rampageturke 2;26107226]What if you have no internet?[/QUOTE]
Seriously, most games and DRM these days fuck over anyone without internet. I've been there, it sucks
If you look at it from a completely objective stand point it could work out. Let's say a company is working on a singleplayer game that'll cost $50. They split it up into a five sections for ten dollars each. People pay for the first one. If they don't like how the game plays then they don't buy the rest and waste $40. If they do they can buy the other sections.
It could work for singleplayer + multiplayer games too. Since it seems like a lot of people here like CoD campaigns but don't like the multiplayer, they could buy the singleplayer for a certain amount and then not buy the multiplayer component.
The problem is is that there are many ways for developers to abuse it, especially in open-world games. Also price abusing could occur as well, especially from greedy companies.
Oh my god.
Fallout:
10km squared land= $10
:byodood:
[QUOTE=Firegod522;26105347]Wouldn't they loose more money this way? What if they don't buy the other halves?[/QUOTE]
Lose.
[i]Helping the world become a better speller.[/i]
[editline]16th November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Novangel;26107281]Fixed.[/QUOTE]
Part one of three of part one.
So it's sort of like the Arcade Version of Fable II?
This has to be one of the dumbest ideas ever in the history of Gaming.
Make better games. Any other way and you are killing your audience.
Also, this:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqNRBm0szc4[/media]
It's like buying a game without owning it.
[QUOTE=Tabarnaco;26107027]Movies, books and music have partly to mostly moved to digital download, I'd say that counts as fighting secondhand sales.
Cars and furniture are completely different.
Lots of crying around here.[/QUOTE]
Except in doing so, movies, books, etc have become cheaper. 15 dollars for a new movie from iTunes vs the 25+ for the DVD, for example. Games have made no such concessions.
You are a fucking idiot if you somehow think this is justified.
[QUOTE=Tyler_Durden;26108019]It's like buying a game without owning it.[/QUOTE]Unfortunately in a lot of cases you technically DON'T own the game you buy. You are only buying a 'license.' In a sense.
What the fuck? I understand developers not wanting to have their games being bought preowned, but this is just a bit overkill. What if you don't have an internet connection? You'd be screwed and left with a half made game.
While we''re on the subject, Nissan only gave me 1/4th of a car to make sure I dont sell it.
[editline]16th November 2010[/editline]
Its the stupidest thing ever but Activison will follow this like gospel.
[QUOTE=SteveUK;26106060]Cool, way to misinterpret the news story completely. It's designed to combat used game sales, not to charge more for a complete game. It's the same thing what EA is doing, just going a bit overkill with it.[/QUOTE]
They never said if they were planning on splitting the cost of the game, they just said they were charging for the other half. Either way it's stupid.
No thanks, I like getting titles for $15 from Gamestop instead of $60.
I don't mind the wait for the price drop.
If each half was $25 I'd be more likely to spend money on games I'm not sure about since blowing $25 on half a shit game is better than blowing $50 on a full shit one. From a consumer standpoint it's a dumb decision, from a business one it's genius.
Well they are obviously geniuses.
[img]http://www.skuggen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Codemasters_logo.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=MutantBadger;26108289]Unfortunately in a lot of cases you technically DON'T own the game you buy. You are only buying a 'license.' In a sense.[/QUOTE]
Digital Game Distribution is like buying a pass to the greatest club in town. It's got good tunes, sexy women, and great food.
You don't own the club though, you're only just able to go in. :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
