I'm not buying used games myself.
And I have to admit he has some pretty good points,
BUT
he puts like EVERY blame on used games seller.
Aggressive sell of used games doesn't explain why:
- Games are ****py made.
- Game service/tech service is ridiculously bad right from day 1.
- Selling prices are too damn high, even on those who can't be sold in a used condition.
(Just think of Blizz, they were never really in a position where they were affected by the selling of used games, but how many money are they overcharging us for every damn thing they are doing???)
etc.
Ppl like GameStop etc. DO hurt the industry, but at best in a similar way like illegaly downloading musik hurts the artist.
It seems way more like they're finally done with blaming piracy and now are going on to another scapegoat that is made to be the root of all problems in the industry.
And I have to admit he has some pretty good points,
BUT
he puts like EVERY blame on used games seller.
Aggressive sell of used games doesn't explain why:
- Games are ****py made.
- Game service/tech service is ridiculously bad right from day 1.
- Selling prices are too damn high, even on those who can't be sold in a used condition.
(Just think of Blizz, they were never really in a position where they were affected by the selling of used games, but how many money are they overcharging us for every damn thing they are doing???)
etc.
Ppl like GameStop etc. DO hurt the industry, but at best in a similar way like illegaly downloading musik hurts the artist.
It seems way more like they're finally done with blaming piracy and now are going on to another scapegoat that is made to be the root of all problems in the industry.
Darcurse wrote:
Aggressive sell of used games doesn't explain why:
1. Games are ****py made.
2. Game service/tech service is ridiculously bad right from day 1.
3. Selling prices are too damn high, even on those who can't be sold in a used condition.
(Just think of Blizz, they were never really in a position where they were affected by the selling of used games, but how many money are they overcharging us for every damn thing they are doing???)
etc.
1. Of course it doesn't. It doesn't have anything to do with it..
2. Not exactly sure what you're saying, but you're talking about online services you can pretty much expect them to be problematic during the immediate time after launch.
3. You mean that new games are too expensive? Your comment makes very little sense. Try to use proper English so that others might understand you.
Quoted:
It seems way more like they're finally done with blaming piracy and now are going on to another scapegoat that is made to be the root of all problems in the industry.
Lol. They ain't done with piracy yet...
1. ****py game = worse sales figures = loss of sales not happening through GameStop and friends =/= making sale of used games the new root of all problems
2. EA and SimCity.
Poster child for how bad customer service can be without dumping **** on an external scapegoat.
3. Try to use your brain so I don't have to repeat myself:
Take Blizz for example and realize how they aren't influenced by the sale of used games at all(not even by piracy) why still selling their stuff for a top-notch price.
And before you come to some totally off the mark conclusion, I will repeat this again:
No, I'm not for selling used games, I'm simply saying that the guy in the vid is like totally biased about it and misses a lot of points.
Selling used games is simply an OK in my view, the fact that industry gets overdictated by it is simply due to game devs not having the balls to do sth about it.
And yeah, guess they're arent done with piracy at all...
would just be nice too see them grow up at least a bit.
2. EA and SimCity.
Poster child for how bad customer service can be without dumping **** on an external scapegoat.
3. Try to use your brain so I don't have to repeat myself:
Take Blizz for example and realize how they aren't influenced by the sale of used games at all(not even by piracy) why still selling their stuff for a top-notch price.
And before you come to some totally off the mark conclusion, I will repeat this again:
No, I'm not for selling used games, I'm simply saying that the guy in the vid is like totally biased about it and misses a lot of points.
Selling used games is simply an OK in my view, the fact that industry gets overdictated by it is simply due to game devs not having the balls to do sth about it.
And yeah, guess they're arent done with piracy at all...
would just be nice too see them grow up at least a bit.
Darcurse wrote:
1. ****py game = worse sales figures = loss of sales not happening through GameStop and friends =/= making sale of used games the new root of all problems
2. EA and SimCity.
Poster child for how bad customer service can be without dumping **** on an external scapegoat.
3. Try to use your brain so I don't have to repeat myself:
Take Blizz for example and realize how they aren't influenced by the sale of used games at all(not even by piracy) why still selling their stuff for a top-notch price.
1. I obviously agree that it does not make the sale of used games the root of all problems. But that point still doesn't have anything to do with the sale of used games.
I'm guessing that you're trying to say that the big companies are using used games as a scapegoat, but where's the proof of that?
2. Of course aggressive selling of used games doesn't explain the service problems with Sim City.
3. Oh, you're not actually using bad English, it's just that your reasoning makes no sense.
You're linking service problems and pricing to the aggressive sale of used games while they don't actually 'explain' them in any way..
good arguments that get swept under the rug a lot. People really don't understand how much it costs to develop a game.
gamestop's used games are a joke. I would never buy a used game from them. they buy used games for like a dollar and sell it for 30...its ridiculous. I buy them through ebay or amazon.
I do have to say though that the dlc stuff has gotten a bit out of hand. I mean some dlc costs like 30 bucks for a mission when the original game was 60...how does that make sense? also...when I buy a game and there is unlockable content on a disc that you can get by paying more...that kind of pisses me off.
seriously though I feel like if developers created more games with high replay-ability things would change. I mean if I buy a game and it takes 10 hours to beat...I'm done...wtf do I do with the game now? would I even buy a game like that? I wouldn't...I research a game to make sure it is worth the buy versus a 10 hour game I can beat with a rental. on the other hand take a title like chrono trigger. there are so many different ways to beat that game and so much replay-ability that you could easily log 100+ hours...why would I ever want to sell that game? and **** I would pay 100 bucks for a game like that.
gamestop's used games are a joke. I would never buy a used game from them. they buy used games for like a dollar and sell it for 30...its ridiculous. I buy them through ebay or amazon.
I do have to say though that the dlc stuff has gotten a bit out of hand. I mean some dlc costs like 30 bucks for a mission when the original game was 60...how does that make sense? also...when I buy a game and there is unlockable content on a disc that you can get by paying more...that kind of pisses me off.
seriously though I feel like if developers created more games with high replay-ability things would change. I mean if I buy a game and it takes 10 hours to beat...I'm done...wtf do I do with the game now? would I even buy a game like that? I wouldn't...I research a game to make sure it is worth the buy versus a 10 hour game I can beat with a rental. on the other hand take a title like chrono trigger. there are so many different ways to beat that game and so much replay-ability that you could easily log 100+ hours...why would I ever want to sell that game? and **** I would pay 100 bucks for a game like that.
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!
Bioalchemist wrote:
good arguments that get swept under the rug a lot. People really don't understand how much it costs to develop a game.
Yes indeed. Games are very expensive. Though I must say that a small team honestly seems like a considerably better way of developing a game than with the huge teams often used in today's AAA games.
Quoted:
I do have to say though that the dlc stuff has gotten a bit out of hand. I mean some dlc costs like 30 bucks for a mission when the original game was 60...how does that make sense? also...when I buy a game and there is unlockable content on a disc that you can get by paying more...that kind of pisses me off.
Yes, that's bad business practice. Don't support games with such things.
Also, with the death of used games and physical sales, we might actually see companies stop doing such douchbaggery. Because they make more money and don't need to resort as much to ******** to make a profit.
Quoted:
seriously though I feel like if developers created more games with high replay-ability things would change. I mean if I buy a game and it takes 10 hours to beat...I'm done...wtf do I do with the game now? would I even buy a game like that? I wouldn't...I research a game to make sure it is worth the buy versus a 10 hour game I can beat with a rental. on the other hand take a title like chrono trigger. there are so many different ways to beat that game and so much replay-ability that you could easily log 100+ hours...why would I ever want to sell that game? and **** I would pay 100 bucks for a game like that.
No. No. No.
That's a TERRIBLE idea.
There are enough games padded to all hell already. We don't need any more.
Let's just use Assassin's Creed as an example. That game has a TRUCKLOAD of collectibles and side-stuff that would take upwards of 100hours to complete. Meanwhile, I found the game boring and repetitive 10hours into my ~20hour playthrough.
Other examples of padded games off the top of my head are Tomb Raider, the rest of the AC games, Far Cry 3, Skyrim and most JRPG games in history.
Padding doesn't necessarily make a game bad, but it's a very hard line to tread. And most games "fall" into monotony, which results in boredom and annoyance.
It's easy to make a long game. It's hard to make a GOOD one.
I'm personally very much for shorter, more focused experiences. Journey is a perfect example of this.
It's 15$ for 2-3hours of entertainment(quite like a movie). Which is nothing compared to most padded games. BUT it's the best 2-3hours you're likely ever gonna spend in a game.
Journey has been proclaimed game of the year 2012 by loads of people simply for the fact that it focuses solely on one thing: giving the player a good experience.
I do NOT wanna see any more ****ty padding in my games. My time is too valuable to waste on ********. I'd much rather have a shorter game, a more focused experience, that doesn't waste my time..
"If someone is ****, you point at them and declare "****!". Because this is the internet." - Serpentiferous
"The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and little girls are the FBI." - ???
"The Internet: where men are men, women are men, and little girls are the FBI." - ???
so basically searz you're saying ubisoft pads the **** out of their games? lol.
and jrpgs are full of grinding and padding because to them, the longer a game takes to complete the more satisfying it is to do so. its a difference of culture.
edit: i halfway agree about money spent vs time spent playing, of course the longer it takes to complete the game the more you feel its worth your money, but if its full of collectathons or rediculous padding then it usually loses my interest.
take for example, sleeping dogs. great game, beat it in about 20 hours. i had bought it for ps3, 60 bucks. while there was still a **** ton of side 'quests' and collectables, i didn't feel like it was worth my time. though a few months later i did replay through it, though rushing through the main story for a total of like 35 hours.
this is also why mmos are full of grinding, to keep you subbed longer.
and jrpgs are full of grinding and padding because to them, the longer a game takes to complete the more satisfying it is to do so. its a difference of culture.
edit: i halfway agree about money spent vs time spent playing, of course the longer it takes to complete the game the more you feel its worth your money, but if its full of collectathons or rediculous padding then it usually loses my interest.
take for example, sleeping dogs. great game, beat it in about 20 hours. i had bought it for ps3, 60 bucks. while there was still a **** ton of side 'quests' and collectables, i didn't feel like it was worth my time. though a few months later i did replay through it, though rushing through the main story for a total of like 35 hours.
this is also why mmos are full of grinding, to keep you subbed longer.
I like things that make me feel stupid. - Ken Levine
Taking up on 3. again:
I don't know what you're linking and where, I'm just going down the road our cynical brite here mentioned:
Aggressive sale of used game -> high prices on new games.
Either by gaming industry trying to counter the lose they made through the sale of used games or by GS and friends artificially blowing them up simply because they have the "dominance" to do it.
That's what he subliminally introduced.
And I just countered that statement taking Blizz as the poster child.
I don't know what you're linking and where, I'm just going down the road our cynical brite here mentioned:
Aggressive sale of used game -> high prices on new games.
Either by gaming industry trying to counter the lose they made through the sale of used games or by GS and friends artificially blowing them up simply because they have the "dominance" to do it.
That's what he subliminally introduced.
And I just countered that statement taking Blizz as the poster child.
caucheka wrote:
and jrpgs are full of grinding and padding because to them, the longer a game takes to complete the more satisfying it is to do so. its a difference of culture.
edit: i halfway agree about money spent vs time spent playing, of course the longer it takes to complete the game the more you feel its worth your money, but if its full of collectathons or rediculous padding then it usually loses my interest.
take for example, sleeping dogs. great game, beat it in about 20 hours. i had bought it for ps3, 60 bucks. while there was still a **** ton of side 'quests' and collectables, i didn't feel like it was worth my time. though a few months later i did replay through it, though rushing through the main story for a total of like 35 hours.
this is also why mmos are full of grinding, to keep you subbed longer.
yeah I re-thought my last point there. brings up another problem with being a developer. everyone has different tastes you can't just say my game will sell to everyone...unlike say medical diagnostics (which I am in) well...EVERYONE needs this test...it is not subjective.
for me I like time consuming games as long as they have a good story like CT...I mean if I pay 60 bucks and get 100 hours but that 100 hours was awful thats not good either...but I do like to at least feel like I spent enough time to make it worth it....but yes indeed ultra padding has become an issue for sure...especially with the latest FF games...uber boring drawn out stories are no good either...always a balance...and I guess I generalized a bit or perhaps misspoke....it doesn't have to be a 50+ hour game to have replay-ability...I have replayed through earthbound 20 times...takes me around 20 hours to do it right....but I still replay it because it is just a great game versus having all sorts of things to find or go out of your way and spend tons of time to get just to complete everything...meh I feel like I am rambling now.
Thanks to jhoijhoi for my signature!
You need to log in before commenting.
I think this deserves attention. Used games is actually a bad business practice, something I've been completely unaware of before this.