HawkMan Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 I never said multiplayer was a key part of all games, i said ever since there were multiplayer games for the most part they have been integral part of the game on the disk, they cant just decide 20 years later that they arent being properly compensated and start blocking multiplayer for second hand games until you pay them money to unlock it. If they think multiplayer is worth the extra they should just charge extra on the RRP. Actually yes they can. they make the game, they run the servers, they can do whatever they want. And if games cost as much to make todays as 20 years ago, it would be a valid statement, but they don't. Games today cost as much to make as a blockbuster movie. There's a lot ore coding, there's high res in game graphics. wichi again relies on higher res movie quality models to be made in addition for normal map generation. there ultra high res textures. there's levels with more detail than they could dream of 5 years ago. It's on and on, the production costs for modern games are astronomical. at the same time, inflation has reduced the value of the price. at the same time games have become cheaper, though they're now getting back to the ~60$(actually more, since it was 600-700NOK, but most prices translated in x10 increments form dollars despite it being closer to x6 or 7 in reality) value they where back when I bought NES and SNES games as a kid. Of course even if the games are gettign closer to that price, $60 today doesn't hold nearly the same as $60 did 15 years ago. not even close. on top of that, on launch most big stores will compete for customers on big game titles by reducing the price to 60%. So basically games have gotten immensely more expensive to make, and they're significantly cheaper to buy. And yes, there's a lot more people that buy games today, but not enough to offset the difference. After all they aren't making games out of charity. they do it to make money, and they need to make money to afford making the next game. So if you don't think the game's worth the price,just don't buy it or wait until it's in bargain/platinum. If you don't want to pay full price and can't wait, sure you can buy used and accept that if you want all the extras, up to and possibly including the multi player component, you may risk having to buy a non transferable license to it yourself. If you want games designed out of charity, There's always the free linux games. If however you want great AAA games, then you need to pay that premium. Afterall they need to pay their coders, writers, voice actors, moCap, artists, animators, level designers, managers and so on and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joni_78 Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 What the f*** are they on. If someone bought the product he/she can sell it if they want without manufacturer trying to prevent it. Imagine if you would always have buy a new car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted June 4, 2010 Author Share Posted June 4, 2010 See how ridiculous it sounds? Your statement sure. So if you don't think the game's worth the price, just don't buy it or wait until it's in bargain/platinum. If you don't want to pay full price and can't wait, sure you can buy used and accept that if you want all the extras, up to and possibly including the multi player component, you may risk having to buy a non transferable license to it yourself. Now I don't often agree with HawkMan, if ever, but in this case. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draken Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 thanks to the gods of gaming I'm a single player only gamer :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teebor Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 I find it interesting that the companies that produce rubbish games the most are the ones complaining the most If the games were not overpriced pieces of trash then I would probably buy more of them new, but as it is I have paid full price for some utter trash games in the past which I play for a few hours and then throw in to a corner. What is the point of buying them full price when that is all that happens to them? I'd rather pay 2nd hand prices for a game and then find it sucks.. Most of the time if the games didn't suck so much anyway I think a lot of people would not sell them second hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Actually yes they can. they make the game, they run the servers, they can do whatever they want. Except they dont run the servers, PS3, Xbox 360, Wii they are for the most part all peer to peer, PC owners on the other hand actually pay per month for their own dedicated server, where there are persistant servers then you pay £10/$10 a month which are MMOs. And if games cost as much to make todays as 20 years ago, it would be a valid statement, but they don't. Games today cost as much to make as a blockbuster movie. There's a lot ore coding, there's high res in game graphics. wichi again relies on higher res movie quality models to be made in addition for normal map generation. there ultra high res textures. there's levels with more detail than they could dream of 5 years ago.It's on and on, the production costs for modern games are astronomical. at the same time, inflation has reduced the value of the price. at the same time games have become cheaper, though they're now getting back to the ~60$(actually more, since it was 600-700NOK, but most prices translated in x10 increments form dollars despite it being closer to x6 or 7 in reality) value they where back when I bought NES and SNES games as a kid. Of course even if the games are gettign closer to that price, $60 today doesn't hold nearly the same as $60 did 15 years ago. not even close. on top of that, on launch most big stores will compete for customers on big game titles by reducing the price to 60%. So basically games have gotten immensely more expensive to make, and they're significantly cheaper to buy. And yes, there's a lot more people that buy games today, but not enough to offset the difference. After all they aren't making games out of charity. they do it to make money, and they need to make money to afford making the next game. Whos fault is that, is it the consumers fault that the console creators make hardware complex to program for? As for cost of development apart from box sets there isnt a whole lot of variation between the RRP of a $100-150m movie blockbuster and a $10-15m movie blockbuster on Blu-Ray, they are relatively on par with games releases, some are cheaper and some more slightly more expensive and as far as i know they dont expect £10/$10 every time a movie sells second hand (ignoring the whole piracy issue). Why should games be any different? So if you don't think the game's worth the price,just don't buy it or wait until it's in bargain/platinum. If you don't want to pay full price and can't wait, sure you can buy used and accept that if you want all the extras, up to and possibly including the multi player component, you may risk having to buy a non transferable license to it yourself. If you want games designed out of charity, There's always the free linux games. If however you want great AAA games, then you need to pay that premium. Afterall they need to pay their coders, writers, voice actors, moCap, artists, animators, level designers, managers and so on and so on. I dont care about DLC that is extra content and they should charge what they want for it, its wrong for them to include a game component on the disc such as multiplayer that was designed to be included from the start and is included with the RRP when it is bought brand new then say every subsequent person who buys the game cannot have access to that content unless they pay the developers more money. No ones asking for charity, i just find your statements ridiculously over the top insinuating that if people are too cheap to buy a new game that they should be forced to pay extra for something that doesnt cost the developer anything the cost of admission has already been paid when the game was bought new, if the person buying the game really wanted to play the content they would have bought it brand new. Explosification 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted June 4, 2010 Author Share Posted June 4, 2010 If the games were not overpriced pieces of trash then I would probably buy more of them new, but as it is I have paid full price for some utter trash games in the past which I play for a few hours and then throw in to a corner. What is the point of buying them full price when that is all that happens to them? Why should games be any different? You don't patch movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 You don't patch movies. Again why is it the consumers fault that games developers thesedays just knock a game out regardless of bugs and then patch it afterwards? If they release a broken game then they should be under an obligation to fix it which is covered in the RRP, if its not cost effective then dont patch it, dont do it then expect people to pay more afterwards. Explosification 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 You don't patch movies. They also make most of their money from theaters/cinema. movies are also "usually" a lot shorter entertainment than a game. Again why is it the consumers fault that games developers thesedays just knock a game out regardless of bugs and then patch it afterwards? If they release a broken game then they should be under an obligation to fix it which is covered in the RRP, if its not cost effective then dont patch it, dont do it then expect people to pay more afterwards. Not all patches are bug patches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Not all patches are bug patches. Then, like IW/Activision, release them as paid for DLC. I already said i dont have an issue with it, im just bothered that in the future a core game component just as multiplayer and potentially other things like single player if you wanted to go over the top could be locked out unless you pay them money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungarian Salami Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 I never buy pre-owned but that idea is outrageous. I own an xbox 360 console and I pay Xbox Live access fee and if I get a game and I'm asked to pay $10 to use its multiplayer component I'll be calling MS immediately. It their ads it clearly says that Xbox Live gives you unlimited access to online features and so on. How about if I lend the game to a friend of mine, what now? I think the whole idea is not going to work at least on Xbox, some people might even sue MS not EA for misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ichi Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 But they don't sell the access. Games are not owned by us. We are sold a license to use the game, which as a license to play the game online. When a used game is sold, the developer does not receive a dime for the resale of the license to use the game. They also don't receive any money for another unique user accessing their online. There's absolutely no reason why developers should make money from resales. The physical media, the license and the slot for playing online are still unique, they are just transferred to a new player and not always for money. There are, on the other hand, lots of reasons why developers would want to get money from resales. If it was up to them they would also love to get money from every online frag (hey, you don't own the game, just a license to kill 1 player online... from there on it's $1 each). rajputwarrior 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Except they dont run the servers, PS3, Xbox 360, Wii they are for the most part all peer to peer But they are not all peer to peer. EA (who is the one toying with the $10 access) runs dedicated. There's absolutely no reason why developers should make money from resales. The physical media, the license and the slot for playing online are still unique, they are just transferred to a new player and not always for money. There are, on the other hand, lots of reasons why developers would want to get money from resales. If it was up to them they would also love to get money from every online frag (hey, you don't own the game, just a license to kill 1 player online... from there on it's $1 each). Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyDX Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 The second owner takes the space on the server the first owner won't be using anymore. :) No added cost to the developer. This! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted June 4, 2010 Author Share Posted June 4, 2010 I never buy pre-owned but that idea is outrageous. I own an xbox 360 console and I pay Xbox Live access fee and if I get a game and I'm asked to pay $10 to use its multiplayer component I'll be calling MS immediately. It their ads it clearly says that Xbox Live gives you unlimited access to online features and so on. How about if I lend the game to a friend of mine, what now? I think the whole idea is not going to work at least on Xbox, some people might even sue MS not EA for misleading. I thought MS only provided the P2P system and networking ability. Persistent stats are provided by publishers? They can say they are just charging for that. Job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spenser.d Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 I still don't see the issue with them wanting to get a cut of the money from someone who's purchased their game. Then again I'm not stingy enough with my money to buy used games often enough that it makes a difference for me. I think they deserve a cut and this seems like a reasonable way to do it (if not the only way - I doubt retailers would budge much on not giving them a cut). If you've got an issue you could always not buy the game, but my bet is on them making bank off these programs while only ****ing off a minority of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedon Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 This! Not really. Even though I don't play certain old games any longer, my ID, user stats, etc are still on their servers. And I can access them and play on them anytime I want, guaranteed. My spot is not closed out. Then again, I only buy games new, so this is no issue to me. I prefer to support the developers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliott Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 The second owner takes the space on the server the first owner won't be using anymore. :) No added cost to the developer. Servers alone cost plenty to maintain. Bandwidth isn't the only consideration. I don't really see how this is that different than what PC gamers have been living with for a while now. It's not like you can just sell your game license to somebody else on Steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Then, like IW/Activision, release them as paid for DLC. I already said i dont have an issue with it, im just bothered that in the future a core game component just as multiplayer and potentially other things like single player if you wanted to go over the top could be locked out unless you pay them money. That's what they do, only those who bought the game new, and got a VIP code, get it free. I don't see how you can complain about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajputwarrior Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 There's absolutely no reason why developers should make money from resales. The physical media, the license and the slot for playing online are still unique, they are just transferred to a new player and not always for money. There are, on the other hand, lots of reasons why developers would want to get money from resales. If it was up to them they would also love to get money from every online frag (hey, you don't own the game, just a license to kill 1 player online... from there on it's $1 each). you are right. when you buy a game it's a liscense to use the media and play it online. If the person wants to sell it it should be in their right. And when the person buys that copy they shouldn't have to pay even more to get online. The game itself should be more then enough to get online. I understand that they want money from resales, but I don't really see how they have the right to double charge for something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hammond Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 That's what they do, only those who bought the game new, and got a VIP code, get it free. I don't see how you can complain about that. DLC yes, a core component of the game no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richteralan Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 No, the devs/publisher get no additional money from additional sales once it has been traded in. All that money goes to the store. I personally dislike the fact they're doing this, namely because usually I'll get a preowned game before a new game. so the problem lies whether the person will buy new copy if there's no used copy. and equating a used copy sale to a new copy sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hungarian Salami Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Again, I do not see how is this going to work on XBOX 360 where the users pay fee to access online features and when you access the game you have to pay again which won't make the people happy and its MS that is going to get all the angly calls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawkMan Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 Again, I do not see how is this going to work on XBOX 360 where the users pay fee to access online features and when you access the game you have to pay again which won't make the people happy and its MS that is going to get all the angly calls. Easy, all the people that buy it new get it free. people that rent or buy second hand, if they try to get into MP( if it's even visible before they buy the DLC) will get a message saying that this is an addon they either need to buy or if they bought a new copy of the game a free access code should be included. I suspect MS won't allow it anyway though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spookie Posted June 4, 2010 Author Share Posted June 4, 2010 I suspect MS won't allow it anyway though. Charging for MP is already in UFC 2010. PS It's top of the charts in the UK. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts