Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

As for other reasons Steam won't abandon EU: Many of the games sold on Steam originate from the EU.

If it wasn't for Paradox, I wouldn't even have Steam on my computer.  And I'm certain Paradox won't keep using Steam as one of their distributors if they cut out their home market.

[jhxmt]

Even disregarding all the other points made in this thread, this is excellent for one additional reason:

There's now a potential incentive for developers to make (and publishers to support) games that customers will want to keep i.e. games that have depth and replayability.

Imagine a world that doesn't consist solely of "Sports Franchise Extreme 2012 Ultimate Edition!" (to be replaced in September 2012 with SFE2013 Ultimate Edition, with server shut down two weeks afterwards).  Imagine a world where developers and publishers (moreso publishers) can no longer get away with simply churning the same old dross over and over, but actually have to look for material and content that will entice customers to keep their games and keep playing them, rather than going, "Hey, look, SFE2013 is out, but I can buy SFE2012 secondhand for £20 less, I'll go for that, it's pretty much the same game anyway!"

Worth noting, this discussion is about digital sales of the game itself, not of a copy of the game.  This means that people selling it on will (presumably) not have access to the game itself afterwards - so this reduces the average price of those games that people get bored of quickly, but doesn't necessarily impact (at least, not directly to such a degree) those games that people love and keep and cherish.

I will never, ever sell my Planescape: Torment.  I will never, ever sell my Mount & Blade: Warband.  I will never, ever sell my X3: Terran Conflict.  Why?  Because they drag me back.  Time and time again.  I still install Torment, play through it, and uninstall it at least once a year because it's simply so appealing to me.

Call of the Battlefield of Duty: Modern Brothers 3?  It'd be out the door in a second.  Probably for less than 20% of what I paid for it.  After all, if I'm never going to play it again, it's worthless to me (except as a coaster.  How much should I charge for a coaster?)

[Goron]

Even disregarding all the other points made in this thread, this is excellent for one additional reason:

There's now a potential incentive for developers to make (and publishers to support) games that customers will want to keep i.e. games that have depth and replayability.

How does that make any sense at all?
How will that make anyone more money?
A game that users keep does not generate more revenue. Once sold it is sold- the end. Doesn't matter how long the customer plays it.
If anything it increases the desire to make rapid iteration games, to generate more base sales.
The only thing that matters is the initial sale, even more so with a used market.

[Rose]

It keeps a person from reselling it. If nobody is reselling a game, then people will buy it new.

[fenrif]

Even disregarding all the other points made in this thread, this is excellent for one additional reason:

There's now a potential incentive for developers to make (and publishers to support) games that customers will want to keep i.e. games that have depth and replayability.

How does that make any sense at all?
How will that make anyone more money?
A game that users keep does not generate more revenue. Once sold it is sold- the end. Doesn't matter how long the customer plays it.
If anything it increases the desire to make rapid iteration games, to generate more base sales.
The only thing that matters is the initial sale, even more so with a used market.

Hey let me tell you about a little game called ARMA 2...

Or perhaps you've heard about this game that came out recently called Diablo 3?

You're looking at the situation the same way Bobby Kotik does. (no offense, I actually feel really bad about writing that... Though not bad enough to neuter my point by deleting it, Sorry) That is to say the wrong way.

[Goron]

Even disregarding all the other points made in this thread, this is excellent for one additional reason:

There's now a potential incentive for developers to make (and publishers to support) games that customers will want to keep i.e. games that have depth and replayability.

How does that make any sense at all?
How will that make anyone more money?
A game that users keep does not generate more revenue. Once sold it is sold- the end. Doesn't matter how long the customer plays it.
If anything it increases the desire to make rapid iteration games, to generate more base sales.
The only thing that matters is the initial sale, even more so with a used market.

Hey let me tell you about a little game called ARMA 2...

Or perhaps you've heard about this game that came out recently called Diablo 3?

You're looking at the situation the same way Bobby Kotik does. (no offense, I actually feel really bad about writing that... Though not bad enough to neuter my point by deleting it, Sorry) That is to say the wrong way.

Are you suggesting no one will buy arma 3?
or are you suggesting that somehow arma 2 is generating more money after the initial sale? Last I checked arma 2 only cost me money once; and (following my point) they released new expansions which cost more money. And soon they will release the next iteration which will cost more money...
Am I missing something?

Edit: the fact alone that they already ported dayz to arma 3 shows how they are looking to capitalize on a new release... Otherwise would they not devote all resources into the arma2 version? No. They can't make more money that way. By releasing a new game they can recapitalize on their ip, fans, and new buys.

Edit again: diablo 3 thou is a good example of a game that benefits from long term play tho, since they get a cut of auction sales (do they? I just assume they do)

[fenrif]

Even disregarding all the other points made in this thread, this is excellent for one additional reason:

There's now a potential incentive for developers to make (and publishers to support) games that customers will want to keep i.e. games that have depth and replayability.

How does that make any sense at all?
How will that make anyone more money?
A game that users keep does not generate more revenue. Once sold it is sold- the end. Doesn't matter how long the customer plays it.
If anything it increases the desire to make rapid iteration games, to generate more base sales.
The only thing that matters is the initial sale, even more so with a used market.

Hey let me tell you about a little game called ARMA 2...

Or perhaps you've heard about this game that came out recently called Diablo 3?

You're looking at the situation the same way Bobby Kotik does. (no offense, I actually feel really bad about writing that... Though not bad enough to neuter my point by deleting it, Sorry) That is to say the wrong way.

Are you suggesting no one will buy arma 3?
or are you suggesting that somehow arma 2 is generating more money after the initial sale? Last I checked arma 2 only cost me money once; and (following my point) they released new expansions which cost more money. And soon they will release the next iteration which will cost more money...
Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing something, I dare say you missed everything I had to say.

ARMA 2 is the top seller on steam, has been for a few weeks (months? I don't really pay attention) now. This is inarguably making BIS more money.

Do you think this is because noone is playing it, because people finished the game and then were done with it in time for the sequel? No, it's because BIS made a good game. A game people want to keep playing, and keep creating content for. And then content was created for it that pulled in more people who perhaps wouldn't have bought ARMA 2 on its own merits.

Now do you think when ARMA 3 comes out people wont buy it? Some wont, of course, but most will. Because as good as ARMA 2 is, and as long lasting as it has been for people, it's human nature to want something new. And when you have a company that sells you a game that lasts for years, constantly providing you with new experiences, you're going to be willing to give them more money in the future.

When I say you're thinking like Kotick, I mean that you're thinking in terms of "how much money does everything we do gain us?" It's short term thinking, and it's the reason why you get quotes from game publisher CEOs talking about charging real money for reloading your gun. Missing the point entirely that people get fed up of that shit pretty quick.

I mean just look at the history of gaming. Games like Half Life, the FF series, Warcraft, etc. All games that lasted their players for hundreds upon hundreds of hours. But just because someone spent multiple years playing the same copy of Half Life, with all it's mods and addons, doesn't mean when HL2 came out they all went "fuck that, I got HL1!"

And again going back to ARMA 2: if only the initial sale matters then why code in modding support? Who cares if people months from now want to add in their own game mode with zombies or something? Initial sales are all that matter! And yet you have extremely strong evidence to the contrary that crafting a game people want to keep playing for extended periods of time is hugely beneficial from a buisness standpoint, provided you aren't so focused on short-term gains to throw long-term ones under the bus.

[jhxmt]

Even disregarding all the other points made in this thread, this is excellent for one additional reason:

There's now a potential incentive for developers to make (and publishers to support) games that customers will want to keep i.e. games that have depth and replayability.

How does that make any sense at all?
How will that make anyone more money?

I never claimed it would make anyone more money.  I said it would make LESS money for those publishers (and hence developers) who don't seek long-term appeal.

The reason for this, as Japa said, is that if a game is worth keeping then it won't be resold (at a cheaper price), thus ensuring that new copies sell better than they otherwise would.

To clarify:

SCENARIO A: developer/publisher releases shitty, one-shot, all-style-no-substance game.  A million people buy it on release, a million more are tempted but hold off, a third million aren't at all interested.  Of the first million, 500k get bored of it within a week and sell it for half price.  Of the second million, 500k buy it at that half price, the other 500k buy new copies (as there are no cheap ones left).  The third million still aren't interested.
TOTAL SALES BY DEV/PUB: 1m + 500k = 1.5m

SCENARIO B: developer/publisher release deep, meaningful, artistic, replayable game.  A million people buy it on release, a million more are tempted but hold off, a third million aren't at all interested.  Of the first million, everybody loves it and keeps it.  Of the second million, all buy new copies, as there are no cheap ones being resold.  The third million still aren't interested.
TOTAL SALES BY DEV/PUB: 1m + 1m = 2m

Extremely simplified for the purposes of this example, but that's the thrust of my argument.  Ability to resell games penalises those games that aren't desirable to keep, and does not penalise those games that ARE desirable to keep.  That's all I'm stating here.

The whole micro-transaction, in-game-auction-house, monetisation-of-everything-that-breathes issue is a separate issue.  It doesn't negate the above (at least, not as far as I can see).

[Goron]

Re: fenrif
Ah, I see. You seem to have missed some of my point. When I say 'initial sale' I do not mean 'first week of release', I mean 'the point of sale when a customer buys it from a distributor in such a way that the developer makes money'.
So my argument that a game that people want to continue playing for a long time that sells 100 copies makes the developer the EXACT SAME amount of money as a game that people play for ten minutes then drop but still sold 100 copies stands true. The fact that arma2 is selling top on steam furthers my point, those steam sales are INITIAL SALES. They are making money off of them, and they will benefit when arma3 comes out because many of those customers will then buy arma 3. BI cannot just sit on arma2 forever. Initial sales are ONE TIME money generating events. They do not benefit from how long someone plays the game, just as long as it sells.
Please note that I NEVER wrote that companies benefit from making bad games. I only wrote that companies can only benefit past first sale by making MORE games, to generate more first sales. That is not to say a company can make a shitty game then benefi
T by releasing a sequel because no one will buy the sequel. All I say is that a company has incentive to make many GOOD games, because each new game can be a sale to repeat customers. If you only make one game you will (almost) never see a repeat customer.

[Goron]

Even disregarding all the other points made in this thread, this is excellent for one additional reason:

There's now a potential incentive for developers to make (and publishers to support) games that customers will want to keep i.e. games that have depth and replayability.

How does that make any sense at all?
How will that make anyone more money?

I never claimed it would make anyone more money.  I said it would make LESS money for those publishers (and hence developers) who don't seek long-term appeal.

The reason for this, as Japa said, is that if a game is worth keeping then it won't be resold (at a cheaper price), thus ensuring that new copies sell better than they otherwise would.

To clarify:

SCENARIO A: developer/publisher releases shitty, one-shot, all-style-no-substance game.  A million people buy it on release, a million more are tempted but hold off, a third million aren't at all interested.  Of the first million, 500k get bored of it within a week and sell it for half price.  Of the second million, 500k buy it at that half price, the other 500k buy new copies (as there are no cheap ones left).  The third million still aren't interested.
TOTAL SALES BY DEV/PUB: 1m + 500k = 1.5m

SCENARIO B: developer/publisher release deep, meaningful, artistic, replayable game.  A million people buy it on release, a million more are tempted but hold off, a third million aren't at all interested.  Of the first million, everybody loves it and keeps it.  Of the second million, all buy new copies, as there are no cheap ones being resold.  The third million still aren't interested.
TOTAL SALES BY DEV/PUB: 1m + 1m = 2m

Extremely simplified for the purposes of this example, but that's the thrust of my argument.  Ability to resell games penalises those games that aren't desirable to keep, and does not penalise those games that ARE desirable to keep.  That's all I'm stating here.

The whole micro-transaction, in-game-auction-house, monetisation-of-everything-that-breathes issue is a separate issue.  It doesn't negate the above (at least, not as far as I can see).

As you write that it makes sense, but why wouldn't the company make a great, meaningful, ONESHOT game, and then sell a sequel that is also great? Then they sell even more copies because there are no used versions of a brand new game?
I buy every single version of the sims because they are hella fun. Could I still be playing (and enjoying) sims 2 ? Heck yeah, but EA is smart and made a sims 3 for me to buy, which I (and millions of others) promptly bought. I argue that sims 3 is still a great game with many improvements over sims 2 so it cannot fit into your scenario of a shitty game.
Keeping the context of only good games, it only benefits a developer to release new versions rapidly as opposed to making fewer, but replay able, games- as long as the games are good.
Edit: I'd rather George rr Martin release new books than write one book that is fun to reread. Sure, I have reread books, but that is less ideal than having a new book.

[jhxmt]

As you write that it makes sense, but why wouldn't the company make a great, meaningful, ONESHOT game, and then sell a sequel that is also great? Then they sell even more copies because there are no used versions of a brand new game?
I buy every single version of the sims because they are hella fun. Could I still be playing (and enjoying) sims 2 ? Heck yeah, but EA is smart and made a sims 3 for me to buy, which I (and millions of others) promptly bought. I argue that sims 3 is still a great game with many improvements over sims 2 so it cannot fit into your scenario of a shitty game.
Keeping the context of only good games, it only benefits a developer to release new versions rapidly as opposed to making fewer, but replay able, games- as long as the games are good.
Edit: I'd rather George rr Martin release new books than write one book that is fun to reread. Sure, I have reread books, but that is less ideal than having a new book.

(Trimmed the quote ladder for brevity's sake!) 

I wouldn't use the Sims series as an example, as I (personally) think Sims 2 was a big improvement over The Sims, and Sims 3 was a...well, not as much of an improvement, but enough that I bought it as well.  It had some innovation.  It wasn't effectively the same game rebranded, which is the real target of my ire here.

The fake example I gave, of the typical (in my eyes) sporting franchise game, was picked because it's one that I particularly think exemplifies the "just put a new coat of paint on it, label it '2013' rather than '2012', and sell it again at the top price" mentality.  Realistically, the differences (in my personal view, I'm aware) between year-on-year games like this, in terms of gameplay, are minimal at best, and I think it's incredibly disappointing how lazy and uninventive it makes companies that can churn these games out, at top dollar, without having to do anything other than change the title.

If people can re-sell Sports Franchise 2012, then that lets market forces determine a fair price for the product.  If Sports Franchise 2013 is released, it means that those people who want to play the game but really don't care about the 'paintwork' can buy Sports Franchise 2012 at a lower price, rather than being forced to pay an artificially inflated (monopolised, in effect) price for what is effectively the same product.

Personally, when Modern Warfare 3 came out, I didn't buy it.  I bought Modern Warfare 2, pre-owned, and played that.  Because frankly, there wasn't nearly enough change between the two to make it worth an extra £30 from me.

This enables that same ability, but for digital downloads as well as physical disks.  Which is why I view it as a positive thing.  You want me to pay £50 for your second game rather than £20 for your first?  Then your second game better be £30 more innovative than your first - or at least £30 more current, or at the very least £30 more entertaining, which is the bottom line here.

To put this another way: imagine you really want to play Solitaire.  You can buy a second-hand copy of Solitaire for £3 from someone selling it second hand.  Or you can buy Solitaire Deluxe Super Awesome Edition, which simply changes the background colour from green to gold, for £50.  Which one will you go for?

Now, imagine Solitaire Deluxe Super Awesome Edition introduces a massive single-player campaign, enables multiplayer mode, updates the graphics and sound to 2012 standards, provides a huge in-depth plotline that tugs at the heartstrings, and incorporates procedurally generated worlds in which to play, providing a level of replayability unprecedented in gaming until this date, which will give you hundreds of hours of new, exciting entertainment.

Now which one are you going to buy?

...jeez, that was an awful and rambling example.  It's late, I'm tired, that's my excuse. 

Edit: after all that, to answer your point "why wouldn't company make a great one-shot game followed by a better sequel": because, with resales forbidden, they don't NEED to.  They can churn out the same crap and still sell it for top price because there is no competing market.  If there is a competing market then companies that DO make better sequels will fare better than those that DON'T.  I agree that, in an ideal world, they'd do this anyway...but they don't. 

[Neonivek]

I wouldn't use the Sims series as an example, as I (personally) think Sims 2 was a big improvement over The Sims, and Sims 3 was a...well, not as much of an improvement, but enough that I bought it as well.  It had some innovation.  It wasn't effectively the same game rebranded, which is the real target of my ire here.

The Sims 3 gave you an entire interactive neighbourhood rather then instances, it improved the AI so they can more effectively take care of themselves without self-destructing (you no longer had to babysit everyone), and it improved the job system so it is based on performance with a lot of opportunities along the way. Sorry I also forgot it allows you to edit all the suits in the game with custom colors and pattersn including the walls, floors, and objects, custom makeup colors, custom eye color, custom hair colors...

What made The Sims 3 a lot more iffy was all the content pulled while making it as well as many of the new stuff that really has no where to go (collecting).

The Sims 3 was a rather sizable improvement that no one was expecting. Its issue was that as a base game it was lacking and its expansions were rather lacking with Ambitions, Pets, and the September released Supernatural being the best ones. Add in tons and tons and tons of bugs with each expansion that never get fixed and there you go.

The Sims 3 is a bad example of this effect. The Sims 3 was a huge improvement over The Sims 2 and a large step back as well. It is why The sims 3 is quite a bit more Meh.

[10ebbor10]

It will alsoo cause a tendency towards mulltiplayer or singleplayer +
This will discourage selling between friends, aswould happen with apure singleplayer game.

[palsch]

I don't believe that allowing digital resales will change the AAA market that much. At most there may be a slight reversion towards the pre-digital dominated model where resale was always a factor, but even so I don't see enough deviation from that original model that there is a major change there.

On the indi side of things it could be interested. A lot of the highly praised indi games have been fairly short one-and-done. I'm thinking especially of games like Braid which are fantastic but probably don't have much value to most players after completion. These are also the games that tend to make more from the long tail; people discovering them months or years later, mostly though word of mouth, and taking a chance on the purchase. In those cases I can certainly believe that allowing digital resales will hurt sales compared to their recent success.

I'm still not sure how narrow this ruling will be. It's very much based on the license agreement emulating ownership over the software. Licenses that don't match that model are very much up in the air. I'm particularly wondering about games like Minecraft. That model has you you buying an account more than any the software, which may well place it more on the service side of things than the product. If Minecraft and similar games can be excluded from this in that manner it would be a small matter for most games to convert to a similar model. Arguably games like Starcraft 2 are already closish, with you buying accounts that give you access to features of certain (free) software rather than the software itself.

[Goron]

I don't believe that allowing digital resales will change the AAA market that much. At most there may be a slight reversion towards the pre-digital dominated model where resale was always a factor, but even so I don't see enough deviation from that original model that there is a major change there.

On the indi side of things it could be interested. A lot of the highly praised indi games have been fairly short one-and-done. I'm thinking especially of games like Braid which are fantastic but probably don't have much value to most players after completion. These are also the games that tend to make more from the long tail; people discovering them months or years later, mostly though word of mouth, and taking a chance on the purchase. In those cases I can certainly believe that allowing digital resales will hurt sales compared to their recent success.

I agree.
AAA market tends to see rapid iterations of games.
Indie market less so.
I believe many people have a poor belief that replayability and replayability alone makes for a good game. I love The Walking Dead- yet I will never play it a second time, ever. I WILL buy another Telltale Games game, though (assuming they release more- and even then I may buy some of their existing titles).
Sure, replayability contributes to the 'goodness' of a game, but that is not the sole factor.
Kings Quest series was great, yet I've only played through most of them once. But I bought the next game, and the next, and the next... Sierra only benefited when I bought a game, not when I replayed the first game over and over (which I didn't).