"They Wonder Why People Don't Make PC Games Any More"

[ex0du5]

I don't know if this has been mentioned but:

Good games will make more money than crappy games.

Not true.

Example: Mario Party DS is the second highest selling game this year in Japan

Also: Disgaea is an amazing series, regarded by many as some of the best SRPGs out there. The games in the series don't sell much more than 60-80k worldwide. Is that because they suck?

Again: STALKER didn't sell very well either, even though it was very well received.

Simply because no one wants to buy crap for $50 and get screwed. people pirate because they want to experience the game play and then buy. If they like the game they will buy it, if it sucks they will not. Again, good games make more money than crappy games. Crappy developers can go make console games...and I hope it stays this way!

Most of my friends pirate all their PC games and don't buy a single game outside of online-enabled titles.

Example: Dreamfall was played by many of my friends, yet I was the only one who bought it and the prequel. Same goes to STALKER and Oblivion.

 

[dark_reign]

No you don't, you have no such right at all - nor anything close to it. Look its simple, you give company XYZ $$, they give you a product. If you don't like the product, tough shit. Sounds to me like you believe the whole BS about "the customer is always right".

No, there are laws against selling shoddy products. If ANY product fails to work as advertised then I SHOULD be able to get a refund or possibly an exchange if it's just broken. If I didn't like the product it's because there was a feature missing or it just didn't work for me. You can only do so much research.

With games/software it's just a matter of saying it failed to deliver as promised. It was buggy, they lied about the gameplay, features, etc. A patch is supposedly their saving grace but doesn't always fix the problems. The fact that you pirate the game/software is just taking a stand against it. This way you aren't out $50 bucks and wating for a patch. Also, the feeling of getting ripped-off is gone. Makes me feel better, how about you?

 

[ex0du5]

For a very basic comparison, if the game you purchased likes to crash every hour or has numerous bugs that are obvious despite the reviewers giving it rave or fake reviews (see Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2, Kane and Lynch).

Who the hell gave Kane and Lynch glowing reviews? If you weren't smart enough to make your mind based on the 65/100 average it received on gamerankings/metacritic/whatever then maybe you should just stick to playing Wii shovelware.

 

[ex0du5]

No, there are laws against selling shoddy products. If ANY product fails to work as advertised then I SHOULD be able to get a refund or possibly an exchange if it's just broken. If I didn't like the product it's because there was a feature missing or it just didn't work for me. You can only do so much research.

With games/software it's just a matter of saying it failed to deliver as promised. It was buggy, they lied about the gameplay, features, etc. A patch is supposedly their saving grace but doesn't always fix the problems. The fact that you pirate the game/software is just taking a stand against it. This way you aren't out $50 bucks and wating for a patch. Also, the feeling of getting ripped-off is gone. Makes me feel better, how about you?

Yes please! Make a stand by not giving developers the revenue they deserve. That way, they'll have even less money to spend on testing the next big game, and you'll have even more bugs to push you into pirating games.

And to those who say you can't get a good impression of the game without downloading it and playing it, I call BS. Reviews are your friends...there are hundreds of reviews for every given game out there, and I'm sure you can put a few of them together to give you a good idea of how good the game is. Also, you have forums like this one, as well as NeoGAF, where you can get legitimate impressions on every single game release out there. Stop trying to make excuses for yourself.

 

[BloodyIron]

The thing I like about the post, is he automatically assumes why EVERYONE is pirating.

Each person has their own reason. While many are lame, there are those that are legitimate.

1) Some games are simply not released in certain areas. What are they to do?

2) Some people are trying the game before a possible purchase. Is there a demo? Which is a better example of the game, a limited demo, or the real thing?

3) Is the game worth the money? A lot of people feel they want to play the game, but the price tag is too high. Should they be left high and dry?

4) Some people share copies. Say your room mate wants to try the game? Say your sibling wants to play when you're not on your computer? Should they have to pay for their own CD Key, even if they wont play as much as you?


Don't get me wrong, I BUY MY GAMES. But I don't buy games that I feel are shit. And I have not once liked a Call of Duty game.

Some devs are just snobs.

 

[Sagan]

I went to walmart, I saw ps3 games $60 each, 360 games $60 each, pc games $40-50 each. Hmm...

 

[TerranUp16]

No, there are laws against selling shoddy products. If ANY product fails to work as advertised then I SHOULD be able to get a refund or possibly an exchange if it's just broken. If I didn't like the product it's because there was a feature missing or it just didn't work for me. You can only do so much research.

With games/software it's just a matter of saying it failed to deliver as promised. It was buggy, they lied about the gameplay, features, etc. A patch is supposedly their saving grace but doesn't always fix the problems. The fact that you pirate the game/software is just taking a stand against it. This way you aren't out $50 bucks and wating for a patch. Also, the feeling of getting ripped-off is gone. Makes me feel better, how about you?

Not liking the gameplay is no different than not liking the steak you ordered... Now, bugs are another issue entirely. If the game truly won't work despite your asking for and receiving publisher-supplied tech support, you then have a lemon on your hands, and then you can start talking about refunds. However, simply disliking a game is not reason enough for a refund.

3) Is the game worth the money? A lot of people feel they want to play the game, but the price tag is too high. Should they be left high and dry?

Yes.

 

[dark_reign]

Yes please! Make a stand by not giving developers the revenue they deserve. That way, they'll have even less money to spend on testing the next big game, and you'll have even more bugs to push you into pirating games.

And to those who say you can't get a good impression of the game without downloading it and playing it, I call BS. Reviews are your friends...there are hundreds of reviews for every given game out there, and I'm sure you can put a few of them together to give you a good idea of how good the game is. Also, you have forums like this one, as well as NeoGAF, where you can get legitimate impressions on every single game release out there. Stop trying to make excuses for yourself.

But opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. I don't care if a game got 100 positive reviews. It still doesn't mean I will like it or that it will live up to my expectations. I will agree that reviews are helpful in weeding out the BS from the truth.

It's not the game developers that put up the money. It's the game publishers. It's their job to see that the game is released mostly bug-free and as advertised. But it's all too common to release a game early, like around the holidays, to get more money. Yeah, let's worry about the bugs/promised features later and concentrate on profits. Who cares if people buy the game and then throw it up on the shelf after an hour (or less) of play because it sucks.

 

[ex0du5]

The thing I like about the post, is he automatically assumes why EVERYONE is pirating.

Each person has their own reason. While many are lame, there are those that are legitimate.

1) Some games are simply not released in certain areas. What are they to do?

2) Some people are trying the game before a possible purchase. Is there a demo? Which is a better example of the game, a limited demo, or the real thing?

3) Is the game worth the money? A lot of people feel they want to play the game, but the price tag is too high. Should they be left high and dry?

4) Some people share copies. Say your room mate wants to try the game? Say your sibling wants to play when you're not on your computer? Should they have to pay for their own CD Key, even if they wont play as much as you?


Don't get me wrong, I BUY MY GAMES. But I don't buy games that I feel are shit. And I have not once liked a Call of Duty game.

Some devs are just snobs.

1) Import

2) This is a legitimate reason...however most people use this as an excuse and have no real intention of buying the game in the first place.

3) If they don't think it's worth the money, then they don't need to buy it period, or they can wait for a price drop.

4) If they want to play it, yes. The only exception I can see is if you were holding a LAN or something of the sort. Otherwise, if it's a singleplayer game, feel free to share the copy just like you would a console game.

 

[Drudenhaus]

You do not need a valid key to play online. Obviously you can't just type in a bunch of random numbers, but one single working key can be used by many many people, even on the same server. Even fully configured PB and PsB servers allow it the same key to be in use over and over.

I was suprised as hell about this. That one warez copy floating around that was made from a $50 legit purchase of COD4 is probably used by millions of thievers. Even back in 2001 with SOF2 (similar game engine), you couldn't play with the same CD unless the server operator turned off the PB GUID check. Why in COD4 this is allowed is beyond me.

Wow, sounds like someone didn't do their homework with the protection on CoD4 then. I tend to use BF2 as an example of good enforcement of needing a real key. More games should do something like that rather than add stupid disc protection.

 

[TerranUp16]

But opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. I don't care if a game got 100 positive reviews. It still doesn't mean I will like it or that it will live up to my expectations. I will agree that reviews are helpful in weeding out the BS from the truth.

Reviews come with both a numeric score and text- if you opt for the text, you can decipher the reviewer's reasons for assigning it the numeric score he/she did. In doing so, you can keep a running list of what you like/don't like. Sure, reviewers give you their opinions, but they also clarify how much of the game works- you can sit and read a review where the reviewer speaks negatively about feature X, but through reading the reviewer's description of feature X, you know it's something you would actually like.

 

[ex0du5]

But opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. I don't care if a game got 100 positive reviews. It still doesn't mean I will like it or that it will live up to my expectations. I will agree that reviews are helpful in weeding out the BS from the truth.

It's not the game developers that put up the money. It's the game publishers. It's their job to see that the game is released mostly bug-free and as advertised. But it's all too common to release a game early, like around the holidays, to get more money. Yeah, let's worry about the bugs/promised features later and concentrate on profits. Who cares if people buy the game and then throw it up on the shelf after an hour (or less) of play because it sucks.

If a developer's game brings in a lot of revenue, they have a much higher likelyhood of getting an bigger budget and more support for their next title. If the game sells like crap, they could be out of a job (see: Clover, the developper of Okami).

And I'm sure you can find reviewers or gamers who have similar tastes to your own, and use them as solid references. And so friggin what if it didn't live up to your expectations. The game was most certainly not bad if you did your research. If you're not sure about a game, wait for a week to see what problems arise by browsing gaming forums.

Take Bioshock for example. It has glowing reviews and everyone seemed to love the game. I gladly plopped down $50 in hopes of getting amazed like everyone else. Well I wasn't. It was a decent game and all, but certainly not the second coming. However, not for one second, did I think the game was not worth my $50.

Reviews come with both a numeric score and text- if you opt for the text, you can decipher the reviewer's reasons for assigning it the numeric score he/she did. In doing so, you can keep a running list of what you like/don't like. Sure, reviewers give you their opinions, but they also clarify how much of the game works- you can sit and read a review where the reviewer speaks negatively about feature X, but through reading the reviewer's description of feature X, you know it's something you would actually like.

Agreed. Reviewers should stop assigning such meaningless scores to games. The scoring system should simply indicate whether the game is a must-purchase (and for what reasons), a good purchase, or a game not worth buying.

 

[phide]

Basically if I don't like a product I BUY I should have the option to get my money back. If I don't like food at a resturant I have the right to refuse to pay for it. And I can go on and on.

No, you don't have that right. You can't shove a plate of ravioli down your throat and then decide you didn't like it. You liked it enough to eat it, right? If you have some objection to it, it's necessary to make that known after the first couple bites, or upon some sort of other examination (say you see a dirty sock in your soup -- a visual inspection) -- not after you've gotten the entire dinner in your stomach.

I may be quite wrong, but I don't believe restaurants in America must accommodate your demands in such cases. They do so because they value you as a customer, or for whatever other reason, but I don't believe it's stipulated, by law, that they must. You take that risk, just as you knowingly accept a certain level of risk when you purchase a game. If there's no return policy, there's no return policy. You don't get to make up your own rules here.

You said earlier, quite specifically, that you've completed pirated games. Do you buy a legit copy after doing so, after having fully used the product? Do you not? Read my lap dance analogy again if it's the former, as I think it perfectly describes your entitlement issues.

Not every game reviewer plays the entire game through. But even so, you are trusting someone else's opinion.

You said this before, but never ever actually answered my question. Who exactly doesn't finish a game before reviewing it? Can you name names?

The value of a game is what I think it's worth, not them.

The price of the game, at retail, is what retailers charge. Retailers pay a specific price for physical copies from the publishers, or they pay a licensing fee/per-unit fee for eDistribution. There is no other value system. If you want to pay less for a game than the retail price, you must purchase a copy on the used market. Those are your options: there are no others.

Again, I bring up this concept of 'entitlement'. Look up the term if you aren't familiar with it.

They can't give too much away about the game (like spoliers) because game publishers would be suing.

Yeah, publishers sue reviewers for disclosing that at the end of Portal, you fight a machination of GlaDOS and get cake. They will sue you for that.

 

[dark_reign]

Not liking the gameplay is no different than not liking the steak you ordered.

You mean there's a difference of being picky and getting ripped-off.

When you pay for something you should be happy with it. If there is a problem then it is
up to the company to correct the issue or you get your money back.

 

[Master Blaster]

Once again, threads like these end up in the same argument. The major theme that kills it all: Entitlement.

Why do some people feel like they're entitled to anything at all? I don't care if developers promised specifics and didn't deliver - that's life. There are/is no excuse(s) for pirating games. People who feel they must do so by rationalizing these actions to justify their means. And these people pull no punches when it comes to explaining themselves, you cannot argue the point further.

TerranUp16, you have made some very valid points in your post, and I totally agree.

 

[ex0du5]

doesn't finish a game before reviewing it? Can you name names?

Aaron Thomas clearly didn't finish Ratchet .

 

[TerranUp16]

Once again, threads like these end up in the same argument. The major theme that kills it all: Entitlement.

Why do some people feel like they're entitled to anything at all? I don't care if developers promised specifics and didn't deliver - that's life. There are/is no excuse(s) for pirating games. People who feel they must do so by rationalizing these actions to justify their means. And these people pull no punches when it comes to explaining themselves, you cannot argue the point further.

TerranUp16, you have made some very valid points in your post, and I totally agree.

Agreed. Truly, some of these responses have been rather ridiculous and completely rail against common sense... You're paying for something you THINK will provide you enjoyment- whether it does or not is not a concern of the provider. Their primary concern is that the product works.

On a side note, playing through the entirety of a pirated game is no different than sneaking into a movie theatre to watch a movie without paying. Really, there are plenty of analogies and I could probably amass a list of them larger than this thread to describe how wrong, illegal, and harmful piracy is.

 

[dark_reign]

You said earlier, quite specifically, that you've completed pirated games. Do you buy a legit copy after doing so, after having fully used the product? Do you not? Read my lap dance analogy again if it's the former, as I think it perfectly describes your entitlement issues.


You said this before, but never ever actually answered my question. Who exactly doesn't finish a game before reviewing it? Can you name names?


The price of the game, at retail, is what retailers charge. Retailers pay a specific price for physical copies from the publishers, or they pay a licensing fee/per-unit fee for eDistribution. There is no other value system. If you want to pay less for a game than the retail price, you must purchase a copy on the used market. Those are your options: there are no others.

Again, I bring up this concept of 'entitlement'. Look up the term if you aren't familiar with it.


Yeah, publishers sue reviewers for disclosing that at the end of Portal, you fight a machination of GlaDOS and get cake. They will sue you for that.

I mentioned earlier that I still buy games from both retail and Steam.

Some reviewers may actually play the entire game through but I hardly doubt they spent the time to check out every little detail. Deadlines have to be met. You can usually tell by reading the actual review if they did or didn't. But even if they did, an opinion is an opinion. Basing the quality of a game by a game review that was done quicky to meet a deadline isn't exactly a reason to buy a game. And not all reviews are written well, making it unconvincing.

I generally will wait for the game to drop in price before I buy. I make the choice of how much i will spend, thus, how much I feel it's worth. Pirating a game is stating that I won't pay $50+ for something that may be crap. Why gamble?

What I meant by suing the game reviewers is that they just can't reveal everything about the game. I'm assuming they have a guideline that they must follow on what can and cannot be published.

 

[CannibalTrout]

Just thought I would add my two cents into this. not sure if this was already discussed but, my take on this issue is as follows...

What we have here is two different problems.

1st - Downloading games (any way you look at it, it's illegal. Now if every game would have a trial before release that would be ideal, I think it's lame to expect ppl to pay for a game on the goodwill of the producer/publisher because they say it's a good game cause we all know how well that works )

2nd - Publishers blaming poor sales on pirating.

Here's the problem with that. Publishers blame crappy game sales on pirating. So now if you completely take pirating out of the picture (Much like an MMORPG), you are left with games that sell well and games that don't sell well. Obviously a game that sells well will continue to get producer/publisher support and investments. Games that don't sell well eventually spell doom for the producer/publisher.

Look at vanguard vs wow. Both games took lots of money/time/talent to produce. In the eyes of the gamers wow was a much better game and thus people buy it more than vanguard. Did the producer/publisher of vanguard blame poor sales on piracy? nope, the only thing they could do was open their eyes and realise what a poor game vanguard is. They actually publically annoucned this so we know it's true.

So go back to the original issue here. producers/publishers need to stop assuming they can pump out shitty games and expect people to fork out $50 for a waste of time.

The only reason that producer/publishers blame piracy is because they can and in the face of investors/media is helps them hide that fact that they tried to sell a CRAPPY game worth $15 for $50. If they stop me from pirating their game it doesn't mean that I will run out to the store and buy it.

It's just a scheme to blame someone other than their own selves for crappy sales. It's the same exact thing we are seeing with movies and music. The MPAA and RIAA are moving on the fact that if they stop you from downloading you will then start buying their crap. Which will make them look good in the eyes of investors. That's just plain FALES.


**I'm sure I repeated myself here and made all kinds of grammer/spelling mistakes but hopfully it still made some sense**

 

[dark_reign]

Agreed. Truly, some of these responses have been rather ridiculous and completely rail against common sense... You're paying for something you THINK will provide you enjoyment- whether it does or not is not a concern of the provider. Their primary concern is that the product works.

No, they are marketing it as ENTERTAINMENT. That means you should be entertained by playing their games. If their primary concern was to just make sure it runs on your PC then why spend millions on advertising?

 

[Roufuss]

I went to walmart, I saw ps3 games $60 each, 360 games $60 each, pc games $40-50 each. Hmm...

Next gen tax, is what I call it.

Basacially, next gen games don't need to be $60 at all, but companies can get away with it and they still sell like crazy, so they are $60.

 

[ex0du5]

Just thought I would add my two cents into this. not sure if this was already discussed but, my take on this issue is as follows...

What we have here is two different problems.

1st - Downloading games (any way you look at it, it's illegal. Now if every game would have a trial before release that would be ideal, I think it's lame to expect ppl to pay for a game on the goodwill of the producer/publisher because they say it's a good game cause we all know how well that works )

2nd - Publishers blaming poor sales on pirating.

Here's the problem with that. Publishers blame crappy game sales on pirating. So now if you completely take pirating out of the picture (Much like an MMORPG), you are left with games that sell well and games that don't sell well. Obviously a game that sells well will continue to get producer/publisher support and investments. Games that don't sell well eventually spell doom for the producer/publisher.

Look at vanguard vs wow. Both games took lots of money/time/talent to produce. In the eyes of the gamers wow was a much better game and thus people buy it more than vanguard. Did the producer/publisher of vanguard blame poor sales on piracy? nope, the only thing they could do was open their eyes and realise what a poor game vanguard is. They actually publically annoucned this so we know it's true.

So go back to the original issue here. producers/publishers need to stop assuming they can pump out shitty games and expect people to fork out $50 for a waste of time.

The only reason that producer/publishers blame piracy is because they can and in the face of investors/media is helps them hide that fact that they tried to sell a CRAPPY game worth $15 for $50. If they stop me from pirating their game it doesn't mean that I will run out to the store and buy it.

It's just a scheme to blame someone other than their own selves for crappy sales. It's the same exact thing we are seeing with movies and music. The MPAA and RIAA are moving on the fact that if they stop you from downloading you will then start buying their crap. Which will make them look good in the eyes of investors. That's just plain FALES.


**I'm sure I repeated myself here and made all kinds of grammer/spelling mistakes but hopfully it still made some sense**

Regardless, piracy is a major contributing factor to loss of revenue. PC games don't sell very well, and piracy is one main contributing factor to that. Piracy on the PC is far too easy, since it's an open platform, and developers have no control on the hardware. You can pirate stuff on the 360, but it's more difficult (need modded DVD-Reader firmware), and your console can get permanently banned from Live as a result. Nothing like this can happen on the PC, and that's the problem. There's no real repercussion to piracy, and people won't detract until pirates are made examples of. Problem is, noone has the resources to do so.

 

[ex0du5]

Next gen tax, is what I call it.

Basacially, next gen games don't need to be $60 at all, but companies can get away with it and they still sell like crazy, so they are $60.

Games cost twice as much to make this gen as they did last gen. Also, inflation should naturally bring the prices of games up. Also, the US dollar sucks, so count yourself lucky that prices haven't gone up any higher than they have. Most game publishers have not broken even this year, and most have declined in stock value. Check out stock market reports if you want.

 

[dark_reign]

There's no real repercussion to piracy, and people won't detract until pirates are made examples of. Problem is, noone has the resources to do so.

Loss of revenue is made up by raising prices. So, no REAL loss other than the fact that people continue to do it for whatever reason. If piracy was causing so many people to lose jobs then the software industry would crash. It ain't as bleak as many would have you believe.

 

[phide]

I generally will wait for the game to drop in price before I buy. I make the choice of how much i will spend, thus, how much I feel it's worth. Pirating a game is stating that I won't pay $50+ for something that may be crap. Why gamble?

If you don't want to gamble the $50 on the chance that you may not like the game, then your only option is to not gamble at all. Instead, you're taking the illegal "middle-ground": you pirate the game, complete it or don't complete it, and you make your determination afterward. I'm not saying you always do things this way, but you did admit to doing it at least sometimes, and also admitted to completing games that you've pirated. That's completely stiffing the publisher, developer, and any other party associated with the creation of the product -- no different than dashing out of a restaurant before paying the check (wouldn't surprise me if you did this either)

If you're against the concept of having no return policy for PC games, you have to deal with that. It's fully legal to retailers to enforce that kind of policy, and fully illegal for you to take matters into your own hands by downloading illegal copies (unless you live in a country where this isn't specifically illegal).

I'm assuming they have a guideline that they must follow on what can and cannot be published.

So one of the justifications for piracy is that you assume that reviewers have publisher-issued guidelines and are under some sort of legal obligation to not publish certain details. Mm-hmm.

 

[kllrnohj]

Next gen tax, is what I call it.

Basacially, next gen games don't need to be $60 at all, but companies can get away with it and they still sell like crazy, so they are $60.

Games are expensive to make, that is why they cost $50-60. It is a fairly justified cost.

When you pay for something you should be happy with it. If there is a problem then it is
up to the company to correct the issue or you get your money back.

Ideally you should be happy with your purchase, but it is not the company's problem if you aren't happy with it. There is no 100% satisfaction guarantee stamped onto video game boxes like there are on those crappy as seen on TV products.

And not having fun with/not liking a game does *NOT* constitute a problem with the product.

I went to walmart, I saw ps3 games $60 each, 360 games $60 each, pc games $40-50 each. Hmm...

PC Games are "free" to license (in that no licensing is required), console games, on the other hand, have to pay a portion of the sales to Sony, MS, Nintendo, etc... to cover licensing fees. This is part of the razer/razer blade business model (take a loss on the initial (razer/console), make it up on the extras (razer blades/games)). That extra $10 per game basically goes into the pockets of whoever made the console.

 

[CannibalTrout]

Regardless, piracy is a major contributing factor to loss of revenue. PC games don't sell very well, and piracy is one main contributing factor to that. Piracy on the PC is far too easy, since it's an open platform, and developers have no control on the hardware. You can pirate stuff on the 360, but it's more difficult (need modded DVD-Reader firmware), and your console can get permanently banned from Live as a result. Nothing like this can happen on the PC, and that's the problem. There's no real repercussion to piracy, and people won't detract until pirates are made examples of. Problem is, noone has the resources to do so.

That's assuming that everyone who pirates a game would actually go and buy said game if they weren't able to pirate it.

The industry is trying to combine pirating alongside poor sales. Piracy is a whole different ball of wax. Sure there are some cross effects but the bigger issue is that publishers try to sell games for more than they are truely worth. Nobody in their right mind would buy a ford escort for the price of a BMW. Same for games. I'm not going to shell out $50 for some half assed game that is barely entertaining. I want to spend my $50 on the "BMW" of video games.

 

[dark_reign]

If you don't want to gamble the $50 on the chance that you may not like the game, then your only option is to not gamble at all. Instead, you're taking the illegal "middle-ground": you pirate the game, complete it or don't complete it, and you make your determination afterward. I'm not saying you always do things this way, but you did admit to doing it at least sometimes, and also admitted to completing games that you've pirated. That's completely stiffing the publisher, developer, and any other party associated with the creation of the product -- no different than dashing out of a restaurant before paying the check (wouldn't surprise me if you did this either)


So one of the justifications for piracy is that you assume that reviewers have publisher-issued guidelines and are under some sort of legal obligation to not publish certain details. Mm-hmm.

But it's fair to stiff the buyer of your product? I see no loss, no gain here. You stiff me, I stiff you.

The review aspect isn't something I brought up. It was mentioned that it's a good place to find out more about a game. I disagree when they skimp on the details.

 

[Chombo]

2nd - Publishers blaming poor sales on pirating.

Here's the problem with that. Publishers blame crappy game sales on pirating. So now if you completely take pirating out of the picture (Much like an MMORPG), you are left with games that sell well and games that don't sell well. Obviously a game that sells well will continue to get producer/publisher support and investments. Games that don't sell well eventually spell doom for the producer/publisher.

Look at vanguard vs wow. Both games took lots of money/time/talent to produce. In the eyes of the gamers wow was a much better game and thus people buy it more than vanguard. Did the producer/publisher of vanguard blame poor sales on piracy? nope, the only thing they could do was open their eyes and realise what a poor game vanguard is. They actually publically annoucned this so we know it's true.

So go back to the original issue here. producers/publishers need to stop assuming they can pump out shitty games and expect people to fork out $50 for a waste of time.

The only reason that producer/publishers blame piracy is because they can and in the face of investors/media is helps them hide that fact that they tried to sell a CRAPPY game worth $15 for $50. If they stop me from pirating their game it doesn't mean that I will run out to the store and buy it.

QFT, my sentiments exactly.

 

[dark_reign]

And not having fun with/not liking a game does *NOT* constitute a problem with the product.

It's a problem when they clearly market the product as entertainment and it fails to entertain me. You could argue that's life so deal with it. Well, I think you know my answer to that one.

 

[Chombo]

Something else I thought about. I noticed in a few games, there are literally advertisements for other products. Like GRAW had AXE deoderant on billboards everywhere. NFS Prostreet looks like most of the track is surrounded by ads. I wonder how much money producers get for that.

 

[bob]

I am well-aware. I never said anything about the games not taking money to make. I asked what harm would be done if I were to download a game that I otherwise would not have purchased anyway. If they are not losing any money from me, I am not harming their ability to keep producing games, and I am not helping it either.

The point with video games, is anyone who is intelligent enough to google the name of the software they want, can get it without paying, and usually in a short time depending on the internet connection. Results of torrents to download , sites with cracks/patches/keys... some of these torrents are already cracked/patched.

Saying you wouldn't have purchased a copy otherwise, as a validation for piracy... It might be true for you, but its not about one single individual. Piracy will always exist, regardless of what companies try for copy-protection and regardless of what laws are enforced. Though, piracy has never been as easy as now, for example... my commodore 64.

Back when the C64 was out, most of the software I had for it used some form of copy protection, there were ways around it but thats a long exhaustive process. That is, assuming you had the money to purchase TWO external floppy drives, and assuming you had access to the software... Sure, I had a 300 baud modem for mine, and I could connect to BBS's if I really wanted to... But BBS's and "Sneakernet" is somewhat like drugs, you have to know a person who has this friend whos brothers friend's cousin bought a copy, and once that step was passed, you could move onto making the external 1541 floppy drives make beautifull machine-gun like clattering.

Anyways... ive made my point : Anyone with something other than dialup, and more than about 5 minutes experience with the internet, can download/pirate anything they want without actually doing anything involving effort.

 

[phide]

But it's fair to stiff the buyer of your product?

They're stiffing you by not making the game you want them to make? Is that it?

This back-and-forth really is senseless. You're spouting nonsense to make your illegal acts seem justified and nothing more. You pirate because you're cheap and lack moral fiber, and not because you're some sort of crusader. At least admit to that instead of running around acting like the publishers are just out to get you.

 

[ShagnWagn]

Not liking the gameplay is no different than not liking the steak you ordered... Now, bugs are another issue entirely. If the game truly won't work despite your asking for and receiving publisher-supplied tech support, you then have a lemon on your hands, and then you can start talking about refunds. However, simply disliking a game is not reason enough for a refund.

I would have to disagree with this. If you found a cockroach(bug) in your dinner(game) after being 2/3rds done, would you ask for a refund? If not, would you ask for them to "fix the bug" by cooking a new potatoe (or whatever you found it in, if not the whole meal). They may just cook another one with a different bug in it, plus you waited an hour for them to do it. Still not want your money back? Later on, you get sick (feeling of crappy games) and will always remember you got sick from their food - even moreso if you didn't get your money back. So you try a few other restaurants and some of them serve bugs as well. Still not want your money back? Eventually every restaurant stays in business and serves bugs for the main dish. (Hopefully the FDA gets to them before this happens.)

What if the food (games) tastes bad(play horribly, not entertaining)? If the food tastes like crap I stop eating. Although with games you can't just give it back and get something different. Not want your money back still? This explains why McDonalds stays in business. I guess you could ask around but several people will tell you McDonald's has good food.

Games are on a higher scale, because instead of $5-$6 we are talking $50-$60. For people who aren't rolling in cash or care about getting bent over, it makes them think about each purchase with more judgement.

Demos are like the saltiest and most flavorful chips in the family size bag of chips. This is what the floor sampler at the grocery store will give you. You buy the bag and get home. The first few aren't as good as you remember from the sample. Before long all you have left are the plain chips and maybe a few crushed ones at the bottom the leftover seasoning fell onto.

 

[dark_reign]

They're stiffing you by not making the game you want them to make? Is that it?

This back-and-forth really is senseless. You're spouting nonsense to make your illegal acts seem justified and nothing more. You pirate because you're cheap and lack moral fiber, and not because you're some sort of crusader. At least admit to that instead of running around acting like the publishers are just out to get you.

Um, maybe I felt ripped-off by buying a buggy game or it had missing featurers promised in the ads/game box? Don't tell me that's not a reason to feel jipped. Hell, the simple fact that it was marketed as entertianment and it failed to entertain me within an hour of gameplay, despite the glowing reviews, is reason enough. What more do you want?

Yes, it is senseless to argue about one's own morals over another's. I'm not on any crusade. I'm just telling it like it is from my point of view. Like it or leave it.

 

[TerranUp16]

It's a problem when they clearly market the product as entertainment and it fails to entertain me. You could argue that's life so deal with it. Well, I think you know my answer to that one.

Holy crap man... you are just deluded... What you are describing is akin to buying a vacuum and not liking the grip- the vacuum maker did not screw-up, and did try to design a a good grip, but it simply did not appeal to your preferences. And it's not the vacuum maker's fault that it doesn't, and not grounds to get your money back. But, really, pirating games is like getting your money back for that vacuum and then keeping it.

 

[BDV]

20 people team with average salary 60k per person per year (in USA)... thats optimistic.


Given the game takes 2 years to make, it will cost em 2.4 million $$ total.

Just in salaries...


Add the distribution, etc, etc

It's still WAY WAY cheaper then movies.

Just look at HALO 3... it had more sales then biggest blockbusters the difference is halo 3 was 60$ per pop vs. 10-15$ for a movie...

Trust me, they are not loosing any money...

 

[dark_reign]

Holy crap man... you are just deluded... What you are describing is akin to buying a vacuum and not liking the grip- the vacuum maker did not screw-up, and did try to design a a good grip, but it simply did not appeal to your preferences. And it's not the vacuum maker's fault that it doesn't, and not grounds to get your money back. But, really, pirating games is like getting your money back for that vacuum and then keeping it.

But I can take that vacuum cleaner back to the store and get my money back--BIG difference. Hell, that IS the difference.

 

[ex0du5]

20 people team with average salary 60k per person per year (in USA)... thats optimistic.


Given the game takes 2 years to make, it will cost em 2.4 million $$ total.

Just in salaries...


Add the distribution, etc, etc

It's still WAY WAY cheaper then movies.

Just look at HALO 3... it had more sales then biggest blockbusters the difference is halo 3 was 60$ per pop vs. 10-15$ for a movie...

Trust me, they are not loosing any money...

Ok genius. Average development cost for a game is 11 million dollars (please please someone find this link, or ask GAF for it, as I don't have an account) for a PS3/360 game (6 million for the Wii). At $60, only about $30 goes to the developer (again, this was published by Microsoft a few months back, if someone can find the link).

Take $30...how many sales does it take to get the 11 million back? Yeah, over 330k. How many games do you think sell that much?

Let's look at some extreme examples. Take Uncharted and Heavenly Sword. Both cost upwards of $25 million to make, and both have sold only a few hundred thousand each. They are not getting their investment back on those titles.

 

[dark_reign]

Trust me, they are not loosing any money...

They are losing money but they make up for it elsewhere. In-game ads, in the game box ads, raising prices, etc. Remember when games came with paper manuals?