{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
6/18/2013 1:45:45 AM
8
Umm... no?
Perhaps when the publisher sits down and predicts sales (your step 2), they take into account the fact that demand for new copies of the game drop dramatically after the launch window because of the saturation of used games on the market which consumers use as a substitue. This would then lower their predicted new game sales.
Lower new game sales means less money directly to the publishers, which directly translates to less money for the developers. It's not that hard to see... Gamestop doesn't magic its used game money from nowhere. It's surplus transferred from game publishers to Gamestop which is hurting the industry.
English
-
Used games have been a part of the industry since the very beginning, pal. If they were such a problem for developers or publishers, then gaming never would have taken off in the first place or recovered from the gaming crash way back at the beginning and Nintendo never would have been able to step in and save the whole industry...if used games were such a problem, then we never would have even had a gaming industry in the first place. Sorry, but the evidence just does not back up the claims. If publishers are having trouble or regard games as a flop or failure despite selling millions of copies of a game and making several million dollars off of [i]one[/i] release, it's not used games that are your problem, it's what they're spending their money on. You have to cut costs somewhere, if you're spending too much or over-budgeting on superfluous things, then they got bigger problems to worry about.
-
What this guy said, gamestop orders a number of games, lets say based on the predicted sale figures at launch. If the game is a hit and has a lot of re playability, the used games market will probably be small, so gamestop needs to order more games, probably after the second order the used games market is big enough to sustain itself, so no more orders are ordered. And that is a lot of lost profit for the publisher and the developer. When the game is not a big hit OR does not have a lot of re playability (be it a good multiplayer or a replayable story) the used game market is big enough to sustain itself, even if ti isn´t it still has a big impact on the number of games ordered by the publisher after launch. I know a lot of people that sell their games once they finish (people that actually sell games like skyrim) and just buy used games. This is lost profit for the publisher and the developer.
-
So what you're saying, is that instead of demanding that publishers publish better games, we should be the ones to foot the bill of their shitty product THAT THEY KNOW (according to you) will be returned? And you people wonder why we don't like the X1.
-
You're making the assumption that people trade in games because they're shit. This isn't true, people trade in games so they can get credit towards their next game purchase. I traded in Bioshock Infinite a month after I bought it and it was far from a shit game, I simply finished playing it - are you saying that better games are those like Skyrim or Fallout where you intrinsically need to invest yourself in the game longer to extract its full value? I'd take that argument and call bullshit on it.
-
Edited by The Great DanTej: 6/18/2013 11:09:00 AMI made a poor choice of words (you could say a shitty choice), what i meant was: If the reason why people are returning games is because of the lack of re-playability, and the publishers know this, then why don't they just make games with more replay value (which tend to be better than games without, hence my original shitty comment), as opposed to bitching at us when we trade in their games that they know we'll trade in due to problems that they know about. [spoiler]And infinite IS shit[/spoiler]
-
Edited by Citrus raptor: 6/19/2013 12:25:16 PMWouldn't doing so would change how the game worked the first time it was payed? You yourself said that it wasn't becasue they were "shit", but becasue they don't offer replayability. [b]Doesn't that mean that the game was good the first time it was played?[/b] How would trying to offer replayability change the game? Also, some games are meant to be linear and static experiences, becasue they aim to tell [i]A[/i] singlular story. Do all games have to have branching stories? What happens if [i]replayability[/i] becomes the focus the games, will publishers prioritise to fund sandbox or multiplayer games, maybe even propagating for them, thus limiting game genres/types in general? Do you really want the sales/predicted sales/what the Publisher Believes will sell, to determin the trends games move toward? Or should that be left in the hands of the developers?
-
Depends on how they work replayability in to it, I can play the campaign of any halo multiple times because the gameplay alone is great and dynamic, but many people can just play through them once as a single story(stories?). Not necessarily, for instance a bad or just boring game has no replayability at all. More GAMEplay perhaps? writting a story that can be told to the same person several times and still feel fresh is quite a challenge, but making a game that can be played by the same person multiple times should be the goal of any GAME. Going back to halo here, linear static story, dynamic semi-non-linear gameplay, loads a replayability if you so desire; and that being said, if they just want to tell a single story, isn't that kind of missing all the potential video games have as a medium? (books and movies are great for linearity...........) Not every game has to have branching stories, but more non-linearity is always nice. Again, replayability doesn't have to be the focus, you can have your linear cake and eat your dynamic pie too. Heh, that;s kind of how the publishers are thinking right now, "we need matchmaking even if we don't!" says them - despite this, we still see games that aren't codclones....... I just want games that are good to be published and I don't think I ever said otherwise.
-
Edited by Citrus raptor: 6/20/2013 7:44:39 AMI just don't want a market that's determined by what some people think. And that's what you seem to be doing by arguing for a system that moves the room for error from the developer to the consumer. I'm being just as egoistic, but towards he other direction; taking a stance that, since games are entertainment, I, the consumer, should be the one taking the risk, thus allowing developers to work without restraints or fear of not selling as well becasue of things such as the [i]used games[/i] market. The model you're suggesting doesn't leave room for error; it's elitist and will only work with the huge companies that are able to intricately test the game over and over until it's got the right balance. [i]Only the best games may survive[/i]! Some go as far as ho think that a game that didn't live up to thir expectaion [i]should burn in hell[/i] for making them waste their money. It's becasue of this menality that we're moving towards the extreme contrast of pretty much only having [i]AAA[/i] and [i]indie[/i] games. Games that work with proven gameplay either because of extensive testing or response from previous installations, one one end, and games that are so scaled down they prey much only have a gameplay mechanic, on the other. But it doesn't really matter if the game is bad, does it? The developers have after all made something that leaves an impression on the one experiencing it. That's what we pay for. It might be replayability, gameplay, art, music, story, or all, ect. And we may experience that becasue of a deal between ourselves and the developers. It's not like a car where you sell the possibility to move in a certain way, for a little while, and then don't need it anymore becasue one got everything out of it at that time. Replayability is good, but shouldn't be a requirement. Especially since some games have a much longer buffer between the playthroughs. I don't play Deus Ex, Max Payne, or Ninja Gaiden continuously, I play them once every year. It's easy to simply dismis games and say things such as: [i]well, just do that[/i] or [i]don't do this[/i], [i]make a movie instead[/i] or [i]make it more gameplayie[/i]. [b]By doing so sets an artificial limit to where games could go. [/b] What someone wants does not necessarily mean that their way of accomplishing it works. That's why I'm for a model that has room for error.
