F**K Project Ten dollar and others... let's take some actions

[Jaded Scribe]

Depends on the game, how it was developed, and so on and so forth. Not all online experiences are equal, therefore they have different costs. But believe me, it costs. Nothing is ever free. Someone pays for it. And with devs already taking massive hits from used gaming these days, they had to take a stand.

Or would you rather see a decline in quality and number of titles put out each year as these companies start having to fire developers?

You get what you pay for. You pay like a cheap-ass, you'll get cheap-ass goods.

Ok, so say your brother wants play the game. Is there any reason you can't let him use your system for an hour or two? Why can't his friends come over to your house to see the online content?

Or, since you apparently have 2 systems, why not just pay the $5 for your brother to play online on his system?

Lol the quality of games has been declining for years anyway. Mostly because the developers/publishers who are now doing this type of thing have forced all the better devs, who would never dream of trying this crap, out of business.

That being said, we still see a lot of quality releases from independent developers which start their pricing around $30-$40, proving that any quality-to-price ratio can be achieved. If I'm instead paying $40 for a game with missing features, that's not exactly a good purchase.

I personally haven't seen many indie games with the same level of online play as the big houses. Indie companies also have a smaller staff in general, and therefore less costs. They also don't launch ad campaigns, pay less for their offices and equipment etc etc etc.

If you want to send a message to them, then simply *don't buy the game at all*. Where do you get the entitlement that just because a game is released, you instantly have the right to play it at your choice of cost, and on your terms?

If they lose enough money because of it, it will stop. If not, then it's clear that the majority of their playerbase is fine with the change and you just need to go find some other game to play.

That is because this is how a market works. When people wait for a game to come down in price or wait for a sale they are exercising their ability to pay what they deem reasonable for a given product. Publishers certainly don't have the right to tell the customer otherwise.

Publishers have the right to charge for their services. That's what the online mode is, a service. You can still play the game in single-player format, great! Go buy used.

But the publisher has every right to charge for providing an additional service. You can still play the game offline. But to access additional content, you pay an additional cost.

If enough people feel that the extra cost is not worth it, they won't pay it, and possibly not buy the game at all. Which will tell the company that this pricing model failed, and they'll move on to find a new one.

You are entitled to nothing.

So where does that leave project ten dollar proper? They are clearly not rendering a service with things like Warden's Keep etc. Nor does that mean that they are entitled to any amount of money from a used game sale; which is how they have framed the entire discussion.

Warden's Keep is an additional good. Yes, you should have pay for it. Why are you entitled to free additional content?

 

[feather240]

Personally I'm all for Project Ten Dollar. I feel as if I should be entitled to some thing extra for going out and buying the game full price on release.

Agreed, I like buying used games.

 

[shadow skill]

Depends on the game, how it was developed, and so on and so forth. Not all online experiences are equal, therefore they have different costs. But believe me, it costs. Nothing is ever free. Someone pays for it. And with devs already taking massive hits from used gaming these days, they had to take a stand.

Or would you rather see a decline in quality and number of titles put out each year as these companies start having to fire developers?

You get what you pay for. You pay like a cheap-ass, you'll get cheap-ass goods.

Ok, so say your brother wants play the game. Is there any reason you can't let him use your system for an hour or two? Why can't his friends come over to your house to see the online content?

Or, since you apparently have 2 systems, why not just pay the $5 for your brother to play online on his system?

Lol the quality of games has been declining for years anyway. Mostly because the developers/publishers who are now doing this type of thing have forced all the better devs, who would never dream of trying this crap, out of business.

That being said, we still see a lot of quality releases from independent developers which start their pricing around $30-$40, proving that any quality-to-price ratio can be achieved. If I'm instead paying $40 for a game with missing features, that's not exactly a good purchase.

I personally haven't seen many indie games with the same level of online play as the big houses. Indie companies also have a smaller staff in general, and therefore less costs. They also don't launch ad campaigns, pay less for their offices and equipment etc etc etc.

If you want to send a message to them, then simply *don't buy the game at all*. Where do you get the entitlement that just because a game is released, you instantly have the right to play it at your choice of cost, and on your terms?

If they lose enough money because of it, it will stop. If not, then it's clear that the majority of their playerbase is fine with the change and you just need to go find some other game to play.

That is because this is how a market works. When people wait for a game to come down in price or wait for a sale they are exercising their ability to pay what they deem reasonable for a given product. Publishers certainly don't have the right to tell the customer otherwise.

Publishers have the right to charge for their services. That's what the online mode is, a service. You can still play the game in single-player format, great! Go buy used.

But the publisher has every right to charge for providing an additional service. You can still play the game offline. But to access additional content, you pay an additional cost.

If enough people feel that the extra cost is not worth it, they won't pay it, and possibly not buy the game at all. Which will tell the company that this pricing model failed, and they'll move on to find a new one.

You are entitled to nothing.

So where does that leave project ten dollar proper? They are clearly not rendering a service with things like Warden's Keep etc. Nor does that mean that they are entitled to any amount of money from a used game sale; which is how they have framed the entire discussion.

Warden's Keep is an additional good. Yes, you should have pay for it. Why are you entitled to free additional content?

You just went on about rendering services, yet project ten dollar clearly deals with aspects of the game that cannot be stated to be "services." This is the entire point I'm making here. Why the hell is the publisher entitled to money from a used sale when they have not actually rendered any service unto the person buying the game used? If you could copy the Warden's keep data and ship that along with the copy of the complete game why would Ea or Bioware be entitled to any of that money?

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Depends on the game, how it was developed, and so on and so forth. Not all online experiences are equal, therefore they have different costs. But believe me, it costs. Nothing is ever free. Someone pays for it. And with devs already taking massive hits from used gaming these days, they had to take a stand.

Or would you rather see a decline in quality and number of titles put out each year as these companies start having to fire developers?

You get what you pay for. You pay like a cheap-ass, you'll get cheap-ass goods.

Ok, so say your brother wants play the game. Is there any reason you can't let him use your system for an hour or two? Why can't his friends come over to your house to see the online content?

Or, since you apparently have 2 systems, why not just pay the $5 for your brother to play online on his system?

Lol the quality of games has been declining for years anyway. Mostly because the developers/publishers who are now doing this type of thing have forced all the better devs, who would never dream of trying this crap, out of business.

That being said, we still see a lot of quality releases from independent developers which start their pricing around $30-$40, proving that any quality-to-price ratio can be achieved. If I'm instead paying $40 for a game with missing features, that's not exactly a good purchase.

I personally haven't seen many indie games with the same level of online play as the big houses. Indie companies also have a smaller staff in general, and therefore less costs. They also don't launch ad campaigns, pay less for their offices and equipment etc etc etc.

If you want to send a message to them, then simply *don't buy the game at all*. Where do you get the entitlement that just because a game is released, you instantly have the right to play it at your choice of cost, and on your terms?

If they lose enough money because of it, it will stop. If not, then it's clear that the majority of their playerbase is fine with the change and you just need to go find some other game to play.

That is because this is how a market works. When people wait for a game to come down in price or wait for a sale they are exercising their ability to pay what they deem reasonable for a given product. Publishers certainly don't have the right to tell the customer otherwise.

Publishers have the right to charge for their services. That's what the online mode is, a service. You can still play the game in single-player format, great! Go buy used.

But the publisher has every right to charge for providing an additional service. You can still play the game offline. But to access additional content, you pay an additional cost.

If enough people feel that the extra cost is not worth it, they won't pay it, and possibly not buy the game at all. Which will tell the company that this pricing model failed, and they'll move on to find a new one.

You are entitled to nothing.

So where does that leave project ten dollar proper? They are clearly not rendering a service with things like Warden's Keep etc. Nor does that mean that they are entitled to any amount of money from a used game sale; which is how they have framed the entire discussion.

Warden's Keep is an additional good. Yes, you should have pay for it. Why are you entitled to free additional content?

You just went on about rendering services, yet project ten dollar clearly deals with aspects of the game that cannot be stated to be "services." This is the entire point I'm making here. Why the hell is the publisher entitled to money from a used sale when they have not actually rendered any service unto the person buying the game used? If you could copy the Warden's keep data and ship that along with the copy of the complete game why would Ea or Bioware be entitled to any of that money?

Fine. "Goods and services" then. And this thread is QQ about THQ charging a small fee for providing online services. This isn't about them making money off a used copy. It's about them charging for additional goods and services. Warden's Keep is an additional good. It's not a part of the standard game. So why shouldn't someone who bought the game used (but did not pay for the Stone Prisoner, seeing as that's the incentive DLC, Warden's Keep was a totally separate charge) get to use the additional content that they didn't pay for.

 

[Resurrectionist]

It turns me off.
Therefore I won't buy.
And encourage others to do the same.

 

[sheic99]

This. I don't have any sense of entitlement, I simply have a certain set of expectations inscribed into me through years of gaming. What gives publishers the right to suddenly charge more money for the same product they were offering in the past at a cheaper price?

They are not. The game costs exactly the same new as it did a year ago.

snip

You also have to remember Servers aren't cheap, with the current state of Console games online, you're lucky if the servers are on still on 3 years from now.

Most multiplayer console games don't use servers: particularly the popular ones i.e. CoD and GoW

On topic, I have no grievances with PTD as applied to BC2, so I would encourage the game industry to follow BC2 as a model.

To my knowledge, matchmaking services still uses bandwidth, much less than in comparison.

Day one DLC is a product that is made after the process of Going Gold. Nothing new can be added to the disc at this point, since printing as already started. In the pre-dlc days, designers and coders were either laid off or transferred to a new project because the current one is done. DLC is a way for the same group to continue working and for long term support on a game.

Yet how does that explain DLC that is already on the disc, but requires cash to unlock it? Most of your Day One DLC is already on the game you own.

Ok, let's take Resident Evil 5 for an example, there was an public outcry about the versus mode when it was added as DLC. The main complaint was the size of it. It seemed to small to be anything substantial and most people assumed it was just a key, myself included. What was in the DLC was simply the matchmaking tools for the versus, but it used data that was on the disc, like the maps for Mercenary mode, and character models. All DLC uses data on the disc.

Although, you may be referring to the alternate costumes for Street Fighter 4. You wanna know how to tell the difference between the two. A key is only a couple of kilobytes. If you can't be bothered to look at the size of the file you're about purchase, you deserve to be ripped off.

For the record here, I rent all my games because my family can't afford to purchase them new or used.

One specific example, BFBC2, the first VIP map pack required absolutely not ounce of bandwidth. It didn't even download a 8 kilobyte file. Put in your code and viola 2 more maps

I also rent a majority of the time, most games just are not worth $60 or $40.

Well, presumably you just entered your key, so it wouldn't need to download a new one. I don't know enough about the map pack to make a decision on it yet. I'll have to check the size of the pack on the Steam store before I can really give my opinion here.

 

[shadow skill]

Depends on the game, how it was developed, and so on and so forth. Not all online experiences are equal, therefore they have different costs. But believe me, it costs. Nothing is ever free. Someone pays for it. And with devs already taking massive hits from used gaming these days, they had to take a stand.

Or would you rather see a decline in quality and number of titles put out each year as these companies start having to fire developers?

You get what you pay for. You pay like a cheap-ass, you'll get cheap-ass goods.

Ok, so say your brother wants play the game. Is there any reason you can't let him use your system for an hour or two? Why can't his friends come over to your house to see the online content?

Or, since you apparently have 2 systems, why not just pay the $5 for your brother to play online on his system?

Lol the quality of games has been declining for years anyway. Mostly because the developers/publishers who are now doing this type of thing have forced all the better devs, who would never dream of trying this crap, out of business.

That being said, we still see a lot of quality releases from independent developers which start their pricing around $30-$40, proving that any quality-to-price ratio can be achieved. If I'm instead paying $40 for a game with missing features, that's not exactly a good purchase.

I personally haven't seen many indie games with the same level of online play as the big houses. Indie companies also have a smaller staff in general, and therefore less costs. They also don't launch ad campaigns, pay less for their offices and equipment etc etc etc.

If you want to send a message to them, then simply *don't buy the game at all*. Where do you get the entitlement that just because a game is released, you instantly have the right to play it at your choice of cost, and on your terms?

If they lose enough money because of it, it will stop. If not, then it's clear that the majority of their playerbase is fine with the change and you just need to go find some other game to play.

That is because this is how a market works. When people wait for a game to come down in price or wait for a sale they are exercising their ability to pay what they deem reasonable for a given product. Publishers certainly don't have the right to tell the customer otherwise.

Publishers have the right to charge for their services. That's what the online mode is, a service. You can still play the game in single-player format, great! Go buy used.

But the publisher has every right to charge for providing an additional service. You can still play the game offline. But to access additional content, you pay an additional cost.

If enough people feel that the extra cost is not worth it, they won't pay it, and possibly not buy the game at all. Which will tell the company that this pricing model failed, and they'll move on to find a new one.

You are entitled to nothing.

So where does that leave project ten dollar proper? They are clearly not rendering a service with things like Warden's Keep etc. Nor does that mean that they are entitled to any amount of money from a used game sale; which is how they have framed the entire discussion.

Warden's Keep is an additional good. Yes, you should have pay for it. Why are you entitled to free additional content?

You just went on about rendering services, yet project ten dollar clearly deals with aspects of the game that cannot be stated to be "services." This is the entire point I'm making here. Why the hell is the publisher entitled to money from a used sale when they have not actually rendered any service unto the person buying the game used? If you could copy the Warden's keep data and ship that along with the copy of the complete game why would Ea or Bioware be entitled to any of that money?

Fine. "Goods and services" then. And this thread is QQ about THQ charging a small fee for providing online services. This isn't about them making money off a used copy. It's about them charging for additional goods and services. Warden's Keep is an additional good. It's not a part of the standard game. So why shouldn't someone who bought the game used (but did not pay for the Stone Prisoner, seeing as that's the incentive DLC, Warden's Keep was a totally separate charge) get to use the additional content that they didn't pay for.

Except there is no other commodity where we expect people to pay the original manufacturer if we get the good used as the original manufacturer has not rendered a good or a service. That is the underlying problem with PTD. PTD isn't about services, it is about goods. Goods that are in some cases already on the disc. Furthermore even if you start talking about services as is the case with THQ. One has to wonder whether they really are actually rendering a meaningful service at all since the game most likely uses P2P connection.

In other words it is your internet connection doing all the work, they don't actually do much of anything save run run some very minimal stat tracking/negotiation servers. Their bandwidth costs are pretty close to nil and where already covered by the initial sale. (If they were not then I would expect them to charge an additional fee for new purchasers as well.) What you have yet to explain is why the publisher should be entitled to any money after the product has been sold once if and when they are not rendering a service unto the second or third buyer of the same copy of the software.

 

[Mr. Socky]

Personally I'm all for Project Ten Dollar. I feel as if I should be entitled to some thing extra for going out and buying the game full price on release.

My thoughts exactly. Mass Effect 2 and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 are the best examples of doing this right, and I really don't see how people are getting so upset over it.

 

[Jaded Scribe]

Depends on the game, how it was developed, and so on and so forth. Not all online experiences are equal, therefore they have different costs. But believe me, it costs. Nothing is ever free. Someone pays for it. And with devs already taking massive hits from used gaming these days, they had to take a stand.

Or would you rather see a decline in quality and number of titles put out each year as these companies start having to fire developers?

You get what you pay for. You pay like a cheap-ass, you'll get cheap-ass goods.

Ok, so say your brother wants play the game. Is there any reason you can't let him use your system for an hour or two? Why can't his friends come over to your house to see the online content?

Or, since you apparently have 2 systems, why not just pay the $5 for your brother to play online on his system?

Lol the quality of games has been declining for years anyway. Mostly because the developers/publishers who are now doing this type of thing have forced all the better devs, who would never dream of trying this crap, out of business.

That being said, we still see a lot of quality releases from independent developers which start their pricing around $30-$40, proving that any quality-to-price ratio can be achieved. If I'm instead paying $40 for a game with missing features, that's not exactly a good purchase.

I personally haven't seen many indie games with the same level of online play as the big houses. Indie companies also have a smaller staff in general, and therefore less costs. They also don't launch ad campaigns, pay less for their offices and equipment etc etc etc.

If you want to send a message to them, then simply *don't buy the game at all*. Where do you get the entitlement that just because a game is released, you instantly have the right to play it at your choice of cost, and on your terms?

If they lose enough money because of it, it will stop. If not, then it's clear that the majority of their playerbase is fine with the change and you just need to go find some other game to play.

That is because this is how a market works. When people wait for a game to come down in price or wait for a sale they are exercising their ability to pay what they deem reasonable for a given product. Publishers certainly don't have the right to tell the customer otherwise.

Publishers have the right to charge for their services. That's what the online mode is, a service. You can still play the game in single-player format, great! Go buy used.

But the publisher has every right to charge for providing an additional service. You can still play the game offline. But to access additional content, you pay an additional cost.

If enough people feel that the extra cost is not worth it, they won't pay it, and possibly not buy the game at all. Which will tell the company that this pricing model failed, and they'll move on to find a new one.

You are entitled to nothing.

So where does that leave project ten dollar proper? They are clearly not rendering a service with things like Warden's Keep etc. Nor does that mean that they are entitled to any amount of money from a used game sale; which is how they have framed the entire discussion.

Warden's Keep is an additional good. Yes, you should have pay for it. Why are you entitled to free additional content?

You just went on about rendering services, yet project ten dollar clearly deals with aspects of the game that cannot be stated to be "services." This is the entire point I'm making here. Why the hell is the publisher entitled to money from a used sale when they have not actually rendered any service unto the person buying the game used? If you could copy the Warden's keep data and ship that along with the copy of the complete game why would Ea or Bioware be entitled to any of that money?

Fine. "Goods and services" then. And this thread is QQ about THQ charging a small fee for providing online services. This isn't about them making money off a used copy. It's about them charging for additional goods and services. Warden's Keep is an additional good. It's not a part of the standard game. So why shouldn't someone who bought the game used (but did not pay for the Stone Prisoner, seeing as that's the incentive DLC, Warden's Keep was a totally separate charge) get to use the additional content that they didn't pay for.

Except there is no other commodity where we expect people to pay the original manufacturer if we get the good used as the original manufacturer has not rendered a good or a service.

Right, and they don't see any money that you get for buying the game. But if you want the extra, additional content of The Stone Prisoner, you have to pay for it. It is not a part of the game itself. It is an extra. A bonus. Something that would likely have not been developed otherwise. An incentive to those of us that actually pay the publisher for their games. They opted to make it available to used customers at a cost. They could have very well said "Buy new, or you don't get it at all."

That is the underlying problem with PTD. PTD isn't about services, it is about goods. Goods that are in some cases already on the disc. Furthermore even if you start talking about services as is the case with THQ. One has to wonder whether they really are actually rendering a meaningful service at all since the game most likely uses P2P connection.

In other words it is your internet connection doing all the work, they don't actually do much of anything save run run some very minimal stat tracking/negotiation servers. Their bandwidth costs are pretty close to nil and where already covered by the initial sale. (If they were not then I would expect them to charge an additional fee for new purchasers as well.)

They do. They essentially charge you $55 for the game, $5 for the online activity. Prices for new games cover all their costs, not just those associated with the game proper. Those of us that buy new are paying for the online access, the DLC, or whatever incentives they offer.

 

[sheic99]

This. I don't have any sense of entitlement, I simply have a certain set of expectations inscribed into me through years of gaming. What gives publishers the right to suddenly charge more money for the same product they were offering in the past at a cheaper price?

They are not. The game costs exactly the same new as it did a year ago.

Indeed, and new is as much for schmucks as it was a year ago. A used market exists for every product. And when you buy ANY other used product, you get every feature of it. iPods, cars, furniture, whatever. This untrue only with games now.

Warranty?

 

[Jfswift]

Not really much we can do about it since nobody has the RIGHT to video games per ce...just another industry joining the ranks of greedy assholes. It blows, but that's capitalism for you.

Disagree. Our dollar carries alot of power. If we stop buying their games then they'll be forced to change their tune. If you set an example, others will follow. You *do* have power. Everyone here does.

 

[Sovvolf]

Not really much we can do about it since nobody has the RIGHT to video games per ce...just another industry joining the ranks of greedy assholes. It blows, but that's capitalism for you.

Disagree. Our dollar carries alot of power. If we stop buying their games then they'll be forced to change their tune. If you set an example, others will follow. You *do* have power. Everyone here does.

Ho I agree we could if we all really wanted to, however the thing is most of us don't. A good amount of us (with the looks of things) seem to not have much of an issue with $10, I for one think it's a good thing... So why would I stand against it?.

 

[irishstormtrooper]

The people on all of the gaming podcasts I listen to are right about this: The only people who this affects, i.e. people who actually play sports games buy them new on day one, which, by my reckoning, means that this affects them exactly not at all. So, the few people complaining are just people who don't like it when companies try to actually (gasp) make money!

 

[cainx10a]

Buying/Selling of Used Games is akin to piracy; developers and publishers of said game do not get a dime from those transactions. Project $10 and Free DLCs for people who buy new copies of the game is totally justifiable; the real culprit would be gamestop selling a used copy of say, Dragon Age for $5 less and ripping off the pour soul who purchased that by what $15 (the stone prisoner) and the other bonuses you might get off a new copy.

 

[sheic99]

This. I don't have any sense of entitlement, I simply have a certain set of expectations inscribed into me through years of gaming. What gives publishers the right to suddenly charge more money for the same product they were offering in the past at a cheaper price?

They are not. The game costs exactly the same new as it did a year ago.

Indeed, and new is as much for schmucks as it was a year ago. A used market exists for every product. And when you buy ANY other used product, you get every feature of it. iPods, cars, furniture, whatever. This untrue only with games now.

Warranty?

A warranty is available even on many used products, whether it's through a retailer or still the original which just hasn't run out yet. But that's something you never get on games, whether new or used, so whatever. Point is, you still get use of a full product until it dies when you buy used, and the same should apply for games.

But unlike games, Ford doesn't have to pay to keep your car running.

 

[Jfswift]

Not really much we can do about it since nobody has the RIGHT to video games per ce...just another industry joining the ranks of greedy assholes. It blows, but that's capitalism for you.

Disagree. Our dollar carries alot of power. If we stop buying their games then they'll be forced to change their tune. If you set an example, others will follow. You *do* have power. Everyone here does.

Ho I agree we could if we all really wanted to, however the thing is most of us don't. A good amount of us (with the looks of things) seem to not have much of an issue with $10, I for one think it's a good thing... So why would I stand against it?.

As long as I can purchase all of the parts of the game even if I buy it used i'm okay with paying ten dollars. What I don't care for is for example Mass Effect 2's special edition that comes with a nifty armor you can only get by preordering it. That seems shady to me. It'd be one if they were like, hey we'll include it with the game if you pre order but you can pay for it down the road too (which I believe they did with Dragon Age which seems more fair to me.)