Jimquisition: Online Passes Are Bad For Everybody

[Johnny Lunchbox]

That's not how you hold a sword.








...just sayin'.

 

[mrdude2010]

You know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes? Cheap people who wait a month after a game comes out just to get a used copy of a game, thus giving all their money to Gamestop, and not the creators or publishers of the game.

"Oh no, I can't play this shitty multiplayer without putting in a code. Oh woe is me."

you know what hurts the game industry even more than online passes?
1. game developers who don't make games good enough for people to keep them or buy them new when they come out
2. game developers who whine about not making enough millions of dollars
3. people for allowing this shit to happen and setting a precedent for the rights of gamers everywhere.

the used game industry has thrived and so has the gaming industry. store credit for trading in a game that kind of sucked and giving someone else the opportunity to play it and enjoy it is not going to kill EA, and budget indie titles often come out as download only.

also, multiplayer is a pretty big component of some games, can you imagine being stuck with only single player call of duty?

 

[Juventus]

Car companies, Book publishers, Movie companies, and Game publishers:

One these four use less resources than three of the others, charge on average twice as much for their product, and suffer from less "used" sales.

Now I'm going to let you guess which one is also bitching about "used sales" and forcing paying customers to prove their purchase every time they want to use the product they paid for.

Here's a hint: it starts with "Game".

car companies, music companies, movie companies make money from other sources too.

car companies will sell brand name parts, or offer warranties or service maintenance on used cars.

music companies/artists will make money for concerts, live tv performances, movie,media deals, advertisements, and biographies,.

movie makers make money of cinema, dvd, blu ray, digital downloads, not to mention tie in books,movies, cartoons, toys, posters and in movie advertisements for products.

games make money off new sales. the other way they do it is through in game ads and dlc, yet they get heck for that.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

Decent points, except you completely missed half the argument. You know, the part where used games provide zero revenue to publishers/developers and lessen their ability to create future games.

Or the part where servers cost money. You didn't think online play just magically happened, did you? Online multiplayer requires host servers, and those cost money. Or do you expect Codemasters (the developers and publishers of Dirt, which you mentioned) to provide you access to their servers out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not, if you want to play online, you've gotta pay the piper. Bandwidth ain't free. If you buy the game new, then Codemasters likes you and will let you use the servers to your little hearts content. If you bought a used copy, tough cookies.

Besides, isn't "used" supposed to indicate a depreciation in value? If I buy a used car, it's got miles on it. It might have damage. Someone else has had their fat ass in the seat. It won't have all the shiny bells and whistles of the new model. Thus the price is lower.

What has depreciated in a "used" game? The box art might be a bit dingy. Maybe the worthless manuals aren't there. But really, does anyone care about those things? Didn't think so.


Last question: Didn't Extra Credits cover "Project $10" already... like 7 or 8 months ago? I guess now that their archived stuff is gone, you're free to crib notes.

 

[Treblaine]

And even Halo 3, remember that Yahtzee story? About how Guiness decided to stop advertising because everyone knows what Guiness is and St Patricks day exists? And then Guiness didn't end up selling much that year? It's hard to realise how much more informed we are about most people. The majority of CoD player didn't realise Modern Warfare 2 was a sequel to Modern Warfare 1 until the marketing department stuck the CoD prefix back on it. And to get to the point where you can sell a brand you need to spend a lot of marketing on the initial brand.

Well Guinness is a common consumable, people hardly put much thought into it. They just make an instinctive decision at the bar or in the supermarket, that's where marketing can worm into your subconscious. It's which drink FEELS right.

You know an easy and cheap way to advertise Modern Warfare 2? COD4! Update with a few performance tweaks and bam: little ad post-game saying "say, COD4 has a sequel, Modern Warfare 2"

You didn't have to pay for that space, that's YOUR space. And there is no point in telling people who haven't played MW2 that it is a sequel to COD4, if they haven't played it, why should they care? And informing people of something they were going to buy anyway? That's the easiest kind of marketing. What you need the millions of dollars for is the persuasion part, for a product that has pretty much no unique appeal like coke vs pepsi. It has to leave a strong impression with billions of people that coke is the one to buy and really the taste of sugar-water (especially the sugar free diet varieties) is very much an acquired taste.

There are countless examples in the video game industry of games selling very well without the massive marketing expense. In fact most games go without it, it's only the mega-publishers who feel the need to saturate the media and resort to bullshit like EA's "your mom wouldn't like this" ad.

 

[Catfood220]

I got to admit, I agree with what he says about people buying a used game, loving the game and buying the sequels for full price. I picked up Dead Space dirt cheap, I had asked me people what it was like and got a response of "meh, its alright". I ended up loving the game and had no problem shelling out full price for Dead Space 2 and I have no problem paying full price for Dead Space 3 when/if it comes out.

 

[Tanakh]

TL;DR-Version:
(Please at least watch this video if you didn't bother with my post)
http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2010/10/episode-41-revolution.html

Amazing post, ty.

 

[Plan10FromSpace]

actually completely agree that second hand games are an essential part of the current system and I think this problem springs from game publishers charging too much in a lot of cases. This year one of my most anticipated games is batman arkham city, which I will probably pre-order, however I got the original cheep second hand...why? well two reasons, firstly for a game I finished in a week, including riddlers challenge, £60 is a big asking price, secondly for a game ive never played and have no experience with £60 is a big fucking asking price, was I meant to spend that money solely on the basis batman was in the game? Publishers are asking you to give them big money on the off chance you'll like their game and your only indication is at best a demo. I honestly think we need a two tier system of game prices with one for massive triple A titles with years of playability, and a much lower one for short single player based games....if gaming was more affordable I wouldn't have to rely on second hand games and trade ins.

 

[Azuaron]

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I may be jaded by the whole "used game" arguments because I'm a PC gamer, and digital distribution is the way to go.

People say that they can't afford to buy a game new, so they wait and buy it used.

I say I can't afford to buy a game new, so I wait and buy it on a Steam/Gamer's Gate sale for 10-30% of its original price (seriously, I got Dragon Age, it's expansion, and all the DLC for $20). Since I'm buying new, I'm a customer of the publishers and developers, and since I'm willing to wait for a sale, I'm not selling organs to fuel my gaming habit.

So anytime someone says they "can't afford" a new game so they buy used, I naturally scoff, but maybe things are different on consoles.

Generally the good games don't go down in price, for instance i saw call of duty 2 for 40 dollars recently when that game should only be around 10 at this point.

But one thing I think that people rarely discuss is availability as well. Certain games just are not sold new, for instance I wanted to get another copy of Hitman Blood Money after my other disc wore out, but noone around here sells it new at all. I eventually had to pick it up used at gamestop because stores just dont sell the game anymore.

I think everyone can agree that there's a "statute of limitations" on when you're reasonably expected to buy a game new instead of used (I recently bought Windwaker used because "new" copies are, essentially, unopened used copies that are selling for over $100).

I think one way to fix this would be to have a price system like new games are, hen gamestop sells a game new they send a percentage to the game company, so why not just have them set up the same thing for used games? have a percentage of the sale goto the developer (maybe a slightly smaller percentage, say if it were 15 percent for a new game make it 12 percent for a used game), then it doesnt matter how many times a game is sold new everyone gets their money

For new games (consumer pays $60), I expect Gamestop only makes around $10 and the rest goes upstream. For used games, Gamestop makes half of what they're selling it for, the rest having gone to the person who turned the game in.

That being said... why should Gamestop give them a cut? They're not adding additional value to the product at that point. ...Unless the game has multiplayer and the game companies setup some kind of... online pass system...

Alternatively, if production companies just setup their own trade-in system (like they'd do if they were smart...) they could keep all the profit from trade-ins and they would ensure users buy more of their games (credit only works at the place you got it).

 

[Treblaine]

The real thing about Minecraft though is that Notch made money without money, something that is normally impossible to do. He just stumbled on the dream of something which costs almost no money to make and that everyone wants to pay lots of money for. Most other ideas take money to make and then make a little bit more, and that's the way it works for most games.

He's also in the situation where he can safely make other games without running out of capital.

You act as if the only indie games are Minecraft type simplicity. Let me remind you of what kind of quality Indie developers can afford:

Hard Reset

Witcher 2 (merely distributed by Atari)

Hawken

The point is Minecraft is so LUDICROUSLY over successful it shows that any other indie developer could make it without publishers. You don't have to do as well as Minecraft to do better than signing away your soul to the devil/Activision.

 

[SemiHumanTarget]

Jim, gotta be honest with you buddy, I never thought much of Jimquisition. You seemed like a decent guy once you got past the snark, but the show wasn't doing it for me.

However, in just 8 minutes, you have convinced me that you should run for president.... if that's possible. You know, with the nationality and all...

 

[Neumanoid]

I live in Australia and even though our dollar is on par with the US currency, publishers still make us pay over $100 for a new game. So when two come out in the same week that's a cool $200 we have to lay down to get the goods. Think of me and my kind suffering here in this hellish cultural wasteland when you are purchasing your newest game. For we in the land of sand will not see it's like for at least a week, two months if we're unlucky. And curse the publisher scum for taking value away from my trade in, which each month are used to aid and abett my gaming habit.

 

[BrotherRool]

You act as if the only indie games are Minecraft type simplicity. Let me remind you of what kind of quality Indie developers can afford:

Hard Reset

Witcher 2 (merely distributed by Atari)
Hawken

The point is Minecraft is so LUDICROUSLY over successful it shows that any other indie developer could make it without publishers. You don't have to do as well as Minecraft to do better than signing away your soul to the devil/Activision.

Did my post not show? Or didn't you read it? Because I went over all three examples and made my closing point which you've also ignored. Apart from anything else I explictly stated that CD Projekt makers of the Witcher 2 are a PUBLISHER not a developer. They have been PUBLISHING games since 1994 and in 2002 they decided to create an in-house development team called CD Projekt RED STUDIO who are a development team working for the overall PUBLISHER CD Projekt. The reason you haven't heard of them is that they're an exclusively Polish publisher.

All I'm saying is these games are possible, but Hawken and Hard Reset had to cut stuff to make the fantastic game they did. One of them took a loan out of 20 million dollars from venture capitalists so you can bet your bum that they're making nothing like 100% of the profit on that game and are instead forking it over to what by all accounts is a publisher, just one that isn't even providing gaming experience or marketing help.

The other cut any sort of multiplayer mode to retain funding.

And what I'm saying is. These are great games. They are great games that exist amongst other publisher made great games, neither type of game could be made under the other system. Both co-exist and should co-exist. All indie games either find novel shortcuts or take out ridiculous loans where they end up in a lot of debt and the risk on bankruptcy. What's more, I predict those games you've mentioned will not sell as well as they should given the quality of the game.

Also I think your view of marketing is a little behind and you don't understand the amount of marketing money even goes into the mediocre games. It's almost certainly multimillion. You just see the more noticeable failed attempts at unique marketing whereas the real money is just to reach people who don't read sites like this, so TV spots and the like and generating a buzz. It's scary how much control marketers have over what people think of a game. Did you read the column on Duke Nukem marketing?

But anyway I think this discussion has run it's course, I've presented my side and I will leave you to your conclusions, thanks for the discussion, I've learnt a lot

 

[Treblaine]

You mentioned the Witcher 2. Interestingly enough it turns out that CD Projekt are actually a videogame publisher that decided after 8 years of publishing games they'd turn some resources to developing their own too. CD Projekt RED STUDIO are essentially are an in house developer for the publishing company CD Projekt. I just never heard about it before because they were focussed on Poland.

Well CD Projekt fits part of the definition of "indie" which is short of "Independent". They are their own boss, independent of any

As Artists they did not have to go cap in hand to a rich publisher who will make their game in exchange for all the rights to the game, major aspects of design and execution as well as taking most of the profits. That's what I can't stand, like what Activision did to Infinity Ward, that scenario shakes so much confidence in publishers as a beneficial force for the industry. Look how FUCKED Infinity Ward has been making the most successful game ever for Activison.

You could go as far as saying Valve is an "indie developer" as they are on entity who both makes and funds and publishes their own games.

It's not poverty I am advocating, It is Artistic Independence! Some publishers are good, very hands off and without the fear of liquidation if they take a risk that turns out bad. But ideally you don't want people like Bobby Kotick running the show whose interest in games is limited to how profitable they can be. COD is a good game series that has clearly been hobbled at every turn by producer interference, particularly on the hiring/firing side.

To sum up I feel this analogy is best, since Peter Jacksson published District 9. District 9 was a great film that did fantastic things on a small budget and found new ways to bring quality without a publisher and it was a great film. The Lord of the Rings was a big budget masterpiece that needed a publisher so much it took the publisher the risk of desolation to get it onto the big screen. They're both great films and the world is better for both of them, neither one could have worked with the others system. The one was too risky for a publisher to take on, the other to expensive for an indie.

Lets have both

(I'm Welsh/British btw)

Well, I liked District 9 much more than LOTR, but that's personal taste, I can appreciate there are films that are just so big that no filming studio has the time, money and resources on hand to make it. But most films are not epic trilogies. For games, unless you are developing a whole new engine (very time consuming + expensive) today there is less reason that ever for Publishers to have their fingers in every pie.

My problem is publishers want to take more than they really should, they want rights to all the Intellectual Property, they want to be able to demand a sequel, they want to set the release date, what servers to use, hiring and firing. NO! Stop! And they aren't making these decisions for what makes a GREAT game, just what makes a LUCRATIVE game at the cost of greatness. This is Activision, EA and so many other unsavoury publishers.

That's the conflict of interest I am talking about, which is avoided by Independence (Indie) even if the development studio is "technically" a publisher . And can extend to Valve and other "in house" studios like Bethesda. Bungie is remaining an independent company in the publishing deal with Activision that is purely distribution. Look at the trail of dead bodies left in Activision's wake from all the studios they've run!

Independence is the issue here, one way or another the studio must be protected such as:
-a development studio becoming so rich (or smart) they are effectively a publisher and can self publish (Valve, Mojang)
-A publisher having talent from within, integrated as one entity with clear concise vision (CD Projekt, Bethesda)
-A separate publisher entity who remains hands-off, without demanding IP ownership (bungie+Activision)
-A publisher as mere distributor, devs arrive with finished product for them to distribute (iOS, Steam)

PS: On the value of big separate production companies for the likes of Lord of the Rings:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Line_Cinema#Accounting_practices

Yep, big publisher says three of the top grossing films of all time, $6 BILLION in all (not including all the merchandising including the many successful video games licences) somehow made no profit at all. Bullshit. Yet they are using this as grounds to refuse to pay their due shares of profits to the cast and crew. Peter Jackson had to bring in an independent accountancy firm, needless to say, he won't be working with New Line Film ever again and The Hobbit is in development hell precisely because of this publisher money shenanigans. Round about this time Peter Jackson produced District 9.

These producers/publishers are taking the piss.

 

[TheDooD]

What are you, twelve? Swearing excessively doesn't make your point more profound, Jim. Think of it as a salt, or pepper, on a meal. Enough can make it taste better. Too much makes it taste like ass.

In regards to your other, more drawn out, point, most people aren't going to be buying two AAA release games at once. They'll buy one now, and another when their next dash of spare change becomes available. If you feel so entitled that, once a week, or once a month, you should get a gratis copy of a new game just because you have played other new games, then more power to you, but I'd hate to be your wallet, for it must be quite lonely.

Have some damn patience for what you want, like an adult, or look into a rental service, as there are quite a few of them now, I understand. A bratty kid who complains that he wants his Christmas presents early and gets them has no room to complain when he has nothing to open on Xmas day with the rest of the people. It's baseless entitlement like this that continues to make us as both gamers and people look like egocentric, conceited little shits, complaining that they don't get exactly what they want. And as much fun as screaming about it is, offering no solutions means all you're doing is making an annoyingly ridiculous amount of noise that offends one ears to hear over prolonged periods.

Doesn't this go the same way for publishers that want money from used sells, or push for online passes and or cutting content for used gamers. Eventhough it might be the 3rd or 4th hand it been pass upon. Publishers are at fault for making their product so expensive and placing their release dates on top of other game releases. That's basically wrongs right there not every new AAA game it worth that 60$ price tag and that's why it ends up in the used pile so another person can pick it up. Normally to quite a lot of people the content isn't worth the full price and a consumer has the right to be pissed off that the quality of their product. Note rental services are treated just like the used games you won't get to play online and there maybe some content cut so you're not getting all that you expected. The publishers know if they lower the prices to like 45$ on a AAA more people would be compelled to buy it new,yet we know they only care about short profit margin then ***** when money isn't rolling in weeks to months down the road. When everybody that really wanted the game have it and those that just wanted to check it out already returned their copy.

 

[Treblaine]

All I'm saying is these games are possible, but Hawken and Hard Reset had to cut stuff to make the fantastic game they did.

The other cut any sort of multiplayer mode to retain funding.

They did not cut out multiplayer as a matter of funding, but a matter of principal in design focus! Half Life 2 didn't have a multiplayer. Is that because Valve is poor? NO! It's because MULTIPLAYER WOULD BE COMPLETELY IN APPROPRIATE! Any amount of money available would be better spent on an awesome single player. Focus. TF2 was multiplayer only.

You could argue that Activision has already make this compromise, the recent COD games have had such unbelievably shoddy and rushed single players, it's clear all the focus is on the multiplayer and it is the main selling point. Black Ops certainly didn't sell for Mason's fever dreams.

And even focusing just on single player, have you any idea how much is cut out at the publisher's mandate? For modern Warfare 2, half a Dozen maps never saw the light of day because the publisher said to focus on just these few to have the game out in time for the non-negotiable release-date. Other maps as DLC, though any serious games developer know how bad premium map packs are, how they divide the community. But it's easy money for Activision and they don't really care about excellent game design as long as it is money in the bank.

And what I'm saying is. These are great games. They are great games that exist amongst other publisher made great games, neither type of game could be made under the other system. Both co-exist and should co-exist. All indie games either find novel shortcuts or take out ridiculous loans where they end up in a lot of debt and the risk on bankruptcy. What's more, I predict those games you've mentioned will not sell as well as they should given the quality of the game.

Also I think your view of marketing is a little behind and you don't understand the amount of marketing money even goes into the mediocre games. It's almost certainly multimillion. You just see the more noticeable failed attempts at unique marketing whereas the real money is just to reach people who don't read sites like this, so TV spots and the like and generating a buzz. It's scary how much control marketers have over what people think of a game. Did you read the column on Duke Nukem marketing?

But anyway I think this discussion has run it's course, I've presented my side and I will leave you to your conclusions, thanks for the discussion, I've learnt a lot

You seem to think of "indie" only in the archetypal sense of poor studio struggling along by itself, under-appreciated and doomed to only make small insignificant titles.

Valve is an Independent studio, but a very RICH and successful one! That also does publishing.

As to marketing, money can't buy you everything. Not in this industry. It's telling that most of the successful games are sequels because I think the main influence on what gamers buy is past gaming experiences, reputation, and intuition. Expensive TV spots trying to leave an "impression" are a waste of space for gamers who are more likely to be playing a game than sticking around for ad breaks.

It's just crazy to buy TV slots!

TV slots are un-targeted, unknown, they're more likely to be seen by your grandma than the actual target audience, while SO EXPENSIVE and yet so fleeting. Yet all this time the target audience are using this internet connected device that ONLY gamers would use and its actual possible to directly sell it to them there! I've never seen a mascara advert in a hardware wholesaler's catalogue.

And where else is a better place: youtube. Have you any idea how many people upload video of Black Ops on there. Pay the most popular of those schmucks a few hundred bucks to stick up a MW3 pre-roll ad, and you have PRECISION LASER GUIDED marketing! Every hit, on that video, you're not targeting your grandma who has zero interest in first-person shooters, but someone who DOES!

The urge to use TV slots is lazy thinking, trying to regurgitate old brute-force media marketing techniques. It's the type of shit a lot of the big publishers do, they aren't smart, the saturate the media and wherever it works, it works and they justify their frivolous spending. Those black Ops TV ads, Jesus christomatic. What was the point in them.