Massive Quality Disparity Between Games Of The Same Price: An Industry Based On Uninformed Consumers

[GonzoGamer]

However instead of fixing this to avoid something like another crash of 1983 there are corporate apologists who stress developers need to be paid for their work ignoring the fact that they could still be paid at current rates entirely by subtracting a tiny % off a game's profit (because they already see so little of it) convincing said easily manipulated people their points are valid when they don't hold up to objective analysis of the state of the industry.

What are your thoughts? Mine are currently that I'm getting to jaded to enjoy anything any more.

I think I'm getting there too: most everything released is such a big disappointment. I'm so glad I rent.

I wish I had rented New Vegas too. As much content as it has, that game was more broken than anything I've seen, and it took them 6 months to release the 'big patch.'
That's the weird thing, it seems that the gaming industries PR reps have managed to convince most gamers that the developers who work hard to make these games benefit from all of the pushing to get people to pre-order, the online passes & other schemes to marginalize used purchases, and some of the absurd dlc prices. That's just not the case; the devs are all still overworked, underpaid, and the board members of the publishing companies are the ones who get all the money. Some are even convinced that that money goes into hiring more developers so that the next iteration of the game is bigger and better.

They'll be able to avoid a crash for about as long as people keep falling for the hype for every release.

Smarter consumers is my answer to all of it, if you monkeys stop dropping money on every piece of reheated shit then they will stop selling it, and not a moment sooner.

Ah ... didn't notice we already stumbled down the piracy trolling hole, never mind then.

But I think you're right. If consumers couldn't be talked into paying full price for a piece of crap that wont even be out for another month, we might actually get games that work at launch.
If consumers stopped paying $60 for something you finish in a weekend, they might drop the prices of those games.
But first we have to stop gamers from buying games before anyone has any idea if they're any good. For example, Bethesda will never launch a game that works if they know people are willing to pay $60 to pre-order the Beta copy, months before it releases and then have to wait months for them to release a series of patches that will eventually help some of the problems.
With suckers like that, who can blame them really.

As for piracy, I don't condone it but if I were still poor, I would be pirating up a storm. The used market is gouged to absurdity, so the only other option is not playing. But the publishers will start regretting that if their base market shrinks anymore.

 

[ResonanceGames]

Do you really not see what you did?

No, and you've failed to tell me, or provide anything except a bunch of unrelated babble about supply and demand as it relates to "legally enforced mononpolies." That is completely irrelevant to my point.

And it's entirely down to your 'refutation' of the OP being so inadequate that I felt I had to fill in the gaps. Hence why my opening statement is 'What you're saying here misses a rather crucial point.'

(By the way, the main thing wrong with the OP's statement is 'In a free market', which anything which involves copyright is not, by definition. Your argument doesn't cover that at all, but you spend your time explaining something which is only true as a direct consequence of this fact.)

I have never seen anyone talk so much without saying anything. This has nothing to with free markets. Demand curves do not only exist in unfettered markets -- that is a total non sequitur. The demand curve in this context is just the result of pricing experiments run by the publisher to find out which price point yields the most revenue.

Go back and read my original post slowly, then tell me what, specifically, is incorrect about it.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You're willfully ignoring the tons of new IPs that come out all the time. Why?

Mirror's Edge, Bioshock, Dishonored, Rage, Metro 2033, Singularity, Bastion, Shadows of the Damned, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. And that's just the last 4 years.

If you want to start including Indie titles, then there isn't much of an argument (I consider the indie market to be the only place where actual risks are taken in terms of gameplay mechanics).

Of that list, there are maybe two AAA games of note.

Lots of sequels =/= no new IPs.

The industry has always been this way.

*sigh* I suppose so.

I guess nothing interests me anymore.
Cripes I feel depressed now...

 

[CrystalShadow]

Do you really not see what you did?

No, and you've failed to tell me, or provide anything except a bunch of unrelated babble about supply and demand as it relates to "legally enforced mononpolies." That is completely irrelevant to my point.

And it's entirely down to your 'refutation' of the OP being so inadequate that I felt I had to fill in the gaps. Hence why my opening statement is 'What you're saying here misses a rather crucial point.'

(By the way, the main thing wrong with the OP's statement is 'In a free market', which anything which involves copyright is not, by definition. Your argument doesn't cover that at all, but you spend your time explaining something which is only true as a direct consequence of this fact.)

I have never seen anyone talk so much without saying anything. This has nothing to with free markets. Demand curves do not only exist in unfettered markets -- that is a total non sequitur. The demand curve in this context is just the result of pricing experiments run by the publisher to find out which price point yields the most revenue.

Go back and read my original post slowly, then tell me what, specifically, is incorrect about it.

In what way is that even relevant? Or do you think proving you personally incorrect is the sole and only purpose I could possibly have here? This is a public forum. I'm not sending you a private message, so you aren't the exclusive target of my comment.

You know what? Since you don't understand why I'm saying what I am, and I don't consider what you said remotely relevant to what the OP was saying (unless you fill in a LOT of blanks), there's not much point going round in circles with this.

Try thinking about what you said in relation to someone with no prior understand of economics, and maybe you'll get what I was trying to do.
Or maybe not.

Either way, I don't see much point in continuing with this.