Why game company executives will never get it

[Zeus]

There's an interview on IGN with Take Two's Executive VP and all he can talk about is the "evil" used games

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/113/1134078p1.html

What these guys don't get is the value proposition. He's talking about selling partially gutted games for $40 and then "allowing you to be as passionate as you want" by purchasing more digital content. Translation: you will be able to fully play MX vs ATV at the new price point of $40, but you won't exactly have as many options (and thus, will be at a handicap) as the rich kids. This, along with the bullshit of EA's Online Pass, is the best ideas these idiot executives can come up with.

How's this for an option you morons: tiered pricing. Not every full game has to come out at $60. Not every full game has to look as good as Call of Duty or Medal of Honor, not even core titles. There is a minimum requirement, yes, but it doesn't always have to be an arms race. Why not target a game's release at $40 (I'm talking a full game, not a gutted one) and budget accordingly? You know why Borderlands and Batman sold so well? They were $40 for the first week and everyone who was partially on the fence bought it right away. Why? You're getting a $60 game for $40, that's why. Why the fuck would you wait for a price drop or a used copy? And guess what? They were great games and so many people bought them that word of mouth spread very quickly since so many damned copies were out there. And which games were the surprise hits of 2009?

How much did Trials HD cost to make? Fuck lot less than $10 million. It had fine (if not repetitive) graphics, a ton of content (more than most retail releases), and was a ton of fun to play (until the controls got to you). Coming it at at least 10 hours to get through even half of the Hard tracks, it lasts longer than most of those retail releases (Black Ops took me about 13 or 14 hours on Veteran). It would have been a fine $40 title and is still a pretty decent $15 download. Imagine if they toss a full $10 million budget on it, maybe even add a racing mode and online multi for that price?

They keep trying to take their current business model and trying to force it down the customer's throat. We try to find a way to get a little more value for our money (ie. used games) and they get all pissy and try to take it away. Here's an idea: increase the value of your games in peoples' eyes and they have no issues paying the money for it. 5.7M copies of Black Ops on Day 1 is proof of that (as are Halo, Gears, Metal Gear, etc.). Don't want to do that? Price accordingly.

If your games ain't sellin' at $60, it's not because of the used games. It's because you don't offer enough to make it worth $60 in your customers' eyes.

[SineSwiper]

Quit making blanket statements. Some companies still get it.

[Zeus]

Quit making blanket statements. Some companies still get it.

Who?

[kali o.]

What these guys don't get is the value proposition. He's talking about selling partially gutted games for $40 and then "allowing you to be as passionate as you want" by purchasing more digital content. Translation: you will be able to fully play MX vs ATV at the new price point of $40, but you won't exactly have as many options (and thus, will be at a handicap) as the rich kids. This, along with the bullshit of EA's Online Pass, is the best ideas these idiot executives can come up with.

I both agree and disagree with you.

You are trying to have it both ways - you want something but you don't want to pay for it. Sorry, that's bullshit. If a game company wants to develop a game beyond retail (note: that development begins prior to retail release, perhaps even at inception and in parallel, is understandable), I'm all for that. I am also for them getting paid for that work. The microtransaction model can work...and it will be used a lot more, so get used to it.

But the consumer is not stupid (at least I like to believe). If they feel they are being offered a substandard initial product with content withheld, I expect backlash. Deservedly so. There will be a way to do it right and a way to do it wrong.

I do agree that they are greedy and shortsighted -- no different from the other media industries, like music or movies. If they chose to view every used, rented, borrowed or, yes, even pirated copy as a lost sale they would have otherwise received, they are morons.

There are more delivery options to the consumer and marketing channels than ever. Revenue streams are increasing (subscriptions, DLC, in-game ads/tie-ins, etc). The costs, especially to publishers, are reduced. If they can't figure out how to make money in this environment, fuck em. The free market will rotate them and their business model out and allow others to take their place.

[SineSwiper]

Beating a dead horse here, but Steam. Of course, you're still arguing the same shit, so I have to rehash old arguments.

[Don]

I cannot think of a single episodic game that was a major success, and those are pretty much as close as you can get to the withheld content for more $ model. I don't know if consumers are smart but if you withheld enough stuff that the core game sucks and is overpriced then people will stop buying it.

[SineSwiper]

I cannot think of a single episodic game that was a major success, and those are pretty much as close as you can get to the withheld content for more $ model. I don't know if consumers are smart but if you withheld enough stuff that the core game sucks and is overpriced then people will stop buying it.

Not talking about that. I'm talking about the fact that Steam's stuff is regularly on sale, even for fairly new games. This Christmas will be like the last, where they will have some insane half-off prices and stuff.

[Don]

Well I figure if these sales in Steams are working that's good for them. If it doesn't work that's not my problem either. Ignoring direct piracy issues (as those distorts the market unfairly), the gaming industry has been one where capitalism really does work. If you have some good idea that people like you'll be able to sell games, and if your idea is stupid then people won't buy it. So I have no problem with companies trying whatever they perceive as a good idea because the market is the one that decides if it works or not.

[SineSwiper]

Well, the problem exists in the "standards" of industry capitalism, the price fixing. I think $60 is too damn high for most games, and it ends up being a gamble, anyway. You end up playing a bad game (even one with good reviews), and you're out $60. Good luck trying to return it, since GameStop is just going to buy it back for $5 and sell it for $55.

Everybody charges $60 because everybody else charges $60. I know some are trying to play around with $15, $30, $40 games, but there's usually a reason why they are doing that. On the flip side, I know that it costs millions of dollars to make these things. But, given that they don't spend nearly as much as Hollywood and get to sell their games for three times the price of a ticket, there's something fishy with that model. (And most agree that movie tickets are too expensive, anyway.)