BREAKING NEWS: EX-TROIKA CRPG IN MAKING

[Jumjalum]

You can back up stuff from Steam onto CDs, not sure how well it works since I've never had to do it, but I trust Valve aren't going to disappear in the near future.

[alanschu]

How would you instal the game on another PC if heir servers are down?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can burn it to disc.

 

 

Though technically, you aren't supposed to install games from CDs on to other PCs either, unless you remove it from the first PC.

[Judge Hades]

So, it becomes the purchaser's responsibility to put the game on disc when it should have been on the disc to begin with when one buys the game. Sounds lame. I did DD once and that is it. It is the lamest idea ever.

[Spider]

So, it becomes the purchaser's responsibility to put the game on disc when it should have been on the disc to begin with when one buys the game.  Sounds lame.  I did DD once and that is it.  It is the lamest idea ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Since my edit probably went unnoticed due to the speed this thread is moving at, here is a (sort of) repost:

 

If you break your IWD CD how do you plan on re-installing that game?

[Judge Hades]

Buy a new copy of course. If the servers go down there is no way to buy a new copy because the server you are buying from is down.

[Spider]

Nor is there a guarantee you'll find a new copy from a company that has gone out of business...

[alanschu]

But that's just it. I'm not willing to pay the price they want, and apparently neither is HH.

 

Then don't buy the game right away. And if you find a boxed copy that is cheaper, then buy all means buy it.

 

Again, if my actions help a developer to make more money, I expect some reward for it as well. If by downloading a game I reduce costs for packaging and distribution, I expect to see my price lowered as well. And this doesn't at all take into account the fact that the game developer may not even be reliant on a publisher that takes a large percentage of the profits which they otherwise would have been.

 

Your expectations may seem reasonable, but they completely go against economics. Even if there is concern about retailers not stocking a game because it is cheaper, it's still a pipe dream to assume that any business is not going to try to maximize its profits. I suspect that few, if any, of us on these boards would willingly sell a product they made at a cost that they knew would get them less money in return. The only exceptions would be some form of altruism or charity, but even then that decision is still made to maximize your "gain" from the sale.

 

 

But let's use the numbers McCarthy himself posted. When using a publisher, a developer will get $3 per game sold. If releasing through Steam at the same price they get $50 (remember, Steam is free if you license Source). So through my actions I am making $47 for that developer. I don't see why the developer is the only one who should benefit from this, especially since I don't get a physical copy in my hand (although I prefer digital copies, a physical one does represent money spent on the physical material).

 

We don't know the details of acquiring the Source license to really comment. The nice thing is, if you don't like it, don't buy it. The price is what it's at because (basic economics here), that's what people will pay for it.

 

I do not particularly value CDs or manuals, and since I'm going to pay $50 for a game, I'd rather the developers (the people in charge of the creative content of the game I am making) get the money, rather than a bunch of middle men. It's no guarantee, but increased capital for developers does increase the likelihood of them being more experimental in their games. It's no longer devastating to a developer if their game isn't a sure hit. As a result, game developers won't have to insist (and have less pressure from the publisher) to make a game that tries to follow the formula of a different sure fire hit.

 

And, as you acknowledged, it provides avenues of distribution that smaller developers otherwise would never have been able to achieve. People can try to argue that games made by smaller developers mostly suck (and they'd probably be right), but I'd rather not deny the next prodigy genius an opportunity to revolutionize the entire industry if I can try.

[alanschu]

So, it becomes the purchaser's responsibility to put the game on disc when it should have been on the disc to begin with when one buys the game.  Sounds lame.  I did DD once and that is it.  It is the lamest idea ever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Enjoy your hobby while you can then.

[Judge Hades]

Nor is there a guarantee you'll find a new copy from a company that has gone out of business...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I live in Iowa. There are products here that are 10 years old and the company is dead available for sell.

[Judge Hades]

Bottomline, if I am going to spend money on a product I need something tangible and physical in my hands. I will not spend money on "virtual" products. I will not spend money on data only products: may they be games, PDF files, or whatever. If I am going to buy something I will do so at my local game store. I will spend my money locally and not over the web.

[alanschu]

Like I said, enjoy your hobby while you can then.

[Judge Hades]

Oh, I will, but if the industry goes entirely web based I will leave it in a heart beat. I won't spend money on only zeroes and ones. I like to support the developers and game designers I like, but my first responsibility is to the community I live in and local businesses need money to so I support the local economy.

[Volourn]

Unlike Hades, my only loyalty is to me. I want games,a nd I want good agmes the way I want them. If the devloeprs can't handle that; they won't get my money. Seesm to me, through this threads, develoeprs are just a s'greedy' a spublsihers are. nothing wrong with that; but let's be honest about it. This is a business afterall. We're all out to get soemthing for ourselves - be "we" publishers, developers, stores, or customers.

 

Game over.

[Spider]

Your expectations may seem reasonable, but they completely go against economics.  Even if there is concern about retailers not stocking a game because it is cheaper, it's still a pipe dream to assume that any business is not going to try to maximize its profits.  I suspect that few, if any, of us on these boards would willingly sell a product they made at a cost that they knew would get them less money in return.  The only exceptions would be some form of altruism or charity, but even then that decision is still made to maximize your "gain" from the sale.

 

It depends on how many people feel like me. If a large enough percentage does, then it does warrant a price reduction. The thing here is that it's such a blatantly obvious cost reduction that people can't help but be aware of it. Sure, most people may not know (or care) that a lot of middle men are being cut out of the picture, but people will recognize that there is nothing physically produced.

 

What I suspect will happen is a more varied price range. Not every game is created equal and therefor shouldn't be priced as such. A game like Oblivion is (for me) definitely worth $50, while ten hours of Gun should probably have costed less. Similarly, indie productions will probably be cheaper than mainstream productions, the game we're actually discussing here had a $30 price tag associated with it, if memory serves.

 

Actually, what I REALLY think will happen is that when some larger developers will try to push online distribution for real, the price will be somewhat lower just to get people used to the distribution model. Then once physical copies are no longer an issue they will probably creep back up again.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Buy a new copy of course.  If the servers go down there is no way to buy a new copy because the server you are buying from is down.

The assumes you can find a place that still sells the game. Similar catastrophic problems apply to retail distribution as do to DD.

[Dhruin]

The thread has covered some distance and others have responded on most of the points. One last thing...

 

No, but they SHOULD compensate a part of the profit they make. -10% for 20% retailer profit seems nice to me; but even that is NOT given... no wonder alot of people buy it rather in the story then, with the added stuff for the same price...

 

If you try to base the value to you on the cost or profit for the supplier, then all sorts of silly things occur. The GTA series has sold something like 25M copies -- way, way more than required to turn a profit. Are they greedy bastards because they didn't sell the games for $10 (or whatever), given the volume they sold? Should HL2 cost $79 because the development cost them $40M, while other shooters that sold for $50 were developed for <$10M?

 

I understand you obviously value the CD, but the cost of DD to the supplier is irrelevant.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

My conclsion is the only reason to embrace DD is to put more money in the developers pockets. Which dosnt strike me as a good enough reason to cease my current way of doing things.

 

As such it's not really a great suprise to see developers championing DD now is it ?

 

Higher prices in order to cover costs (distribution, storage etc). But the same price when there are no such costs ? If EA were pulling this sort of deal people would be all over it calling them greedy bastards.

[alanschu]

It depends on how many people feel like me. If a large enough percentage does, then it does warrant a price reduction. The thing here is that it's such a blatantly obvious cost reduction that people can't help but be aware of it. Sure, most people may not know (or care) that a lot of middle men are being cut out of the picture, but people will recognize that there is nothing physically produced.

 

But that's still economics. THe reason why the price is where it's at is because the game sells (and sells well) at that price. If enough people feel like you, they won't buy the game at that price. As a result, the price will go down, as the developers look to make a profit.

 

 

What I suspect will happen is a more varied price range. Not every game is created equal and therefor shouldn't be priced as such. A game like Oblivion is (for me) definitely worth $50, while ten hours of Gun should probably have costed less. Similarly, indie productions will probably be cheaper than mainstream productions, the  game we're actually discussing here had a $30 price tag associated with it, if memory serves.

 

That could very well be. Though this distinction still exists in retail. Not all games are released at $50 on the shelf.

 

 

 

Actually, what I REALLY think will happen is that when some larger developers will try to push online distribution for real, the price will be somewhat lower just to get people used to the distribution model. Then once physical copies are no longer an issue they will probably creep back up again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see this happen either. In fact, I expect it. But the price will always fluctuate back to what the developer feels is the optimal price point for him to maximize his profits. Furthermore, competition makes this price go down. If Direct Download is as an improved method of distribution as I anticipate it will, maybe we'll get lucky and get more high quality games out there that have to compete for our dollar.

[Dhruin]

My conclsion is the only reason to embrace DD is to put more money in the developers pockets. Which dosnt strike me as a good enough reason to cease my current way of doing things.

 

As such it's not really a great suprise to see developers championing DD now is it ?

 

Higher prices in order to cover costs (distribution, storage etc). But the same price when there are no such costs ? If EA were pulling this sort of deal people would be all over it calling them greedy bastards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, it isn't surprising that developers champion DD -- but that doesn't mean that they don't have a valid point of view, either. It's obviously your decision how you choose to buy your products.

 

And yes, people would go berzerk over EA doing...well, anything. Sometimes people get irrational - doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

No, it isn't surprising that developers champion DD -- but that doesn't mean that they don't have a valid point of view, either.  It's obviously your decision how you choose to buy your products.

 

And yes, people would go berzerk over EA doing...well, anything.  Sometimes people get irrational - doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lining your own pockets could certainly be seen as a valid point of view :D

Dosnt make it good for the consumer though.

 

If you look at online shopping. It's cheaper in general than the highstreet (lower overheads). If DD is supposed to reduce costs even further(no boxes, no manuals, no storage, no shipping), then the develpers are just as guilty of doing what they accuse publishers of doing. Strikes me as more than a little hypocritical.

Edited May 10, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Dhruin]

I'm not sure that developers on the whole see publishers as "evil" (insert appropriate derogatory term), although I'm sure some do. It's more a question of the current system constraining the industry.

 

From my perspective, where a publisher pays for a development, they are entitled to do pretty much whatever they want with it. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing to have a creative endeavour driven mostly by the distribution system.

[alanschu]

No, it isn't surprising that developers champion DD -- but that doesn't mean that they don't have a valid point of view, either.  It's obviously your decision how you choose to buy your products.

 

And yes, people would go berzerk over EA doing...well, anything.  Sometimes people get irrational - doesn't matter if it makes sense or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Lining your own pockets could certainly be seen as a valid point of view :D

Dosnt make it good for the consumer though.

 

Unless the developer acquring more capital allows them additional creative control over their content.

 

If you look at online shopping. It's cheaper in general than the highstreet (lower overheads). If DD is supposed to reduce costs even further(no boxes, no manuals, no storage, no shipping), then the develpers are just as guilty of doing what they accuse publishers of doing. Strikes me as more than a little hypocritical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Competition dictates this. Digital Distribution for gaming is in its infancy, and there's not been a big push to make it mainstream.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Unless the developer acquring more capital allows them additional creative control over their content.

 

Competition dictates this.  Digital Distribution for gaming is in its infancy, and there's not been a big push to make it mainstream.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Means nothing. It's no different to a publisher doing the same thing. Publishers introduce some much needed common sense and whip cracking for the most part.

 

There is already competition from the established sources. That DD is not seeking to undercut simply confirms that some people are buying into the idea that lining a developers pockets is a good thing. Even if they are basically screwing you over in the most obvious manner.

[Volourn]

But, but, but, publishers are EVILLLL!!!!!

[alanschu]

Means nothing. It's no different to a publisher doing the same thing. Publishers introduce some much needed common sense and whip cracking for the most part.

 

They also exert their influence on the creative process.

 

There is already competition from the established sources.

 

The competition from established sources already incurs a higher overhead, meaning there's saturation to the point where profits would no longer be adequate enough to justify stocking the product.

 

That DD is not seeking to undercut simply confirms that some people are buying into the idea that lining a developers pockets is a good thing. Even if they are basically screwing you over in the most obvious manner.

 

It confirms nothing, since we are all speculating. It just as easily confirms that the retail market is still viewed as a necessity, and has the purchasing power to influence the price that digital distribution can sell at. And yes, they are totally screwing me over by making me pay the exact same amount of money as I would in a store. Pretty weak example of "screwing us over" as there's no net difference.

 

And don't pull the "but you're not getting a manual" and whatever baloney either. Because if you still value that stuff, you can still buy it. No one is forcing you to use direct download. If you'd rather pay for it at retail, then pay for it at retail.