BREAKING NEWS: EX-TROIKA CRPG IN MAKING

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

They also exert their influence on the creative process.

 

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.

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not always a bad thing. Some developers when let off the leash fall appart and fail to deliver.

 

Well you just confirmed what I was saying. No one is forcing you to use direct download. But why would want to if there was no saving to you ? And you were getting less for the same cost anyway ?Unless you had bought into the developers "message".

 

Your arguement is centered on it is better for the developers. It probably is. But where as retail have to cover more costs(and in cases where costs are lower prices drop). DD dosnt. Yet the same costs are being passed along to the consumer.

 

If those savings are not being passed along the chain. Then you are being screwed over.

Edited May 10, 2006 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[alanschu]

That's not always a bad thing. Some developers when let off the leash fall appart and fail to deliver.

 

I'm not saying it is necessarily. But I'd rather the market take care of people that can't keep their act together, rather than have publishers turn down innovative idea after innovative idea because they don't think they can make as much money with it. Let the companies with poor ideas fold, rather than the ones with great ideas that have never been done before.

 

Well you just confirmed what I was saying. No one is forcing you to use direct download. But why would want to if there was no saving to you ? And you were getting less for the same cost anyway ?Unless you had bought into the developers "message".

 

Because it's convenient? I don't have to get into my car, waste gas (kill the environment and all that jazz even!!!111), risk a car accident, and put up with a busy shopping center to get my game.

 

Furthermore, as for the "message," you'd have to be either completely in denial, or just flat out dimwitted to not recognize that the developer will receive more of my money via direct download than through a retailer. All you have to do is spend one minute learning how retail operates to recognize this.

 

Your arguement is centered on it is better for the developers. It probably is. But where as retail have to cover more costs(and in cases where costs are lower prices drop). DD dosnt. Yet the same costs are being passed along to the consumer.

 

So? In any case, costs being lower does not mean prices drop either. Read up on microeconomics if you don't believe me. The funny thing is, is that the consumer doesn't realize just how much influence, as a collective, they have over the price of goods. And if my argument is centered on it being better for developers, you didn't do a good job of disputing it.

 

If those savings are not being passed along the chain. Then you are being screwed over.

 

How so? Last I checked, we both paid the same for the game. The funny thing is, based on the prices you inquired about earlier, you actually would save money using direct download.

Edited May 10, 2006 by alanschu

[Gromnir]

...

 

some of you folks gotta remember to close the door on the microwave when you is cooking stuff. apparently those stray rays can hard boil your brains.

 

whether you intends to continue buying games from mall stores or experiment with download we cannot comprehend how any normal person would see the direct download movement as anything but a boon to gamers. lacks of needing a publisher and publisher capital is meaning that there will be more developers capable of producing more games. and don

[Llyranor]

But the boxes are pretty.

[alanschu]

Exactly! DD is a boon for those that are in niche markets....which, oddly enough, are the PC RPG players such as those that visit this very board.

[Llyranor]

Yeah, but no boxes = not a real product.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

And if my argument is centered on it being better for developers, you didn't do a good job of disputing it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It was never my intent to dispute it.

[alanschu]

Yeah, but no boxes = not a real product.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good point! I concede.

[mkreku]

Is it legal to buy (for example) Half-Life 2 via direct download, play it until you are done with it, uninstall it from your own computer, burn it to a CD and then re-sell it on Ebay?

 

I, too, feel that some small reduction in price is warranted if developers switch from retail to direct download. Otherwise, as a consumer, I am getting less for the same amount of money when I am direct downloading since I won't get a shiny box, a pretty set of discs or any cloth maps. That makes me feel cheated somehow.

 

When the company that supplied you with your direct download goes down, you'll lose your investment (unless you've burned it somehow), and the product becomes difficult to acquire. If your CD breaks for a game that's from a company that's gone under, you might still be able to find someone else's copies off of Ebay.

 

I think direct download is great for the development of games because of the lessened pressure from distributors and such, but the coin has a dark backside for the consumer. Of course, technology is always moving, and there are already (super expensive) flash harddrives (and other clever techniques), that basically means storage capacity with ultra-long life expectancy, something which might make direct downloading much more attractive.

[Tigranes]

When the company that supplied you with your direct download goes down,

 

Often the same with retail. In fact, with retail it becomes more difficult to find a game than DD, flat, especially outside US/Canada. Also, when direct download becomes the 'norm', I'm sure stores dealing exclusively or significantly with DD sales will become commonplace, increasing general availability.

[Hassat Hunter]

BW, are you suggesting that the retailers don't take approximately 20% of the RRP as revenue (n.b. not profit)? I would challenge you to run any (non-virtual) business with margins of less than 20% on products. You will be very successful, should you be able to pull that off. Trust me. Or don't: go out and try it.

 

No. I just find it odd that devs. blame high prices and low income for them on this specific cost yet not take a (large) part of it away when it is actually skipped... Doesn't make me feel like supporting the devs any more than any store/producer etc.

 

Also, you are VERY PREMATURE in your adjudication of the direct-download market: it is definitely still in the VERY EARLY stages; make no mistake that this chief aspect (cost) of the marketing WILL be used to highlight the differentiation.

 

From the sound of it it doesn't. If devs say "they will receive a MUCH bigger part of the copy" than I don't believe in such *they spend it on marketing* etc. crap...

 

Of course! There are NO OTHER COSTS! The company doesn't have any expenses, liabilities, and no equity to repay. They just turned up and had a brand new game with 35 GotY awards. Your wet finger-in-the-air figures are as rubbery as a super-ball.

 

As spider already mentioned before note the "Then they have to sell XXX copies BEFORE PROFIT". It includes the costs you seek...

McCarthy's numbers are working against you and the Pro-Download people...

 

Are you talking about episodic content? Certainly this content wouldn't exist if it was necessary to rely on the established publisher-retailer chain, alone. (Read this bit slowly.) This is too expensive for high-risk, art enterprises, like game development.

 

No, I talk about CounterStrike, Day of Defeat, Orchestra, HL2 DM and all the other stuff that IS (or was) MOD and now has to be payed for due to being online...

And on the Episode stuff... sorry; but I don't buy it. Paying $20 for an episode of 5 hours instead of any other game an 10 hour expansion of $30 (retail-sold) doesn't look to me like "advanchment that was never possible with publishers". Especially if for this 5 hours they have to fill up the stuff with SpyWare (Sin: Emergence).

 

No, it doesn't. Your perspective is ... unusual, and not shared by the vast majority of free- and right-thinking people.

 

Nope... nope...nope...

 

Because otherwise the retailers won't sell their product. (That's right: another hint there for you.)

 

But why need Retail copies in the first place if DD reduces the NEEDED SALES by 90% ???

 

Listen to the prevalent opinion RIGHT HERE on this forum: most people want a little shiny circular piece of plastic and colourful paper and cardboard with squiggles on it, despite the cheaper and easier option (apart from you and your peculiar country: most (>60%) of Britain, for example, are already broadband greater than 2Mbps); which makes sense, because changing the habit of a marketplace is non-trivial.

 

Listen to the FACTS of selling costumers; a way better thing to trust upon than some Fanboys on a forum. DARWINIA did bad when it was on stores and the company was almost forced to shut down, yet after it became downloadable it actually made profit... Being an indie title and thus cheaper might have helped here though; but since major titles don't follow it is no wonder DD is still in it's starting phase.

Say for yourself: Do you wan't to pay $50 for a 2 hour DL or for a box with manual, disk and maybe even additional stuff? I DON'T CARE for the additional profit any dev get as long as they don't show me proof they aren't as (or even worse currently: even more!) greedy as the publishers they claim are the evil on the planet...

All fun and all to blame everything that is wrong on publishers, but devs aren't brandclean and trustable either...

 

Just to clarify why your points sound like the rabid rantings of a hospital inmate: Half-Life 2:Episode 1 is available for pre-load (i.e. pull the download off-peak at the end-users' convenience) and pre-purchase for 10% discount.

 

Ofcourse buying it in the shop with pre-order gives me about 15% reduction... YEAH! I have to be really happy with that 10%...

 

Further, you seem to be claiming intimate knowledge of the financial statements of developers in general and VALVe in particular: as if you can make blunt statements about their liquidity, even (in the case of VALVe) after they have been developing a game for OVER FIVE YEARS and have had to make a settlement with their former publishers ... yet, despite all this, games provided on the Steam distribution mechanism have the 10% discount you think is acceptable.

 

No. I DON'T claim to have it. I am basing ALL my financial numbers on actually selling prices (as given on the sites) and the INFORMATION McCARTY GAVE US HIMSELF. If you blame my financial stuff in this thread is wrong you there-by claim Mr. McCarthy LIED to us. And thus a sign is given devs are less trustable than producers and stores are... not something that would make the audience into a "lets give it to devs instead of producers" attitude...

And not all titles get -10%. As a matter of fact; none besides Episode I. And that is to make people pre-order... not to lower the cost for us since they already make more of that cash into their pockets...

 

Why would developers charge less for direct download than retailers charge in stores?  They develop a game in order to sell it and to make money.  If market conditions show that $50 is the optimum price for developer profits, then they will charge that.  It's mainly for people that are just too lazy to go to the store, or who are just fascinated by their high speed connection.

 

However, these arguments have no relevance to games that are not available in stores.    Direct download isn't helpful for developers to save money that they then pass onto the consumers.  It's helpful for them to maximize profits.  Why would they then give those profits to consumers when consumers are willing to pay them the price they want?

 

Because otherwise we (the costumers) would rather go to stores; thus never making DD as big as it could become and thereby annihilating the goal of making devs producer-independant before it could even start?

If devs sell games for the same price as in retail, while gamers get less content; do you really think we would go out online and be all gloathy about giving the money right to the devs to help 'em out? Especially if due to this pricing the reasoning given that DD helps gamers is unforfilled (no bigger selection of producer-restrictions-free games if DD never takes off due to this *cheating*)

Edited May 10, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[Hassat Hunter]

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?

 

No, because the market for games in stores is $50. If they make a good game that sells that is nice for them. IF devs start to claim though they bypass alot of cost-points thereby enlarging their profit per copy from $3 to $50 (+1700% profit per copy) why do we get -0% reduction in price? The "greedy" comes in when all the costs are reduced how many they charge Per Copy. If they ask $50,- for GTA:SA and the devs get $3 of it... they can sell it at the same price as a low-amount-of-products-seller as Sacrifice... also $3 of $50...

 

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.

 

My point exactly...

 

They also exert their influence on the creative process.

 

And you can be 100% sure that when producers fall away devs. WON'T go for max. amount of products sold? If they get all of the $50 for a copy why aim for 100K sales if you can aim for 1M? In the end all will not matter that way...

 

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.

 

THERE IS a difference. With a DL you get the exact same data as that on a disk. How can you call everything around it (which costs money to produce and adds value to a product (the lovely economic you love to aim at that people should learn it)) not that what it is, cfr. added value?

If you value that stuff you can buy it yes... AGAINST NO ADDITIONAL COST. How can you call that equal then?

 

-SNAP-

 

Fact is; we DO NOT know how devs will react when producers are gone. You can say more variety, but if I see this thread it looks to me Devs. are greedy sons of... and thus try (like publishers) to aim for the most sales of there product. And thus they will create what they know sells well. Ofcourse some will try to do different and take the risk... usually not making it in the end...

 

Hey... That is THE SAME as our current situation.

 

Unless somebody can actually convince me on the fact devs. will use this liberty to haunt for quality instead of the most $ for themselves (which I doubt anybody can, since it probably is not real to think... as said; All people are Greedy from nature...) I doubt DD will give the major step forward pro-DD'ers claim it to be...

 

-Snapped in 2 due to size...

[mkreku]

Often the same with retail.

Nope. There are lots of places to buy second hand games from. I've bought tons of old games from Tradera (swedish auction site). How do you buy a direct download second hand?

[Brickyard]

Having read the thread, I think I'm even more inclined to be opposed to digitally downloading anything (JE Sawyer didn't help the cause of the developers in the eyes of this consumer).

 

My priority when buying games is always myself. I'll buy what I think I'll enjoy, and I'll pay the least amount I can for it, while getting the most for my money. I can't think of any other way to approach game buying, to be honest.

 

So, while I realize that DD is still in it's infancy, so far it looks like it doesn't help me, the consumer, at all, and in fact, in most cases, I get LESS for the same amount of money. I'm sure there are exceptions, and I'm sure there's legal reasons why the majority of games that are released both in stores and as DD are priced the same as each other (when one clearly should be priced less, by quite a bit if the numbers in this thread are to be believed), but the end result is that I will be better off purchasing a box with a disc and (crappy) manual than DDin the same game from the developer directly.

 

See, as a customer, I value the physical disc. I also value the physical case and the physical manual (however bad). Currently, with DD, I don't get any of those 3, and as things stand now (for most major titles), I pay the same price. So if I want to provide myself with a physical disc (which I can do, by burning what I download - thus saving me the time of having to download it again), I can. If I want to provide myself with a case for that disc, I can. And if I want to provide myself with a hard copy of the .pdf file the dev provided, I can. (BTW, does anyone else despise the .pdf format entirely? of all text formats, it's by far the most annoying one out there, IMO). But to provide those 3 things for myself, I must spend more money (on the disc, on the case, and on the paper and ink to print out the digital manual).

 

So, currently, I see no reason to EVER download something I can purchase at a store, as I get less for the same amount of money. Perhaps if I lived really far from any store, it would be different, but I don't, so it's not. I can run to 3 different stores that sell games and be back home in 20 minutes with the game in hand, or I can stop by one of them on my way home from work and go about 5-10 minutes out of my way.

 

As for downloading things that are offered via DD only, I've yet to do it. I love (almost) all things Bioware, but I wouldn't download even a full expansion (the size of Hordes, for example), if it required me to connect to Bioware's servers EVERY TIME I started to play...no matter how good the game was.

 

And I see zero value in downloading modules as short as what they've released so far, no matter what the cost (at NWN Vault, if a module is part 1, and there's no part 2 available, I just won't download it. it'll be short, probably not very good, and it'll be months, if ever, before part 2 comes out, where I'll have forgotten what happened in part 1, etc).

 

I hope that, eventually, DD allows more quality games to be made, but I don't see DD being at a state where I would really use it much for a few years, at least. I know that unless I'm playing an online-only game, at present I won't play any single player game that requires me to online validate when I load up (or re-install).

[alanschu]

Is it legal to buy (for example) Half-Life 2 via direct download, play it until you are done with it, uninstall it from your own computer, burn it to a CD and then re-sell it on Ebay?

 

You'll have a tough time doing that with the hard copy of the game as well though. In any case, it's just the same. The caveat is that you have to give up your steam account as well.

 

 

Given I don't sell my games when I'm done with them, I haven't really looked into it with other companies. But with Half-Life 2, it's just as inconvenient both ways.

 

 

No, I talk about CounterStrike, Day of Defeat, Orchestra, HL2 DM and all the other stuff that IS (or was) MOD and now has to be payed for due to being online...

 

What are you talking about? It has always been impossible to play any of those games for free, so it's not like you could play them without paying for it. In the case of CS and DOD, you had to own the original Half-Life. Alternatively, if you weren't interested in Half-Life, and just wanted to play CS, you have the option of buying just CS. Same goes for Red Orchestra and whatnot. I didn't pay any extra to play Counterstrike: Source. I just bought Half-Life 2. Nor did I have to pay for Half-Life 2: Deathmatch. I just bought Half-Life 2. However, if you were only interested in those components, you could buy just them and actually save money in the end.

 

But why need Retail copies in the first place if DD reduces the NEEDED SALES by 90% ???

 

Because we are all talking out of our asses when it comes to how effective DD sales is right now.

 

Say for yourself: Do you wan't to pay $50 for a 2 hour DL or for a box with manual, disk and maybe even additional stuff? I DON'T CARE for the additional profit any dev get as long as they don't show me proof they aren't as (or even worse currently: even more!) greedy as the publishers they claim are the evil on the planet...

 

Then don't use DD. Problem solved. I on the other hand, find it particularly convenient to be able to buy a game while I'm busy doing something else. I don't have to waste gas driving to the store, and I WOULD rather the developers get the additional money.

 

If devs sell games for the same price as in retail, while gamers get less content; do you really think we would go out online and be all gloathy about giving the money right to the devs to help 'em out? Especially if due to this pricing the reasoning given that DD helps gamers is unforfilled (no bigger selection of producer-restrictions-free games if DD never takes off due to this *cheating*)

 

DD is just starting. It's way to early.

[Judge Hades]

I don't waste gas going to the store. I use the bus.

[Hassat Hunter]

You'll have a tough time doing that with the hard copy of the game as well though.  In any case, it's just the same.  The caveat is that you have to give up your steam account as well.

 

Not true. I have some games in my collection that are second-hand and shipped in from the US just because they didn't sell it over here...

You can fetch cash by selling your games again if you bought it in the shop; not possible with a DL

 

What are you talking about?  It has always been impossible to play any of those games for free, so it's not like you could play them without paying for it.  In the case of CS and DOD, you had to own the original Half-Life.  Alternatively, if you weren't interested in Half-Life, and just wanted to play CS, you have the option of buying just CS.  Same goes for Red Orchestra and whatnot.  I didn't pay any extra to play Counterstrike: Source.  I just bought Half-Life 2.  Nor did I have to pay for Half-Life 2: Deathmatch.  I just bought Half-Life 2.  However, if you were only interested in those components, you could buy just them and actually save money in the end.

 

That is what I mean with MOD yes; a free 3rd party made conversion for when you actually posses the game in subject. WHY should one pay $30 for just Red Orchestra? If you buy UT2K4 (being cheaper than $30 at the moment) you can downlaod RO for free and have the FULL UT2K4 to play with too...

CS:S was also not shipped free with HL2. It was included in the Gold Package (+$) though, and sold seperate for the sellers of normal editions.... same with DoD:Source...

 

Because we are all talking out of our asses when it comes to how effective DD sales is right now.

 

Do I REALLY have to tell the Darwinia story yet again? And if it is not that effective why McCarthy's glorious numbers, eh?

 

Then don't use DD.  Problem solved.  I on the other hand, find it particularly convenient to be able to buy a game while I'm busy doing something else.  I don't have to waste gas driving to the store, and I WOULD rather the developers get the additional money.

 

A bicycle doesn't use gas. A CD within the $50 not costs an additional $2. Same with the (aforementioned) ink and paper... Also net connection costs money. And it takes up alot more time then shopping etc.

And I would rather I get additional money "

I cannot see the advantage... a simple -$10 and I would probably be a solely DD-costumer...

Edited May 10, 2006 by Hassat Hunter

[Spider]

snip

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think this post sums up pretty well while I think DD games should be cheaper than their physical counterparts. It's not that I personally particularly care about the CD or manual, but a lot of people do. And reducing costs in such a blatant way without it benefiting the consumer is just bad marketing strategy, especially when you're increasing your margins a lot more than most people realize.

 

If the physical game sells for $50, sell the online one for $45. That way people feel they are being reimbursed for the lack of physical materials and it makes DD a much more viable choice. They are still increasing their profit-margins with something like $10 so it's a win-win situation.

 

Games created directly for DD is another story all together, but if they come from an indie-developer they're probably going to have to have a lower price point since the quality is, in the public eye, more questionable.

 

I am personally all for DD, and not only games but other media as well, and I definitely see it as the future. I just don't think that the developers (and in a lot of cases publishers since someone still needs to fund games) are the only ones that should benefit from increaced profit margins. I don't think they should split the difference, but I do think they need to lower the price since people will complain about the missing physical components.

 

On a different note:

 

(BTW, does anyone else despise the .pdf format entirely?  of all text formats, it's by far the most annoying one out there, IMO).

 

You're thinking of it wrong. PDF isn't a text-format, it's more an image-format. It servesa single function and it does it excellently. That function is to provide a way to distribute a document with all layouts intact to any given computer. What you basically do when creating a PDF document is taking a snapshot of the page. Not everyone have Word (it's still an expensive piece of software) and viewing the most graphic intense PDF documents in that program would be much more bothersome.

 

(and yes, I'm aware that openoffice.org is a free program that can open .doc files, but it still doesn't solve the other issue)

 

PDF is way overused on the internet though. If a document is published for offline use, then it's fine to have it as a PDF, but a lot of the time not making it into html is just laziness. When it comes to distributing game manuals however, there currently is no better format (at least not that I know of).

 

Edit:

 

and I WOULD rather the developers get the additional money.

 

One thing though. When we're talking about games that are sold through a publisher AND through DD. How much more does the developer actually get in those cases? Sure, for HL2 I'm guessing Valve gets a lot more since they financed the game themselves (I think), but did Troika get a significantly higher percentage of the ToEE online sales?

Edited May 10, 2006 by Spider

[alanschu]

And you can be 100% sure that when producers fall away devs. WON'T go for max. amount of products sold? If they get all of the $50 for a copy why aim for 100K sales if you can aim for 1M? In the end all will not matter that way...

 

No, I can't. But I can be certain that an idea for a game that hasn't been tried before has a greater likelihood of not being squashed at the very beginning because a publisher isn't interested. Some developers will try to just get the big game sales. But developers of niche markets in particular (like the CRPG market for instance) have a greater likelihood of earning enough money to cover the costs for their development. It helps promote innovation in game design. Especially seeing as there is flexibility in price. If you think that $50 is too "greedy" then buy the game when it is $40. On the plus side, the developers will still make money off of it. If a game is pushing the envelope, the option of selling it for less to attract buyers is more viable. Don't be surprised when Half-Life 2 doesn't have any significant discounts, because people are going to buy it. And those that aren't going to buy it at $50, can buy it when the price drops to $40 (or now $30).

 

THERE IS a difference. With a DL you get the exact same data as that on a disk. How can you call everything around it (which costs money to produce and adds value to a product (the lovely economic you love to aim at that people should learn it)) not that what it is, cfr. added value?

If you value that stuff you can buy it yes... AGAINST NO ADDITIONAL COST. How can you call that equal then?

 

Because they haven't done anything to prevent you from getting your precious manual. On the other hand, the only thing missing is hard copies of stuff like that. The value added is pretty moot, as there's still no content that a DD has no access to compared to a retail buyer. DD may not come with a paper manual, but it still does come with the manual.

 

Fact is; we DO NOT know how devs will react when producers are gone. You can say more variety, but if I see this thread it looks to me Devs. are greedy sons of... and thus try (like publishers) to aim for the most sales of there product. And thus they will create what they know sells well. Ofcourse some will try to do different and take the risk... usually not making it in the end...

 

That's just it! The idea is that they CAN make it in the end. It's a new paradigm. Yes, there will be developers that only want to get the most sales and make games that follow a particular formula. But believe it or not, there are some developers that look at their work as art. The idea of making a game like Fallout or Torment, that doesn't really sell all that much, becomes that much more viable. If someone is particularly creative at making these sort of games over the high gloss 3D shooter, they aren't immediately at a severe handicap in this industry.

 

Finally, the greater ROI also means that longer games are not as risky of an enterprise. One, they have a greater chance to recoup the costs, plus if it is true that many people don't prefer longer games, there is less reliance on needing large volume in order to make a profit.

 

Unless somebody can actually convince me on the fact devs. will use this liberty to haunt for quality instead of the most $ for themselves (which I doubt anybody can, since it probably is not real to think... as said; All people are Greedy from nature...) I doubt DD will give the major step forward pro-DD'ers claim it to be...

 

People seek to maximize their enjoyment in life. I'll take my chances that an artist (i.e. the developer) has a greater chance of finding pleasure by releasing a game (or game idea) that he really wants to do that won't sell as much, then I will with a 3rd party publisher. It happens already with literature and movies, and probably other art mediums as well. Authors don't need to hope for their book to be a bestseller to be successful, and I'm sure many are perfectly content catering to a smaller niche because it's about a topic they enjoy writing about.

[alanschu]

Not true. I have some games in my collection that are second-hand and shipped in from the US just because they didn't sell it over here...

You can fetch cash by selling your games again if you bought it in the shop; not possible with a DL

 

I'm talking about Half-Life 2, as mkreku specifically mentioned that game. Which is why I said I wasn't aware of any for other games either.

 

In any case, I have to go to work now, so I'll continue this discussion later.

 

EDIT: As for CS: Source, there was only 1 of the 5 different ways you could buy HL2 that did not include CS for free.

Edited May 10, 2006 by alanschu

[Llyranor]

I dunno, I got Red Orchestra for about 25$ CDN on Steam when it's being sold for 40 in stores.

[Gromnir]

"Fact is; we DO NOT know how devs will react when producers are gone."

 

we don

[Hassat Hunter]

If the physical game sells for $50, sell the online one for $45. That way people feel they are being reimbursed for the lack of physical materials and it makes DD a much more viable choice. They are still increasing their profit-margins with something like $10 so it's a win-win situation.

 

According to Sawyer and McCarty $10,- is way too small a thought... they even save that on not having a retailer that sells the game remember...

 

I just don't think that the developers (and in a lot of cases publishers since someone still needs to fund games) are the only ones that should benefit from increaced profit margins.

 

 

No, I can't.  But I can be certain that an idea for a game that hasn't been tried before has a greater likelihood of not being squashed at the very beginning because a publisher isn't interested.  Some developers will try to just get the big game sales.  But developers of niche markets in particular (like the CRPG market for instance) have a greater likelihood of earning enough money to cover the costs for their development.  It helps promote innovation in game design.  Especially seeing as there is flexibility in price.  If you think that $50 is too "greedy" then buy the game when it is $40.  On the plus side, the developers will still make money off of it.  If a game is pushing the envelope, the option of selling it for less to attract buyers is more viable.  Don't be surprised when Half-Life 2 doesn't have any significant discounts, because people are going to buy it.  And those that aren't going to buy it at $50, can buy it when the price drops to $40 (or now $30).

 

But that happens currently too. It is called Indie-games . And the devs who show they can usually are allowed to proceed (Will Wright, Peter Molyneux (who showed that he really screws up himself with Lionhead), Chris Taylor etc.)

And on the "just buy it when it is cheaper" I think price-drops are quicker to be seen in the offline-market than the online one. Because if a game sells bad and they have to use that precious space to show another game price-drops will happen quick. There is no such issue with DD'ing, is there? Some games (depending on certain things) already drop price after 1/2 a month, won't see that happen in an online store. Also if there is only one supplier (being the dev) bye bye the chance that you visit a store of 8 and then find that in that one store it is no longer $50 but $20...

 

Because they haven't done anything to prevent you from getting your precious manual.  On the other hand, the only thing missing is hard copies of stuff like that.  The value added is pretty moot, as there's still no content that a DD has no access to compared to a retail buyer.  DD may not come with a paper manual, but it still does come with the manual.

 

You love to hammer onto me with "get economical lessons if you wan't to know about the industry". WHY will you not accept a printed manual and disk IS actual added value. Does a disk press himself? Does a manual press himself? Nope. And since it took time, labor and material it counts as added value. Added value without the actual product becoming more expensive too. Actually making it cheaper. $50 - (nothing; since all on disk... actually even + if you wan't the same) VS $50 - $4 (for the making of booklet, disk and box/shipping). See what I prefer?

I rather have my $50 spend with all the goods (manual/disk) instead of paying more to get those goods...

 

That's just it!  The idea is that they CAN make it in the end.  It's a new paradigm.  Yes, there will be developers that only want to get the most sales and make games that follow a particular formula.  But believe it or not, there are some developers that look at their work as art.  The idea of making a game like Fallout or Torment, that doesn't really sell all that much, becomes that much more viable.  If someone is particularly creative at making these sort of games over the high gloss 3D shooter, they aren't immediately at a severe handicap in this industry.

 

But that is also the current way, is it not? Ofcourse those art-making guys do not earn even something NEAR what the big folks get, but they do exist...

 

People seek to maximize their enjoyment in life.  I'll take my chances that an artist (i.e. the developer) has a greater chance of finding pleasure by releasing a game (or game idea) that he really wants to do that won't sell as much, then I will with a 3rd party publisher.  It happens already with literature and movies, and probably other art mediums as well.  Authors don't need to hope for their book to be a bestseller to be successful, and I'm sure many are perfectly content catering to a smaller niche because it's about a topic they enjoy writing about.

 

Hmmmm, movies, eh... must be me, but I rather like big Hollywood stuff than that French made stuff...

 

I'm talking about Half-Life 2, as mkreku specifically mentioned that game.  Which is why I said I wasn't aware of any for other games either.

 

So, tell, what prevents you from placing your HL2 disk with manual and box online on Ebay?

 

I dunno, I got Red Orchestra for about 25$ CDN on Steam when it's being sold for 40 in stores.

 

And you can DL it for free with a $20,- UT2K4...

[taks]

dang gromnir, you poor old sense making bastard!

taks

[Spider]

If the physical game sells for $50, sell the online one for $45. That way people feel they are being reimbursed for the lack of physical materials and it makes DD a much more viable choice. They are still increasing their profit-margins with something like $10 so it's a win-win situation.

 

According to Sawyer and McCarty $10,- is way too small a thought... they even save that on not having a retailer that sells the game remember...

 

Actually, when coming up with those numbers all I did was removing the production costs and retailers percentage. I did not factor in cutting out publishers since there will still be a need for them. And I didn't factor in distribution costs because I don't know what they are and I don't know how they compare to the costs for online distribution. There are still costs associated with that distribution method, although they should be lower. Regardless, I think my numbers hold up fairly well, but it should say at least in front of the amount.

 

The reasoning behind it is still sound.