Console vs PC game pricing

[Purkake]

It might be very strange for you, but C&C games were always Single Player games for me

 

That doesn't make it a single player game.

 

While I don't like DRM, I think that this actually has some benefits, unlike the limited activation thing. Such as persistent stats and whatnot.

[Mamoulian War]

It might be very strange for you, but C&C games were always Single Player games for me

 

That doesn't make it a single player game.

 

While I don't like DRM, I think that this actually has some benefits, unlike the limited activation thing. Such as persistent stats and whatnot.

 

the stats are not worth the loss of the ability to play it anytime you want, even if your ISP has some technical fault...

[Purkake]

the stats are not worth the loss of the ability to play it anytime you want, even if your ISP has some technical fault...

 

How often does that happen? I can see it being a problem when on the move, but I don't think my ISP has ever had a technical fault(at least not while I was using the net)

[Monte Carlo]

It's the principle: I paid for it, I didn't hire it or rent it or lease it. It's my property. I did my personal boycott of Empires: TW because of the mandatory online activation / Steam issue.

 

This is why I loathe piracy so much - they cause this pox to be visited on honest people like me.

 

Anyway, we are now completely O/T, this is about comparative pricing of console / PC titles

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I'm offline about half the time with my laptop (or using a wireless network that blocks most gaming-related matter (id est Steam and EA's activation servers) so I would never buy a single-player game that required me to be on-line to play. As for player stats, I think they're over-rated and something that adds nothing to the game - in fact, in my mind, they're just like DRM, utterly useless.

[Purkake]

It's the principle: I paid for it, I didn't hire it or rent it or lease it. It's my property. I did my personal boycott of Empires: TW because of the mandatory online activation / Steam issue.

 

This is why I loathe piracy so much - they cause this pox to be visited on honest people like me.

 

Anyway, we are now completely O/T, this is about comparative pricing of console / PC titles

 

The pricing issue was solved. $10 more = licensing fees to platform holders(MS, Sony, Nintendo)

 

No one is forcing anyone to buy the game. The "online required" clause should be on the box and if it's unacceptable then people can choose not to buy it.

 

Steam pretty much requires constant online connection and most people are happy with that. The only difference here is that this will use EA's crappy servers that will probably go down every now and then. I don't have a problem with this concept if it is executed well.

 

Also, you have never owned the game, the money you pay for a copy is you licensing a right to play the game. Now they are just changing the terms.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Purkake

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...they cause this pox to be visited on honest people like me.

 

Nope, that's what the PR says but componies would be using DRM anyways because it cuts down on secound-hand sales.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Steam pretty much requires constant online connection and most people are happy with that.

 

And many people, like myself, only use Steam when forced to or when there is too good of a deal to pass up. Steam is nothing more than another DRM scam and it should be treated as such. Also, as far as requirering a constant connection, that is pure bull**** and chips.

 

Also, you have never owned the game, the money you pay for a copy is you licensing a right to play the game.

 

Actualy, that's accourding to the EULA - something that is, at best, a grey issue as far as the law in concered.

[Purkake]

Actualy, that's accourding to the EULA - something that is, at best, a grey issue as far as the law in concered.

 

EULAs are more like the company's wishlist for you than a legal contract. They aren't legally enforceable.

[Hurlshort]

That extra $10 has been explained, but we really should be surprised that games aren't more. They haven't really had many price jumps in the last decade despite rising costs everywhere else.

[Purkake]

That extra $10 has been explained, but we really should be surprised that games aren't more. They haven't really had many price jumps in the last decade despite rising costs everywhere else.

 

Well, they are way shorter now and there are a lot of crappy games that still cost $60(Like the Terminator Salvation game).

 

Lots of companies have also gone under because of the increasing costs to stay competitive and more will probably follow.

[Hurlshort]

That extra $10 has been explained, but we really should be surprised that games aren't more. They haven't really had many price jumps in the last decade despite rising costs everywhere else.

 

Well, they are way shorter now and there are a lot of crappy games that still cost $60(Like the Terminator Salvation game).

 

Lots of companies have also gone under because of the increasing costs to stay competitive and more will probably follow.

 

There have always been plenty of crappy games available at full price, and length has more to do with genre. Adventure games were hugely popular back in the day, but most of them could be completed in about 10 hours. Early FPS games were also very short. The RPG genre is the only one that has taken a serious hit in game time that I can think of.

[Purkake]

Okay, then I'll say that taking risks and experimenting has gone down with full price games. The experience has become more scripted/controlled, the developers are trusting the player less.

[cronicler]

I am not sure, Hurlslot. Every major game that has been released in the last few years have a playtime of 8-10 hours. Just a week and weekend worth in other words. Also now that we have total voice-overs in the games, the amount of real content seems to shrink as well. Sure ME had a good bit of written background material but most of the time the background material is just a little piece of vid or voice recording nowadays...

 

I just started playing Earth 2150 again; Persistent main base, ability to carry troops from 1 mission to other, unit experience, tunneling, ability to design your units from component parts, detailed command menu that allows you to construct your orders carefully. A mix of E-mails, propaganda and news channel vids and mission brifings to unreveal the story. And most importantly a 185 game day limit. You can win all your battles but if you don't manage to gather enough resources to build the ship then... you win all your battles and loose the war....

 

This is a 3-D strategy game released in 2000. Can you dispute that we have regressed (as far as rts concerned)?

Edited July 30, 2009 by cronicler

[Purkake]

Speaking of voice, they really need to make synthetic voices that sound decent, poor silent mods

[Hurlshort]

I'm not really up on RTS games, but I did play Command & Conquer 3 (or 4?) fairly recently and I thought it was actually about the same as the original except better looking. I don't see the Total War games dumbing down, and Mount & Blade has astounded me of late.

 

I do very much agree that there are less risks being taken. It has become very expensive to mess up. Although I'd say the indie game movement is as strong as it has ever been thanks to release platforms like Steam and Xbox Live.

[Purkake]

I'm not really up on RTS games, but I did play Command & Conquer 3 (or 4?) fairly recently and I thought it was actually about the same as the original except better looking. I don't see the Total War games dumbing down, and Mount & Blade has astounded me of late.

 

I do very much agree that there are less risks being taken. It has become very expensive to mess up. Although I'd say the indie game movement is as strong as it has ever been thanks to release platforms like Steam and Xbox Live.

 

Total War and Mount & Blade fall into the European hardcore pc-only category.

 

I agree about Steam & co, but it does mean that full-price retail games are generally going to be less and less original(think Madden 08/09/10 etc.).

Edited July 30, 2009 by Purkake

[Gorgon]

Steam pretty much requires constant online connection and most people are happy with that.

 

And many people, like myself, only use Steam when forced to or when there is too good of a deal to pass up. Steam is nothing more than another DRM scam and it should be treated as such. Also, as far as requirering a constant connection, that is pure bull**** and chips.

 

Also, you have never owned the game, the money you pay for a copy is you licensing a right to play the game.

 

Actualy, that's accourding to the EULA - something that is, at best, a grey issue as far as the law in concered.

Just now steam produced a popup ad for Monkey Island 3, and it keeps spawning a reminder for me to 'join the steam community' inside the friggin' game. That pissed me off so much I uninstalled it. It can work in offline mode for a while though, at least a week or so.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Gorgon

[Nightshape]

I love the way the price gap between PC and Console is spoken of as simply being a licencing cost. It's part of it but not the whole picture.

 

Console development is more expensive than PC development, you have Development kits (they don't come cheap), you also have something called TRC's, this is basically certain requirements which are required to be passed in order for a game to see release on console, good companies can usually do this in one or two passes, but it can take months.

 

PC development, theoretically, is only the cost of a PC and software, which are incurred by default by console development also.

 

This is before you take into account the actual cost of paying everyone who is developing said title, and potentially middleware any licence said software may require.

 

That's about all I feel safe to talk about to be honest. PC games are cheaper because development costs are cheaper, but as a result the product quality is often lower as anyone could release on the PC, open platform. Console as a closed platform are easier to develop higher quality software for, but on the flip side, the development cost itself is greater, this is obviously passed onto the user.

 

In an era of development budgets that run into millions, and can be considered to be somewhat high risk, a game costing

Edited July 31, 2009 by Nightshape

[Kaftan Barlast]

Talking about things we're not supposed to talk about, someone at a big dev studio accidentally confirmed that Sony are using a "parity" clause in their contract with that studio to stop them from doing things on the 360(and perhaps PC) version of the game that the PS3 doesnt support. In that specific case it was a shader that they couldnt get to work on the PS3, and so had to scrap even though it worked on all other platforms. They've been doing this for years, but it seems like it getting worse lately.

 

Ive always wondered why PC games often come with 360 res, poorly compressed video and it might be something like this behind it (when its not the usual time constraints, lack of space on the dvd, middleware(bink) issues etc. )

[Hurlshort]

On another note, buying second hand could be considered to be worse than piracy, afterall, a pirate never intended to pay, but someone buying second hand has paid.

 

For awhile, I was also of this opinion, but after thinking on my personal habits and reading a few counterpoints from folks in the industry, I decided it isn't too bad. The fact that most folks take that trade-in money to turn around and buy new games is the big argument there. I personally probably wouldn't be able to buy as many full priced titles if I didn't turn in a few games here and there. So the question is really which is better:

 

- More titles sold at release, but little aftermarket

 

or

 

- Less titles sold at release, but more after price cuts

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The fact that most folks take that trade-in money to turn around and buy new games is the big argument there.

 

I agree. When I sell games back, something that is rare seeing as I only have PCs and a Wii -and my little sisters have taken home with them so I don't even have that at the moment-, I take that money and put into a new title. If I could sell back PC games I would get rid of some of the worse ones I have, at the moment I mainly give these away or just put them on a shelf, and be more open to trying games that look like they might, or might not, be ****y. Of course DRM is to blame there, mainly the advent or massive DRM systems such as Steam and SecuROM on-line activations - both items that efectively kill the secound-hand market (excluding deals between freinds who know there are no problems with the activation).

[Purkake]

I agree. When I sell games back, something that is rare seeing as I only have PCs and a Wii -and my little sisters have taken home with them so I don't even have that at the moment-, I take that money and put into a new title. If I could sell back PC games I would get rid of some of the worse ones I have, at the moment I mainly give these away or just put them on a shelf, and be more open to trying games that look like they might, or might not, be ****y. Of course DRM is to blame there, mainly the advent or massive DRM systems such as Steam and SecuROM on-line activations - both items that efectively kill the secound-hand market (excluding deals between freinds who know there are no problems with the activation).

 

That might be true, but the platform holders would kill the second-hand market in a heartbeat if they could. They still need the retail, so they have to play nice.

[Hurlshort]

Blaming DRM for no PC secondhand market is putting the chicken before the egg. PC games were pulled from the secondhand market in most chains because piracy killed it, and it actually made piracy even easier. DRM came second.

[Deraldin]

On another note, buying second hand could be considered to be worse than piracy, afterall, a pirate never intended to pay, but someone buying second hand has paid.

 

For awhile, I was also of this opinion, but after thinking on my personal habits and reading a few counterpoints from folks in the industry, I decided it isn't too bad. The fact that most folks take that trade-in money to turn around and buy new games is the big argument there. I personally probably wouldn't be able to buy as many full priced titles if I didn't turn in a few games here and there.

 

How many people take the trade in money and buy new games as opposed to buying the cheaper used copy? If you intend on trading it in later anyway, why spend the extra money on a new copy?

Edited July 31, 2009 by Deraldin