Piracy or not?

[Elerond]

 

ps for fun, try google to take a looksee at video game publishers that has gone outta business in last 10 years.

 

You wanna say they went out of businesses because of piracy?

 

 

They did go out of business because their games didn't produced less money than what did go to making them. There is no single reason why this happened and there is no evidence that piracy was even factor in one way or another, but that wasn't part of original argument that publishers lose money on majority of their games, which is compensated by big sellers  

[Sarex]

They did go out of business because their games didn't produced less money than what did go to making them. There is no single reason why this happened and there is no evidence that piracy was even factor in one way or another, but that wasn't part of original argument that publishers lose money on majority of their games, which is compensated by big sellers  

 

Well now days that is not even a problem, no one is risking anything anymore. Everyone is rehashing their big hits and raking in the money. Also I still stand by my argument that most popular games, make their production budget back, it's just that companies have unreasonable standards by which they judge a success and thus get too bloated to support their own weight without those big profit games.

 

If you want an example look up what square enix said about Tomb Raider, Infinite is another good example. It's more of a case with publishers/devs being unreasonable with their expectations then pirates taking their money away.

[Malcador]

Have to think the big sellers get pirated more heavily than the others too.

[Sarex]

Have to think the big sellers get pirated more heavily than the others too.

 

Without a doubt.

[Gromnir]

 

ps for fun, try google to take a looksee at video game publishers that has gone outta business in last 10 years.

 

You wanna say they went out of businesses because of piracy?

 

 

ignoring your fallacy for the nonce, we will observe that given the obvious high-risk nature o' game development and publishing, piracy clear ain't helping. so' 'tween your desire to indulge in info piracy and the developer/publisher desire for you to stop, we thinks it is obvious that the creator o' the info is maintaining the moral high-ground.  

 

duh.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 4, 2014 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

 

Have to think the big sellers get pirated more heavily than the others too.

 

Without a doubt.

 

you haven't realized yet that this observation is not helping you?  

 

*chuckle*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

 

They did go out of business because their games didn't produced less money than what did go to making them. There is no single reason why this happened and there is no evidence that piracy was even factor in one way or another, but that wasn't part of original argument that publishers lose money on majority of their games, which is compensated by big sellers  

 

Well now days that is not even a problem, no one is risking anything anymore. Everyone is rehashing their big hits and raking in the money. Also I still stand by my argument that most popular games, make their production budget back, it's just that companies have unreasonable standards by which they judge a success and thus get too bloated to support their own weight without those big profit games.

 

If you want an example look up what square enix said about Tomb Raider, Infinite is another good example. It's more of a case with publishers/devs being unreasonable with their expectations then pirates taking their money away.

 

 

Not all most popular games success to make their production budget back (for example new Tomb Raider had hard time to become profitable even though it was popular game, as it took it over year to do so), although they are most likely do it, as they are popular, but not all high budget games become popular, for one reason or another (or multiple) and they are ones that need to be compensated by those games that make profit.

[Malcador]

Hm, wonder if the industry will fail sometime soon then.

[Sarex]

you haven't realized yet that this observation is not helping you?  

 

*chuckle*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

You haven't realized yet that you are not as smart as you think you are... I know what he meant, it's simple logic, should I deny it because it doesn't help me? That may be your modus operani, but it ain't mine.

 

ignoring your fallacy for the nonce, we will observe that given the obvious high-risk nature o' game development and publishing, piracy clear ain't helping. so' 'tween your desire to indulge in info piracy and the developer/publisher desire for you to stop, we thinks it is obvious that the creator o' the info is maintaining the moral high-ground.  

 

duh.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

And I want games to be cheaper, especially now that they are mostly digital, I also want dlc to be reasonably priced (compared to their size) but hey why should they care what I want.

 

 

Not all most popular games success to make their production budget back (for example new Tomb Raider had hard time to become profitable even though it was popular game, as it took it over year to do so), although they are most likely do it, as they are popular, but not all high budget games become popular, for one reason or another (or multiple) and they are ones that need to be compensated by those games that make profit.

 

The problem with that is that they have a funny way of gauging the point at which the game is profitable. A normal person would think that a game would be profitable if it covers it's production cost, but it seems it ain't so.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Sarex

[Hurlshort]

Exactly, why should they care what you want?  They have enough consumers paying the high prices to justify them.  You have every right to not purchase them because of that.

 

 

It does not excuse piracy in any way.

[Elerond]

 

Not all most popular games success to make their production budget back (for example new Tomb Raider had hard time to become profitable even though it was popular game, as it took it over year to do so), although they are most likely do it, as they are popular, but not all high budget games become popular, for one reason or another (or multiple) and they are ones that need to be compensated by those games that make profit.

 

The problem with that is that they have a funny way of gauging the point at which the game is profitable. A normal person would think that a game would be profitable if it covers it's production cost, but it seems it ain't so.

 

Some games just have very high production cost, which means that they need to actually sell millions of games to be even break-even let alone to make profit. Like for example Tomb Raider's big sell figures weren't enough to cover its over $100 million budget, which was the reason why Square Enix said that it didn't reach its sale goal when it has sold "only" 3.4 million copies, as it needed to sell about 5 million copies to break-even (which it now has done, selling over 6 million copies).

[Gromnir]

you is being particularly carefree with the fallacies today. am suspecting it has something to do with your untenable position, but that is a guess.

 

"And I want games to be cheaper, especially now that they are mostly digital, I also want dlc to be reasonably priced (compared to their size) but hey why should they care what I want."

 

non-sequitur, or do you have a point? just posting random nonsense is hardly constructive, but it is becoming a trend.

 

"The problem with that is that they have a funny way of gauging the point at which the game is profitable. A normal person would think that a game would be profitable if it covers it's production cost, but it seems it ain't so."

 

actually, profit and profitable are two separate things. 

 

http://www.nma-fallout.com/showthread.php?152662-Briareus-speaks-out&p=3024645&viewfull=1#post3024645

 

is just one example.

 

the publisher needs investors, and investors need a far better return than simple profit to make their high-risk investment profitable. is any of this getting through?

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps for folks that don't know, briareus were a black isle developer

Edited June 4, 2014 by Gromnir

[Bryy]

I just can't take anyone seriously that uses these excuses:

 

1) Publishers don't pay devs anyways so we should pirate so nobody gets any money (which, obviously, makes no sense)

2) Kids don't have enough money to buy the games (boo hoo?)

3) Devs make "Just Enough"

 

So you can imagine, Sarex, how much I take into stock your opinion on the matter. 

 

I mean, you're one foot away from saying "devs actually want piracy".

[Malcador]

Hm, just like the Ukraine thread, in a way

[Gizmo]

And I want games to be cheaper, especially now that they are mostly digital, I also want dlc to be reasonably priced (compared to their size) but hey why should they care what I want.

Exactly, why should they care what you want?  They have enough consumers paying the high prices to justify them.  You have every right to not purchase them because of that.

 

 

It does not excuse piracy in any way.

Games are priced at the level most will pay for them; it's always been like that ~with everything (clothes, food, shelter, entertainments).

 

Games are cheaper now than decades ago. "Eye of the Beholder" originally sold for about $90 [adjusted].

 

 

 

**Notice that Hillsfar sold for $49.95 [$90] as well.

 

 

They are (and have been) priced at the market value.

 

Edited June 5, 2014 by Gizmo

[Hiro Protagonist II]

^ I agree that prices have never been cheaper. The 80s and 90s saw some exorbitant prices compared to today and yet most of us paid the prices at the time. Prices have gone down and wages presumably have gone up for everyone. I very much doubt people are earning the same as they were 20+ years ago. But games are cheaper. I'm always surprised at how people today complain at the price of games. Really? If you lived in the 90s it was worse.

[Malcador]

And even better if you're smart and wait until they're on a sale like Steam or GOG.

[Humanoid]

Are we to conclude the price of including a proper printed manual is $30 then?

[Gizmo]

Prices have gone down and wages presumably have gone up for everyone. I very much doubt people are earning the same as they were 20+ years ago.

Except that in the US, what cost $1 in 1990, now costs $1.81. The value of the dollar has decreased, and you have to spend more of them for the same goods.

 

The average $60 game today, would have cost $33 in 1990's currency [value].

Edited June 5, 2014 by Gizmo

[Hiro Protagonist II]

So what you're saying is average wages haven't kept up with inflation? Things are more dearer now than they were back in 1990 in an inflation currency value sense.

[BruceVC]

Hm, just like the Ukraine thread, in a way

 

Funny how Sarex is the common link in both discussions, tells you something about his debating etiquette

[Mamoulian War]

 

Hm, just like the Ukraine thread, in a way

 

Funny how Sarex is the common link in both discussions, tells you something about his debating etiquette

 

 

And I find funny how many people from another part of the world think, they know better about what's going on in Ukraine, because Fox News or some similar "news" said so...

[Sarex]

Some games just have very high production cost, which means that they need to actually sell millions of games to be even break-even let alone to make profit. Like for example Tomb Raider's big sell figures weren't enough to cover its over $100 million budget, which was the reason why Square Enix said that it didn't reach its sale goal when it has sold "only" 3.4 million copies, as it needed to sell about 5 million copies to break-even (which it now has done, selling over 6 million copies).

 

I remember reading that they covered their production costs with the initial sales, but that the stock holders weren't satisfied with the numbers and thus considered it a failure. I could be wrong about that, I read it a while ago.

 

you is being particularly carefree with the fallacies today. am suspecting it has something to do with your untenable position, but that is a guess.

 

"And I want games to be cheaper, especially now that they are mostly digital, I also want dlc to be reasonably priced (compared to their size) but hey why should they care what I want."

 

non-sequitur, or do you have a point? just posting random nonsense is hardly constructive, but it is becoming a trend.

 

"The problem with that is that they have a funny way of gauging the point at which the game is profitable. A normal person would think that a game would be profitable if it covers it's production cost, but it seems it ain't so."

 

actually, profit and profitable are two separate things. 

 

http://www.nma-fallout.com/showthread.php?152662-Briareus-speaks-out&p=3024645&viewfull=1#post3024645

 

is just one example.

 

the publisher needs investors, and investors need a far better return than simple profit to make their high-risk investment profitable. is any of this getting through?

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps for folks that don't know, briareus were a black isle developer

 

Coming from you that's rich.

 

You said the companies want something, I said the consumer wants something too. The companies aren't too broken up about what the consumer wants so why should the consumer care what the companies want?

 

My point exactly, why should we care that they didn't meet their ridiculously high numbers? That doesn't mean we should buy more or pay at a higher price, it means that those people need to reevaluate what kind of profit they can make from games.

 

I just can't take anyone seriously that uses these excuses:

 

1) Publishers don't pay devs anyways so we should pirate so nobody gets any money (which, obviously, makes no sense)

2) Kids don't have enough money to buy the games (boo hoo?)

3) Devs make "Just Enough"

 

So you can imagine, Sarex, how much I take into stock your opinion on the matter. 

 

I mean, you're one foot away from saying "devs actually want piracy".

 

1)Never said that.

2)Kids don't have money, period.

3)Devs make what they accepted to make in their contracts, piracy doesn't affect that at all.

 

Well for someone who doesn't take stock you sure reply a lot. As you may have noticed I don't take stock in what people like BruceVC/Mor say and after a point where I figured that out, you won't find a single reply from me to them.

 

Games are priced at the level most will pay for them; it's always been like that ~with everything (clothes, food, shelter, entertainments).

 

Games are cheaper now than decades ago. "Eye of the Beholder" originally sold for about $90 [adjusted].

 

 

 

**Notice that Hillsfar sold for $49.95 [$90] as well.

 

 

They are (and have been) priced at the market value.

 

The problem with that is that you are talking about the American market, where as I'm talking about countries in which piracy is widespread and a part of everyday life. The price for those markets is way too high.

 

Also what about Australia, games are a 100$ there, other software prices are also unproportionally higher, how would you explain that?

Edited June 5, 2014 by Sarex

[BruceVC]

 

 

Hm, just like the Ukraine thread, in a way

 

Funny how Sarex is the common link in both discussions, tells you something about his debating etiquette

 

 

And I find funny how many people from another part of the world think, they know better about what's going on in Ukraine, because Fox News or some similar "news" said so...

 

 

So in your opinion only people who live in a particular country can give an informed view about an event or situation in that country?

 

You do realize there is only one person on these forums, as far as I know,  who lives in Ukraine and has commented in that discussion and its not Sarex?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Bruce, this is not the Ukraine thread. Perhaps if you want to talk about particular posters and the Ukraine, do it in the Ukraine thread?