Putting game publishers on trial

[HotChops]

As I mentioned in the other thread, this is not about piracy. This is about the role that publishers play in the market and how much power they should wield. It's okay to mention piracy, but if you want to debate that topic specifically, keep it in the other thread.

 

I've got a lot to say about publishers, so I'll try to add lots of markup to keep it readable. Also note that when I say publishers, I'm mostly referring to Electronic Arts, Activision-Blizzard, and Ubisoft. Also note that some of my complaints are platform specific or are based partially on conjecture. This is a thoughtful rant, not a newspaper exposé.

 

Publishers play an important role in games. Without the massive budgets at their disposal, the size, scope and detail that exists in the best games would not be possible. But how much power should be given to publishers? How much should publishers be able to dictate the terms of the "contract" that exists between them, the developers, the retailers and consumers?

 

I believe that publishers have far too much power and influence the game industry today.

- Publishers charge too much for games: The price charged for games is not commensurate with their actual value. Do annually-released games like Madden NFL or Call of Duty really merit a $60 price tag? Are motion-controlled games that are really just compilations of minigames worth full price?

 

- Publishers purposely withhold parts of games in order to nickel-and-dime them out later as DLC: This is arguably the most blatant offense to date, and yet it often goes ignored by gamers. A clear example is Battlefield: Bad Company 2's multiplayer maps. Every map pack that has been released for this game has simply been a re-arrangement of pre-existing maps; maps that already existed on the disc. All it takes to make these maps is a few mouse clicks and a weekend of test play and balancing. Despite this, EA markets their maps as being "new" and a better value than Call of Duty's map packs. Likewise, blissfully ignorant consumers think they're getting some kind of deal because they're "VIP owners" and they're not paying for the maps when in actuality they're simply getting what should be theirs to begin with.

 

Another example is Rockstar withholding horse racing and poker playing from Red Dead Redemption's multiplayer in the original game package. Before RDR released, a Kotakuite asked a representative of Rockstar if the game would include these modes. The representative dodged the question and acted as if the idea had never occurred to the company. I believe that Rockstar knew that online poker would be in high demand, and left it out intentionally.

 

Another example is Mass Effect 2. Those who purchased the game new gained access to Zaheed and his loyalty mission on launch day. This is a part of the game that should have been accessible to anyone who purchased it -- new or otherwise. There is also strong evidence that indicates Kasumi and her loyalty mission were available from day 1 too, but again were withheld and sold to the consumer later.

 

- Publishers have made paid DLC mandatory: Previously in online shooters like Call of Duty, extra maps were an optional. They existed to enhance the game, but not restrict it for those who chose not to buy it. This is no longer the case. Take Transformers: War for Cyberton for example: Since it's release, two maps packs totaling $20 have released. These maps are now a part of the total map cycle. If you don't have these map packs, it's nearly impossible to play the game online because you'll either try to join a game and be denied, or you'll play a match and then be kicked before the next one can begin. Activision and High Moon studios do nothing to make this easier. There's no way to see what map will load ahead of time, nor is there a way to choose which map you begin with, and when booted, the player is taken all the way back to the game's main title screen rather than the multiplayer menu.

 

I've experienced similar complications on Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Some friends have one map pack, but not another. Playing together has become a complicated mess and we can't seem to play for half an hour before one of us encounters a map he doesn't own.

 

And now companies like EA are charging for special weapons, abilities and perks in shooters like Bad Company 2 and Madden NFL. These extras once existed more for aesthetic purposes, and wouldn't interfere with the balance of the game. That is no longer the case. Some weapons are drastically better, creating a fundamental shift in the game. This means that the best players are no longer the best based on merit or skill, but how much disposable income they have to burn. Furthermore, when one particular weapon or skill becomes indispensable, then everyone has to buy it not so that they can be better than others, but just so they can compete on the same level!

 

- Publishers are actively limiting consumers' options: Used game retailers like Gamestop don't give players much for their old games, but at least they provide a way to earn back some of the investment put into games. Not only are publishers like EA trying to remove used games as an option with their "Online Pass," but they eagerly hope for a distribution model under their direct control that removes game discs. While the disc medium may seem archaic, consumers should reconsider the value they offer. Without a disc, you can never sell the game. You're forced to live with your purchase forever. Furthermore, the lack of a physical medium pushes the definitions of "ownership" more into the realm of temporary licensing. Thus, one day you may not even be able to play your game anymore simply because the publisher doesn't support it or it went out of business. The existence of game rentals may also disappear without a disc.

 

Like many gamers, I don't care much for Gamestop. However, if it weren't for the option to buy used merchandise and sell back old games I wouldn't have been able to afford any of the games I purchased this year. Likewise, used games providers are one of the important checks and balances within the industry. EA acts like their online pass is critical to their profit model, but that's an exaggeration. Used game sales barely put a dent in EA's profits. EA can survive without the Online Pass -- Gamestop cannot. Again, consumers need to examine what's at stake. One company faces a minor cut in profits, the other is struggling just to survive.

 

- Publishers are holding developers hostage: Many people will point to new games purchases as a way of supporting developers. That would be true except for one problem; the money isn't getting to the developers. Both Activision and Rockstar worked their respective developers to death making Call of Duty and Red Dead Redemption. Then once the games came out and made astronomical profits, the publishers fired or laid off most of the developers in order to avoid paying royalties. Thanks to NDAs and other fine print, we're kept in the dark regarding how bad the working conditions are for developers, but one message from developers continues to be the same: "Either we take the abuse or we lose our jobs." In the case of Rockstar San Diego, it appears that they took the abuse, created the best game of the year, and still were fired.

 

Publishers are also stifling the creativity of developers. Again and again, new and progressive are passed in favor of traditional and safe. Nearly every title has multiplayer now. There is strong evidence that EA pushed Bioware to scale back the sexuality in Mass Effect 2, and that they interfered with the production and creative direction of Medal of Honor.

 

Publishers are also moving into motion-controlled gaming in full force. But rather than investing in motion controlled gaming; pushing them beyond the last gen graphics and mini game simplicity of Wii Sports, they instead seem to be interested in cloning Wii games. This might be acceptable if their products were priced at $30 or $40, but they charge anywhere from $60 to $100.

 

- Publishers are more concerned with the next product than supporting existing products: This one is all about EA. Bad Company 2 is riddled with bugs and glitches. For more than six months there has been a bug that causes the win/lose screen to be in error more than half the time! How difficult is it to fix this? It should be a simple if/then statement in the code. And where does one go to complain about these problems. If you go to the Battlefield website there isn't a "Help" or "Contact Us" link anywhere on the damn page! I found a link to the support chat on the game's forums. This wasn't provided by a moderator or EA employee, it was provided by a simple user! It took me an hour to get through to a chat rep and when I did, the experience was so laughably bad that it warrants it's own thread. Needless to say, they did not fix my problem and when I asked for an email to customer service, they told me there was only a phone or chat support line. Likewise, the simple bugs and glitches that plagued Bad Company 2 nine months ago continue to exist today.

 

 

 

 

 

What else have I missed? What ways have you been screwed over? How did things get to be this way? How do we stop this? Will the consumer ever get back the power we once yielded? Will digital distribution help or hurt?

[Bouchart]

There are enough good games out there that I have had no need to bother with a publisher's DRM schemes, overpriced DLC or the like. Just don't buy subversive games.

[HotChops]

There are enough good games out there that I have had no need to bother with a publisher's DRM schemes, overpriced DLC or the like. Just don't buy subversive games.

 

I really don't think it's that simple. Most of what I mentioned applies to every game out there. At this point, I feel like I'm choosing which game/publisher to get milked by.

 

It's like the Xbox 360. I haven't been too happy with Microsoft lately. I'm really annoyed by the increase in the cost of Xbox Live. But what am I supposed to do?

 

Sell my Xbox 360 and all my games for half their worth and apply it toward a Playstation 3? And then what? Repurchase all my favorite games and replay them since I lost my save files? Try to convince my dozen friends to all do the same and switch to Playstation 3 so we can play together?

 

Hell, even if I did do all of that -- even if me and all of my friends did that -- it still wouldn't put a dent in Microsoft's profits. It wouldn't be a large enough defection to make them reconsider their pricing structure. Thus, the only people who lose are us.

[deanb]

First I'll point out the OP is maybe a bit too long and probably worth breaking up into several threads. Anywho on with the reply:

 

The constant £40/$60 price for games is getting silly and as time passes is been shown to be more n more so. The PC DD market has shown games can be priced to suit all kinds of game budget n consumers pockets, yet console games continue to hit with 99% of titles costing $60. Some games cost $100million, some a tenth of that but the price at sale is the same. Games are not born equal, and publishers should look into being more flexible with their prices. I believe it's THQ who are knocking out a game some point, or have done, at $40 with DLC on the side should people want to buy that to bump up the price. Their hope being the lower price increases sales and the direct sale of DLC to the consumers also increases the revenue they can get out of it.

It's a decent comprimise.

 

As for DLC. I should point out that's been very dividing in the past. Some folks do feel that some games have features cut in order ot resell them later as DLC. Some of them quite clearly (especially when it comes on the disc) But some folks believe we're paranoid n entitled cos no publishers has come out n said "yeah we're taking stuff out that would normally go in the game to sell to you later".

I'm in the camp that feels that yes with some titles they're taking stuff out the game to later resell us. ME2 being one of the topic that's had long n protracted conversation. They definitely weren't things developed post launch since they were both available in the roster lists on the game while shown off at trade shows n the like pre launch.

 

The multiplayer map stuff is pretty annoying too. I don't have those games myself, but Halo I've had similar issues. It's why I like TF2's approach, where the patch gives everyone the maps. (though TF2's recent approach...not so much. But at least there's nothing stopping folks getting into the games)

 

The Used stuff I'm on the fence with. If folks are perfectly fine for publishers n such to stick on DRM to attack potential pirates then it's only fair to fuck over used sales folks too. Personally I don't sell my games back, tend to keep em. Worth more as shelf space than whatever the shop might give me. And I'd rather have a game should I want to play it that want to play it n find I traded it in for magical beans.

I also buy a fair chunk of my games though Steam and the like, so not too bothered with lack of physical ownership (though I can see how it could be an issue for console gamers)

As for project $10, at first it started off kinda fine, I thought it a bit silly folks would buy a pre-owned copy just to save $5 or whatever, but they've started pushing boundaries a bit, especially the online pass. (which I believe is a THQ thing btw)

 

The publisher n developer thing is slowly starting to change. It'll take a while for it to hit the AAA places, but on the bottom end many smaller developers, are realising they can go independent and self publish. Publishers are things you used to need because there was no way a smaller developer would be able to fund or distribute their game, but now it's becoming incredible easy. Minecraft is a great example of a single man, sans publishers, selling just under a million copies of a game. Publishers interfering isn't a VG only thing btw, it happens alot in hollywood n book publishing too, and I think that will remain for a while. The bigger budget stuff will always have that.

I think part of what lets publishers get away with the extreme working conditions is the sort of status the game industry has as a great n free spirited place to work and insanely hard to get into. So folks will do whatever they can to keep their job. But as with the other stuff I think if folks realise it's not too hard to break out and go ahead n make a working job with a small man team on indie PC or phone titles and still make a decent buck folks might not bend under the heel of publishers so much.

 

EA is a big one for the whole dumping an older game when a new one comes along. Even worse for EA since they run their own servers. BF:1943 still has a bar running along the bottom announcing the beta for BF:BC2. The release n patch later mentality is getting pretty annoying. Yeah games are more complex now, but the budgets are even larger and surely that allows for better bug testing. Hey sure the internet means patches can be dished to, but that only works for the 50% or so that have their console hooked up to the net. Those who don't will be dumped with potentially game crippling bugs forever. Even worse is so few games are called out on it. It seems if they stick out a tweet saying 'we know of the bugs and looking at them' then media outlets give them the a-okay n don't bother looking at it. I think folks should make more of a stink on games that ship with bugs, incomplete or with improper support.

[HotChops]

First I'll point out the OP is maybe a bit too long and probably worth breaking up into several threads. Anywho on with the reply:

 

 

Next time I'll just go

 

Publishers make me :angry:

[Bouchart]

$60 games is nothing new.

 

At launch, back in 1995, Donkey Kong Country 2 went for $69.99.

[docsfox]

$60 games is nothing new.

 

At launch, back in 1995, Donkey Kong Country 2 went for $69.99.

 

You're missing the point. Just because games have been priced higher than $60 in the past doesn't make it automatically ok now. Why do all games need to cost the same price when not all games cost the same to produce? Outside of movies and games this crap wouldn't be tolerated. I mean even the music industry is more flexible with their pricing structure.

[HotChops]

$60 games is nothing new.

 

At launch, back in 1995, Donkey Kong Country 2 went for $69.99.

 

I don't mind paying $60 when the game is worth it. I think Mass Effect 2 is easily worth that when you take into account how massive it is.

 

and I think part of the reason N64 games were so expensive was the cart format.

 

It's not so much the exact price point that I'm getting hung up on. It's the packaging of less and then selling the missing parts for extra.

[Bouchart]

It's not so much the exact price point that I'm getting hung up on. It's the packaging of less and then selling the missing parts for extra.

 

Yeah I have to agree with you here. Now, I only buy older games and I don't have my own current gen console so I might not be the best to comment on this sort of stuff.

[Mr. GOH!]

$60 games is nothing new.

 

At launch, back in 1995, Donkey Kong Country 2 went for $69.99.

 

I don't mind paying $60 when the game is worth it. I think Mass Effect 2 is easily worth that when you take into account how massive it is.

 

and I think part of the reason N64 games were so expensive was the cart format.

 

It's not so much the exact price point that I'm getting hung up on. It's the packaging of less and then selling the missing parts for extra.

 

Word. Hell, I'd pay more for well-made niche games, like deep and robust Baldur's Gate style RPG's with tactical combat, since the mainstream seems to like dumbed-down, action RPG's. I mean, if paying $90 for Dragon Age: Origins meant that Dragon Age 2 wouldn't be "streamlined," I would have happily paid the higher price.

[Chronixal]

This is why I'm a champion for digital distribution. In theory, once everything goes digital, studios can bypass the publishers and go direct to the likes of PSN or Live. Publishers know this, thus locking in studios as you say now and charging up the ass now.

[staySICK]

I totes agree with the concept that not all games are created equal and this concept of set prices for all games of this generation or this console vs that console vs pc need to go. But thankfully, it's pretty easy to find deals year-round, especially with places like amazon, so its not like you are stuck paying the full price point, unless its a game that you just have to have day one, which then it must be worth the $60.

 

As for Project $10 or whatever, I really don't mind that. The stuff from Cerberus was useful; added to the experience of the game, and cost nothing extra when you bought the game new. I really can't blame the publishers for wanting to provide an incentive to buy new. The Online Pass, however, I do take issue with.

 

 

as for dlc, I really don't mind dlc as a concept; much of the dlc I choose to buy is much like the expansion packs of old; like the Fallout 3 / Borderlands / Dragon Age / New Vegas expansions. Take DLC on a case by case basis, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

 

Map Packs are a mixed bag; yea you can complain about the pricing (Stimulus packs MW2), but to me the worst offender is Bioshock 2. That is another case of charging for an unlock code for on the disc content. The excuse they gave was a decent one, they didn't want to split multiplayer. Yes that's annoying, but I'm sure there's a workaround that could be done without going that route. Like not charging for it.

[Cyber Rat]

The OP pretty much said what I think about this generation: awesome developers, godawful publishers.

[Commander Shepard]

Publishers charge too much for games:[/b] The price charged for games is not commensurate with their actual value. Do annually-released games like Madden NFL or Call of Duty really merit a $60 price tag? Are motion-controlled games that are really just compilations of minigames worth full price?

Games have always been expensive.

NES games retailing for $30-$43 dollars in the 90's. Factor inflation from then, and you are essentially paying the same price for these games. As Docsfox brings up up the pricing of movies and music, comparing the price versus content, you are still paying an expensive price. Upon release of a movie, in most retail stores you will find the movie retailing from $17-$30, depending on the bells and whistles included, such as added features, director's cut, extended edition, etc. Movie-holics aside, the kind of people that can sit through every single commentary and what not, let us say the movie runs 2 hours and add in one hour of bonus footage, that gives us three hours. 3 hours divided into the cost of $17-$30 gives us roughly $6-$10 per hour of entertainment. Now compare that to video games, where many games can provide 20+ hours of entertainment (20 hours into $60 giving us about $0.333 per hour of entertainment). I will agree that there are games that will not have the same length of gameplay, yet still warrant a $60 price tag, and these games are a blight. Publishers are out to make money, and customer spending power can speak volumes. If consumers do not buy into a new product, it may force the publisher to reconsider their strategy, though I will also agree this may have adverse effects on some titles, but as long as people are buying games at these prices, publishers have no reason to cease.

 

Publishers purposely withhold parts of games in order to nickel-and-dime them out later as DLC

Publishers have made paid DLC mandatory

In the early days, either by limitation of the distributed media or by a deadline of when the game is due, if a gamer wanted new content for their game they had to either purchase an expansion pack or wait for the release of the sequel to their game. These expansion packs ran gamers $20 to $40, and furthermore, this could only be achieved on the PC, if you wanted more content for your console game, you were out of luck unless they released a Special Edition or something, which even then, you buying the game again. DLC is the new term for an expansion pack, since we are no longer running 56K dial-up modems, broadband has allowed developers and publishers to refine and enhance their product more easily, post-game release. There are times it works, providing longevity to a game, and other times it's sole purpose to to extort money from loyal fans.

 

As for BF: Bad Company 2, I am only aware of one map pack that requires purchase, the Vietnam expansion, though I may be wrong since I pre-ordered the limited edition.

 

 

And now companies like EA are charging for special weapons, abilities and perks in shooters like Bad Company 2 and Madden NFL

I don't know about Madden NFL, but the only thing here that would apply to Bad Company 2 would be the "SPECACT kit" released, allowing you to choose an alternate skin while playing your respective class. That does not seem too game breaking to me, unless wearing that green beret truly edged out the other team. (Though in afterthought, I also remembered the rifle that only people who owned BF1942 would have access to, but it was eventually discovered everyone could unlock it with enough XP)

and you don't cite something like Battlefield Heroes, a game where you have to buy weapons, gear, etc with cash.

 

Publishers are more concerned with the next product than supporting existing products

You again cite Bad Company 2, though your meaning could apply to virtually ANY multiplayer game. Heck, you could even stretch it to your Windows operating system, to an extent, or even your car. Multiplayer games are a beast to tackle in terms of patching and error correction, especially in cases of "large" multiplayer games like the Battlefield series, Team Fortress, or even World of Warcraft. The variables that must be considered, the potential danger of patching one thing to break something far more important, and just weighing out what needs to be corrected. Should errors like the one you mentioned be corrected? Yes! Should I constantly be downloading many minor patches over time instead of one big patch to correct many things? No!

 

While I can agree with the general aim of what you are getting at, such as Call of Duty map packs or holding developers "hostage," I am not moved by the rest. Things like having to purchase Mass Effect 2 new to access Zaheed miss the point of incentives, something to sway your decision to buying the game new versus used, as many times when I have gone to a Gamestop comparing the price of a new game versus a used one, the price difference has generally been less than $9, but I am contented to pay that extra amount knowing I will have a pristine copy of the game, a mint condition case, and (most often) the instruction guide. As for the argument of buying a tangible copy of the game versus buying a digitally distributed version, it simply comes down to "Buyer Beware."

[deanb]

Just to bring the whole thing about how game prices need to change:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32322/Turbine_Lord_of_the_Rings_Online_Revenues_Tripled_As_FreeToPlay_Game.php

 

Game goes 'free', earns three times as much.

And while I'd heard that the other MMO's had done well in the shift to F2P I'd not heard figures til now. Though more n more MMO's going F2P did suggest the others went well.

[iKiddo]

Just to bring the whole thing about how game prices need to change:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/32322/Turbine_Lord_of_the_Rings_Online_Revenues_Tripled_As_FreeToPlay_Game.php

 

Game goes 'free', earns three times as much.

And while I'd heard that the other MMO's had done well in the shift to F2P I'd not heard figures til now. Though more n more MMO's going F2P did suggest the others went well.

 

 

Yes and no to the "Free" thing.

 

The way it works is micro transactions. For a game like LOTR that is obiously working highly well.. Hey just look at Mass Effect 2s DLC. They are basically the exact same idea on disc format.

 

The online pass is probably here to stay. Why not shaft the 2nd hand buyer from taking money from you? I mean for a lot of games this has affected so far mainly being things like BFBC2 with the "Vip" nonsense and the already in game "Map packs" and sports titles. I mean now BFBC2 for me is pretty dead, I got fed up of it as people don't work together, they care more about their K/D. Also you have the sports titles with the online pass .. I mean they get sold for pennies on release I have no sympathy for the guy buying it 2nd hand having to pay to play it online.

 

Supporting the next product over the past one is something they are going to continue to do .. Not just publishers but bad developers like DICE. MoH online is a mess so is BFBC2's, you expected otherwise why? Because DICE are actually good? No they are sadly not a great dev any more.

[Thursday Next]

Going to jump in here and defend the Bad Company 2. For disclosure's sake I work for EA.

 

1. BC2 nickel and dimes you for recycled maps.

- No they don't anyone who buys the game new gets the extra map modes.

 

2. BC2 DLC is "mandatory".

- While there is a disconnect between VIP owners and non VIP owners, take into account why this is. Non VIP folk have not paid EA DICE to play, so it's not entirely unreasonable to hold back some content from them.

- The SPECACT kit is purely cosmetic. While it may give you an advantage if you are a Russian medic, it is generally not an essential update.

 

3. VIP (online pass) is wrong to try to reduce trade ins.

- You say that it puts a "tiny dent" in EA profits. This is untrue. If our largest retailer's profit is ~35% used sales then that presents a sizeable amount of income that EA is missing out on. It's only natural to try to make first purchase a more attractive prospect, even if that has the effect of making used purchases less desirable. Also bear in mind that this should reflect in the resale value of used games. If $10 worth of content is lost when the game is used then the used game should be over $10 less. It's then up to the purchaser if they want the extra content.

 

4. Publishers bully developers.

- "There is strong evidence that EA pushed Bioware to scale back the sexuality in Mass Effect 2, and that they interfered with the production and creative direction of Medal of Honor." What evidence? Also, bear in mind that both these examples are ones that created a furore in the media. I can tell you now that EA tries to give their developers as much leeway as possible while keeping developers informed of the potential consequences of their actions. For example, early versions of "Saboteur" had numerous Swastikas throughout in all versions. The publisher informed the developer that this is contrary to German, Hungarian and other EU states law (and can lead to criminal sanctions). The developer then decided to remove them in softened versions. Would you prefer that the publisher just signed the checks without looking at the product?

 

 

5. Publishers do not support old titles.

- See the link for services that are being shut down. http://www.ea.com/2/service-updates Many of these games are being shut down not because EA has a new game to support, but because the games have fallen into disuse, or because licenses have expired. Resources are finite and supporting ~1% of a global online community just does not make sense. I will however agree that for PC titles at least EA could release server code to allow people to keep communities going indefinitely.

 

Also, not sure what ikiddo means about BFBC2 online being a "mess" stats can be a bit flaky lately (but that's being fixed) otherwise it all works fine for me. I rarely have laggy matches or drop connection or what have you. Maybe that's because I'm on PS3 and hardly anyone plays online cos it haz no gaems?

[deanb]

Just to copy from the COD thread:

 

Btw on the news of COD, and I find this to be really well worth keeping an eye on for gamers in general:

http://www.escapistm...o-UK-Government

Gamers Voiceare reporting COD Blops to UK Office of Fair Trading. Specifically the PS3 n PC versions.

OFT can basically have Blops and all future COD pulled from UK shelves. This for Activision is potentially pretty serious should OFT act on the complaint.

It's also got the potential to be great for future releases. If it's know the UK, one of the largest gaming markets out there and I believe 2nd largest for COD, is taking overly buggy games off the shelves, then expect studios to start taking QA a bit more seriously in the future and to not release the game n patch later mentality.

And to add to that:http://thumb-culture.com/2011/01/25/pachter-calls-gamers-voice-crybaby-over-activision-complaint/Pachter threw in his chips and kinda stood himself up a little. Dude needs to wean himself off Activisions teat a little.

[Yantelope]

Two points I'd like to make regarding the DLC. The first is the case of Halo where they lock you out of all of the multiplayer modes except one or two if you don't buy the map packs and there are like 4 of them. That just seems wrong to me.

 

The other point is the Team Fortress 2 xbox debacle. Valve wanted to release the free patches and updates for the XBox version and MS essentially told them no. It's a clear case where the console manufacturer is prohibiting the developer from supporting their game because it interferes with the mindset they're trying to force on to players. The mindset being "DLC is something you pay for". A similar thing happened with Epic and Gears of War. I despise the fact that MS wants to prevent you from getting free stuff because it interferes with how they want to abuse you.

[excel_excel]

This is why I'm a champion for digital distribution. In theory, once everything goes digital, studios can bypass the publishers and go direct to the likes of PSN or Live. Publishers know this, thus locking in studios as you say now and charging up the ass now.

 

This is both good and bad. Valve's prices on new games are horrendous. Plus look at the PS3 game prices on PSN. €30 for Assasins Creed 1 when you can get the SEQUEL for €10? Jesus

[deanb]

Was mentionng earlier today how PSN version of Mass Effect 2 is £48. ($75 for those across the pond)

[topekaguy]

The current situation is ridiculous.

[excel_excel]

wow. Just wow. Not to mention the fact that its cheaper to get the 360 version and all the DLC then buy the PS3 retail version, but 60 FUCKING EURO? Seeing as publishers continue to blather on how about were heading to a DD only future they can fuck right off.

[deanb]

See, I know as a € user you'd disagree, I'd say Steam is pretty good with prices. Even tkaing into account the increase on £ over $. But console DD is fucking ridiculous. If I wasn't the tin hat wearing type I'd almost suggest that they were purposefully sabotaging it.

[excel_excel]

I have my ups and downs with Steam. Sometimes they have great deals, sometimes they don't. But I do agree that they are at least not ripping us off like they are with Mass Effect 2 on PSN.

 

See I'd almost buy the arguement that they are sabotaging it, but like surely its best to get people accustomed to DD on consoles? I mean it seems almost inevitable that were heading for a DD only future on consoles too, and they are doing their absolute best to make people hate it