Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 Oh, you're talking about THAT sort of project $10. You should clarify. Multiplayer access is the most common form of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Also "for only $60". "only". Fuck this guy really must be literally be bleeding money if $60 per game is "only $60". This made me think about who buys games for $60. I personally get 95% of my games for $20 or less. I only get a very few games which won't drop in price like COD for $60. I think most everyone I know who gets games for $60 are people who do the gamestop trade in and play their games and sell them back quickly. I wonder if the % of people who buy and collect games (don't sell them back) at $60 is tiny. If they kill used game sales I wonder if that will vastly shrink the sales of games at the $60 price point and the whole "no more used games" strategy will end in a wash in terms of developer revenue. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 To me, if the vast majority of games didn't drop in price so quickly, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. I'm really looking forward to Mass Effect 3, for example, but looking at how virtually every EA title (except The Old Republic) drops in price by roughly a half, even just 2 or 3 weeks after launch, why shouldn't I just wait and save €30? This is happening more and more all the time. Dead Space 2 was definitely at less than €25 on consoles and less than €20 on PC a mere two weeks after its launch. Last game I bought launch day was Xenoblade, which was €40 new in Gamestop, and I knew any price drops to it would be low and wouldn't be until within at least a month. Asura's Wrath, no doubt in my mind, a game that will be destined to be a niche, poorly selling title in the West, and will no doubt drop in price fairly quickly as usual. I want to buy it, not right away, but if I bought it launch day, I'll no doubt get burned a few weeks later when its less than €30. More and more games should be priced lower at launch and not drop in price so quickly, like Deadly Premonition, which launched at £19.99 in the UK and at £19.99 on XBL games on demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 One of EA's strengths is having the infrastructure needed to bring a large quantity of a product to market. The flip side of that is that it takes less time for supply to outstrip demand and sometimes leaves a surplus of titles. Mirror's Edge was another game that suffered from this, though a lot of that was the fault of an ignorant bunch of reviewers who didn't know good gaming when it ran up a wall and kicked them in the face. (Not that I'm bitter or anything). 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 It'd possibly have helped if Mirror's Edge didn't force itself to include abysmal (but luckily entirely skippable) shooting every five minutes as well. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchikoma Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 It'd possibly have helped if Mirror's Edge didn't force itself to include abysmal (but luckily entirely skippable) shooting every five minutes as well. I was super-psyched for that game. It looked amazing. Then I got the demo and it started dropping me into kill closets and I was out. Then I read reviews that said you never really got time to wander on your own without being shot at and it confirmed my decision. It'd be great if there was a spinoff or something that was a parkour game. I'd be all over that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Oh don't get me wrong, I loved Mirror's Edge. It was far from perfect, but it did really cool things. The game is much better if your approach to combat is "run" as opposed to "shoot everything." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Yeah, I still don't understand how anyone thought that they were supposed to shoot things in that game. There's only like 2 or 3 places where I ever pick up a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Outside of the whole 10 dollar bit I've a rule. If its a developer I want to support I'll buy the game on release whatever the price because I want them to continue making games. Day 1 sales are what technically matter the most to devs and pubs. For instance right now I'm sorry EA but I'll wait on Syndicate it really doesn't seem like something i want to spend 27 pounds on during release same goes with the darkness 2. I would love to play both of them but I can wait. However I do want to support Binary Domain because it's pretty nice (- try the japanese demo) and I'll be getting it day one even if it's going to be the same week as the vita. I'll be getting the last story mostly because I would like to encourage NoE to release games in Europe like this and even though the guy was 'let go' for revealing info about localisation I'd like to support his and the team's endeavours [though god the voice acting is horrid - it's like panto mixed with downtown abbey[guh]. way worse than xenoblade] Most of the time I'll always buy new unless it's games with no online that I wanted to wait for a price drop. Last game I bought used was Splatterhouse. For someone like me it's generally an issue of taste and who I'd like to support. As for mirror's edge, boy it's been ages. That game dropped like a rock when it came out. I remember buying it new for 9-12 pounds 2-3 weeks after it came out. Also oddly enough as it with several EA games I ended up getting it for free on the PC and it's now registered to origin. I do recall telling my wife (fiancee back then) not to shoot everyone cause it just required a lot running and combat but she said it was too hard XD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Am I the only one who thought all of the shooting in ME just made it that much more challenging? You not only had to parkour, you had to not die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I enjoyed the being shot at part, because yeah it added challenge and it provided a pretty good motivation for running, I just didn't enjoy the shooting back part (which yeah is easily skippable most of the time). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
excel_excel Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Yeah, I still don't understand how anyone thought that they were supposed to shoot things in that game. There's only like 2 or 3 places where I ever pick up a gun. I never shot anyone at all the entire game, there was an achievement/trophy for not shooting so when it came to just before the end, where you had to shot the big server things to unlock a door, I didn't have a clue what to do! Finally I realised as long as I didn't shoot an actual person I'd be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Oh yeah. I definitely never shot back. I think the game would be dull without getting shot at, really. Like you said, it provides motivation, so what would the motivation be otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 I actually really liked just walking and jumping around in those sections where it was calm, plus the time trial mode. Mirror's Edge really ought to have been a free-roaming game. Parkour GTA anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 There is (kind of) a Mirrors Edge thread you know! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted February 7, 2012 Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 Yeah, I still don't understand how anyone thought that they were supposed to shoot things in that game. There's only like 2 or 3 places where I ever pick up a gun. I never shot anyone at all the entire game, there was an achievement/trophy for not shooting so when it came to just before the end, where you had to shot the big server things to unlock a door, I didn't have a clue what to do! Finally I realised as long as I didn't shoot an actual person I'd be fine. lol, when I did that achievement I just ran around like an idiot among the servers and got the bad guys to shoot them for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyRan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 So a couple of developments have brought up an interesting point that online passes are complete bullcrap. Exhibit #1 (to be used in tandem with previous but eerily similar stories): http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/20/ninja-gaiden-3-users-report-trouble-redeeming-online-passes/ See also: Akrham City, Twisted Metal, etc. Basically, publishers are quick to jump on the "Online Pass" fad but apparently have trouble actually implementing it, resulting in a hindered experience for people who bought it new. Considering the fact this is at least the third time in recent memory that this has happened, it appears that certain publishers just don't care if they end up punishing customers who buy their games new at launch for full price. This is supposed to convince people of buying new how? Another little tidbit: http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/19/online-pass-game-included-in-latest-ea-server-shutdowns/ It appears that EA, after leading the parade of the online pass fad, has no qualms in shutting down the servers of a game that sported the program. A game that released barely over a year ago, and one that purportedly accounts for less than 1% of EA's total online activity. Aside from the fact that EA's logic is entirely self defeating (if it were truly 1%, keeping the servers up would be microscopic in cost, negating the need to shut down the servers in the first place), it shows that the online pass is really nothing but a ploy to squeeze more dollars out of the consumer, considering how EA's games are consistently still the ones that have the shortest online "up-time" of the entire industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yantelope V2 Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Well, lets be honest here, there was never any doubt that it's just a project to wring more money out of gamers. Marketing's only job is to lie about that. Also, the other moral of the story is don't buy new games and don't pay $60. Buy them used from gamefly for $10 and get the online pass included. I've decided that if they're going to make a concerted effort to wring more money out of me I might as well make a concerted effort to give them as little money as possible. It makes me happy anyway. Fight the power! Edited March 20, 2012 by Yantelope V2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 This is supposed to convince people of buying new how? Most people aren't informed. Which is why it works. (if it were truly 1%, keeping the servers up would be microscopic in cost, negating the need to shut down the servers in the first place Yes, the cost is going to be small, but it's still a cost. It sucks, but that's business. Anyways, online pass isn't a ploy to get more money out of consumers, it's an attempt to divert the money they're already spending in the publishers direction. It's meant to be anti-used game sales. We never hear numbers on it though, so who knows how effective it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Thing with EA's logic is, yes 1% sounds small, but 1% is still hundreds of thousands of players. Yeah it's not the millions of BF3 players, but it's still a pretty large amount. I bet there's plenty of games that'd love to have that many players still around. As for the codes, there's a reason why that non-used games thing wouldn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 I maintain that a bad implementation does not mean the core idea is inherently bad, it just means that bad implementation is bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyRan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) This is supposed to convince people of buying new how? Most people aren't informed. Which is why it works. (if it were truly 1%, keeping the servers up would be microscopic in cost, negating the need to shut down the servers in the first place Yes, the cost is going to be small, but it's still a cost. It sucks, but that's business. Anyways, online pass isn't a ploy to get more money out of consumers, it's an attempt to divert the money they're already spending in the publishers direction. It's meant to be anti-used game sales. We never hear numbers on it though, so who knows how effective it is. "It's a business" isn't a valid reason. In fact, it almost never is in any situation in which that phrase comes up. A business involves providing a satisfactory experience to consumers, and with a lack of that delivery comes less customers, and ultimately less business. It's not about giving charity to customers, it's about not explicitly pissing them off and pulling stunts like this, well, pisses them off. It's nonsensical and entirely shortsighted to blindly reduce costs, consumer satisfaction be damned, because eventually one of those things you reduce might end up costing you more in the long run than what you initially saved because of the people you've managed to turn away. With the MMA shutdown especially there's now a larger distrust against the Online Pass fad, and it'll make more than a couple of people rethink buying a game that uses one. Is the public outcry and the fact that they looked like assholes worth saving a couple of bucks, relatively speaking? Not to me, but it's EA. One day they'll piss off enough people that it'll truly affect their bottom line. Edited March 20, 2012 by RockyRan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 "It's a business" is a valid reason for a business to act like a business. If you think they're losing any customers (especially any that they care about) over shutting down a game no one plays then you're sorely mistaken. You know, cuz EA is totally doing terrible and not making any money. I think you're mistaking the vocal minority for your average consumer who doesn't care, doesn't know, and probably wouldn't care if they did know because they've never played the game or they don't care to keep playing it. People like you get pissed off. Don't take it that it means that everyone gets pissed off. "One day they'll piss off enough people that it'll truly affect their bottom line." That is something we'll have to see. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:EA&fstype=ii They seem to be doing well enough with Project $10 in place. Check 2011s profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 Yeah, I think average consumer's (read: not the kind of people who come to forums like this or read gaming blogs) reaction to EA turning off the servers to an older game that they still play would be going out to buy the sequel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyRan Posted March 20, 2012 Report Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) "It's a business" is a valid reason for a business to act like a business. If you think they're losing any customers (especially any that they care about) over shutting down a game no one plays then you're sorely mistaken. You know, cuz EA is totally doing terrible and not making any money. I think you're mistaking the vocal minority for your average consumer who doesn't care, doesn't know, and probably wouldn't care if they did know because they've never played the game or they don't care to keep playing it. People like you get pissed off. Don't take it that it means that everyone gets pissed off. "One day they'll piss off enough people that it'll truly affect their bottom line." That is something we'll have to see. https://www.google.c...AQ:EA&fstype=ii They seem to be doing well enough with Project $10 in place. Check 2011s profit. Businesses don't shut down overnight, you know. There's no "BIG EVIL BUTTON" being pushed and thousands of people rally outside their headquarters later that day and they dramatically declare bankruptcy as soft piano music plays in the background. Businesses go under when they start losing their acumen and attention to detail over the "little" things, compounding mistakes that peeve consumers and begin to nibble away first at satisfaction ratings, then over the years begin to lose business. It's a normalization of unwanted behavior that eventually accrues over a long period of time that starts deteriorating the business. If it really were as obvious as "Project $10 introduced: sales down by 80% two hours later", no company would ever go out of business. But alas, business is never that simple. Saying "they're not bankrupt now, so they're doing nothing wrong, so stfu" is just as shortsighted as the original "it's just business" quip. Neither statement really takes into account any of the real factors that tend to bring down large publishers. Suggesting that they're just fine simply because their entire consumer base didn't implode is quite silly. Edited March 20, 2012 by RockyRan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.