ijusten wrote:And before used games stores there were used book stores. Somehow they're still publishing books.
Wellll, maybe not for all that much longer, at least not in the Ye Olde Bookshop or several MegaBook Stores versions. Since the Kindle has been followed by a parade of similar devices, bookstores here in metro San Francisco have been dropping like flies.
People read less books these days than they used to, what with TV, videogames, Internet and whatnot. I think you've heard these arguments several times with the music industry. The numbers have been falling for years, long before Kindle became popular.
If you're talking of Borders, apparently they had it coming
But I hear Book Depository has been doing some really good business lately. So has Amazon.
CaptainPatch wrote:I'm not a fan of GameStop at all since the local outlet has reduced its PC selection to ZERO.
As for pirating, it will ALWAYS be siphoning off sales that should have gone to the retailers/manufacturers. Generally speaking, those that can pirate, do pirate -- unless it means that they won't be able to get something that they really, really want which they can NOT get via pirating.
Research done in the subject suggests that the people who pirate more are also the biggest customers of the industry.
Logic also dictates that people who are ready to put money on second-hand are most likely to buy stuff first-hand as well, while people who are accustomed pirates may have higher threshold for buying.
But I'm not here arguing for piracy's merits. I'd just like put worth the idea that the two greater groups of pirates are those without money and those who don't really appreciate the product/the producer and the work that went into the making.
CaptainPatch wrote:Apparently there is something of a distinction between fans of a game, and fans of a developer. Second-hand shoppers are NOT a fan of the manufacturer. They're voting with their dollars by NOT buying an original copy -- which the manufacturer needs to stay in business and finance the next game. And in case it escaped your attention, the greater the sales of the current game, the more resources can go into making that next game.
What about first-hand shoppers who buy games knowing they can then turn around and sell them?
ijusten wrote:Or perhaps the publisher could set the price for the product so that it already includes the the cost of resales?
You're actually suggesting that the manufacturers raise
ijusten wrote:Or perhaps make games with less money?
And now you're suggesting that many features be left out
? That's what happens when the budget shrinks. Multi-player, bye-bye. Animation and expository cutscenes, adios. Voice acting, bring on the mimes. I suppose
they could revive Text Adventure games; that would seriously
reduce the cost of production. (And seriously reduce sales as well.)
From 80s to about 2005 the money needed to develop a game rised very slowly, some percentages over inflation and was supported by the ever-growing amount of people with a game console or PC. Then, about the time Xbox360 and PS3 came to market, the budgets started growing exponentially. Today, they're huge
. This means more years in development, bigger amount of people needed to create the game and a gargantuan amount of money to even break even.
Which means that the game must be bought by a even bigger amount of people. And not in absolute, in relative. Bigger percentage of gamers has to buy the game for it to break even.. and for the makers to make their money back. One or two games is enough to break developer's back. To alleviate the risk, the games have to be dumbed down, DLC's have to be made, second-hand buyers are the devil themselves and/or the game has to be split into chapters to be sold every year again.
Meanwhile, Angry Birds was the 52nd try
from Rovio to make a successful game. True, the guys had rich parents, but they got the first 25 games out without any additional funding. How many console game developers can say the same?
Just so that the only example wouldn't be a company targeting iPhone, Legend of Grimrock was made by four people in under a year and broke even within 24 hours of the game being published. Minecraft was made by one person.
Wasteland 2 will be made by about 20 people, if I remember reading correctly. It has budget comparable to that of Fallout 2. Meanwhile technology has marched forward and actually creating the maps will be easier now than it was 15 years ago. Wasteland 2 will look better than Fallout 2 did.
And I'm going to guess that developing Neverwinter Nights 2 cost closer to Fallout 2 than Skyrim.
Not every game NEEDS multiplayer, Patrick Stewart voice-acting a great intro-movie or a commercials on the Superbowl
. Sure, you lose some people buying the game, but then, you don't really need them in the first place.
To repeat my point from earlier post; games need to be done cheaper and sold cheaper. There are a lot more people out there today owning computers and being interested in games of whatever genre to make out for the lost money. And the price of failure is less as well.
ijusten wrote:But you know what. People aren't complaining that games bought at Steam can't be resold. Neither are they complaining that games bought from physical stores can be resold. What they are complaining about is that they buy a physical object that they can't handle physically.
You can actually blame Bill Gates for that one. He came up with the concept that you are NOT buying an object, but are rather simply paying for the right to _use_
software. Like going to the theater to see a movie: You pay for the activity
rather than buying anything substantive. But with games, it's an activity that you can do over and over again, if you like. You just don't have anything physical that _you_ can profit from by turning around and selling it to others. Others that pointedly are NOT paying the owner and creator of the Intellectual Property. Effectively, if they want to experience that game, they have to buy it directly from the people that are ultimately responsible for making it available in the first place. Or resort to being an out and out criminal -- which says a whole lot about their basic character, so their rationalizations are easily recognized for what they are.
The book publishers tried the "physical product as a licence" hundred years ago and it didn't fly then.