Anyone read EDGE?

Greenbean

For the games versus dvd argument.

Isn't a good game worth more than a good dvd is, lets say in terms of entertainment time given?

Isn't a dvd generally the second/third money making stage of a film, after cinema receipts and rentals.

Don't films have a better sell-by-date than games?

Don't games come out 1 or 2 years after the game is made at a cheaper price.

Wouldn't you agree that the economics of films are thus alot different to video games.

The computer games industry might be on the edge of a saw tooth effect, where the model for creating games could drastically change.. but until then, until someone has proof that making that change will matter then why should they?

Seriously.. I mean proof, not conjecture, hearsay or simple petty self-righteous anger. A theorem, a business model, a clear outline, etc. Fairplay has to show how it would work, otherwise what does it offer? Absolutely nothing. Its ridiculous that it doesn't. A load of hot-air.

Sure you might insist that half the price and you will double the sales and help tons of developers and whatnot. But thats just a gut feeling. My gut feeling is that if you half the prices of games, the margins for profit will fall, publishers will stick with the few prize cows which would survive under this model and many many indie publishers will finally go under. Big names, big marketing, fewer small time outfits, less revelant entertaining and varied content (hollywood blockbusters, roy-keane book contracts, robbie williams). The overall "dumb" consumer gains, anyone who gives a damn about the quality of the content (you and me) looses. But I think we are already as far down this road as we can go, for the mean time. The only way it will advance further is if someone like EA can get bigger and afford to implement a model that it can't in its current financial state (like a poker player on a table with 3/4 of the chips, or like microsoft able to use its loss-making tactics with the xbox to get a foothold in for the future).

Btw, demand definitely controls prices, not vice versa. If there is a demand for something, you then hitch the price up to the ideal margin for making money ie
profit = (price - costs) x sales with sales being proportional to price. It seems to me that companies would already have a fair idea of what price is the correct one. I'd be surprised if they missed some amazing local minima sitting around the 15-20 stlg mark that made loads more money than the current prices around 35 stlg.

At the end of the day, buying a game is a dear thing for most people. Thankfully as an educated gamer you should easily be able to pick quality games. In my opinion, the amount of time gained from a good game more than offsets its costs. I would easily go back and pay another 45 sterling for gta3, pro evolution soccer, deus ex, civilisation 3. The amount of hours of entertainment from these games make the cost look petty overall. If you have more money than sense and buy crap games all the time, then you really should listen to the basics of the only decent thing Fairplay or anyone else can say and vote with your wallet.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Greenbean
For the games versus dvd argument.
...
Wouldn't you agree that the economics of films are thus alot different to video games.

You are coming into this with misapprehensions about what is going on. Noone has once argued this.

As the person who probably mentioned DVDs most in this debate, I can safely say that the only time DVDs were mentioned, it was to suggest that unit price effects uptake.

Originally posted by Greenbean
but until then, until someone has proof that making that change will matter then why should they?

Fairplay is proposing that their model would not only benefit the publishers and developers both in a financial sense and an artistic sense ('innovative' games no longer tied to the success of a 'mass-market' hit), but consumers, in terms of price and freedom of choice. These points have all been made before, and in greater detail. So have the arguments against them.

Originally posted by Greenbean
Seriously.. I mean proof, not conjecture, hearsay or simple petty self-righteous anger. A theorem, a business model, a clear outline, etc.

And this is why this whole debate can go no further. Both sides are completely deadlocked. "Prove your suggestion would work", "Prove it wouldn't", "We don't need to", "Aha! You can't! We're right!" (lather, rinse, repeat). One thing I will say about Fairplay - I definitely think the entire campaign could have benefited greatly from some more time, to do this kind of research, and also to increase awareness.

Originally posted by Greenbean
Btw, demand definitely controls prices, not vice versa.

I have given this a great deal of thought, (and even looked up quite a bit economics 101 ), and come to understand that both price controls demand and demand controls price. The two are completely linked. Let us, once again, turn to the good ol' DVD example:
Because, as someone has already mentioned, movies have a "mass market appeal", when the DVD technology was first introduced in a home environment, and it was relatively cheap (a lot cheaper than the laserdisc setups that many of the early adopters of DVD would have been looking at, enviously), many people bought into it quickly. This drove the price of both DVD players and media down even further, so that they were in the realm of Joe Punter, rather than just Joe Enthusiast-on-a-budget.

See? Linked.

Originally posted by Greenbean
At the end of the day, buying a game is a dear thing for most people. Thankfully as an educated gamer you should easily be able to pick quality games.

Again - something that Fairplay is hoping to address with a successful campaign. One of the major things preventing the kind of large-scale uptake of gaming, Fairplay say, is the fact that many consumers get burned by expensive, crappy games, simply because they weren't 'educated'. By lowering the overall price of games, they hope to turn gaming into much less of a gamble than it is right now.

Of course, being an 'educated' gamer doesn't mean much, either - how else can we explain the fact that Ico (possibly the most sublime game ever made) hasn't become the biggest-seller on the PS2?

Originally posted by Greenbean
In my opinion, the amount of time gained from a good game more than offsets its costs. I would easily go back and pay another 45 sterling for gta3, pro evolution soccer, deus ex, civilisation 3.

Weren't you saying something about 'more money than sense'?

Noone is suggesting that people should pay less for games than they are worth. I think most right-thinking individuals will pay a reasonable price for something with the same value. The main thing Fairplay is suggesting is that the price is unneccessarily high (especially when it comes to consoles), mainly due to fixed licensing fee for these consoles. This means that every game - from the amazing games that suck you in, and keep you occupied for weeks on end, right through to the shitty games that spit you out instantly, making you weep at the fact that the combined artistic efforts of an entire group of people could only produce this nonsense - all have a 'fixed' licensing fee covered in their unit price. Fairplay are suggesting that it would benefit sales if this was converted into a percentage fee, rather than a fixed fee.

Seriously, all this, from both sides has been covered in the past five pages, and also on the fairplay website.

theciscokid

Anyone got the issue with the Atari 'moving sticker' thingy on the front?

i had that one, probably one of their best covers, alot of people bought it just because the atari logo is a fashion accessory these days

chernobyl

indeed!, i got it.





I actually took this picture a while ago as i made some "Xbox is not doing so great" comments on TXB and decided to give into the guys over there and prove i had an Xbox and was not **just a PS2 fanboy afterall.

Celt

I only ever bought one issue of Edge, the one where it reviewed x-com: apocalypse and only because I wanted to be able to salivate over it as I didnt have a pc

Corben Dallas

yes i read Edge nearly every issues and sometimes their preachy holier-than-attitude really blows. They can (frequently) have the elitist attitude of " Look guys we ARE the gaming journo elite so start grovelling etc"

the Reviews are sometimes so wide of the mark its laughable and makes me want to pull my hair out. X-(

The 10 for Halo (good game but a 10 ? -by Edges strict standards)
6 for GTA3 (later changed to 8)
the 6or 7 (not sure) for FFX
they also slated MGS2 -if is was an xbox game they would prob give it a 10 as well

What really annoys me about them is the Xbox bias, jouranlistic integrity-My Ar$e!
they really do have it in for PS2- example see this months edtion first 5/6reviews all xbox all Double pages then GC then PS2
concidence -me thinks no

I do buy it because they are at least serious(sometimes anal) about there video games, the coloums are v good and the featrues on how the far east took over the coinop industry then the home console when @ one stage the US ran the show.
the also have a really good retro gaming section, Import review and the give a v good take on whats happening in the Japanese gaming scene

festivala

Originally posted by Corben Dallas
they also slated MGS2 -if is was an xbox game they would prob give it a 10 as well

Um, no they didn't mate. 8/10 if I remember correctly.