On Tue, 15 May 2012 16:11:46 -0500, Zaghadka <
zagh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2012 19:40:00 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, John Lewis
>wrote:
>No. If I gather what you're getting at, there is no way to make a used game
>into "like new" on Steam, for purpose of replay or resale. As usual, publishers
>hate the first sale doctrine, and are doing their best to undermine it. This is
>true on or off Steam.
>
>Your new target price for such titles, or at least for me, is $15. No more, and
>forget achievement based replay value for games storing these metrics, forcing
>cloud-saves, and/or forcing single-use SP registration.
>
>Achivements never did much for me anyhow. YMMV.
>
>I will not spend $60 to "lease" my SP games as a service. If the gaming market
>is so saturated with suckers that will do so, I am finding another hobby, going
>exclusively indy, or playing exclusively 3 year old, mega-hit titles on heavy
>discount. Such actions should change the industry in a way that makes it far
>less profitable, until they figure out why they are losing full-price 6-month
>after release sales, and realize that maybe it isn't all "piracy," but is tied
>to their lack of respect for the consumer.
>
>That price pretty much, as Rin will tell you, rules me out of the MP market,
>which is the only place where paying the $60 is justified (you're paying for an
>active community), but is becoming a greater and greater risk as any chance of
>reselling your title if it sucks (the last bastion of a normalized,
>quality-based consumer refund remedy) is dwindling to a limit of nil. MP
>customers are used to this, though. Paying a publisher for the quality of the
>community, and not entirely the game, is the norm. EA will crank out "new" MW
>titles to sabotage the previous MW community, while adding little to nothing to
>MP, for as long as we let it.
>SP customers should not tolerate it at that price level, IMHO. MP customers
>should be aware of the tactic of using barely improved sequels to devalue a
>previous title, and force them to pay again for essentially the same gameplay.
>From what I've heard of Battlefield 3, _they_ actually gave them a
>much-improved game for their money. MW3 looks like a cheap roster update for
>one of the Madden titles.
MW isn't an EA title, but yes it has become tiresome. But dispite the
fact it always draws a lot of players, never let anyone tell you that
the MW series typifies the multiplayer community. I cringe whenever I
see another MW title announced, only because I've come to expect what
amounts to a short unmemorable SP campaign and MP that offers a few
new maps, modes, slightly improved visuals over last year's edition,
but other than that same ole- same ole with regard to the franchise.
It shouldn't come as a surprise either, since Activision destroyed the
team that made the early games good.
Yes, Battlefield 3 is an immersive, visually astounding, quality
masterpiece. I've gotten an amazing amount of replay out of the
original $60 I spent, and the first map pack coming out next month is
at the top of my anticipated titles.
I think that SP-only gamers *should* be a little reluctant to shell
out $60 for a new title. However, in many cases $60 is the price for
both a single player campaign, cooperative options, and competitive
multiplayer. For gamers like me that potentially play all three, it's
not a bad deal if all turns out well.
The compelling reason to buy early, however, does no doubt dissipate
for SP-only gamers. Its easier to just wait a few months and pick up
a game at a big discount. However, by doing this, a message is
getting sent to the game vendors that more emphasis should be placed
on multiplayer and online play, since that will lure early buyers. Why
does this matter? It always comes back to the douchebag investors
that hold the purse strings. They would rather see 100,000 copies of
product sold in the first quarter after release at $50, then to see
sales drop off a cliff than to see 1,500,000 copies sold at $15 over
18 months. Not a very smart manner of thought, even at the simplest
level of beancounting douchebaggery. But, in all honesty, investors
and finance people are usually not particularly smart guys in my
experience in working with them. They look only at the things like
operating overhead over the next 18 months, and they'd rather take $5M
in the short term than to wait for longer term better profit that's
likely to arise as a result of better reviews upon release.
Add to that phenomenon the fact that MP games are almost unpiratable.
Singleplayer only games just look like risk to investors on the PC due
to all the TorrentKunts out there who have entitled themselves to not
pay for games at all.
>I don't play a lot of MP though, so I might be missing something.
Well you don't have to miss out completely. Tribes Ascend might be an
indication that the Free-To-Play business model has a future. It is
not a cutting edge game with a cutting edge engine (in fact I think it
looks antiquated), but its great multiplayer fun and they did
everything right from the consumer perspective. You can download the
game for free, play indefinately that way if you want, treating it as
an ongoing limited demo with no expiration date. If you want to spend
a little money on it you can. If you want to spend a lot of money you
can do that too. And, unlike so many F2P games, it's not crap, its
actually a worthwhile MP game.