|
| T O P I C | |
|
Insert witty religious pun here.
May 2nd 2000, 12:15 CEST by andy Gathering of Developers has been bought by Take-Two Interactive. In a refreshingly plain-speaking press release, it was announced that GoD will "act autonomously as a wholly-owned subsidiary", which should come as a relief to people who have put their faith in GoD's vision of developer-driven publishing. Mike Wilson, God's CEO, acknowledges that Take-Two once had a reputation for "shipping crap and not paying people", but claims "they've changed 1000%" over the last two years. Take-Two's CEO Ryan Brant is the only remaining member of the old management team. According to Wilson, Take-Two has been a long-time partner, and the acquisition is simply a logical step that will allow GoD to thicken its portfolio: "We will be able to say YES to a lot more great teams/projects now. We've turned down so many teams in the past year that most publishers would kill themselves to get to, just because we didn't have the resources to handle them." GoD has its offices in an old church. (You know that already, but every GoD story is obliged to mention it and we'd hate to break with tradition.)
Thanks to Blue and GameSpy for the links. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Insert witty religious pun here.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
|
"As far as I'm concerned we're all just a load of breeders on a rock in space." Agreed....now it's time to further my plans to dictate WHO is allowed to breed and who isn't. Logically the final decision will, of course, be mine. The original plan was simple: I get to breed with any beautiful and brilliant woman, and everyone else is sterilized. I've since modified that to allow a few other males to procreate, as there are still some people who's opinions I respect. :) -Valeyard |
|
"Do you care if they buy it on impulse at Wal-Mart or at the local indie game store?: Actually, I do. I much prefer people who put a little THOUGHT behind a decision, especially a purchase. THOSE people are the ones that are least likely to be calling my tech support saying "What do you mean by 'my system doesn't meet the minimum requirements'?" I'd be willing to wager that the average Wal-Mart software shopper is less informed, less experienced and FAR less technically proficient than the average person shopping at a "software" store. "Deer Hunter was created specifically for Wal-Mart" I rest my case. -Valeyard |
|
<b>#38</b>, Valeyard: <QUOTE>I've since modified that to allow a few other males to procreate, as there are still some people who's opinions I respect. </QUOTE> And of course, some of those males will produce daughters. Why limit yourself to one generation?! |
|
""As far as I'm concerned we're all just a load of breeders on a rock in space. "" Quote of the year Andy! I'm afraid of Wal-Mart, well, not the store, but the freaks who inhabit the store. I've got all my teeth, I don't fit it, and I don't screw my sister. |
|
"Why limit yourself to one generation?!" Who said I was limiting myself to one generation? I'll keep breeding until I die, and then I'll pick one of my great great grandsons as a successor. Ok...enough fantasy...back to the crap. :) -Valeyard |
|
<quote>Actually, I do. I much prefer people who put a little THOUGHT behind a decision, especially a purchase. THOSE people are the ones that are least likely to be calling my tech support saying "What do you mean by 'my system doesn't meet the minimum requirements'?" </quote> Instead, you're stuck with the irrational hardcore gamer who will call you to bitch that you didn't use antioscopic trilinear nib-nurbing or support the 3Dfx Q-buffer technology. <quote>I'd be willing to wager that the average Wal-Mart software shopper is less informed, less experienced and FAR less technically proficient than the average person shopping at a "software" store. </quote> Well, I dunno... you're looking at mall shoppers at EB and the like. Are they really more sophisticated? <quote>"Deer Hunter was created specifically for Wal-Mart" I rest my case. </quote> And the success of Deer Hunter begat discounted pricing for many top-notch PC games... the $29.95 and utterly brilliant RollerCoaster Tycoon, for example... Deer Hunter was a good thing for the industry, folks. |
|
"you're looking at mall shoppers at EB and the like. Are they really more sophisticated?" Perhaps not. Perhaps I'm over-stereotyping Wal-Mart shoppers...but at least in MY town, the people who "get it" don't buy their software at Wal-Mart. "Deer Hunter was a good thing for the industry, folks." I disagree. It was a good thing for the average (or below-average) consumer, but I don't think it was a good thing for the gaming industry as a whole. Roller Coaster Tycoon (A great game) was discounted BECAUSE it was selling like wildfire...not in an attempt to stir up sales. Other games remained at the $40 or $50 mark...as they were still trying to stir up sales. Deer hunter didn't start a trend of inexpensive games, it's started a trend of CHEAPER games...big difference. If anything, Deer Hunter and it's 963 vapid clones demonstrate the diversity of the home market and the ability to achieve maximum results from minimal effort - if you're willing to exploit that new market. Any garage hack worth a damn could write a Deer Hunter clone, and any High-schooler who "likes to draw" could produce sufficient visual quality to compete on that level. Yes, it's arrogant and elitist, but it's the way I look at it. I don't mind if someone else likes the game, I just hate to see these pathetic attempts lauded as some sort of significant achievement in gaming. -Valeyard |
|
Get your facts straight bud. RollerCoaster Tycoon was released at a price of $29.99. It went on sale at Best Buy about two weeks after release at $17.99. I should know, I was there, bought it and went back for the refund on the sale. Sales had nothing to do with its initial price. The Best Buy sale is a common tactic used at the store to sell more copies of a new product. They do it with just about everything. Games ARE cheaper now than ever before and we can thank things like Deer Hunter that they are. Now you'll probably complain about them being cheaper having to do with the "decline of quality games". That's hardly the case...<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
I bought Roller Coaster tycoon at $29.99 several months AFTER it's initial release - at Best Buy. Perhaps what you thought was an initial release was a release...or maybe I'm just wrong...who knows I might have gotten ripped off. In either case, the initial price was much lower than your "standard" title for a lot of reasons. (VERY small developer, low development costs etc.) I'd be surprised if Deer Hunter played ANY part in determining the price of RC Tycoon. I guess it should be simple enough to find out.... -Valeyard |
|
<quote>Do enough people REALLY buy their software at Wal-Mart? I realize there's a large market and that different games target different markets but frankly, if *I* made a game, I don't think my target audience is going to be anywhere near a Wal-Mart. </quote> I remember reading (nope, no reference) that Wal-Mart is the biggest software retailer (in terms of sales) in the US. Your target audience may not shop at Wal-Mart, but your publisher's does. |
|
<b>#13</b> "loonyboi" wrote... <QUOTE> The gaming industry is shrinking VERY rapidly. I don't know about any of the other press guys that read this, but my appointments list for this year's E3 is significantly smaller than last year's because I no longer have to make individual appointments for several companies - they were all bought up by Infogrames, Sierra, EA, or Eidos (which may be bought up itself soon). </QUOTE> Didn't something like this happen in the mid/late 80s, though...a decline in the number of game companies? Or was I too hopped up on Def Leppard music and acne medicine to notice?<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#19</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE> Americans - there is no 'e' in ridiculous! :) </QUOTE> And there's <B>no 'u' in neighbor!</B> What's yer point? ;)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#49</b> "Rantage" wrote... <QUOTE>there's no 'u' in neighbor! </QUOTE> or color. damn egotistical brits, they wonder why everybody thinks of them like the whiny kid everybody at school picked on... :) I'll buy my games wherever they are cheapest, I don't give a damn if that's kmart, best buy, walmart, whatever. If they can sell me the exact same software for $10 less than the competition, they have earned my business. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<quote>I bought Roller Coaster tycoon at $29.99 several months AFTER it's initial release - at Best Buy. Perhaps what you thought was an initial release was a release...or maybe I'm just wrong...who knows I might have gotten ripped off.</quote> You're wrong. It was $29.99 from day one. You also didn't really get ripped off. The game retailed for $29.99 for a long time. <a href="http://www.ebworld.com/ebx/categories/products/product.asp?pf%5Fid=161276&mscssid=9MNLXLFKLC6L8PGN0JUT2T6B8LBUB9ED">$29.99 at EB World today</a> <a href="http://www.gamestop.com/product-detail.jsp?origin=sear&sku=642948">$24.99 at Gamestop today</a> It's probably as close to an "evergreen" title as the PC games industry gets, similar to the SimCity games. <quote>In either case, the initial price was much lower than your "standard" title for a lot of reasons. (VERY small developer, low development costs etc.)</quote> And you know this how? Yes the developer was small, however the costs may have been higher than you think. Chris Sawyer did visit a ton of theme parks to make the game. <a href="http://www.chrissawyer.com/">http://www.chrissawyer.com/</a> It also took him 2 years to make the game. Sure, the costs may not have been too high for its creation. There was a lot of money spent on advertising it though, including a TV commercial. If Deer Hunter had never been released and done so well in the marketplace, Hasbro may very well have stayed with $50 price tags on all their new software. Price has eroded across the board and RCT is just one example of this. Thief II is $37.99 right now, Soldier of Fortune is $39.99 to name two. Games used to be $49 to $59 upon release just two short years ago. Prices have definitely eroded and we can thank Deer Hunter and the casual gamer's interest in PC games for this phenomenon in addition to the proliferation of stores like Best Buy who sometimes sell stuff at $1.00 or less above their cost just to get you in the store.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Americans, your language is confined to Reservations. For all you whiteys out there, you speak our language so get a grip. Colour. Neighbour. Flamethrour. |
|
<quote>I disagree. It was a good thing for the average (or below-average) consumer, but I don't think it was a good thing for the gaming industry as a whole. </quote> All I know is that game prices have dropped $10 or more in the last couple of years. <quote>Roller Coaster Tycoon (A great game) was discounted BECAUSE it was selling like wildfire...</quote> No, it debuted at $29.95 and, outside of some marketing deals with certain retailers where it was even cheaper, it stayed there. Check the PC Data figures. It's always had an average price in the $25-$28 range. <quote>Yes, it's arrogant and elitist, but it's the way I look at it. I don't mind if someone else likes the game, I just hate to see these pathetic attempts lauded as some sort of significant achievement in gaming. </quote> No one's saying they're significant achievements in GAMING, but they did have a profound impact on the industry. As relevant to this discussion, they proved you could release lower cost software and still make a lot of money. |
|
Quick clarification: I'm not disputing that Wal-Mart represents a huge market, even as it relates to software. I just don't think that because they sell MORE software (read; Deer Hunter + clones, Barbie, non-game software, CHEAP software marketed to the masses who don't know what they want/need) that this automatically qualifies them as an essential market for QUALITY software or even GAME software. I liken it to the millions that buy tabloid newspapers, call psychic hotlines, purchase the "get rich real estate plan" from an infomercial or purchase their home computer from the Home Shopping Network. These people are a marketing major's wet dream. Yes, it's elitist. Yes, "quality" is subjective. Yes, it's still ALL just a matter of opinion. I still don't believe that the target audience for "my game" or "my type of game" shop for software at Wal-Mart. Why? Because the target audience for "my game" or "my type of game" are going to tend to have the same software buying habits that I do. Is this 100% accurate? Hell, no. I'm sure that somewhere, someone bought great games at Wal-Mart. But just because they are a major reseller of items under the broad heading of "software" doesn't mean they are THE major reseller of items under the substantially smaller heading of "my type of software" or “games” or “quality software”. And it CERTAINLY doesn't warrant releasing pre-golden product to them just to make sure we make it to market on time. Maybe Deer Hunter DID have a significant effect on the average price of all software...or even on RCTycoon specifically...but I haven't seen any data to corroborate that. The larger point, I suppose, is that I'm an arrogant elitist and until proven wrong, I prefer to look down my nose at people who buy their software at Wal-Mart. If that's the way someone views this, that's fine...I won't claim it's inaccurate. -Valeyard |
|
<b>#48</b> "Rantage" wrote... <QUOTE>Didn't something like this happen in the mid/late 80s, though...a decline in the number of game companies? Or was I too hopped up on Def Leppard music and acne medicine to notice?</QUOTE> Well, sorta. I'm assuming you're referring to "the end of the gaming industry" that happened in the early eighties? For all intents and purposes, the industry imploaded on itself. That is most certainly <b>not</b> happening now. The industry is doing great. If anything, it's doing so well, that competition is what's killing the industry. Company X wants to compete with Company Y, so they have to spend more cash on Game Z. Company X has to cancel Game Q in order to free up funds to make Game Z. Company Z can't afford to <b>make</b> Game T, so they're bought up by Company X. Strange, but true. -jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#19</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>Americans - there is no 'e' in ridiculous! :) </QUOTE> Yeesh. I'm telling ya, CrapSpy needs a spell checker. An <i>American</i> spell checker though. None of this "colour" and "flavour" crap. <QUOTE>I'm surprised that you describe GoD's image as hyperbole. How so? You suggest that they're not a "different publisher than everyone else", but I think history shows that they are. </QUOTE> When all is said and done...does it <b>really</b>? Okay, GOD is nicer to developers than most publishers. But I hardly think they've inspired some sort of developer's renaisance. If anything, they've become more and more like a regular publisher by embracing license after license. -jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#55</b> "loonyboi" wrote... <QUOTE>That is most certainly not happening now.</QUOTE> How can you be so sure? You psychic or something? If our economy takes a dump, and with all the tax increases over the last 7 years, it's going to, when all the net stocks dump, which I have a feeling they will, people won't have the spare cash to dump on games, it may not die, but it will be much smaller on the top end. Shareware will come back at that point.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
I think we've got at least another 2 or 3 years of riding the technology wave before the economy slows down. Probably longer than that even. We're more likely to have some kind of civil war between the haves and have nots than a crash of the market that could affect every man, woman and child.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#58</b> "David Long" wrote... <QUOTE> We're more likely to have some kind of civil war between the haves and have nots than a crash of the market that could affect every man, woman and child.</QUOTE> It's really hard to tell. I can see not only the haves and have nots fighting, that's what Clinton has used for the last 7 years. He's pitted all sorts of groups against each other, rather pathetic really, but we as a nation are pretty much sheep and go in the opposite direction of the cow prod. Look at gas prices lately, that's the problem when you have a president who doesn't understand, or fails to try to understand foreign policy, he's too busy getting his weenie gnarbled by a fucking retarded intern. We'll have to wait and see what happens with the economy, but with Algore telling me how much water I can use to flush my toilet, and now wanting to regulate dish washers and other shit, maybe, just then maybe, people will realize how little freedom they have left, but they won't because they're just too fucking stupid.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
David: I don't want to dwell on this, but you lost me... I said: "I bought Roller Coaster tycoon at $29.99 several months AFTER it's initial release" To which you replied: "You're wrong. It was $29.99 from day one. You also didn't really get ripped off. The game retailed for $29.99 for a long time." If it was $29.99 from the start, and it STAYED there, then how am I wrong in saying that I bought it for $29.99 several months after it's release? With regard to the development cost: MANY games take 2+ years to make. MOST of those have a team of substantially more than one person.... therefore: RCTycoon = lower development cost. Additionally, the standard business math of Retail Price = total investment + profit margin... helps out too. With profit margin being fairly standard industry-wide, lower price, ESPECIALLY at launch, is indicative of lower development costs. Finally... Some games are $29-35, some are $35-40 and some are $40+. It was that way 3 years ago; it's STILL that way. Price reductions come for a LOT of reasons, and Deer Hunter (read; competitive practices) was certainly one of the many factors. To try and say that it was the sole or primary reduction in the cost of games is inaccurate. If ANYTHING, it's most likely contributed to an improvement in the economy and an increase in available customers. We're shipping MILLIONS of PC's every month, and we're just ONE distributor. The number of people who can and ARE buying PC games has exploded in the past few years. Larger market lower price. I guess it’s possible that I just completely despise Deer Hunter and its clones and don’t want to see them credited with anything positive. However, I honestly believe that the DEFINING factors in price reduction are the improved economy and significantly larger customer base. Basic economic seems to dictate that those factors are the MOST relevant in this discussion. -Valeyard |
|
<quote>I just don't think that because they sell MORE software (read; Deer Hunter + clones, Barbie, non-game software, CHEAP software marketed to the masses who don't know what they want/need) that this automatically qualifies them as an essential market for QUALITY software or even GAME software. </quote> Well, as someone else said, they don't care where they buy software if it's cheap; your game bought at Wal-Mart is (in theory) the same as the one bought at the local "cool" game store. If Wal-Mart has System Shock 2, and it's $10 less than EB... hmm, I'd think people would be just as happy to buy it there. And since people aren't just born with games freely available, you have to think people are making first purchases at Wal-Mart (maybe Deer Hunter), then they branch out to other genres or other retailers where you find walls and walls of... boxes. <quote>Maybe Deer Hunter DID have a significant effect on the average price of all software...or even on RCTycoon specifically...but I haven't seen any data to corroborate that. </quote> I'm relying mostly on anecdotal evidence that fewer and fewer games are being priced at $59.95; you see few games over $40. EA Sports has lowered their prices of PC games across the board, in response to Microsoft (I'm guessing) pricing their basketball, baseball and football games at around $20 a pop. And High Heat 2001 was $29 too. (3DO, in general, prices their games in the $25-$40 range, as opposed to the old days, where most games were $40-$60 at release.) I can't say with any certainty whether it's Deer Hunter or merely competition driving prices down, but it happened right around the time of that game's success. I think it removed some of the stigma of cheap games; it used to be you assumed there was something wrong with a game if it was priced significantly lower than competing games. Now you find quality all across the map; Dirt Track Racing and Beetle Buggin' are great games for $20, and RollerCoaster Tycoon was one of the best games of 1999, period. |
|
**Notice My cable company is still shafting me with horrible service. Because of this, Internet games are unplayable and I'm unable to read PlanetCrap from home. Which means that in a few short minutes, I won't be able to post again until tomorrow. Since I really dig discussing issues like this and I'm interested in counter-arguments (after all, having your opinion questioned is a "good thing"), I thought I'd give you all fair warning that I won't be able to reply until morning. No matter how much I enjoy this, I'm not driving back up to work at midnight to see what you've posted. :) You're more than welcome to e-mail me...I'm fairly ritualistic about checking it. -Valeyard |
|
Your comments on more PCs in the market making a large contribution to lower prices would make sense if PC game sales had increased along with the increase in PCs but they really haven't. Games still sell pathetically small numbers on the PC. The prices have eroded because there is more competition at the rack. There are many more titles to choose from and having a AAA game going for $50 next to a game like Deer Hunter which is AAA in sales potential at $20 doesnt fly anymore. $40 or less makes sense now and it's become pretty much standard. I was pointing out that you were wrong about the initial price of RollerCoaster Tycoon and in the same breath letting you know that even though you waite 6 months, you didn't get ripped off on price because it still retails that high. Sorry if that wasn't clear. 3 years ago games were much more expensive on PC. They were right in line with console games at $49.99 or more in most stores because consumers didn't know better and the market supported it. Today that doesn't work. Some games are cheaper to produce today, for sure. RollerCoaster Tycoon was done by more than one guy also, although Chris Sawyer is the main contributor. The game lists artists that contributed as well as some programming help. I'll check it when I get home to be sure. I'm sure that Hasbro didn't lose any money on RCT and in fact probably did very well. As Steve Bauman pointed out though, SimCity 3000 did better revenue based on its higher price and respectable sales. That says that RCT was sold at a low margin. Maybe it's a $23 cost to produce and shelve and there's only $7 of profit there. A game like Soldier of Fortune probably has a higher margin and its current sales success should equal a nice return for Activision. I understand you quality comments very well and taking the high road on quality is certainly justified. However, it's also well within reason to look at something like Deer Hunter and say "that's horrible as a game" but still consider it a success at retail and a major influence on other game's pricing. When it comes to sales though, quality often has little to do with it.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#56</b>, loonyboi: <QUOTE><QUOTE> #19 "Andy" wrote... I'm surprised that you describe GoD's image as hyperbole. How so? You suggest that they're not a "different publisher than everyone else", but I think history shows that they are. </QUOTE> When all is said and done...does it really? Okay, GOD is nicer to developers than most publishers. But I hardly think they've inspired some sort of developer's renaisance. If anything, they've become more and more like a regular publisher by embracing license after license. </QUOTE> Maybe we have different interpretations of their philosophy. I've always understood GoD's idea to be that developers will get a decent working relationship with their publisher, no overbearing restrictions on schedules or release dates, and will generally be treated decently. From what I've heard (ie: absolutely nothing negative) they live up to that. So what's the problem? GoD never said they'd change the world, they just said they'd set aside a nice piece of it for a few people to work in. (Now watch as someone comes up with a quote from Mike Wilson saying he's going to change the world...) -- Some Wal-Mart stuff for you... <a href="http://members.aol.com/walmopboy/abuse/index.html">Employee Abuse Forum</a>. Not an <i>official</i> abuse forum, of course. <a href="http://www.nlcnet.org/rtk/rtkindex.htm">The People's Right To Know Campaign</a>. Stuff about ethics and a call for disclosure of product origins. <a href="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/4933/walmart.html">Wal*Mart Memoirs</a>. Written by someone who used to work there. Don't be put off by it being just a big slab of text, it's written in a really easy-to-read style. (Of the three, read this one, just because it's funny - especially the bit about calling in sick.) Brits - remember that Wal-Mart now owns ASDA. Hurrah. Kiss the green belt good-bye! |
|
"If Wal-Mart has System Shock 2, and it's $10 less than EB... hmm, I'd think people would be just as happy to buy it there." Agreed. This was never a hit on "bargain shopping". :) "I'm relying mostly on anecdotal evidence that fewer and fewer games are being priced at $59.95" Perhaps my memory is just failing me now (likely) or I've just been lucky, but console cartidges aside, I don't recall paying $60 for very many games. It's not like Duke3D, Quake or System Shock were $60. Half-life wasn't, and that was 2 yeaars ago. Links LS '98 might have been, as I seem to recall that the Links series was always a little pricey...but it's still pricey. That has more to do with the publisher and the "name" more than anything. Seriously, I don't remember seeing many games that cost $60, and there still aren't many. Granted the price of the average game has dropped some, but I already gave my reasoning for that. Interesting project: dig through your old magazines for those pages that advertise "best price on these top 20 games" and compare the prices over the past 5 years...I really don't think you'll see much of a drop, but I haven't taken the time to check it out yet. :) -Valeyard |
|
David: "Your comments on more PCs in the market making a large contribution to lower prices would make sense if PC game sales had increased along with the increase in PCs but they really haven't." Game sales as a PERCENTAGE of total PC software sales hasn't increased much, but the VOLUME has increased. (Nope, no numbers to back it up...just common sense at this point. More games are selling more copies, and there are more home PCs than ever before.) "The prices have eroded because there is more competition at the rack." I don't completely disagree...but Deer Hunter isn't in direct competition with say, Unreal. In any case, you may very well be right. Until we get some numbers, I'll just bow out and leave it in the "we both gave our opinion and reasons...and we nearly agree" state. :) "I was pointing out that you were wrong about the initial price of RollerCoaster Tycoon" I never claimed to know the initial price, that must've been someone else. I just know that I paid $29.99 at the 3-4 month point. Someone else claimed it started at $29.99 and dropped to $17.99 3-4 weeks later. Which, it appears, is wrong. 'nuf said. "3 years ago games were much more expensive on PC." See my last post...maybe I'm smoking crack, or maybe I just have more money to spend so I don't care, but I don't get that impression when I shop for games. I think I paid $30 for Quake 1, $40 for Half-life and $40 for Q3:A...hell, that looks like an increase. Bad example, sorry. "However, it's also well within reason to look at something like Deer Hunter and say "that's horrible as a game" but still consider it a success at retail and a major influence on other game's pricing." I'm biased, I admit, but I don't see that this game had a "major influence" on any other game's pricing. There have always been cheap games... I'll stick to my economy/larger customer base explanation...it's easier for me to deal with. :) -Valeyard |
|
<quote>Perhaps my memory is just failing me now (likely) or I've just been lucky, but console cartidges aside, I don't recall paying $60 for very many games. It's not like Duke3D, Quake or System Shock were $60. Half-life wasn't, and that was 2 yeaars ago. Links LS '98 might have been, as I seem to recall that the Links series was always a little pricey...but it's still pricey. That has more to do with the publisher and the "name" more than anything. </quote> Oh I do, in the late 80s and into the mid 90s. Origin games, in particular, were pricier. Didn't Wing Commander ship at like $79.95? (I'm talking about list price, but the actual prices weren't that much lower.) I used to spend $40-$50 per game when they first appeared on stores. <quote>Interesting project: dig through your old magazines for those pages that advertise "best price on these top 20 games" and compare the prices over the past 5 years...I really don't think you'll see much of a drop, but I haven't taken the time to check it out yet. :) </quote> Who keeps those things? Even I don't have a complete collection of my OWN magazine at home... I compiled the monthly PC Data Top 10 lists for the last few years, and the majority of top-selling titles have either been pure budget games or in the $30-$40 price range. The higest priced games were around $43 or so. |
|
<b>#65</b>, Valeyard: <QUOTE> Interesting project: dig through your old magazines for those pages that advertise "best price on these top 20 games" and compare the prices over the past 5 years...I really don't think you'll see much of a drop, but I haven't taken the time to check it out yet. :) </QUOTE> What you're saying sounds right to me. The last time I bought Amiga games in a shop at normal retail price would have been about ten years ago, maybe even a bit longer, and they were between £25 and £30. Nowadays the retail price for PC games is between £25 and £35. Most of them are £30. (That's the price they sell at - the recommended price is usually given as £45 but <b>every</b> story discounts them over here.) |
|
If you go back as far as the 80's...in the EARLY days...the price drop from that point until now is DEFINITELY due to a growing market of PCs. Let's stick to the before Deer Hunter / after Deer Hunter timetables...because just a quick look through the mags at the office doesn't show any significant change. In any case...back in the morning (or night if you're on the other side of this rock). -Valeyard |
|
<b>#17</b> "Jafd" wrote... <QUOTE>People rarely change Pardon me. This has not been my experience. </QUOTE> not to offend you. But either your unique, special, different from everyonelse etc etc etc Or you are easily fooled :P. It may be a good idea to go get a basic text on psychology.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#64</b> "Andy" wrote... <QUOTE>Maybe we have different interpretations of their philosophy. I've always understood GoD's idea to be that developers will get a decent working relationship with their publisher, no overbearing restrictions on schedules or release dates, and will generally be treated decently. From what I've heard (ie: absolutely nothing negative) they live up to that. So what's the problem? GoD never said they'd change the world, they just said they'd set aside a nice piece of it for a few people to work in. (Now watch as someone comes up with a quote from Mike Wilson saying he's going to change the world...)</QUOTE> Well, you're right - they never said they would change the world (or if they did, it wasn't serious) but they did make a point of distancing themselves from most "standard" practices of publishers. Whether or not they've fallen back on any promises can probably be disputed, but I don't really think they have - I just think any claims of being entirely different from other publishers may have just been hyperbole. Yes, they are no doubt kinder to their developers than other publishers, but then...that may simply be because nobody has any complaints to file yet (they <i>are</i> still very young). Let's wait and see what happens. Depending on who you ask, Activision is either a great company to work with, or the absolute worst publisher on the planet. It's all a matter of perspective. -jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#17</b> "Jafd" wrote... <QUOTE>People rarely change Pardon me. This has not been my experience. </QUOTE> not to offend you. But either your unique, special, different from everyonelse etc etc etc Or you are easily fooled :P. It may be a good idea to go get a basic text on psychology.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Hi just to note. I buy most of my software from the Wal-mart equivelent in my country and yet consider myself a gamer. Why ? The schmucks at all the game stores yammer on about brainless goop thinking they are kewl. I much prefer to browse without the abuse :P. I only go into those places when a game isn't carried at mass-market stores and I have le4arn't about it via somewhere (ie net). <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
I *knew* Gathering of Developers wasn't going to work the way they were going. Without PR types to push games out the door, nothing would ever get released. "With our will the clouds will turn to mountains, and with our might, the mountains will turn to hills. Climb my brothers, climb." Noble attempt, but now they're just another publisher.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
G.o.D. and Third Law Interactive are both based in an old church. It just so happens, it's the same old church. |
|
I got unreal at walmart cause it was $10 cheaper than best buy, and I got Quake3 arena there cause it was the same ($60) as everywhere else at the time. The only other game I've paid $60 for was Quake2, but that was because I got it the day of release, and after driving all over town to find a place that finally had it, I didnt care how much it cost. Most games I buy are about $30, and most games (with a few exceptions like the quakes, the unreals, and Tribes and Tribes2) I wouldn't pay more, cause usually I play them a couple of times then put the CD away and never play them again. I'm just waiting for Loki to get into Best Buy, or Wal Mart, or something so I can buy my linux games at retail now, since we don't have an EB or such in this town. :( and no, there was no point here.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#17</b> "Jafd" wrote... <QUOTE>People rarely change Pardon me. This has not been my experience. </QUOTE> Perhaps its better to look at it this way. After a certain age, people rarely change. Internally, people tend to stay the same. You might expect a few changes in a lifetime, but thats about it. The problem is, 99% of the people give a view to the world that doesn't repersent thier true selves. When your best friend turns out to be a bastard, he/she probably always was. That sort of thing. V<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
hmm, back to the subject at hand... The Gathering was nice because it was under control of Mike Wilson's slightly twisted vision. I have to say that the Gathering's Halloween Nocturne bash in New Orleans/Bourbon Street was hands-down the best press event I've attended, and Mike's an awesone guy who also happens to be a fun loving party animal. Will the fun stop now that Take 2's in charge? Well, G.O.D.'s PR firm-- TSI was never among my favorites (Take 2's is much better) I think that in the long run, developers under the umbrella of Take 2's larger bank account will flourish from having more time to make their games the best they can be, instead of rushing them to market before they're ready. |
|
Uh..somewhat offtopic but going along with what Apache said a long ass while ago about Toca2. If you want a good racing game..with good solid physics..go for GT 1 and 2. True they're on PSX and GT2 is somewhat buggy if you bought it RIGHT as it came out..but goddamnit is that a good game. Now if only Polyphony would make it for the PC. Then I'd be in heaven. As for Toca2 Apache...it felt like you were driving on ice the controls were all wishy-washy...I liked the damage models for teh cars though...but the controls really bugged me. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
hmmm, controls for most racing games are easily mastered by just 'playing' the game until you get the hang of it. |
|
<b>#80</b> "Apache" wrote... <QUOTE>hmmm, controls for most racing games are easily mastered by just 'playing' the game until you get the hang of it. </QUOTE> really? wow... :P no i did play teh game till I got the hand of sliding around on what felt like ice..just imho GT had a better feel. Didn't feel like the car was floating on the road like it did in Toca.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
bleh replace teh with the. Stupid mind getting ahead of my fingers.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#78</b> "Apache" wrote... <QUOTE>The Gathering was nice because it was under control of Mike Wilson's slightly twisted vision. I have to say that the Gathering's Halloween Nocturne bash in New Orleans/Bourbon Street was hands-down the best press event I've attended, and Mike's an awesone guy who also happens to be a fun loving party animal. </QUOTE> That's funny, I didn't think you had any memories of that night, Apache. ;) -jason<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
<b>#83</b> "loonyboi" wrote... <QUOTE> That's funny, I didn't think you had any memories of that night, Apache. ;) -jason</QUOTE> Oh please tell it to all us uninvited slobs, please.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I> |
|
Andy: Now that you've backed me up, I'll have to re-think my whole position. :) Kidding. All: Looked through some old/new magazines last night, but I forgot to bring my notes to work. The end result was that average price of "Class A" games hasn't significantly changed in the past 5 years. What has changed is the number of "B" and "C" games available - that's what brings the total average price of all games down. So many companies are making cheap clones and crappy low-cost games just to get something on the shelf and rake in their share of the pot that it's lowered the over-all average price of games. Granted, Deer Hunter may have had an effect on THAT (which is something I alluded to in an earlier post), but I hardly consider that a "good" thing. 40 more useless titles on the shelf only server to lower industry standards, confuse and rip-off consumers and obscure QUALITY games like Thief 2 and System Shock 2 (which deserves to sell at LEAST 5 times as many copies as it has). Anyway...I'll try to get you some numbers tomorrow, if you like. -Valeyard |
|
I've always look at GoD as something that will change the industry, a gaming company that'll make great games.. Something free of control.. Basically, now that T2 owns GoD, I view it as an entirely different company, considering T2 basically makes shi**y games with fast production times. GoD is all about 'the longer, the better'. |
|
Darkseid (29): <i>it is a lot, not alot it is losing money, not loosing money</i> it is an evolving language, which means, as much as it pains me, that (a) is already in dictionaries and (b) is soon to follow. and don't forget "alright" and "everyday". ::sigh:: (btw, "everyday" does NOT mean "every single day", it means "ordinary". BAH) Andy (36): <i>As far as I'm concerned we're all just a load of breeders on a rock in space.</i> personally, i like the "virus" definition from The Matrix, myself... which was, imho, the only really intelligent and somewhat-fresh concept to come out of it. Valeyard (38): <i>Agreed....now it's time to further my plans to dictate WHO is allowed to breed and who isn't.</i> put me on the "don't want to breed but really like the procedure" part and i'll be happy enough. RahvinTaka (73): <i>The schmucks at all the game stores yammer on about brainless goop thinking they are kewl.</i> can i get an amen. what's worse is when i go to buy a magazine or something and they tell me something that they read that day that i wrote. one time i'd just had a bad day and Johnny Knowitall decides to spout off, "hey, did you know thus-and-so?" so i told him, yes, i knew that, because i interviewed the developer and wrote the story and if he had any questions about it to let me know. he hasn't popped off since... makes me wish i'd done it sooner. as for the original reason for the thread, for me, it boils down to this: if Mike Wilson continues to run g.o.d. the way he always has, and nothing changes other than where the profits are going, it doesn't matter to me who signs his paycheck. and i can't see T2 screwing around with the success of some of their titles (Fly!, in particular, sold a whole lot better than it had any right to, imho). now, if things change, that'll be a different story, and we'll deal with that when/if it happens. and to their upcoming Big Three: Heavy Metal is just going to fucking rule. every time i see this game it just gets better, and omg the mod community is going to crap its collective pants when they see how easy it is to customize this game. on top of that, it just looks damned fun to play, and i haven't said that about a game in development for i don't know how long. i'm very very very much lookin forward to gettin my paws on this puppy. Kiss... remains to be seen. looks fun, but the concept is somewhat marginal. will be waiting for a demo or beta until i make up my mind. not as enthusiastic about it as HM:F2 tho. you all forgot <b>Rune</b>, which is looking fantastic. haven't seen much of it other than the public movies and shots, but my god it's lookin sweet. and a final observation: the Test Drive *.* games blow, as driving games. most Infogrames "drivers" are viewed with dread by myself, as in 'god i hope i don't have to review this PoS'. Mobile 1, however, was a very nice surprise. |
| C O M M E N T S |
|
Home »
Topic: Insert witty religious pun here.
|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»| |
| P O S T A C O M M E N T |
|
|
| C R A P T A G S | ||||||||
|
|
| There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details] |
Powered by blah 0.9.1-dev •
PlanetCrap is © 1997-2035 Hendrik "Morn" Mans
|