Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Used Games

1363739414244

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    if the shop loses, and goes out of business, that will hurt the publisher.

    I really hope that no one thinks that demand for video games would stay absolutely constant without specialty shops like Gamestop around. ESPECIALLY for smaller devs/pubs.

    georgersig.jpg
  • luceklucek Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    if the shop loses, and goes out of business, that will hurt the publisher.

    I really hope that no one thinks that demand for video games would stay absolutely constant without specialty shops like Gamestop around. ESPECIALLY for smaller devs/pubs.

    Absolutely wright, but no one wants to listen to the parable of the broken window.

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    McGuffin wrote: »
    McGuffin wrote: »
    1) The gameshops dont pay the publishers for 2nd hand games
    2) Supporting a large amount of online players for a small amount of real sales costs money.
    3) The publishers remove features to devalue 2nd games value - to the shops.
    4) Gamers buy the devalued game for less money from the shops.
    5) The publishers add back features when paid by the gamer - who paid less for the devalued 2nd hand game.
    6) Publisher wins, Gamer wins, Shop loses.

    1) Publishers release more content digitally
    2) Gamers pay more for less content on the disc.
    3) Publishers cripple features of games unless they're bought the way publisher wants.
    3) Gamers say "I'm not going to bother buying anything because the publishers are being greedy. (Which they are)
    4) Market collapses as games sales slide further and further down.
    5) Everyone loses.

    Except that everything I wrote is provable true and everything you wrote is tosh.

    Item 3 (your 2nd item 3 for some reason) is a particularly silly way to cut your nose off to spite your face.

    You know you really ought to look into some critical thinking classes, or read a book about it, because I'm going to guess you are quite young and if this is the way you think and argue, you aren't going to get on well in the world at large and certainly not very far in any company that values intelligent thought.

    And you really ought to reevaluate your self worth, because it isn't as high as you seem to think it is.

    And not a thing you've said is provably true. And not a thing I've said is "tosh". Pip pip, Cheerio!

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Some developers do DLC properly as additional content.

    Some developers do DLC poorly by either removing content from a game, or else leaving a game partially unfinished intentionally and releasing DLC that finished it.



    Anyone insisting it is all either way is the silliest of geese.

    the problem we are having is that some people consider the first and the second thing to be one and the same ( as in, its not additional content, the original game was unfinished if you ever put out dlc)
    also when has the second thing actually happened?

    You can't prove the second thing, but games have been left unfinished for much WORSE reasons that DLC plenty of times.

    It is silly to claim absolutely that it never happens. Game companies are just as greedy as any other company; just because we like the things they make doesn't mean that they aren't just out to get our money. It is equally silly to claim that ALL DLC is this, because so much DLC clearly isn't. Even the infamous horse armor was additional content that didn't complete the game, just added something EXTRA on to it.

    georgersig.jpg
  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    and before you say "but they remove content from a finished game to sell it at launch, you still haven't show a single real example of it happening

    I've listed several games, repeatedly. It's not my fault you can't read.

  • McGuffinMcGuffin Registered User
    edited August 2010
    lucek wrote: »
    McGuffin wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    1) The gameshops dont pay the publishers for 2nd hand games
    2) Supporting a large amount of online players for a small amount of real sales costs money.
    3) The publishers remove features to devalue 2nd games value - to the shops.
    4) Gamers buy the devalued game for less money from the shops.
    5) The publishers add back features when paid by the gamer - who paid less for the devalued 2nd hand game.
    6) Publisher wins, Gamer wins, Shop loses.

    Geddit now?
    1)the money has been paid. 1 game 1 price tag no change to profits.
    2)only people with a legit copy of the game can use online play (at least in theory but that's a different issue),
    so that means 1 sale 1 set of upstream costs no change to profits.
    3)the publisher removes important parts of the game devaluing the game after a sale. the worth of a game is diminished.
    4)gamers have to sell games for less money. the worth of a game is diminished.
    5)the publisher gets paid again twice for one copy of a product. the worth of a game is diminished. publisher gets more money.
    6)Shops can't afford as many employees. put's gamers out of jobs
    7)with less disposable income gamers buy less games.
    8)Publisher wins, Gamer loses, Shop loses, Employees of shop loses, Publishers that aren't being greedy lose.

    Jesus, I hope you don't get into a senior position in a bank or something, or the whole world is screwed. Again.

    the money? How much money?
    publisher gets paid twice? How much money?
    more money? How much money?

    Look, if the Publisher charged you just 5 cents to reactivate online play would you be bitching?

    How about 25 cents? Still OK with that?

    How about a whole dollar? Yeah, not exactly robbery, is it?

    What about $5? WHAT A RIPPOFF! GREEDY BASTIDS! HANGING'S TOO GOOD FOR THEM! Etc. Etc.

    Ok, how about we go back to $2? Weeeellll, it's still an imposition, but if it helps keep publishers online servers running and they can make future games, I guess it's OK.

    No, No, changed my mind, its the PRINCIPLE of the thing. NO AMOUNT of MONEY is EVER acceptable now or in the future!!!! SCREW THEM ALL!

    Oh crap. You just killed the games industry.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    McGuffin wrote: »
    lucek wrote: »
    McGuffin wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    1) The gameshops dont pay the publishers for 2nd hand games
    2) Supporting a large amount of online players for a small amount of real sales costs money.
    3) The publishers remove features to devalue 2nd games value - to the shops.
    4) Gamers buy the devalued game for less money from the shops.
    5) The publishers add back features when paid by the gamer - who paid less for the devalued 2nd hand game.
    6) Publisher wins, Gamer wins, Shop loses.

    Geddit now?
    1)the money has been paid. 1 game 1 price tag no change to profits.
    2)only people with a legit copy of the game can use online play (at least in theory but that's a different issue),
    so that means 1 sale 1 set of upstream costs no change to profits.
    3)the publisher removes important parts of the game devaluing the game after a sale. the worth of a game is diminished.
    4)gamers have to sell games for less money. the worth of a game is diminished.
    5)the publisher gets paid again twice for one copy of a product. the worth of a game is diminished. publisher gets more money.
    6)Shops can't afford as many employees. put's gamers out of jobs
    7)with less disposable income gamers buy less games.
    8)Publisher wins, Gamer loses, Shop loses, Employees of shop loses, Publishers that aren't being greedy lose.

    Jesus, I hope you don't get into a senior position in a bank or something, or the whole world is screwed. Again.

    the money? How much money?
    publisher gets paid twice? How much money?
    more money? How much money?

    Look, if the Publisher charged you just 5 cents to reactivate online play would you be bitching?

    How about 25 cents? Still OK with that?

    How about a whole dollar? Yeah, not exactly robbery, is it?

    What about $5? WHAT A RIPPOFF! GREEDY BASTIDS! HANGING'S TOO GOOD FOR THEM! Etc. Etc.

    Ok, how about we go back to $2? Weeeellll, it's still an imposition, but if it helps keep publishers online servers running and they can make future games, I guess it's OK.

    No, No, changed my mind, its the PRINCIPLE of the thing. NO AMOUNT of MONEY is EVER acceptable now or in the future!!!! SCREW THEM ALL!

    Oh crap. You just killed the games industry.

    Game Industry killed itself there, by deciding to start charging for something that they had been giving away for free for years, without adding any value to it.



    You know what would make EA charging to play Madden online totally okay? If they promised that they would update next year's roster into this year's game for everyone who bought new or paid extra.



    Why do you think consumers have an obligations to producers that producers don't have to consumers?

    georgersig.jpg
  • luceklucek Registered User
    edited August 2010
    McGuffin wrote: »

    Jesus, I hope you don't get into a senior position in a bank or something, or the whole world is screwed. Again.

    the money? How much money?
    publisher gets paid twice? How much money?
    more money? How much money?

    Look, if the Publisher charged you just 5 cents to reactivate online play would you be bitching?

    How about 25 cents? Still OK with that?

    How about a whole dollar? Yeah, not exactly robbery, is it?

    What about $5? WHAT A RIPPOFF! GREEDY BASTIDS! HANGING'S TOO GOOD FOR THEM! Etc. Etc.

    Ok, how about we go back to $2? Weeeellll, it's still an imposition, but if it helps keep publishers online servers running and they can make future games, I guess it's OK.

    No, No, changed my mind, its the PRINCIPLE of the thing. NO AMOUNT of MONEY is EVER acceptable now or in the future!!!! SCREW THEM ALL!

    Oh crap. You just killed the games industry.
    A straw man argument based off a line of equivocation. I thought you were saying something about logic reason and intelligent conversation.

    But to the point even in your example $2 per copy resold will add up. If there are 15,000 copy sold to game stop that's 10,000 not going to new games and 20,000 not going to the employees of game stop. at game stop that's basically 2 peoples jobs out the window. Is $2 still nothing? in a conservative estimate 2 people on unemployment for a small fee.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I don't think EITHER of you is really a Certified Managerial Accountant.

    This whole thread is a pack of lies!

    georgersig.jpg
  • McGuffinMcGuffin Registered User
    edited August 2010

    And you really ought to reevaluate your self worth, because it isn't as high as you seem to think it is.

    And not a thing you've said is provably true. And not a thing I've said is "tosh". Pip pip, Cheerio!

    That's it, I've had an epiphany! I am but a worthless....thingy... and old PooPoo here is just so right about everything it's blinding.

    We should all bow down at his feet and beg humble forgiveness for ever doubting his utter, utter brilliance.

    It was the Pip Pip that did it , of course. With such a brilliantly reasoned argument up there in the highest leagues, brushing shoulders with gems like: "No I never! You smell, no YOU smell." there really isn't anything in my armour that can resist such eloquence.

  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    and before you say "but they remove content from a finished game to sell it at launch, you still haven't show a single real example of it happening

    I've listed several games, repeatedly. It's not my fault you can't read.

    i just went back through all of your posts (all of them, really, because this is the only threads he's posted in), and I can't find a single mention of game where the DLC was cut from the game and released for pure profit. Sure, you've acused devs of doing it multple times, but you're flat out fucking wrong on at least one count
    Spoiler:

    Also, looking through all of your posts, its become very clear that several other people have made the same arguments i have (some even using the same games as examples. You either dodged the question entirely, or shifted the goalposts with your answer (hey, how does rockband fit into your DLC philosophy? You never answered eljeffe, only saying "i dont play them so eh")

    basically I wash my hands of you because its too tiring to argue with such a stupid position about this

  • McGuffinMcGuffin Registered User
    edited August 2010
    lucek wrote: »
    But to the point even in your example $2 per copy resold will add up. If there are 15,000 copy sold to game stop that's 10,000 not going to new games and 20,000 not going to the employees of game stop. at game stop that's basically 2 peoples jobs out the window. Is $2 still nothing? in a conservative estimate 2 people on unemployment for a small fee.

    No...the money DOES go to new games. It goes to the publisher. To use. Instead of the money they are using that is currently not being used for new games.

    And no shit it'll add up, and who's getting it now? If that money isn't paid to the publisher, servers will not get supported and get closed early, devaluing the worth of the games bought by customers who have paid by buying new games.

    Providing online content isn't free. Or did you think it was because you have an all you can download option with your ISP? Nope.

    Providing it free to everyone forever will bankrupt publishers. I couldn't care about two less Gamestop employees standing around ignoring me, or asking me to pre-order everything. There will always be other shops where I can buy games. Publishers and developers are closing down at an alarming rate and if not supported in this way, you'll have less choices in the future.

    And minimum wage Gamestop employees can find employment somewhere else unless they are completely unemployable, in which case what are they doing at GameStop? Oh hang on...

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    62 pages?! Haven't you people figured this crap out yet?

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • MatriasMatrias Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    62 pages?! Haven't you people figured this crap out yet?
    That's because this is way more like a G&T thread circa 2005 then something I typically lurk through in Debate and Discourse.

    Man, those were the days.

    3DS/Pokemon Friend Code - 2122-5878-9273 - Kyle
  • MatriasMatrias Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    lucek wrote: »
    Any one find it hypocritical that THQ is blaming people who sell and buy used, is also the THQ that's business model is planed obsolescence?
    WWE and UFC were really their only games that did that, and they only ever published two UFC games. EA is waaaaaaaaaay more guilty of propagating that sort of system than anyone else.

    They're actually trying to move away from that.: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-08-10-thq-may-scrap-annual-ufc-policy

    THQ is a vastly different company from what they were a while back. Just look at their line up.

    3DS/Pokemon Friend Code - 2122-5878-9273 - Kyle
  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    ronzo wrote: »
    and before you say "but they remove content from a finished game to sell it at launch, you still haven't show a single real example of it happening

    I've listed several games, repeatedly. It's not my fault you can't read.

    i just went back through all of your posts (all of them, really, because this is the only threads he's posted in), and I can't find a single mention of game where the DLC was cut from the game and released for pure profit. Sure, you've acused devs of doing it multple times, but you're flat out fucking wrong on at least one count
    Spoiler:

    Also, looking through all of your posts, its become very clear that several other people have made the same arguments i have (some even using the same games as examples. You either dodged the question entirely, or shifted the goalposts with your answer (hey, how does rockband fit into your DLC philosophy? You never answered eljeffe, only saying "i dont play them so eh")

    basically I wash my hands of you because its too tiring to argue with such a stupid position about this

    Actually, I did follow up on the RB thing, but as I said before, it's not my fault you can't read.

    And if - ME2 day 1 DLC was devolped in the 6 weeks between the game going gold and being released. - is true, then they should have held the release back and put it on the disc. Period.

  • luceklucek Registered User
    edited August 2010
    McGuffin wrote: »
    lucek wrote: »
    But to the point even in your example $2 per copy resold will add up. If there are 15,000 copy sold to game stop that's 10,000 not going to new games and 20,000 not going to the employees of game stop. at game stop that's basically 2 peoples jobs out the window. Is $2 still nothing? in a conservative estimate 2 people on unemployment for a small fee.

    No...the money DOES go to new games. It goes to the publisher. To use. Instead of the money they are using that is currently not being used for new games.

    And no shit it'll add up, and who's getting it now? If that money isn't paid to the publisher, servers will not get supported and get closed early, devaluing the worth of the games bought by customers who have paid by buying new games.

    Providing online content isn't free. Or did you think it was because you have an all you can download option with your ISP? Nope.

    Providing it free to everyone forever will bankrupt publishers. I couldn't care about two less Gamestop employees standing around ignoring me, or asking me to pre-order everything. There will always be other shops where I can buy games. Publishers and developers are closing down at an alarming rate and if not supported in this way, you'll have less choices in the future.

    And minimum wage Gamestop employees can find employment somewhere else unless they are completely unemployable, in which case what are they doing at GameStop? Oh hang on...

    No it doesn't. it goes to playing an old game. Not the purchase of a new game.
    You know as well as I do that a change in earning is going to effect the people on the bottom first. So any fees that are coming out of sales at a game stop are coming strait out of some bodies paycheck.
    Again they are getting paid. A flat rate but still getting paid. No matter how many times a game is sold it doesn't increase the number of consoles that can play that game. There for there is no loss in profit from used games as you imply.
    Your answer to that is let them find other work. have you opened a paper in a few years? we are in a recession. Jobs are scares and if they do find one that's a job someone else would have taken. The fact is this will destroy jobs witch are rare right now.

  • Z0reZ0re Registered User regular
    edited August 2010


    Actually, I did follow up on the RB thing, but as I said before, it's not my fault you can't read.

    And if - ME2 day 1 DLC was devolped in the 6 weeks between the game going gold and being released. - is true, then they should have held the release back and put it on the disc. Period.

    So when do they release it? After only the Day 1 DLC or would you have them push it back to the Firewalker stuff? Overlord? The Shadowbroker DLC that is coming out in Mid-September? At some point the game has to go out the door and DLC exists to make thing that otherwise never would have been on the disc to exist.

    Think of DLC as analogous to the multiple Blade runner re-releases. There have been several that have added scenes or content over the years. Should Blade Runner never have been released in the first place?

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    ronzo wrote: »
    and before you say "but they remove content from a finished game to sell it at launch, you still haven't show a single real example of it happening

    I've listed several games, repeatedly. It's not my fault you can't read.

    i just went back through all of your posts (all of them, really, because this is the only threads he's posted in), and I can't find a single mention of game where the DLC was cut from the game and released for pure profit. Sure, you've acused devs of doing it multple times, but you're flat out fucking wrong on at least one count
    Spoiler:

    Also, looking through all of your posts, its become very clear that several other people have made the same arguments i have (some even using the same games as examples. You either dodged the question entirely, or shifted the goalposts with your answer (hey, how does rockband fit into your DLC philosophy? You never answered eljeffe, only saying "i dont play them so eh")

    basically I wash my hands of you because its too tiring to argue with such a stupid position about this

    Actually, I did follow up on the RB thing, but as I said before, it's not my fault you can't read.

    And if - ME2 day 1 DLC was devolped in the 6 weeks between the game going gold and being released. - is true, then they should have held the release back and put it on the disc. Period.

    By this terrible, terrible standard, you would have developers never release a game, because they could never reach your arbitrary point of "feature complete." One of the single greatest things about good DLC is that it lengthens the life span of a game considerably. Does this benefit the publisher and developer? Absolutely, because a continuous drip of good DLC means that people are keeping the game instead of trading it in/selling it, and it encourages people to buy the game new. Does this benefit consumers? Absolutely, because while originally the game may have been 15-20 hours, now with good DLC you can continue to play the game long after you complete the main game by adding on additional chapters until the (possible) sequel.

    For an example of good DLC I give you Borderlands. From what I understand development on the first two DLC packs (The Zombie Island of Dr. Ned and Mad Moxxi's Underdome Riot) started as the game was wrapping up/going gold. By your standard, they would have waited until those two packs were complete, regardless of how long it took, and regardless of technical/cost limitations. Furthermore, since Borderlands released, they have fully developed an additional DLC pack (The Secret Armory of General Knoxx), which is a good 10 hour expansion, and are scheduled to release a fourth pack this fall. Once again, by your standard, Gearbox would have waited until these last two packs were developed until releasing the game.

    There is no logic to your standard other than an arbitrary assignment of personal value to the game you buy. I suspect that you would happily buy a 6 hour game that never had any DLC and not offer a single peep of criticism, while griping at the top of your lungs at a 30 hour game later releasing additional 10 hour game packs as DLC.

    steam_sig.png
  • LawndartLawndart Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    62 pages?! Haven't you people figured this crap out yet?

    People are still trying to convince the digital downloadable content version of Howard Hughes that the vampires aren't out to get him and that it's safe to take the Kleenex boxes off of his feet.

  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    ronzo wrote: »
    and before you say "but they remove content from a finished game to sell it at launch, you still haven't show a single real example of it happening

    I've listed several games, repeatedly. It's not my fault you can't read.

    i just went back through all of your posts (all of them, really, because this is the only threads he's posted in), and I can't find a single mention of game where the DLC was cut from the game and released for pure profit. Sure, you've acused devs of doing it multple times, but you're flat out fucking wrong on at least one count
    Spoiler:

    Also, looking through all of your posts, its become very clear that several other people have made the same arguments i have (some even using the same games as examples. You either dodged the question entirely, or shifted the goalposts with your answer (hey, how does rockband fit into your DLC philosophy? You never answered eljeffe, only saying "i dont play them so eh")

    basically I wash my hands of you because its too tiring to argue with such a stupid position about this

    Actually, I did follow up on the RB thing, but as I said before, it's not my fault you can't read.

    And if - ME2 day 1 DLC was devolped in the 6 weeks between the game going gold and being released. - is true, then they should have held the release back and put it on the disc. Period.
    Read DoctorArch's post above this one, because i agree with everything he said about your impossible standard for a game being feature complete

    additionally, i appologize for not seeing your rockband post, no need to repeatedly insult my ability to read.
    Drez wrote: »
    Wait... they should have just never released Rock Band until EVERY SINGLE SONG that is out now was ready? At this point in the debate the moderator would be dropping their jaw.

    Um....who said that? Because I certainly didn't.

    You are promoting a philosophy where a game that has any DLC is not worth buying new. The implication is that DLC is always bad, bar nothing.

    That's becuase it is.

    then again, this opinion is flat out ridiculous so maybe i just blocked it out earlier. The THOUSAND extra songs released that do not, in any way at all, change the completeness of the core game are bad, bar nothing

  • devCharlesdevCharles Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Wouldn't that just be weighing jobs differently? If a game producer isn't getting that money, aren't they going to limit their hiring or staff? It's just hurting the jobs of some people for the jobs of other people, which isn't even a for sure thing unless you known the internal tactical plans of Gamestop and game publishers. As I recall, Gamestop is still a fairly profitable business. That means that on top of the money they are making to pay off all their expenses (including payroll,) they're making extra money on top of that to give back to investors or to reinvest in their company. Personally, I'd rather that profit be going to the people that are actually making the content than companies like Gamestop that are freeriding because that would reward actual production.

    The assumption that Gamestop would drop employees if they were dropping profit is not necessarily true. Gamestops appear to be run according to a corporate rulebook to maximize payroll/revenue. Even without the highly profitable used game model, or even a small portion of that model, chances are they have as many people working the stores as there needs to be. Retail in general is based around rock bottoming payroll as much as possible. Assuming excess is more unlikely.

    Xbox Live: Hero Protag
    SteamID: devCharles
    twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I cannot wait for the day where used games are not allowed, and you have to be connected to the internet to play the game and you can only play it on one system, and you get charged 20$ a month extra each month you play the game and 20$ extra each time you plug in a second controller.

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    DoctorArch wrote: »
    ronzo wrote: »
    There is no logic to your standard other than an arbitrary assignment of personal value to the gam you buy. I suspect that you would happily buy a 6 hour game that never had any DLC and not offer a single peep of criticism, while griping at the top of your lungs at a 30 hour game later releasing additional 10 hour game packs as DLC.

    Yes, because I have said *repeatedly*, I do not buy digital content.

    *ALL CONTENT SHOULD BE ON THE DISC.*

    How basic do I have to put it?

  • luceklucek Registered User
    edited August 2010
    devCharles wrote: »
    Wouldn't that just be weighing jobs differently? If a game producer isn't getting that money, aren't they going to limit their hiring or staff? It's just hurting the jobs of some people for the jobs of other people, which isn't even a for sure thing unless you known the internal tactical plans of Gamestop and game publishers. As I recall, Gamestop is still a fairly profitable business. That means that on top of the money they are making to pay off all their expenses (including payroll,) they're making extra money on top of that to give back to investors or to reinvest in their company. Personally, I'd rather that profit be going to the people that are actually making the content than companies like Gamestop that are freeriding because that would reward actual production.

    The assumption that Gamestop would drop employees if they were dropping profit is not necessarily true. Gamestops appear to be run according to a corporate rulebook to maximize payroll/revenue. Even without the highly profitable used game model, or even a small portion of that model, chances are they have as many people working the stores as there needs to be. Retail in general is based around rock bottoming payroll as much as possible. Assuming excess is more unlikely.

    your argument would be sound if not for 2 things. 1: there are redundancy that game stop doesn't need. IE a third person on staff for truck days holiday staff etc. 2:there is a difference between jobs. Namely the turnaround of cash. someone working for game stop is probably living paycheck to paycheck. someone working for THQ or EA is more likely to have it store it. this means that the money that goes to the game stop employee will revolve again. 100% of the sale from customer will go to a different game or system. This means that a new game will not be sold dew to fees. so your not just robbing game stop and the people that work there but other developers.

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    Barcardi wrote: »
    I cannot wait for the day where used games are not allowed, and you have to be connected to the internet to play the game and you can only play it on one system, and you get charged 20$ a month extra each month you play the game and 20$ extra each time you plug in a second controller.

    It's coming sooner than you think.

  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Nerdgasmic wrote: »

    so you buy...short, basic, games...because they are "complete"...but won't play games that are hours longer and better, like me2 or fallout 3, because you "worry" about dlc?

    Can you name a game that legitimatey was released at "full" price and was actually crippled?

    did you object to the first games with stories and endings because they represented less theoritical value than infinate waves of defender or space invaders or yar's revenge?

    Short, basic and hours longer and better are subjective.

    Fallout 3's ending was changed by the DLC. That DLC is something that should have been on the disc in the first place. Same with Prince of Persia.

    Wasn't the ending only changed because of all of the backlash towards the original ending?

    I dont know, but the original ending to that game was complete shit. It failed on every single level. I only hope that when Ron Perlman was voice acting the ending slide show he asked "Seriously guys, that's it? Really? You don't want me to run through how the players actions affected any of the people he interacted with over the course of the game? No? Fuck it. I get paid either way."

  • DeebaserDeebaser Alpha Teemo Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited August 2010
    I guess it's all subjective opinion.

    For instance, The Lost and the Damned for GTA IV was an amazing example of DLC done awesome. On the otherhand, I never got to Broken Steel for Fallout 3 because Operation Anchorage was such garbage and apparently I've been denied the 'real' ending.

    Fuck Bethseda.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Yes, because I have said *repeatedly*, I do not buy digital content.

    *ALL CONTENT SHOULD BE ON THE DISC.*

    How basic do I have to put it?

    Super for you. Your choice. This is not proof that any given publisher/dev "held back" content to release it as monetized DLC at/near the game's release. Which is what people were asking you for. Aside from recent fuckmuppetry involving used games (like THQ's nonsense), I'd love for you to provide an example of a game where the publisher clearly held back content from the game's original on-disc release and released it as DLC. Content that, absent the monetized DLC, would have still existed and been a part of the game.

    Mass Effect? No. Fallout 3? No. Prince of Persia? Are these your go-to examples, or do you have one that's not wrong, and which people haven't explained to you why you are wrong on?

    You've yet to give an example of a game in which, in a world without DLC, your on-disc experience would necessarily have been any fucking different.
    And if - ME2 day 1 DLC was devolped in the 6 weeks between the game going gold and being released. - is true, then they should have held the release back and put it on the disc. Period.

    Not enough facepalm in the world, man. Not enough.

    A) At this point, any game with multiple DLC releases would just never get released. Unless you would just prefer that content not exist...at which point just don't buy it oh my god you stupid motherfucker what the fuck is wrong and why are people still having to try and get this through your stupid ass skull.

    B) Alternately, somebody gave you a very good explanation of why, from an accounting perspective, the likely alternative would be the DLC simply not existing and you would instead get only the content on the disc but you are too fucking stupid to get it good god just shut the fuck up and die. If the money for the DLC was set aside separately, as a separate contract/account, for its creation then there are no funds available to hold back the release of the game. There's no income to cover it. I'm assuming you've never worked for a business that actually tracked expenses to direct accounts before, but then I'm also assuming you are functionally retarded what the fuck is wrong with you?

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yes, because I have said *repeatedly*, I do not buy digital content.

    *ALL CONTENT SHOULD BE ON THE DISC.*

    How basic do I have to put it?

    Super for you. Your choice. This is not proof that any given publisher/dev "held back" content to release it as monetized DLC at/near the game's release. Which is what people were asking you for. Aside from recent fuckmuppetry involving used games (like THQ's nonsense), I'd love for you to provide an example of a game where the publisher clearly held back content from the game's original on-disc release and released it as DLC. Content that, absent the monetized DLC, would have still existed and been a part of the game.

    *Any* DLC content that is available Day One, the same launch day as the disc, is content that *has* been held back and should be on the disc.

    And you don't have to be such a dick.

  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yes, because I have said *repeatedly*, I do not buy digital content.

    *ALL CONTENT SHOULD BE ON THE DISC.*

    How basic do I have to put it?

    Super for you. Your choice. This is not proof that any given publisher/dev "held back" content to release it as monetized DLC at/near the game's release. Which is what people were asking you for. Aside from recent fuckmuppetry involving used games (like THQ's nonsense), I'd love for you to provide an example of a game where the publisher clearly held back content from the game's original on-disc release and released it as DLC. Content that, absent the monetized DLC, would have still existed and been a part of the game.

    *Any* DLC content that is available Day One, the same launch day as the disc, is content that *has* been held back and should be on the disc.

    And you don't have to be such a dick.

    YOU. ARE. FUCKING. WRONG.

  • JintorJintor Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    That's not neccessarily true. There's always time between mastering disks and retail releases. Day One patches, for instance.

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    ronzo wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yes, because I have said *repeatedly*, I do not buy digital content.

    *ALL CONTENT SHOULD BE ON THE DISC.*

    How basic do I have to put it?

    Super for you. Your choice. This is not proof that any given publisher/dev "held back" content to release it as monetized DLC at/near the game's release. Which is what people were asking you for. Aside from recent fuckmuppetry involving used games (like THQ's nonsense), I'd love for you to provide an example of a game where the publisher clearly held back content from the game's original on-disc release and released it as DLC. Content that, absent the monetized DLC, would have still existed and been a part of the game.

    *Any* DLC content that is available Day One, the same launch day as the disc, is content that *has* been held back and should be on the disc.

    And you don't have to be such a dick.

    YOU. ARE. FUCKING. WRONG.

    NO, I'M NOT.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yes, because I have said *repeatedly*, I do not buy digital content.

    *ALL CONTENT SHOULD BE ON THE DISC.*

    How basic do I have to put it?

    Super for you. Your choice. This is not proof that any given publisher/dev "held back" content to release it as monetized DLC at/near the game's release. Which is what people were asking you for. Aside from recent fuckmuppetry involving used games (like THQ's nonsense), I'd love for you to provide an example of a game where the publisher clearly held back content from the game's original on-disc release and released it as DLC. Content that, absent the monetized DLC, would have still existed and been a part of the game.

    *Any* DLC content that is available Day One, the same launch day as the disc, is content that *has* been held back and should be on the disc.

    And you don't have to be such a dick.

    Listen. Like, really listen. Don't start thinking about your response yet, because if you do it will be wrong, just like you've been roughly 40 or 50 times already.

    When software (or hardware, for that matter) gets developed, generally money is set aside for specific tasks. This is how budgeting is done, and how you track whether tasks are completed on time and on budget. Unless funds are set aside for XYZ, XYZ is not developed. Period. Like, we've had tasks at my work that we know need to happen, are beneficial, but unless funding is set aside for us to charge our time to, they don't get worked on. Because we have other tasks that do have funding already cut for them that also need to get done.

    This is generally how any development works.

    So, if (completely made up numbers) $1M is set aside to develop the main game, and $100K is set aside for the DLC, then the only reason the $100K is set aside for the DLC is because they're anticipating the sales of that DLC. The $1M is set aside in anticipation of the sales of the disc you so dearly care about. Money from the $1M cannot be used for the DLC unless the main game comes in under budget...which, as you can guess (well...maybe not you but anybody who deals with these things) is not the usual result.

    Which means that absent the money charged for the DLC, there would be no DLC. And in this case pushing back a release date is the equivalent of spending money.

    Even if the DLC is on the disc, and must be unlocked, that is still content that would not exist absent the receipts from the DLC, and thus the customer who pays only $60 has not paid for. When you walk up and pay for the disc, what you have unlocked and available to you by default is the exact fucking game your $60 would have bought you in the first place. Period. Absent the anticipated receipts from the DLC (actually downloaded or unlocked on-disc), it would not exist.

    So when you buy the disc, you are getting the "complete" game you are paying for.



    Day one DLC is content that was generally being separately funded and developed either in parallel or immediately following the completion of the "core" game. It's a separate product, that would not exist in a world without DLC...because in order to fund its creation, they'd have to charge $70 (well, maybe $65) for the game instead of $60.



    Basically, your continued bitching just proves, over and over, that you know absolutely fucking zero about how the business of any kind of hardware or software generally works. Also that you are completely unable to grasp the idea that, in a time before DLC, parts of games got straight-up cut for funding reasons that today gamers actually get to see. You have this silly fetish with "ZOMG ON DA DISK!!!1!eleven!" that keeps you from seeing what is right in front of your face.

    What is on the disc is what would have been available if they had no way to charge for the DLC. You've shown nothing that suggests otherwise, and those of us that work in development have tried to explain to you why this is.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Like, you can't seem to fathom the concept that the content contained in DLC exists only because DLC in general exists, and that in an alternate universe the "core" game is what would have been released. Thus, to you any content released as DLC must have been "held back," and in that alternate universe it would have been on the disc for you.

    But you're wrong. It wouldn't have been. Because it wouldn't have been funded. They'd have finished the "core" game, then gone on to work on either an on-disc expansion pack, or another game. The end.

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    If that's the case (which it isn't), then put out a version for people that want their content on a disc.

    There are people out there, like me, who are willing to wait and buy a GOTY edition if they'll put it out.

    Don't just release the game and say "if you don't like it, do without!"

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    If that's the case (which it isn't), then put out a version for people that want their content on a disc.

    Yes, it is the case.
    There are people out there, like me, who are willing to wait and buy a GOTY edition if they'll put it out.

    Don't just release the game and say "if you don't like it, do without!"

    If it's profitable to re-release the game, they'll do so. Otherwise, they won't. If not, then the DLC is created for, and funded by, DLC customers...not you. Either enjoy the game you're paying for, or don't. But for fuck's sake, don't sit there making silly arguments that demonstrate your complete lack of understanding about how the business side of development (or just development in general) works, then ignoring anybody who tries to educate your dumb ass.

  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    what happens when a company releases a GOTY edition, then releases more DLC?

    Like if that had happened for Fallout 3, would that have blown your mind

  • PooPooKaKaBumBumPooPooKaKaBumBum Registered User
    edited August 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    If that's the case (which it isn't), then put out a version for people that want their content on a disc.

    Yes, it is the case.
    There are people out there, like me, who are willing to wait and buy a GOTY edition if they'll put it out.

    Don't just release the game and say "if you don't like it, do without!"

    If it's profitable to re-release the game, they'll do so. Otherwise, they won't. If not, then the DLC is created for, and funded by, DLC customers...not you. Either enjoy the game you're paying for, or don't. But for fuck's sake, don't sit there making silly arguments that demonstrate your complete lack of understanding about how the business side of development (or just development in general) works, then ignoring anybody who tries to educate your dumb ass.

    Well it's in their interest to reach the widest amount of customers possible, and releasing games with DLC on disc seems like a no-brainer to reach more potential customers. WTF is the point of Blu-Ray and all that storage space if they're going to keep offering digital content.

  • JintorJintor Registered User regular
    edited August 2010
    Because widespread blu-ray adoption hasn't yet taken place, while pretty much everybody has the interwebs?

    Also consider the costs of manufacturing, distribution, negotiating retail space etc. in comparison with using digital services

Sign In or Register to comment.