The week afterwards they should have an anti football hooliganism campaign where people hand over football shirts in exchange for a lottery ticket to win a bunch of videogames.
Germany's movement against violent videogames has lunged forward again, as families affected by the Winnenden school shooting urge people living near Stuttgart to dump their "games that simulate the killing of humans" - "Killerspiele".
The Aktionsbündnis Amoklauf Winnenden will place a container outside the Stuttgart state opera this Saturday in the hope people will heed its call, Eurogamer Germany reports.
Those who dump their "Killerspiele" will be given a lottery ticket, and whoever wins will be given a replica shirt of the German national football team that is signed by the players. The fate of the discarded games, however, is unknown.
"Nothing will change if we don't do something," reads the Aktionsbündnis Amoklauf Winnenden slogan.
Not to go back too far, but I love the dog/baby weighing feature. It costs $25 at the pediatrician to have the baby weighed. If I can buy a game for $20 and get that feature, I will definitely take it.
Not to go back too far, but I love the dog/baby weighing feature. It costs $25 at the pediatrician to have the baby weighed. If I can buy a game for $20 and get that feature, I will definitely take it.
Carry on.
taken out of context this is the weirdest fucking thing.
Not to go back too far, but I love the dog/baby weighing feature. It costs $25 at the pediatrician to have the baby weighed. If I can buy a game for $20 and get that feature, I will definitely take it.
Carry on.
taken out of context this is the weirdest fucking thing.
do you sell babies by the pound or something?
Whats more perplexing is whos getting away with charging $25 to stick a baby on a scale? Go buy a scale.
Not to go back too far, but I love the dog/baby weighing feature. It costs $25 at the pediatrician to have the baby weighed. If I can buy a game for $20 and get that feature, I will definitely take it.
Carry on.
taken out of context this is the weirdest fucking thing.
do you sell babies by the pound or something?
I am really annoyed that I can't find a more relevant picture.
Not to go back too far, but I love the dog/baby weighing feature. It costs $25 at the pediatrician to have the baby weighed. If I can buy a game for $20 and get that feature, I will definitely take it.
Carry on.
taken out of context this is the weirdest fucking thing.
Doctors may a kiling on these kind of markup costs. Plus, it is clear that you are not a parent if you do not realize how important a baby's weight is.
A scale is suprisingly inaccurate compared to the balance board. I have tried both and the balance board is accurate within a few ounces of the doctor's scale. I know, it suprises even me.
The balance board is basically just four scales working in concert, it's only ever innacurate if it's not tared correctly or if the bottom is touching the floor (like with carpeted floors). Nintendo's the world's biggest scale manufacturer now and actually caused a bit of a scale part drought when they first started making the balance boards.
Opty on
0
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
I want to know what Septembers numbers are going to look like...
US retailers have seen six straight months of declining game software revenues, but analysts are largely in agreement that the streak will be broken this week, as the NPD Group is set to release September sales figures for the industry this Thursday. In a note to investors today, Pacific Crest Securities' Evan Wilson expected those sales to be up 10 percent for the month, but he added that the gains may be short-lived.
"October will likely return to a modest year-over-year decline," Wilson wrote. "After an initial round of checks for October's NPD data, we expect a small year-over-year decline."
He cited the shifting of music games like Guitar Hero away from the late October launch of previous installments and into September as one major factor in his estimate. Despite that, he acknowledged a handful of expected October hits like Uncharted 2, Wii Fit Plus, Forza 3, and DJ Hero as titles that should mitigate the shifting of Guitar Hero to September and keep any downturn in sales from being too large. Wilson said even with a shrinking October, growth for the full fourth quarter is possible. But with the abundance of games delayed into early 2010, he expects growth to really pick up in the first quarter of next year.
Getting back to September sales, Wilson weighed in on a topic already discussed by his fellow analysts, the sales of Guitar Hero 5 versus those of The Beatles: Rock Band. While his counterparts at Wedbush Morgan Securities and Electronic Entertainment Design and Research had The Beatles solidly outselling Guitar Hero 5 for the month, Wilson expected a little more from Activision's flagship rhythm franchise and a lot less from the Fab Four. Wilson estimates that Guitar Hero 5 sold 850,000 copies in September, compared to The Beatles: Rock Band's 650,000.
"I think the publishers are completely lame on this. I think they have it wrong," Pachter told Bonus Round. "EA's chasing it because they think it's an opportunity. I think the iPod Touch is the most dangerous thing that ever happened to the publishers, ever."
Putting well established franchises such as Madden on the iPod Touch for USD 10 cheapens their value, he explained. "Whether it's the same experience or not, and it's not, why would I ever spend USD 60 for Madden if I can get it for USD 10 on my iPod Touch?"
"It's going to be a different audience, it's going to be young kids because iPod Touch is USD 199 this Christmas, it'll be USD 149 next year, USD 129. When it's USD 99, every nine year old kid is going to have one of those instead of a DS or a PSP, and if you train kids that this is the game that you want to play... How about Tetris? Why would you pay USD 20 for Tetris when you can get it for USD 6.99 or USD 3.99 on iPod Touch?
"It's a serious threat to pricing. And once people start to look at this as a substitute for the DS for smaller kids, for 12 and unders, then you're going to train a whole generation of 12 and unders that this is a perfectly acceptable gaming experience at that low price point."
"All the 20 year old kids playing games now started paying on the GBA and you work your way up. And if you start with an iPod Touch I'm not sure they do work their way up. I think Apple intends to capture that audience and keep them," he said.
Toxk's done a fantastic job so I assume he'll make one sometime today.
Usually someone makes a new one right as NPD figures are released but I suppose there's no hard and fast rule. Anyway I won't be around for much of the day so think my time at the rudder of this damned vessel is drawing to a close.
Putting well established franchises such as Madden on the iPod Touch for USD 10 cheapens their value, he explained. "Whether it's the same experience or not, and it's not, why would I ever spend USD 60 for Madden if I can get it for USD 10 on my iPod Touch?"
This is a really shitty example. Why would I ever spend USD 60 for Madden if I can get it for USD 35 on my DS? It works if you apply it to the handhelds or XBLA arcade games and the like, but it makes no fucking sense applying it to any theoreticaly cheapening of the value of console games.
Toxk's done a fantastic job so I assume he'll make one sometime today.
Usually someone makes a new one right as NPD figures are released but I suppose there's no hard and fast rule. Anyway I won't be around for much of the day so think my time at the rudder of this damned vessel is drawing to a close.
Crap. And I know what this probably means... time for me to find a reasonably clean rope to hang the albatross from.
Edit: Meanwhile, Pachter still sounds like some random idiot from GAF.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
C'mon Cloud...get us those pesky numbers and a shiny new thread...y'know you want too.
And yes, it just continues my disdain for Pachter.
Putting well established franchises such as Madden on the iPod Touch for USD 10 cheapens their value, he explained. "Whether it's the same experience or not, and it's not, why would I ever spend USD 60 for Madden if I can get it for USD 10 on my iPod Touch?"
This is a really shitty example. Why would I ever spend USD 60 for Madden if I can get it for USD 35 on my DS? It works if you apply it to the handhelds or XBLA arcade games and the like, but it makes no fucking sense applying it to any theoreticaly cheapening of the value of console games.
Anybody who thinks that playing a cellphone version of a game gets them the full experience deserves to believe that it cheapens the console/PC editions...
I've been saying for a while that iPhone and iPod Touch gaming has already encroached at least a bit on traditional handheld territory, but I don't think it really has any affect on console games. Certain DS and PSP games definitely do have some threat of being overshadowed and undercut on price—things like Puzzle Quest and Civ Rev thrive on iPhone at, like, a tenth of the price—but I think Pachter is taking the wrong approach. He should be encouraging pubs and devs to figure out how to work well on the iPhone instead of saying "Fuck Apple, why undercut yourself?" It's not like sticking your head in the sand is going to make Apple go away.
And I know that he's an analyst talking to publishers and developers, but as a consumer I'm having a real hard time trying to figure out why drastically lower prices in a competitive marketplace is so terrible.
The madden comment is self-defeating. The answer to the question as to why you would pay $60 for "real" madden over the $10 you pay for Touch madden is, and I quote pachter from the same sentence, "it's not" the "same experience."
You'd have to stick you head in the sand not to know otherwise.
Also, the Touch will drop prices, but the market mindshare will always be made aware of the constantly newly released iterations of the Touch and IPhone, which are usually $200-$400 in range. He also ignores that while the older models get price dropped, they often get dropped from retailers in favor of newer models anyway. He also ignores that throughout price dropping of the Touch, the DS and PSP will also be getting similar price drops and hit that $99 price as well.
He seems to think that the major market for game-buyers of the Touch are kids. Maybe that's true, but that doesn't mean that adults don't also buy games for the Touch. Honestly I'd personally much rather my theoretical kid have a DS or PSP than a Touch at this point.
He seems to think that once people are conditioned to buy games for $10, they will refuse to buy games for higher prices than this, and will be ignorant entirely of "better" experiences. I think he's wrong and that even if a person "only has" a Touch, they will become perfectly aware of what other gaming devices are capable of, and that awareness will allow them to make the choice of whether they want to pay more for more complete experiences.
Also, the traditional gaming devices have avenues for "cheap" games. But they also provide more traditional, larger-in-scope games as well. Considering that prices will remain competitive through price drops by the DS and PSP, I think people looking for portable gaming will prefer the system(s) that do both. That's not to say that you couldn't release a "huge" game for the Touch that does as much as a PSP game with a huge budget and release it for $40. You could, but I don't think anyone is expecting that to happen.
Also I find it funny that he refers to 20 year olds as kids.
I've been saying for a while that iPhone and iPod Touch gaming has already encroached at least a bit on traditional handheld territory, but I don't think it really has any affect on console games. Certain DS and PSP games definitely do have some threat of being overshadowed and undercut on price—things like Puzzle Quest and Civ Rev thrive on iPhone at, like, a tenth of the price—but I think Pachter is taking the wrong approach. He should be encouraging pubs and devs to figure out how to work well on the iPhone instead of saying "Fuck Apple, why undercut yourself?" It's not like sticking your head in the sand is going to make Apple go away.
And I know that he's an analyst talking to publishers and developers, but as a consumer I'm having a real hard time trying to figure out why drastically lower prices in a competitive marketplace is so terrible.
He thinks that people who "grow up" with a Touch will think that all games are like that, and that games are only worth the $10 or less that are typical asking prices, and that people will not perceive the value difference in, say, a full fledged Madden console game over their $10 Touch iteration. And that if they grow up like this they won't ever move onto other kinds of games because of this inability to perceive value differences.
He seems to think that the major market for game-buyers of the Touch are kids. Maybe that's true, but that doesn't mean that adults don't also buy games for the Touch. Honestly I'd personally much rather my theoretical kid have a DS or PSP than a Touch at this point.
Maybe he has data we don't. I personally don't see it, but then again, I'm not familiar with what parents are buying for their kids these days. I know that my parents would never have bought me an iPod Touch. Which is a nice little segue to...
He seems to think that once people are conditioned to buy games for $10, they will refuse to buy games for higher prices than this, and will be ignorant entirely of "better" experiences. I think he's wrong and that even if a person "only has" a Touch, they will become perfectly aware of what other gaming devices are capable of, and that awareness will allow them to make the choice of whether they want to pay more for more complete experiences.
...
He thinks that people who "grow up" with a Touch will think that all games are like that, and that games are only worth the $10 or less that are typical asking prices, and that people will not perceive the value difference in, say, a full fledged Madden console game over their $10 Touch iteration. And that if they grow up like this they won't ever move onto other kinds of games because of this inability to perceive value differences.
I think Pachter's right on this. Generally, the best way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior. My job is data analysis and predictive modeling, and people generally don't change their behavior over time. For example, people growing up during the Great Depression, or during WWII, when there was a great need for being very frugal, behave much differently in terms of their purchases than someone who grew up during more prosperous times. What seems to be especially important is the initial exposure - so the people who have started buying $10 games are likely to continue buying $10 games and balk at spending $60 on a game. However, when most of us were growing up, seeing games at $70-$80 wasn't unusual, and we're comfortable with paying those kinds of prices, since that's what we've always done. But someone whose first exposure to games is via the iPhone? They'll think that all the worthwhile games they need are at $10 and that even if there's more content at $60, there's not enough of a difference to make the $50 difference. That's what publishers should be worried about.
Hell, we're already at a point where a lot of people think that any 2D game should be $10-$15 at most and on the digital distribution services. I imagine a lot of this has to do with the success of Braid, Mega Man 9, Bionic Commando, etc. at those price points and the lack of 2D games in the last generation. Once that idea gets set, it's hard to get away from it.
Well, we already have a generation of kids who have grown up with access to Game Boys and their cheap games, and that doesn't seem to have eroded console sales at all. And the perception still seems to be that, cool as many of them are becoming, iPhone games don't quite have the content to really be worth over $10.
What was the retail price of most Atari 2600 games?
If this is anything to go by, $20-30 was probably 'normal'. I can remember ordering some Intellivision games from a catalogue and that price sounds about right. But that was also a bit after either system was a going concern...
One other new item in some listings are entries for dealer costs and a suggested retail price. For Dice Puzzle (by Panda): Dealer Cost: $5.25. Suggested Retail Price: $19.98. (from a 1983/84 price list) The Guide values it at $35. I find this interesting to see how the cart appreciates in value over the years. However, I can estimate that the suggested retail price of E.T. (by Atari) was most likely $30 or higher.
All those 80's Amstrad CPC / Commodore / Spectrum games I grew up on were like £1.99
And we soon jumped up to £30 for 8-Bit, £40 for 16-Bit, £50 - £60 on the damned N64 before things settled right back down to the pretty reasonable £30 - £40 average we see these days.
I'm talking launch prices of course, everything round these parts seems to fall in price increasingly swiftly at the mo.
All those 80's Amstrad CPC / Commodore / Spectrum games I grew up on were like £1.99
And we soon jumped up to £30 for 8-Bit, £40 for 16-Bit, £50 - £60 on the damned N64 before things settled right back down to the pretty reasonable £30 - £40 average we see these days.
I'm talking launch prices of course, everything round these parts seems to fall in price increasingly swiftly at the mo.
You know hte COD4 tin edition is like 70 quid right and normal edition has hit 55? Activision have fucked us all hard, since they announced that price increase you've got Marvel Ultimate Alliance at 50 and according to MCV, retail price for Uncharted 2 and Brutal legend are both 50 as well. Dunno if they'll sell at that because 50 for a new IP like BL is probably going to kill it before it gets started.
I don't entirely disagree with some of Pachter's reasoning so much as I don't like how far he extrapolates it.
I'm not sure the largest part of the Touch/Iphone market are a group that is really interested in gaming as a major hobby enough to give a shit about console games anyway*.
As an example, I'd never expect my friend who plays free flash games on his laptop between classes to ever be interested in paying $60 for a console game, despite the fact that he can see how much more depth and production value and content there is. Because that's not what he wants or is what he's looking for, and so he sure as hell wouldn't pay for that.
Would this group never "move onto" better games? No, not just because of price, but because they were never interested in such games anyway. If they started asking $60 for the cheap games he got once for free, he'd balk at that. But console games priced at $60 generally are not the "same" as free flash games.
Contrast that to someone who does become interested. Someone who is exposed to gaming through $10 Iphone/touch games, and realizes that many of them are lacking in depth, breadth, substance, or content (with some exceptions). He becomes interested in the hobby and learns off-hand about other consoles/machines, so decides to look into them. Maybe a friend shows him what they can do. I see this kind of person becoming more interested in the hobby and seeing the value differences and moving forward with the hobby as they become more interested in it, and as they grow and mature are better able to learn about things that pique their interest. I don't see this kind of person "stalling" and persisting in all games being $10 because they will not ever see the difference between the experiences of the Iphone/Touch games and what other consoles provide, as pachter suggests. They may persist in thinking that games along the same lines at current Touch games remain $10, but I don't think they'll fail to see the value in other types of games.
*I said "largest" part, but what I mean is that there is, in fact, a lot of gamers who bought the iphone/touch because they are already knowledgeable about some of the existing good games for it and/or wanted something with games that is also a multimedia device and/or phone. My point was that the iPhone/Touch is a device that people buy for a variety of reasons, not just games, and that the market is a lot more varied than consoles**, which are aimed almost exclusively at people-who-play-videogames. ** at least the HD systems, which brought up the $60 tag in the first place..
All those 80's Amstrad CPC / Commodore / Spectrum games I grew up on were like £1.99
And we soon jumped up to £30 for 8-Bit, £40 for 16-Bit, £50 - £60 on the damned N64 before things settled right back down to the pretty reasonable £30 - £40 average we see these days.
I'm talking launch prices of course, everything round these parts seems to fall in price increasingly swiftly at the mo.
You know hte COD4 tin edition is like 70 quid right and normal edition has hit 55?
Not to me it's not. I'm buying that thing pre-owned or not at all.
All those 80's Amstrad CPC / Commodore / Spectrum games I grew up on were like £1.99
And we soon jumped up to £30 for 8-Bit, £40 for 16-Bit, £50 - £60 on the damned N64 before things settled right back down to the pretty reasonable £30 - £40 average we see these days.
I'm talking launch prices of course, everything round these parts seems to fall in price increasingly swiftly at the mo.
You know hte COD4 tin edition is like 70 quid right and normal edition has hit 55?
Not to me it's not. I'm buying that thing pre-owned or not at all.
Its sad because people will pay full price and probably not trade it in for a while so you'd be waiting for a bit anyway and even then at 55 I guarantee they'll charge £47 for it preowned.
I don't entirely disagree with some of Pachter's reasoning so much as I don't like how far he extrapolates it.
I'm not sure the largest part of the Touch/Iphone market are a group that is really interested in gaming as a major hobby enough to give a shit about console games anyway*.
As an example, I'd never expect my friend who plays free flash games on his laptop between classes to ever be interested in paying $60 for a console game, despite the fact that he can see how much more depth and production value and content there is. Because that's not what he wants or is what he's looking for, and so he sure as hell wouldn't pay for that.
Would this group never "move onto" better games? No, not just because of price, but because they were never interested in such games anyway. If they started asking $60 for the cheap games he got once for free, he'd balk at that. But console games priced at $60 generally are not the "same" as free flash games.
Contrast that to someone who does become interested. Someone who is exposed to gaming through $10 Iphone/touch games, and realizes that many of them are lacking in depth, breadth, substance, or content (with some exceptions). He becomes interested in the hobby and learns off-hand about other consoles/machines, so decides to look into them. Maybe a friend shows him what they can do. I see this kind of person becoming more interested in the hobby and seeing the value differences and moving forward with the hobby as they become more interested in it, and as they grow and mature are better able to learn about things that pique their interest. I don't see this kind of person "stalling" and persisting in all games being $10 because they will not ever see the difference between the experiences of the Iphone/Touch games and what other consoles provide, as pachter suggests. They may persist in thinking that games along the same lines at current Touch games remain $10, but I don't think they'll fail to see the value in other types of games.
*I said "largest" part, but what I mean is that there is, in fact, a lot of gamers who bought the iphone/touch because they are already knowledgeable about some of the existing good games for it and/or wanted something with games that is also a multimedia device and/or phone. My point was that the iPhone/Touch is a device that people buy for a variety of reasons, not just games, and that the market is a lot more varied than consoles**, which are aimed almost exclusively at people-who-play-videogames. ** at least the HD systems, which brought up the $60 tag in the first place..
But look at the PS3 - one of the major reasons that traditional gamers didn't line up in droves to buy it at first was because of it's $600 price tag. It was just simply too much. We talk about $199 being the 'magical price point' for consoles - wouldn't that be an example of people being conditioned to paying a certain price? Why would it be any different for games, if you have a set of people who are used to buying games at $10? Why would they buy games at $50 or $60 when they've traditionally bought games at $10? And I don't think the issue is that they won't see the difference in quality, but that they won't see the perceived difference in cost. Yes, they'll recognize that the higher priced option has more features and is more in-depth, but if the lower priced option is good enough, why pay the higher price?
Where I think Pachter is off the mark is that kids will be getting iPod Touches. Really, are parents buying those for their kids? I see the audience for iPod Touches being older. If the iPod Touch does take off as the gaming system of choice for children, then what Pachter is suggesting will likely be a problem for publishers in the future.
But look at the PS3 - one of the major reasons that traditional gamers didn't line up in droves to buy it at first was because of it's $600 price tag. It was just simply too much. We talk about $199 being the 'magical price point' for consoles - wouldn't that be an example of people being conditioned to paying a certain price? Why would it be any different for games, if you have a set of people who are used to buying games at $10? Why would they buy games at $50 or $60 when they've traditionally bought games at $10? And I don't think the issue is that they won't see the difference in quality, but that they won't see the perceived difference in cost. Yes, they'll recognize that the higher priced option has more features and is more in-depth, but if the lower priced option is good enough, why pay the higher price?
This is comparing apples to oranges. Not wanting to pay more than $10 for a cellphone game makes sense. But if you're looking to get into console gaming and somehow miss that all games are $50-60 new before buying one, well, you only have yourself to blame.
The console and PC market is a different beast. And it can offer a significantly different, and wider, selection of games to meet any need. Even for those only interested in paying a budget price.
Pachter has a point once cellphone games and console/PC games are exactly the same in design and implementation but wildly different on price. Until then, he's still just talking out of his ass.
Although I think he may be overstating the problem, I have definitely noticed it being true to a certain extent with myself. A game has to be outright amazing for me to buy it at $50 or $60 these days because for $60, I could buy:
Nyx Quest ($10) + Lost Winds ($10) + Silent Hill 1 ($6) + Super Mario RPG ($8) + Majora's Mask ($10) + The Dishwasher: Undead Samurai ($10) + Suikoden ($6) = $60
or any other of the numerous combinations of cheap games that I don't own but want on XBLA, WiiWare, VC, and the PSN.
EDIT: To put it another way, people are complaining that the PSP version of Tetris is too expensive. The game's only $10 for crying out loud and by all of the reviews I've read, it's one of the best versions of the game around.
But look at the PS3 - one of the major reasons that traditional gamers didn't line up in droves to buy it at first was because of it's $600 price tag. It was just simply too much. We talk about $199 being the 'magical price point' for consoles - wouldn't that be an example of people being conditioned to paying a certain price? Why would it be any different for games, if you have a set of people who are used to buying games at $10? Why would they buy games at $50 or $60 when they've traditionally bought games at $10? And I don't think the issue is that they won't see the difference in quality, but that they won't see the perceived difference in cost. Yes, they'll recognize that the higher priced option has more features and is more in-depth, but if the lower priced option is good enough, why pay the higher price?
I don't know; if this were the case, why did gamers this go-around accept the next-gen tax from $50 to $60? Haven't game prices routinely fluctuated since the NES days? I mean, SNES and Genesis games ranged from $50 to $100, didn't they?
In a sense, I think people do become trained to expect a certain price point, but people are also willing to grasp that different platforms have different price ranges. Like, look at how many people generally accept $50 to $60 for console games, and $30 to $40 for handheld games, but whined and gnashed their teeth when games like Puzzle Quest, Braid and Castle Crashers started breaking the unspoken $10 ceiling on XBLA games. Now games like Shadow Complex come out at $15 and vastly few people are upset over it—mostly because they're willing to accept that the game is of a higher quality.
The question does remain, I suppose, whether Apple would sidestep this entire category by not really creating different "generations" and instead just making everything access a universal App Store. But I don't think so; we're already seeing iPhone 3GS-only apps that won't even run on older iPhones and iPod Touches, and Apple will invariably improve hardware specs over time.
Where I think Pachter is off the mark is that kids will be getting iPod Touches. Really, are parents buying those for their kids? I see the audience for iPod Touches being older. If the iPod Touch does take off as the gaming system of choice for children, then what Pachter is suggesting will likely be a problem for publishers in the future.
I think he's saying that once the pricing drops down to the sub-$150 range, you'll see more kids with them. And I'm probably biased because I'm in North Jersey and NYC, but I am no longer stunned by what I see parents buying their kids anymore. I remember being in an Apple store last year and seeing a family buying a $300 iPod Classic and a $300 Bose speaker system for their teen daughter as some kind of present.
And iPod Touches might be for an older audience, but let's not forget that younger kids always want what older kids have. My 5-year-old nephew is dying for a DS because his older brother has one.
EDIT: Additionally, I don't think it's unfair to say kids with DSes are pretty common, right? There's only 30 bones' difference between a DSi and an iPod Touch.
And here's a part that I thought was very interesting:
On the other hand, games like GunStar Heroes and Phantasy Star II have slowed quite a bit. There is a lot of talk about the “long tail” of digital download games – but in reality, there's not a whole lot. Many older games only sell a few hundred copies a week, regardless of whether they’re good or not. If your game doesn’t go out the gates with a bang, this is the kind of sales trickle you’ll may see, and it’s not a lot to help develop your next title.
It suggests that marketing is still important to DD games. But in this case, the XBL service isn't really set up for it. It's still mainly geared toward the 'latest' in most tabs.
Trials HD is a stunning achievement. (No pun intended.) I remember everyone here kind of pooh-poohing it as a ripoff at $15, but I don't think it's left the top 10 since it came out.
It's interesting that Gamerbytes (a great blog, by the by) is attempting to seriously estimate sales figures for XBLA games. I wonder if publishers and developers will take note or attempt to rectify any problems in estimation.
Posts
Toxk's done a fantastic job so I assume he'll make one sometime today.
That would be a fun event to crash.
Carry on.
taken out of context this is the weirdest fucking thing.
do you sell babies by the pound or something?
Whats more perplexing is whos getting away with charging $25 to stick a baby on a scale? Go buy a scale.
I am really annoyed that I can't find a more relevant picture.
By the kilo. Really.
A scale is suprisingly inaccurate compared to the balance board. I have tried both and the balance board is accurate within a few ounces of the doctor's scale. I know, it suprises even me.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6232977.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;4
Well, one vote for GH5 over Beatles RB. Then again the dude seems to think DJ Hero will sell well for some unfathomable reason.
Usually someone makes a new one right as NPD figures are released but I suppose there's no hard and fast rule. Anyway I won't be around for much of the day so think my time at the rudder of this damned vessel is drawing to a close.
Crap. And I know what this probably means... time for me to find a reasonably clean rope to hang the albatross from.
Edit: Meanwhile, Pachter still sounds like some random idiot from GAF.
And yes, it just continues my disdain for Pachter.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Anybody who thinks that playing a cellphone version of a game gets them the full experience deserves to believe that it cheapens the console/PC editions...
And I know that he's an analyst talking to publishers and developers, but as a consumer I'm having a real hard time trying to figure out why drastically lower prices in a competitive marketplace is so terrible.
You'd have to stick you head in the sand not to know otherwise.
Also, the Touch will drop prices, but the market mindshare will always be made aware of the constantly newly released iterations of the Touch and IPhone, which are usually $200-$400 in range. He also ignores that while the older models get price dropped, they often get dropped from retailers in favor of newer models anyway. He also ignores that throughout price dropping of the Touch, the DS and PSP will also be getting similar price drops and hit that $99 price as well.
He seems to think that the major market for game-buyers of the Touch are kids. Maybe that's true, but that doesn't mean that adults don't also buy games for the Touch. Honestly I'd personally much rather my theoretical kid have a DS or PSP than a Touch at this point.
He seems to think that once people are conditioned to buy games for $10, they will refuse to buy games for higher prices than this, and will be ignorant entirely of "better" experiences. I think he's wrong and that even if a person "only has" a Touch, they will become perfectly aware of what other gaming devices are capable of, and that awareness will allow them to make the choice of whether they want to pay more for more complete experiences.
Also, the traditional gaming devices have avenues for "cheap" games. But they also provide more traditional, larger-in-scope games as well. Considering that prices will remain competitive through price drops by the DS and PSP, I think people looking for portable gaming will prefer the system(s) that do both. That's not to say that you couldn't release a "huge" game for the Touch that does as much as a PSP game with a huge budget and release it for $40. You could, but I don't think anyone is expecting that to happen.
Also I find it funny that he refers to 20 year olds as kids.
He thinks that people who "grow up" with a Touch will think that all games are like that, and that games are only worth the $10 or less that are typical asking prices, and that people will not perceive the value difference in, say, a full fledged Madden console game over their $10 Touch iteration. And that if they grow up like this they won't ever move onto other kinds of games because of this inability to perceive value differences.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Maybe he has data we don't. I personally don't see it, but then again, I'm not familiar with what parents are buying for their kids these days. I know that my parents would never have bought me an iPod Touch. Which is a nice little segue to...
I think Pachter's right on this. Generally, the best way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior. My job is data analysis and predictive modeling, and people generally don't change their behavior over time. For example, people growing up during the Great Depression, or during WWII, when there was a great need for being very frugal, behave much differently in terms of their purchases than someone who grew up during more prosperous times. What seems to be especially important is the initial exposure - so the people who have started buying $10 games are likely to continue buying $10 games and balk at spending $60 on a game. However, when most of us were growing up, seeing games at $70-$80 wasn't unusual, and we're comfortable with paying those kinds of prices, since that's what we've always done. But someone whose first exposure to games is via the iPhone? They'll think that all the worthwhile games they need are at $10 and that even if there's more content at $60, there's not enough of a difference to make the $50 difference. That's what publishers should be worried about.
Hell, we're already at a point where a lot of people think that any 2D game should be $10-$15 at most and on the digital distribution services. I imagine a lot of this has to do with the success of Braid, Mega Man 9, Bionic Commando, etc. at those price points and the lack of 2D games in the last generation. Once that idea gets set, it's hard to get away from it.
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
If this is anything to go by, $20-30 was probably 'normal'. I can remember ordering some Intellivision games from a catalogue and that price sounds about right. But that was also a bit after either system was a going concern...
All those 80's Amstrad CPC / Commodore / Spectrum games I grew up on were like £1.99
And we soon jumped up to £30 for 8-Bit, £40 for 16-Bit, £50 - £60 on the damned N64 before things settled right back down to the pretty reasonable £30 - £40 average we see these days.
I'm talking launch prices of course, everything round these parts seems to fall in price increasingly swiftly at the mo.
You know hte COD4 tin edition is like 70 quid right and normal edition has hit 55? Activision have fucked us all hard, since they announced that price increase you've got Marvel Ultimate Alliance at 50 and according to MCV, retail price for Uncharted 2 and Brutal legend are both 50 as well. Dunno if they'll sell at that because 50 for a new IP like BL is probably going to kill it before it gets started.
I'm not sure the largest part of the Touch/Iphone market are a group that is really interested in gaming as a major hobby enough to give a shit about console games anyway*.
As an example, I'd never expect my friend who plays free flash games on his laptop between classes to ever be interested in paying $60 for a console game, despite the fact that he can see how much more depth and production value and content there is. Because that's not what he wants or is what he's looking for, and so he sure as hell wouldn't pay for that.
Would this group never "move onto" better games? No, not just because of price, but because they were never interested in such games anyway. If they started asking $60 for the cheap games he got once for free, he'd balk at that. But console games priced at $60 generally are not the "same" as free flash games.
Contrast that to someone who does become interested. Someone who is exposed to gaming through $10 Iphone/touch games, and realizes that many of them are lacking in depth, breadth, substance, or content (with some exceptions). He becomes interested in the hobby and learns off-hand about other consoles/machines, so decides to look into them. Maybe a friend shows him what they can do. I see this kind of person becoming more interested in the hobby and seeing the value differences and moving forward with the hobby as they become more interested in it, and as they grow and mature are better able to learn about things that pique their interest. I don't see this kind of person "stalling" and persisting in all games being $10 because they will not ever see the difference between the experiences of the Iphone/Touch games and what other consoles provide, as pachter suggests. They may persist in thinking that games along the same lines at current Touch games remain $10, but I don't think they'll fail to see the value in other types of games.
*I said "largest" part, but what I mean is that there is, in fact, a lot of gamers who bought the iphone/touch because they are already knowledgeable about some of the existing good games for it and/or wanted something with games that is also a multimedia device and/or phone. My point was that the iPhone/Touch is a device that people buy for a variety of reasons, not just games, and that the market is a lot more varied than consoles**, which are aimed almost exclusively at people-who-play-videogames. ** at least the HD systems, which brought up the $60 tag in the first place..
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Or 0 if you were a dirty pirate like a ton of people probably were.
Not to me it's not. I'm buying that thing pre-owned or not at all.
Its sad because people will pay full price and probably not trade it in for a while so you'd be waiting for a bit anyway and even then at 55 I guarantee they'll charge £47 for it preowned.
But look at the PS3 - one of the major reasons that traditional gamers didn't line up in droves to buy it at first was because of it's $600 price tag. It was just simply too much. We talk about $199 being the 'magical price point' for consoles - wouldn't that be an example of people being conditioned to paying a certain price? Why would it be any different for games, if you have a set of people who are used to buying games at $10? Why would they buy games at $50 or $60 when they've traditionally bought games at $10? And I don't think the issue is that they won't see the difference in quality, but that they won't see the perceived difference in cost. Yes, they'll recognize that the higher priced option has more features and is more in-depth, but if the lower priced option is good enough, why pay the higher price?
Where I think Pachter is off the mark is that kids will be getting iPod Touches. Really, are parents buying those for their kids? I see the audience for iPod Touches being older. If the iPod Touch does take off as the gaming system of choice for children, then what Pachter is suggesting will likely be a problem for publishers in the future.
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
This is comparing apples to oranges. Not wanting to pay more than $10 for a cellphone game makes sense. But if you're looking to get into console gaming and somehow miss that all games are $50-60 new before buying one, well, you only have yourself to blame.
The console and PC market is a different beast. And it can offer a significantly different, and wider, selection of games to meet any need. Even for those only interested in paying a budget price.
Pachter has a point once cellphone games and console/PC games are exactly the same in design and implementation but wildly different on price. Until then, he's still just talking out of his ass.
Nyx Quest ($10) + Lost Winds ($10) + Silent Hill 1 ($6) + Super Mario RPG ($8) + Majora's Mask ($10) + The Dishwasher: Undead Samurai ($10) + Suikoden ($6) = $60
or any other of the numerous combinations of cheap games that I don't own but want on XBLA, WiiWare, VC, and the PSN.
EDIT: To put it another way, people are complaining that the PSP version of Tetris is too expensive. The game's only $10 for crying out loud and by all of the reviews I've read, it's one of the best versions of the game around.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
I don't know; if this were the case, why did gamers this go-around accept the next-gen tax from $50 to $60? Haven't game prices routinely fluctuated since the NES days? I mean, SNES and Genesis games ranged from $50 to $100, didn't they?
In a sense, I think people do become trained to expect a certain price point, but people are also willing to grasp that different platforms have different price ranges. Like, look at how many people generally accept $50 to $60 for console games, and $30 to $40 for handheld games, but whined and gnashed their teeth when games like Puzzle Quest, Braid and Castle Crashers started breaking the unspoken $10 ceiling on XBLA games. Now games like Shadow Complex come out at $15 and vastly few people are upset over it—mostly because they're willing to accept that the game is of a higher quality.
The question does remain, I suppose, whether Apple would sidestep this entire category by not really creating different "generations" and instead just making everything access a universal App Store. But I don't think so; we're already seeing iPhone 3GS-only apps that won't even run on older iPhones and iPod Touches, and Apple will invariably improve hardware specs over time.
I think he's saying that once the pricing drops down to the sub-$150 range, you'll see more kids with them. And I'm probably biased because I'm in North Jersey and NYC, but I am no longer stunned by what I see parents buying their kids anymore. I remember being in an Apple store last year and seeing a family buying a $300 iPod Classic and a $300 Bose speaker system for their teen daughter as some kind of present.
And iPod Touches might be for an older audience, but let's not forget that younger kids always want what older kids have. My 5-year-old nephew is dying for a DS because his older brother has one.
EDIT: Additionally, I don't think it's unfair to say kids with DSes are pretty common, right? There's only 30 bones' difference between a DSi and an iPod Touch.
It's reported that the NFL is now worried about MNF ratings.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=25626
And here's a part that I thought was very interesting:
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
It's interesting that Gamerbytes (a great blog, by the by) is attempting to seriously estimate sales figures for XBLA games. I wonder if publishers and developers will take note or attempt to rectify any problems in estimation.