The 2010 Video Games Thread

[CleBrownsfan]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Apparently IGN gave Red Dead Redemption a 9.75. To compare that to another new game, the new Mario got a 9.25.

oh-oh going to IGN now - thanks!

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by CleBrownsfan

oh-oh going to IGN now - thanks!

I think it was IGN. I'll search for story I read about it. Needless to say it sounds sensational.

[DeToxRox]

Okay I lied ha. it was GameInformer. I blame it on Pumpy. Regardless, I cannot wait.

[Pumpy Tudors]

how did i get involved

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

how did i get involved

So there could be one black person included in anything to do with a game set in the Old West.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

EA just announced that from now on they are going to make online access in there games through a one time use code/ OR you can purchase it for 10 dollars to try and prevent used game sales. I understand where they are coming from (although I think they make enough money) but since they don't profit from used games, i guess I understand. But this totally sucks for people like me who usually wait 1-3 months and buy the games used cause I ain't rich, and saving 10 bucks a title can really add up and help.

Anyway, basically EA Sports is going to start only allowing online access in its games with one time use codes that come with a new game or you can pay 10 bucks to get online if you buy it used (basically your screwed and have to cough up 10 bucks if you buy the game used if you wanna get online)

reading back through my post I realize I can't type for shit today and its hard to understand, so here is the article:

Gamasutra - News - EA Sports Introduces 'Online Pass' For Premium Content, Online Play

Kind of saw that coming. They have started adding things like one-time VIP codes to games to hurt used game sales. My biggest concern would be that the $10 online system probably won't work. They have a ton of trouble implementing online stuff so my guess is that any used game will now just be worthless online.

Another solution for EA to slow down used game sales is to just make good games.

[CleBrownsfan]

lol - okay

Who's getting RDR (Red Dead Redemption) on the 360? Posse anyone?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Considering I don't know how much of the problems that caused us to finally just give up & trade-in BFBC2 are caused by Dice and how much are caused by EA (whose servers actually handle the online play?), I'm already reluctant to buy anything else from EA. This just adds to that reluctance.

Hard to say right now who needs to suffer some catastrophic collapse more: EA or Activision. As I told my son just last night (when he asked who I figured the good guys/bad guys were in the Activision/Infinity Ward/Respawn saga) "Truth is, I don't think there are any good guys in the whole deal on either side of it".

[MJ4H]

Anyone have any opinions on Monster Hunter Tri? Been thinking of picking this one up to give me something to play with one of my friends in co-op mode.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

EA just announced that from now on they are going to make online access in there games through a one time use code/ OR you can purchase it for 10 dollars to try and prevent used game sales. I understand where they are coming from (although I think they make enough money) but since they don't profit from used games, i guess I understand. But this totally sucks for people like me who usually wait 1-3 months and buy the games used cause I ain't rich, and saving 10 bucks a title can really add up and help.

Anyway, basically EA Sports is going to start only allowing online access in its games with one time use codes that come with a new game or you can pay 10 bucks to get online if you buy it used (basically your screwed and have to cough up 10 bucks if you buy the game used if you wanna get online)


reading back through my post I realize I can't type for shit today and its hard to understand, so here is the article:

Gamasutra - News - EA Sports Introduces 'Online Pass' For Premium Content, Online Play

That blows. What about people who have multiple Live accounts for their box? Different account for different family members. Does that mean that any extra account has to pay 10 dollars to use it online or have to just use one online account?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Another solution for EA to slow down used game sales is to just make good games.

No, since the used game market is driven by those who, like mentioned above, want to save $5 - $10. Making "better" games improves day 1 sales since more folks have to have it immediately, but that's not the folks looking to save a few bucks.

That's the one thing I don't get about the used game market. If I'm buying a used game, I'm getting it for like half off. But people will save $5 and end up sending zero to the company that made it, and it gets even worse if they then call tech support with an issue since that just costs money to the company who made it without them seeing a dime. It's one thing for folks to buy a 6 month old game for a really cheap price since they aren't necessarily expecting much, it's another to buy a month old game on the used retail market for $5 off and expect full support from the company that made it.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by CleBrownsfan

lol - okay

Who's getting RDR (Red Dead Redemption) on the 360? Posse anyone?

I'm in...

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

No, since the used game market is driven by those who, like mentioned above, want to save $5 - $10. Making "better" games improves day 1 sales since more folks have to have it immediately, but that's not the folks looking to save a few bucks.

That's the one thing I don't get about the used game market. If I'm buying a used game, I'm getting it for like half off. But people will save $5 and end up sending zero to the company that made it, and it gets even worse if they then call tech support with an issue since that just costs money to the company who made it without them seeing a dime. It's one thing for folks to buy a 6 month old game for a really cheap price since they aren't necessarily expecting much, it's another to buy a month old game on the used retail market for $5 off and expect full support from the company that made it.

But they did get their money. They got their money on the original purchase. What difference does it make it the person who first bought it still has the game and is making that service call or a second person? It's still one game in circulation and one call being made.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

So there could be one black person included in anything to do with a game set in the Old West.

I don't know much about this game, but it looks like something that lets me pop a cap in someone's ass??? Sign me up.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

But they did get their money. They got their money on the original purchase. What difference does it make it the person who first bought it still has the game and is making that service call or a second person? It's still one game in circulation and one call being made.

If the company is lucky it's only one call being made. How do you know how many times the first person called? What if each one that buys the copy as it jumps through hands calls? That's the reason behind these kind of one-use codes: the cost of a game can often go well beyond the actual purchase, and so you'll see most of these codes being for things that typically cost the company to maintain, like servers for online games, or similar items.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

If the company is lucky it's only one call being made. How do you know how many times the first person called? What if each one that buys the copy as it jumps through hands calls? That's the reason behind these kind of one-use codes: the cost of a game can often go well beyond the actual purchase, and so you'll see most of these codes being for things that typically cost the company to maintain, like servers for online games, or similar items.

Then they should have patched it already and they deserve the calls if there is a problem that they allow to continue...

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Then they should have patched it already and they deserve the calls if there is a problem that they allow to continue...

For the consoles you may be somewhat correct, assuming it's really a bug in the game and not user stupidity (which happens far more often than folks would like to believe) or a bad drive or a console itself going bad. For the PC anything can and does go, and it's not necessarily a buggy game that leads to a flurry of support calls. One job I would NEVER take on is tech support in the computer industry. I can promise you that for every horrible story about a support idiot, there is a matching story for the callers...

My favorite support trek involved a guy with 3 different types of RAM in his computer (back in the early SD-RAM days: PC-66, PC-100, and PC-133) that he was overclocking and was sure the game was buggy because of how much it crashed. Right...

Yes, there are plenty of buggy games, and plenty of deserved support calls on them, but there are also plenty of users who have no clue, and support calls are not anywhere near always legitimate issues with the game. And if you did not pay the company in the first place, why are you assuming they should support you for free? Even if they wrote a buggy piece of trash, you giving them $0 does not entitle you to support for their buggy piece of trash.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by CleBrownsfan

lol - okay

Who's getting RDR (Red Dead Redemption) on the 360? Posse anyone?

I haven't decided to go 360 or PS3 yet.

[k0ruptr]

While I am a tech guy and know my shit (pretty sure) I do like to save 10 bucks here and there, but I don't think I've made a support call for at least 12 years. Do people really call support for games?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

For the consoles you may be somewhat correct, assuming it's really a bug in the game and not user stupidity (which happens far more often than folks would like to believe) or a bad drive or a console itself going bad. For the PC anything can and does go, and it's not necessarily a buggy game that leads to a flurry of support calls. One job I would NEVER take on is tech support in the computer industry. I can promise you that for every horrible story about a support idiot, there is a matching story for the callers...

My favorite support trek involved a guy with 3 different types of RAM in his computer (back in the early SD-RAM days: PC-66, PC-100, and PC-133) that he was overclocking and was sure the game was buggy because of how much it crashed. Right...

Yes, there are plenty of buggy games, and plenty of deserved support calls on them, but there are also plenty of users who have no clue, and support calls are not anywhere near always legitimate issues with the game. And if you did not pay the company in the first place, why are you assuming they should support you for free? Even if they wrote a buggy piece of trash, you giving them $0 does not entitle you to support for their buggy piece of trash.

Sure it does. One unit was released and sold to the public and that unit should be supported. We're not talking about an illegal copy, we're talking about the unit which was purchased legally. They should support that unit as long as they offer support for that product.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

While I am a tech guy and know my shit (pretty sure) I do like to save 10 bucks here and there, but I don't think I've made a support call for at least 12 years. Do people really call support for games?

+1

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

While I am a tech guy and know my shit (pretty sure) I do like to save 10 bucks here and there, but I don't think I've made a support call for at least 12 years. Do people really call support for games?

Yes, with regularity and in surprising numbers.

[EagleFan]

double dola: Why are we talking about support anyway? The issue is paying to play online. If the issue is support calls then change the license o a support license for the used game purchase and I have zero issue with that to be honest (since I have never called a game for support).

[k0ruptr]

WOW, I just got done watching another series of videos on Read Dead Redemption (the ones on the 360 marketplace) , this game looks so F'n Epic I just cannot wait to get my hands on it.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Sure it does. One unit was released and sold to the public and that unit should be supported. We're not talking about an illegal copy, we're talking about the unit which was purchased legally. They should support that unit as long as they offer support for that product.

I disagree. It's not like a car with warranty defects where fixing it once means it's fixed, because often it's fixing the actual computer the software runs on. Combined with the fact that people often don't download patches at all (a number of support calls are handled just by pointing out where the patch is), in reality you've often DONE the support on the unit, you just have to keep doing it / paying for it over and over as the unit changes hands.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

double dola: Why are we talking about support anyway? The issue is paying to play online. If the issue is support calls then change the license o a support license for the used game purchase and I have zero issue with that to be honest (since I have never called a game for support).

I brought up a side point on the used game market, that's how we got there. The point comes back to the issue of how payment is done for ongoing costs. Online servers is one (where these fees for online play past the original purchaser), support is another, there may be others I'm not realising right now.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by k0ruptr

EA just announced that from now on they are going to make online access in there games through a one time use code/ OR you can purchase it for 10 dollars to try and prevent used game sales. I understand where they are coming from (although I think they make enough money) but since they don't profit from used games, i guess I understand. But this totally sucks for people like me who usually wait 1-3 months and buy the games used cause I ain't rich, and saving 10 bucks a title can really add up and help.

Anyway, basically EA Sports is going to start only allowing online access in its games with one time use codes that come with a new game or you can pay 10 bucks to get online if you buy it used (basically your screwed and have to cough up 10 bucks if you buy the game used if you wanna get online)


reading back through my post I realize I can't type for shit today and its hard to understand, so here is the article:

Gamasutra - News - EA Sports Introduces 'Online Pass' For Premium Content, Online Play

I have to say, while it stinks from a consumer point of view, the consumer ultimately has the choice - either buy the game (used or new) or don't. While I can't say much for EA's management (or lack thereof) I find it interesting that you think they "make enough money". Not wanting to argue this point but...how much is enough money for them to make? That rationalization causes people to lie/cheat/steal (aka pirate) everyday (not saying you do). That rationalization also causes many a developer to lose their jobs. Mind you, I'm not calling you out on this, but who's to say when and if a corporation makes enough profit (btw, EA lost $82 million last quarter)?

Suppose a corp comes out with some new energy product, cheaper than gasoline, that doesn't pollute and is readily available. If they made $50 trillion and yet got us off of Middle East oil at a cheaper price than we pay today (and therefore benefiting the consumer), would that be too much?

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by CleBrownsfan

lol - okay

Who's getting RDR (Red Dead Redemption) on the 360? Posse anyone?

I'm in.

[stevew]

I'm getting red dead for ps3 I think. Someone know of a good deal for live right now.

[tyketime]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

how much is enough money for them to make?

“I do think,” you may have heard President Barack Obama say about a group of Americans, “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

[tyketime]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Apparently IGN gave Red Dead Redemption a 9.75. To compare that to another new game, the new Mario got a 9.25.

Damn! That looks goooood.

[CleBrownsfan]

Red Dead Redemption Scoring Free Post-Launch DLC

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I have to say, while it stinks from a consumer point of view, the consumer ultimately has the choice - either buy the game (used or new) or don't. While I can't say much for EA's management (or lack thereof) I find it interesting that you think they "make enough money". Not wanting to argue this point but...how much is enough money for them to make? That rationalization causes people to lie/cheat/steal (aka pirate) everyday (not saying you do). That rationalization also causes many a developer to lose their jobs. Mind you, I'm not calling you out on this, but who's to say when and if a corporation makes enough profit (btw, EA lost $82 million last quarter)?

From Dubious Quality (Dubious Quality: April 2010, see the Monday April 19 Console Post of the Week):

Originally Posted by article

Interestingly, the question about software companies has a somewhat surprising answer: almost no one is making money.

Look at the trailing twelve month results for the big players:
Electronic Arts: -749M
Take Two: -117M
THQ: -95 M
Ubisoft: -72.5M (that's a projection from the company for the fiscal year that ended March 31)
Activision: 112M
Konami: 39M

[spleen1015]

How do you lose 749M and stay in business?

[k0ruptr]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

From Dubious Quality (Dubious Quality: April 2010, see the Monday April 19 Console Post of the Week):

well, maybe I was wrong about them having too much money

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

No, since the used game market is driven by those who, like mentioned above, want to save $5 - $10. Making "better" games improves day 1 sales since more folks have to have it immediately, but that's not the folks looking to save a few bucks.

That's the one thing I don't get about the used game market. If I'm buying a used game, I'm getting it for like half off. But people will save $5 and end up sending zero to the company that made it, and it gets even worse if they then call tech support with an issue since that just costs money to the company who made it without them seeing a dime. It's one thing for folks to buy a 6 month old game for a really cheap price since they aren't necessarily expecting much, it's another to buy a month old game on the used retail market for $5 off and expect full support from the company that made it.

Good games don't get sold as quickly as bad ones do. The used market for Modern Warfare 2 was actually pretty bad. You weren't saving that much money on it. People loved the game and just weren't willing to sell it. It's just supply and demand.

For instance, I sell a lot of my games once I've played them to the point of satisfaction. I have not sold Bad Company 2 and have no intentions of doing so either. In fact, I have the first Bad Company on my shelf. They are great games and offer a lot of replay value. But I sold Madden within the first couple weeks because it sucked. People hang on to good games longer and that makes the used marketplace less desireable.

[SackAttack]

It's not about support calls.

It's about the fact that creating a game these days commands a much larger budget than it did even five years ago (and orders of magnitude more than 20 years ago), and while the market has certainly grown, it hasn't grown by orders of magnitude for most games.

Especially for new or fledgling IP.

There will always be some games that just blow the doors off, either because "Goddamn that looks cool" or there's a pedigree behind it. Most games don't get that kind of consumer support.

Now consider that only about half of the purchase price of a new game makes it back to the publisher (who only sometimes is the owner of the developer).

So you look at a title like Modern Warfare 2, whose production budget was around $50 million. If you ignore all other costs - distribution, promotion, etc - and pretend that $50 million is the only cost that needs to be recouped, even at $30/copy ROI, you're looking at something like 1.6 million units shifted just to break even.

Even for a game with a budget 1/4 that, you're still talking about somewhere around 500k copies before you start turning a profit.

Again, assuming you ignore distribution/advertising/etc costs.

DLC changes that equation somewhat, but the degree of effect depends on the type of game. Mass Effect/Dragon Age have DLC, and probably generate a fair bit of profit from it, but the DLC from those games doesn't have the same peer-pressure effect as a new map pack for Halo or Modern Warfare 2, where people end up getting the maps because the community shifts to the new map set en masse.

Then, too, most "new" sales happen within 30-60 days of a game's release. Nintendo's releases are kind of the exception to that rule, because their releases are so intimately linked with the console.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm not sure this EA charge in regards to casual gamers matters nearly as much as people think. I think most people that buy those Madden used copies and want to play online are going to factor that $10 into their cost and just wait for the used copies to reach a lower price point. There's probably going to be some who inevitably buy the game not knowing about the additional charge, but most will just factor it into their personal value calculation when they make the purchase.

In regards to gamers like the general population on this board, it's a big deal and definitely alienates more users (in addition to the issues with the franchise that we already know about).

[spleen1015]

How many folks here buy used games? I don't think I have ever bought a used game.

[CleBrownsfan]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

How many folks here buy used games? I don't think I have ever bought a used game.

I do - but mostly buy/sell from Craigslist. I use to buy/trade games at Gamespot but you get a lot more value on Craigslist.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

How many folks here buy used games? I don't think I have ever bought a used game.

Fairly regularly, as do most people I know that have kids who are gamers.

Although the bargains aren't nearly as good for 360 as they were for PS2, it's still a good way to either catch up on older games you missed or even just to sample a franchise that may have a new installment coming out (case in point, my son has been playing Dead Rising since Saturday in order to get some idea of how interested he'll be in DR2).

edit to add: It also seems to be pretty common about the 18-24 y/o gamers that I know

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

How many folks here buy used games? I don't think I have ever bought a used game.

I buy some of the older used games when they have special deals at Gamestop for the PS3. I also buy used for my 3 year old daughter. She has a Nintendo DS and I can pick up games for super cheap that are old, yet still new to her.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

How many folks here buy used games? I don't think I have ever bought a used game.

I have bought a few from Gamestop.

[SportsDino]

I buy a lot of games used, because I'm so backlogged that by the time I go to the game store a bunch of titles I've heard about are now cheap. I also usually wait for enough word of mouth to know if its worth my time. However, i can see EA's side in this, they don't get money off of used games, but servers cost money.... you don't get something for nothing, so pay up or play single player, or don't buy at all.

Some games I've bought near ship, recently that would include:
- Mass Effect 2
- Fallout 3
- Dragon Age (lucky timing)
- anything Civilization

In the same time I've bought maybe several dozen games used. A lot of games I find iffy at $60 seem like a fun day or two at $5 - $20.

Games I'll buy on ship coming up:
Red Dead Redemption (been waiting for this since I was ten)
Fallout: New Vegas (will probably be better than FO3 in my opinion)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

but servers cost money.... you don't get something for nothing, so pay up or play single player, or don't buy at all.

Umm ... how is there any significant additional load on the server since the original purchaser is no longer playing the game? I mean, it's not as though the load has doubled from the second user, it's simply shifted. That just seems like a really weak argument for this choice.

[gstelmack]

What is the attraction of used over say:

- A Steam sale (obviously PC only)
- $20 "Platinum" titles (which 360 and PS3 both have their own versions of)
- Clearance bins at the store

?

But I do get buying games at less than the $50-$60 full price, don't get me wrong. Or trading with a buddy. I've just never seen the attraction of used at places like GameStop where you typically are not saving much over the new titles sitting right there.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... how is there any significant additional load on the server since the original purchaser is no longer playing the game? I mean, it's not as though the load has doubled from the second user, it's simply shifted. That just seems like a really weak argument for this choice.

There is a typical lifetime for a customer playing multiplayer. For a lot of folks they hold on to it for a long time and play, but others are drive-bys for a month or two. If those used copies go from hand-to-hand, the load over time is higher as folks who would normally quit give their copy to someone else, who then joins up. So you maintain servers longer for the late buyers. If they aren't actual purchasers, then you are maintaining servers that you might otherwise be repurposing for a later title so that folks who gave you no money continue to play on.

Basically you might have 20 servers at launch (just picking a number), then be down to 10 6 months after launch for the long-term crowd. But if folks continue to buy the game, you might have to maintain 20 servers at the 6 month mark for the load. If those folks are buying used instead of new copies, then you are maintaining those 10 extra servers for zero revenue.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

What is the attraction of used over say:

- A Steam sale (obviously PC only)
- $20 "Platinum" titles (which 360 and PS3 both have their own versions of)
- Clearance bins at the store

That's pretty simple to answer I think:

1) No interest in buying a new computer every 6 months to keep up with the pace of game releases. PC gaming outside of simple text sims & Excel-based interpretations of some tabletop games is pretty much a dead issue for me. And for the majority of the console gaming public as well (albeit for a wider variety of reasons I imagine).

2) Rarely do I see a Platinum title that's of any interest, whereas (just for example) Dead Rising was still of interest. Pretty big gap between what's available used for $15-$20 and what's released in the Platinum lines.

3) As of my last trip to GameStop I noticed that there was no longer any 360 clearance bin at all. Not sure when it went away but the only bins were for PS2 and a handful of handheld titles.

But I do get buying games at less than the $50-$60 full price, don't get me wrong. Or trading with a buddy. I've just never seen the attraction of used at places like GameStop where you typically are not saving much over the new titles sitting right there.

I think the difference may be in what you perceive people doing in terms of used vs new and how at least a lot of us actually use it/make our decision whether to buy new vs used. If you're talking about a $5 difference (as is often the case these days), then we almost always go new in my house. But once you get to $10, $15, $20 difference, then the pendulum starts to shift.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I think the difference may be in what you perceive people doing in terms of used vs new and how at least a lot of us actually use it/make our decision whether to buy new vs used. If you're talking about a $5 difference (as is often the case these days), then we almost always go new in my house. But once you get to $10, $15, $20 difference, then the pendulum starts to shift.

That makes perfect sense. Maybe it's just been too long since I've actually walked into a Gamestop, I just never remember being able to save that much on the used titles.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

There is a typical lifetime for a customer playing multiplayer. For a lot of folks they hold on to it for a long time and play, but others are drive-bys for a month or two. If those used copies go from hand-to-hand, the load over time is higher as folks who would normally quit give their copy to someone else, who then joins up. So you maintain servers longer for the late buyers. If they aren't actual purchasers, then you are maintaining servers that you might otherwise be repurposing for a later title so that folks who gave you no money continue to play on.

Basically you might have 20 servers at launch (just picking a number), then be down to 10 6 months after launch for the long-term crowd. But if folks continue to buy the game, you might have to maintain 20 servers at the 6 month mark for the load. If those folks are buying used instead of new copies, then you are maintaining those 10 extra servers for zero revenue.

Meh, the logic here simply doesn't compel me. The existence of a long running player base is, in part, what makes multi-player games attractive for purchase in the first place. Destroy that & watch sales decline, likely over what little can be saved on a handful fewer servers.

Or hell, why not just say, "here, you're really just renting this game from us and even though it says it has online multi-player and that's a big part of the reason you're buying (err, renting) the game from us we're going to try to pull the plug on it as quickly as possible in order to save a few dollars".

That's pennywise and pound foolish afaic, as is this latest atrocity from EA. And trust me, that ain't gonna fix their $750m loss that was posted up the thread yesterday.