Jump to content


The Official "What Are You Playing Now?" Thread


Recommended Posts

Dead Nation

 

This is a PSN game I downloaded for free after they offered two free games following the horrid PSN outage.

Finally played it through and it was a blast. Graphics and effects are great for an overhead shooter, TONS of zombie hordes to kill. Playing online with a partner is great fun.

 

I hope some of you PS3 owners grabbed this when it was free.

 

I did, and it's good initially, but grates later on. I need to go through on co-op--I'd probably have more fun that way.

Link to comment

EA's push for having "every possible game to have multi-player" is ruining the story/single player of a lot of good games.

 

This x1,000.

 

And the reason they want multiplayer is so EA can force an online pass onto people buying the game used (their "Project $10, if you recall), and eventually shut the servers off for everyone that bought their pass, thus forcing them on to whatever the next iteration of Mass Effect will be.

 

Anyway, it looks like BioWare is going to be another one of the many studios that EA has acquired over time, only to run it into the ground and sell it for parts once it starts turning out clunkers. And the clunker period for BioWare doesn't appear to be too far off at this point, sad to say. Probably why BioWare's best people have recently left the studio to start their own endeavors.

 

Money-mongering at it's finest. It's like EA feels like they don't get as much money as they deserve. Their games sell and their games sell for the most part really well so I can't see how they don't get enough money. So they force the "online pass" on every freaking game they make, which makes buying a game used obsolete. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

In an economy where money is tight as it is (which I guess if that's the case video games shouldn't be bought in the first place) but it appears with this online pass crap, that EA doesn't care about their customers.

 

And what's even more ridiculous is the fact that there are idiot buyers out there who are just blindly following EA, because "look at all the cool new features they are putting in the game!!" So EA continues to not loss money and so it sends them the message that, "yes, we can screw the customer over, because they still buy our games."

 

Furthermore, because they have a monopoly on the gat damn market for football games, they can continue to put crap out every year and make us be beta-testers until they patch the game. NFL 2k5 is much better than Madden 12 could ever dream to be. College Hoops 2k8 was eons better than NCAA Basketball 2010. NCAA Football continues to put out crap year after year.

 

More about the NCAA Football series, when EA asks for suggestions that they'll put in the game for next year, do they even listen to us? I mean, I see a ton of people asking for just better overall game play, forget the flashy multi-player or custom conferences in franchise, just a deeper franchise mode (suspensions, better game play, etc...) but what does EA promote? These flashy, more-often-than-not broken new things that are "really cool" instead of focusing on what makes football, football.

 

Okay, end rant. It's upsetting how EA is ruining video games.

Blame the NCAA, NFL and NBA as much as you blame EA. They all sold the exclusive deals to EA.

 

I will fully defend the online passes. Used games are doing more damage to the game industry than anything any publishing company could ever dream of doing. Every moron who goes to gamestop and buys the used game for $55 instead of $60 is at direct fault for things like online passes and day 1 DLC(often with onetime 'get it free' codes in the box)

 

Take Heavy Rain, and PS3 exclusive. They sold about 2 million copies when THIS"]http://ps3.ign.com/a...735p1.html was written, but 3 million people had played the game, they know this based on how many unique accounts activated trophies for the game. And this was a PS3 game that is pretty damned hard to fully pirate, unlike PC games which are much more pirate prone.

 

Games are more expensive than blockbuster movies now. Often AAA titles will have budgets north of $100 million. Then figure they stand to lose as much as one third to one half of their sales to gamespot/best buy in used sales, no small wonder they are adding online passes. They need to do something to try to recoup that heavy sort of loss.

Link to comment

Been rolling like a mack daddy through the streets of Liberty City lately playing GTA III. I don't know if it's just because I have fond memories of it as a kid, but this game just never gets old for me. I 100% completed it and I still find it a blast to play. I also love Vice City a whole lot... Something about those PS2 GTA games...

Link to comment

EA's push for having "every possible game to have multi-player" is ruining the story/single player of a lot of good games.

 

This x1,000.

 

And the reason they want multiplayer is so EA can force an online pass onto people buying the game used (their "Project $10, if you recall), and eventually shut the servers off for everyone that bought their pass, thus forcing them on to whatever the next iteration of Mass Effect will be.

 

Anyway, it looks like BioWare is going to be another one of the many studios that EA has acquired over time, only to run it into the ground and sell it for parts once it starts turning out clunkers. And the clunker period for BioWare doesn't appear to be too far off at this point, sad to say. Probably why BioWare's best people have recently left the studio to start their own endeavors.

 

Money-mongering at it's finest. It's like EA feels like they don't get as much money as they deserve. Their games sell and their games sell for the most part really well so I can't see how they don't get enough money. So they force the "online pass" on every freaking game they make, which makes buying a game used obsolete. Absolutely ridiculous.

 

In an economy where money is tight as it is (which I guess if that's the case video games shouldn't be bought in the first place) but it appears with this online pass crap, that EA doesn't care about their customers.

 

And what's even more ridiculous is the fact that there are idiot buyers out there who are just blindly following EA, because "look at all the cool new features they are putting in the game!!" So EA continues to not loss money and so it sends them the message that, "yes, we can screw the customer over, because they still buy our games."

 

Furthermore, because they have a monopoly on the gat damn market for football games, they can continue to put crap out every year and make us be beta-testers until they patch the game. NFL 2k5 is much better than Madden 12 could ever dream to be. College Hoops 2k8 was eons better than NCAA Basketball 2010. NCAA Football continues to put out crap year after year.

 

More about the NCAA Football series, when EA asks for suggestions that they'll put in the game for next year, do they even listen to us? I mean, I see a ton of people asking for just better overall game play, forget the flashy multi-player or custom conferences in franchise, just a deeper franchise mode (suspensions, better game play, etc...) but what does EA promote? These flashy, more-often-than-not broken new things that are "really cool" instead of focusing on what makes football, football.

 

Okay, end rant. It's upsetting how EA is ruining video games.

Blame the NCAA, NFL and NBA as much as you blame EA. They all sold the exclusive deals to EA.

 

I will fully defend the online passes. Used games are doing more damage to the game industry than anything any publishing company could ever dream of doing. Every moron who goes to gamestop and buys the used game for $55 instead of $60 is at direct fault for things like online passes and day 1 DLC(often with onetime 'get it free' codes in the box)

 

Take Heavy Rain, and PS3 exclusive. They sold about 2 million copies when http://ps3.ign.com/a...735p1.html was written, but 3 million people had played the game, they know this based on how many unique accounts activated trophies for the game. And this was a PS3 game that is pretty damned hard to fully pirate, unlike PC games which are much more pirate prone.

 

Games are more expensive than blockbuster movies now. Often AAA titles will have budgets north of $100 million. Then figure they stand to lose as much as one third to one half of their sales to gamespot/best buy in used sales, no small wonder they are adding online passes. They need to do something to try to recoup that heavy sort of loss.

 

Then explain to me why EA is the only company doing online passes? Or maybe they're not the only ones, but they are the only company I've seen who has an online pass.

Link to comment

Then figure they stand to lose as much as one third to one half of their sales to gamespot/best buy in used sales, no small wonder they are adding online passes. They need to do something to try to recoup that heavy sort of loss.

 

There are a couple of issues with this argument, the first being that you are making an unfounded assumption that everyone that bought the game used would have bought the game new if it hadnt been available used. That's not really the case. Most people who buy a used game would spend their money on something else if they had no alternatives for lowering a game's price point.

 

A second is that places like Gamestop, in the long run, make extra money for publishers. By letting consumers trade games in for store credit they are, in essence, defraying a portion of the cost of new games, leading to additional sales and generating new revenue for the publishers.

 

Publishing companies simplify and ignore the role the secondary market plays in driving the gaming business because the secondary market makes a convenient scapegoat for things like the online pass. In reality, online passes and the increasing tendency to nickel-and-dime the user to death with DLC stem from the publishers desire to exploit additional sources of revenue, and to pay for the increasingly complicated and expensive online services.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Then figure they stand to lose as much as one third to one half of their sales to gamespot/best buy in used sales, no small wonder they are adding online passes. They need to do something to try to recoup that heavy sort of loss.

 

There are a couple of issues with this argument, the first being that you are making an unfounded assumption that everyone that bought the game used would have bought the game new if it hadnt been available used. That's not really the case. Most people who buy a used game would spend their money on something else if they had no alternatives for lowering a game's price point.

 

A second is that places like Gamestop, in the long run, make extra money for publishers. By letting consumers trade games in for store credit they are, in essence, defraying a portion of the cost of new games, leading to additional sales and generating new revenue for the publishers.

 

Publishing companies simplify and ignore the role the secondary market plays in driving the gaming business because the secondary market makes a convenient scapegoat for things like the online pass. In reality, online passes and the increasing tendency to nickel-and-dime the user to death with DLC stem from the publishers desire to exploit additional sources of revenue, and to pay for the increasingly complicated and expensive online services.

I'm gonna have to call BS on a number of points there. Casual gamers who will spend their money on 'something else' are not the target of used games, its the high game turnover rate (or like some posters I've seen here take a game home and 'test drive' it for a couple days) is the main target of the used game market. And with ads there are lots of opportunity to buy games for less than $60.

 

Publishers get zero from used game sales. Not one penny. They are not getting anything from used sales. And many to most of the trade in credit goes back into used games, not new.

 

The origin of online passes is about defraying the damage done by the used market. Its only come up with the later part of this generation, because achievements and trophies allow for easy tracking of how many people play a given title.

 

DLC is optional, don't like it, don't buy it.

Link to comment

Did you know EA made enough money from Battlefield 3 sales alone to remake Gears of War 3, from start to finish, 60 times over? Battlefield 3, exempting special edition versions, made over $10 million in sales. Furthermore, EA is expected to make over $4.2 billion this year. Publishing companies aren't making enough money? My ass. The reason we have online passes is because publishers want to pad profits - it's plain and simple. They already make boat loads from new game sales, and they're trying to tap money from the used sales. It has absolutely nothing to do with them incurring huge losses, as I've already pointed out. Look up the numbers yourself - video game companies, like EA, are doing MORE than fine from new game sales alone.

 

Why are people "morons" for buying used games? That's smart. I do it all the time. How can you fault people for wanting to NOT spend $60, and wanting to wait for it to be cheaper? Online passes are simply a cheap way for publishers to make extra revenue, revenue they don't need to be making, after they incur huge gains from new game sales.

 

It's just like DLC. DLC does not exist to keep sales high, but to pad profits. There are numerous games that sold millions without having any DLC offered.

 

I think you have a very jaded understanding of what's going on in the video game world right now, especially with publishing/dev companies. They add things like DLC and online passes simply because they want more money. I can't fault them for that, however - it is what it is. But insinuating it's the GAMER'S fault for stupid things like online passes and DLC is crazy.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I'm gonna have to call BS on a number of points there. Casual gamers who will spend their money on 'something else' are not the target of used games, its the high game turnover rate (or like some posters I've seen here take a game home and 'test drive' it for a couple days) is the main target of the used game market. And with ads there are lots of opportunity to buy games for less than $60.

 

Publishers get zero from used game sales. Not one penny. They are not getting anything from used sales. And many to most of the trade in credit goes back into used games, not new.

 

The origin of online passes is about defraying the damage done by the used market. Its only come up with the later part of this generation, because achievements and trophies allow for easy tracking of how many people play a given title.

 

DLC is optional, don't like it, don't buy it.

 

The idea that publishers see no benefits from the secondary market is simply not true. Every time some kid trades in three or four old games for one new one, the publisher sees an extra sale. This happens all the time. What also happens frequently is that someone gets a gift certificate or birthday check for half the cost of a new game, or some parent decides they can justify spending $20 or $30 on entertainment instead of their kid, but not the full $60. In each of these cases, the ability to trade in a game allows the retailer to move another unit when otherwise they would not have, increasing sales for the publisher.

 

Unless I mistook your position, you don't seem to think that games should have any secondary value. Why should games be unique in this regard when compared to all other physical media? Publishers of CDs, DVDs, books, art prints, magazines, board games, etc have all managed to toil on despite their products having intrinsic value on the secondary market. What is it about games that makes these markets, which have existed since mankind first began producing goods, an existential threat for games?

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm gonna have to call BS on a number of points there. Casual gamers who will spend their money on 'something else' are not the target of used games, its the high game turnover rate (or like some posters I've seen here take a game home and 'test drive' it for a couple days) is the main target of the used game market. And with ads there are lots of opportunity to buy games for less than $60.

 

Publishers get zero from used game sales. Not one penny. They are not getting anything from used sales. And many to most of the trade in credit goes back into used games, not new.

 

The origin of online passes is about defraying the damage done by the used market. Its only come up with the later part of this generation, because achievements and trophies allow for easy tracking of how many people play a given title.

 

DLC is optional, don't like it, don't buy it.

 

The idea that publishers see no benefits from the secondary market is simply not true. Every time some kid trades in three or four old games for one new one, the publisher sees an extra sale. This happens all the time. What also happens frequently is that someone gets a gift certificate or birthday check for half the cost of a new game, or some parent decides they can justify spending $20 or $30 on entertainment instead of their kid, but not the full $60. In each of these cases, the ability to trade in a game allows the retailer to move another unit when otherwise they would not have, increasing sales for the publisher.

 

Unless I mistook your position, you don't seem to think that games should have any secondary value. Why should games be unique in this regard when compared to all other physical media? Publishers of CDs, DVDs, books, art prints, magazines, board games, etc have all managed to toil on despite their products having intrinsic value on the secondary market. What is it about games that makes these markets, which have existed since mankind first began producing goods, an existential threat for games?

Once again, the publisher and developer see nothing from a used game. Only Gamestop sees the money, often at 200% or more margins. You are making an assumption that the store credit will be used for a new game, and odds are someone trading in used games is getting a used game. The publisher doesnt even get to count them into sales figures. They get nothing.

 

Kids are no longer the primary target of games. The average gamer in the US is mid 30s and has played games for more than 20 years.

 

Gamestop is not doing you a favor, they are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and a large part of it they are taking out of someone elses pocket.

 

There are plenty of ad opportunities to buy games for less than $60, I do it all the time, I've payed $60 for 3 games in the last year, simply because I did not want to wait for an ad.

 

Games are different. There is a Gamestop more or less to every Walmart in this country. Where are you going to go trade a book, a CD or a movie in at? Those places don't really exist anymore to start with. And two, none of the other items required selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth to break even. Also add in that most of the other items take massive hits in value being sold as 'used' with art being the only exception(Its also an exception because of the fact that there are limited numbers of prints, and games have a more or less limitless supply on hand) A used new game at Gamestop will typically retail for $55 instead of $60. Saving someone a whole $5. Meanwhile Gamestop payed maybe $20 making their profit margin 275% where they will only make about 20-25% on a new game. You try selling any other item mentioned (again, art excluded) the retailer will be marking it down a hell of a lot more than the 5% or so Gamestop does on that new game, and they sure as hell wont be pulling triple digit profit margins.

Link to comment

I'm gonna have to call BS on a number of points there. Casual gamers who will spend their money on 'something else' are not the target of used games, its the high game turnover rate (or like some posters I've seen here take a game home and 'test drive' it for a couple days) is the main target of the used game market. And with ads there are lots of opportunity to buy games for less than $60.

 

Publishers get zero from used game sales. Not one penny. They are not getting anything from used sales. And many to most of the trade in credit goes back into used games, not new.

 

The origin of online passes is about defraying the damage done by the used market. Its only come up with the later part of this generation, because achievements and trophies allow for easy tracking of how many people play a given title.

 

DLC is optional, don't like it, don't buy it.

 

The idea that publishers see no benefits from the secondary market is simply not true. Every time some kid trades in three or four old games for one new one, the publisher sees an extra sale. This happens all the time. What also happens frequently is that someone gets a gift certificate or birthday check for half the cost of a new game, or some parent decides they can justify spending $20 or $30 on entertainment instead of their kid, but not the full $60. In each of these cases, the ability to trade in a game allows the retailer to move another unit when otherwise they would not have, increasing sales for the publisher.

 

Unless I mistook your position, you don't seem to think that games should have any secondary value. Why should games be unique in this regard when compared to all other physical media? Publishers of CDs, DVDs, books, art prints, magazines, board games, etc have all managed to toil on despite their products having intrinsic value on the secondary market. What is it about games that makes these markets, which have existed since mankind first began producing goods, an existential threat for games?

Once again, the publisher and developer see nothing from a used game. Only Gamestop sees the money, often at 200% or more margins. You are making an assumption that the store credit will be used for a new game, and odds are someone trading in used games is getting a used game. The publisher doesnt even get to count them into sales figures. They get nothing.

 

Kids are no longer the primary target of games. The average gamer in the US is mid 30s and has played games for more than 20 years.

 

Gamestop is not doing you a favor, they are making hundreds of millions of dollars a year, and a large part of it they are taking out of someone elses pocket.

 

There are plenty of ad opportunities to buy games for less than $60, I do it all the time, I've payed $60 for 3 games in the last year, simply because I did not want to wait for an ad.

 

Games are different. There is a Gamestop more or less to every Walmart in this country. Where are you going to go trade a book, a CD or a movie in at? Those places don't really exist anymore to start with. And two, none of the other items required selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth to break even. Also add in that most of the other items take massive hits in value being sold as 'used' with art being the only exception(Its also an exception because of the fact that there are limited numbers of prints, and games have a more or less limitless supply on hand) A used new game at Gamestop will typically retail for $55 instead of $60. Saving someone a whole $5. Meanwhile Gamestop payed maybe $20 making their profit margin 275% where they will only make about 20-25% on a new game. You try selling any other item mentioned (again, art excluded) the retailer will be marking it down a hell of a lot more than the 5% or so Gamestop does on that new game, and they sure as hell wont be pulling triple digit profit margins.

 

How do used games become used games? Magically? Believe it or not, developers see profits from used games, indirectly, because that used game was once a new game. I know Gamestop isn't doing me any favors, but claiming that the developers are being reasonable with the online pass is just as farfetched.

 

And the question still yet to be answered: Why is EA the only company doing this then?

Link to comment

Strigori, what are you arguing? That people should be buying new instead of used? I'd like to avert your attention to post #189 in this thread, in conjunction with this post.

 

The idea that used game sales hurt developers is a huge misconception - it's simply not true. Buying used or new doesn't affect devs as much as people tend to believe. Blizzard made half a billion dollars in one quarter of 2011, and still laid off over 500 employees. Buying used always hurts the publisher more, but buying new ALWAYS helps the publisher more. When a retail store sells out, they order directly from the publisher, thus padding the publisher's profits and sales and creating royalties for the devs (sometimes - not all the time).

 

The real issue is publishing companies simply wanting more from the used market, and that's it. As I've already pointed out, publishing companies are doing more than fine off of new game sales alone. Their attempts to assault the used game market with online passes, for example, has more to do with profit padding than anything else. They don't need that money - they just want it.

Link to comment

Strigori, what are you arguing? That people should be buying new instead of used? I'd like to avert your attention to post #189 in this thread, in conjunction with this post.

 

The idea that used game sales hurt developers is a huge misconception - it's simply not true. Buying used or new doesn't affect devs as much as people tend to believe. Blizzard made half a billion dollars in one quarter of 2011, and still laid off over 500 employees. Buying used always hurts the publisher more, but buying new ALWAYS helps the publisher more. When a retail store sells out, they order directly from the publisher, thus padding the publisher's profits and sales and creating royalties for the devs (sometimes - not all the time).

 

The real issue is publishing companies simply wanting more from the used market, and that's it. As I've already pointed out, publishing companies are doing more than fine off of new game sales alone. Their attempts to assault the used game market with online passes, for example, has more to do with profit padding than anything else. They don't need that money - they just want it.

Not everyone is Blizzard. Blizzard does not make console games, and there really is no such things as a used computer game. A computer game comes with an account key, and most companies link those with a user account based on email. Hence no used market, the PC biz is more effected by outright piracy. And I think most of the lay offs at Blizzard come from a shrinking World of Warcraft user base.

 

Lots of smaller studios go under every year. The smaller guy gets crippled more than anyone else. There is also a difference from a Dev Studio and a Publisher. Its the dev studios that are more at risk of going under, its the creative part that suffers. It does not help them. What's better. Selling 1 copy that gets passed around 5 times or selling 5 games? I'm arguing that used games hurt the industry, and put studios (the brains and heart that actually make the games) out of business. It has also lead to the creation of online passes as publishers see their profits slide away into the retail outlets pockets. The thing is with how Gamestop works, they will have a situation where many, if not most, titles never need to be reordered after the initial shipment. Simply due to the high speed trade ins that do happen. I assure you a game that was new last Tuesday will be available used there by the following Tuesday at most locations. I know how retail operations work as to the onhand and the projected numbers for inventory.

 

EA is not the only one using Online Passes either. THQ (Saints Row the Third, Warhammer 40k Space Marine), Sony (Twisted Metal, Uncharted 3), Warner Bros. (Fear 3) are some I found with just a couple min looking in the PSN store.

 

And I would have to look, but I'm pretty sure Gamestop made more money than THQ did last year.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...