| 15 FEB 2003 at 3:12pm |
Friday the 14thSchattenjger
Posts : 2908
Joined: 5 NOV 2002
Status : Online | I bought "Normality" and "Guilty" today for 10 kr (about 1$) each. How much $ did the developers get? My guesses are 0$.
(the real reason I wrote this was that I wanted to tease you :þ)
|
| 16 FEB 2003 at 11:36pm |
Jenny100Guild Master
Posts : 3510
Joined: 12 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Originally Posted By scout (15 FEB 2003 1:49am)
Petter_Holmberg,
Peter Holmberg wrote:
If you, for a fixed, monthly fee could have free, unlimited access to thousands and thousands of movies, music, games and so on, wouldn't you be prepared to pay that fee even if you didn't always made use of it?
Reading that I think of the old saw, "300 channels and nothing to watch." If the mainstream media just continues to dish out the same old crap, no, I probably wouldn't take advantage of their service. I've already cancelled cable TV. There is quite simply not enough good programing to pay 50.00 per month. One hour of "Six Feet Under" a week isn't worth it. Of course I'm a minority in that regard. I have my movie library just down the street, the local video store, and there are real people behind the counter, happy to talk movies.
I did the same thing as Scout.
If I want to see a movie, I go rent it.
If I don't feel like watching movies in a particular month, I'm not charged for it.
If I really like a movie, I'll try to buy a DVD or VHS of it so I can watch it as often as I like.
It costs money to keep things available online, so any kind of subscription service would probably end up "catering to the masses" and omitting the stuff I was really interested in or having it only on an occasional basis.
|
| 18 FEB 2003 at 10:13pm |
| Deleted User | But why should the providers need to keep only a very limited supply of media available to the consumers. Surely modern technology allows for storage of the number of movies, songs etc. that you would want to have access to. I guess it's probable that some media providers would focus on the currently "hot" material, just like most movie channels on cable do (excluding the specialized ones). But don't you think it would be profitable for a company to set up a service that made customers pay not just for access to the most popular material, but for the freedom to roam around in their huge archives and select whatever you were interested in watching. The creators of the material could get paid based on the number of people accessing it. It wouldn't be exactly like paying 300 TV channels and not bothering to watch them because they're mostly junk, because you would not be limited to watch whatever the TV channels choose to show you. You'd be completely free to access whatever you want to, whenever you want to. Let's say a friend of you recommends a TV series. Then you could just search it up in the archives and find out if you like it. If not, you can stop watching whenever you want to. If you find out the series is getting better later on you could just go back and catch up on the stuff you didn't watch the first time.
From the user perspective I cannot see why it would be a bad form of media distribution, as long as the price would be right. I'd prefer a fixed price that wasn't affected by what you watched or how much, but the media industry would probably push for something similar to the current world, where the latest stuff costs more money than whatever is old.
For the producers of media there would be things to gain too. Obscure stuff that won't get any space in TV and radio because its more profitable to broadcast mainstream media would find its audience, and thereby making more money on it.
|
| 19 FEB 2003 at 11:34pm |
JPSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 217
Joined: 24 NOV 2002
Status : Online | WOW !!
This thread has spiralled out of control! I didn't intend this when I started it, I just wanted to state that I was pissed off that all the games I wanted to play were £35-£40 and considering there were about 5 of them, there was no way I could afford roughly £200 to spend on games!
This all started because I walked into my local Gamestation just before xmas to buy some relatively new games which, just a week earlier were being sold pre-owned at £20-£30. There were multiple copies of these games but all of a sudden the pre-owned copies had disappeared, only to be replace by new copies at retail prices!
I am sure that all the pre-owned copies had not been sold in a week, and I had been saving up my hard earned cash to buy them!!
Consequently I stormed out of there, went home and sulked, eventually resulting in this thread which has turned into a monster!!
Bow down before the one you serve&&You're going to get what you deserve !
|
| 20 FEB 2003 at 12:58am |
msadvIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 66
Joined: 1 NOV 2002
Status : Online | Okay JP, we'll get back on track. In the USA I pay $20-$40 for a game and I don't think it's too expensive. I've blown as much or more for a few hours of entertainment at sporting events, concerts, even movies. At least I can re-play the game. I just have to choose what I want to do the most and I do think the games return a lot of hours of entertainment for the price.
|
| 20 FEB 2003 at 1:11pm |
judyannSorcerer Apprentice
Posts : 319
Joined: 11 OCT 2002
Status : Online | When I first starting playing adventure games, they cost between $40 and $60 each. When I started again after a 2 year hiatus, I was pleasantly surprised to find the cost generally had dropped to around $20. The problem, however, I played the $40 to $60 games for months - literally - once almost a year. Now, I can play them in 2-4 weeks.
I guess I still think games are a good buy since they last longer than most other forms of entertainment.
IT doesn't seem fair, however, if the games cost so much more in other countries.
As for buying used or - in my case, trading - I am all for it. I do get aggravated when I spend my money on a game that, despite the reviews, I don't like at all or doesn't deliver what it promised.
When I trade, I am more willing to take a chance on getting games I wouldn't ordinarily buy. I when I trade for a game I like, I am more open to buying another game new from that company.
|
| 20 FEB 2003 at 3:24pm |
scoutPrivate Detective
Posts : 736
Joined: 2 NOV 2002
Status : Online | ). But don't you think it would be profitable for a company to set up a service that made customers pay not just for access to the most popular material, but for the freedom to roam around in their huge archives and select whatever you were interested in watching. The creators of the material could get paid based on the number of people accessing it. It wouldn't be exactly like paying 300 TV channels and not bothering to watch them because they're mostly junk, because you would not be limited to watch whatever the TV channels choose to show you. You'd be completely free to access whatever you want to, whenever you want to.
Petter,
In theory that sounds great but just color me skeptical. Maybe if YOU were to oversee operations then there would be intelligent alternatives to "regular viewing" but you, by your very bent would be disqualified. You are interested in programming content. That is not the top priority. Bascially if the communication giants can fill the screen with pretty colors and fun sounds that's all they care about. I'm in favor of what you described but I don't see it ever happening. Hopefully someone will prove me wrong.
As for the price of game now, a quick persual of some old game boxes show that back in the late 80's and early 90's games were going for 40-60 USD. Personally if adventure dev's want to increase the play value and charge for it, then I'm good with that. Right now, 20.00USD about reflects what the current crops of "adventure" games are worth. In other words, not much....
|
| 20 FEB 2003 at 7:36pm |
| Deleted User | I totally disagree.
|
| 20 FEB 2003 at 7:52pm |
| Deleted User | Originally Posted By scout (20 FEB 2003 3:24pm)
In theory that sounds great but just color me skeptical. Maybe if YOU were to oversee operations then there would be intelligent alternatives to "regular viewing" but you, by your very bent would be disqualified. You are interested in programming content. That is not the top priority. Bascially if the communication giants can fill the screen with pretty colors and fun sounds that's all they care about. I'm in favor of what you described but I don't see it ever happening. Hopefully someone will prove me wrong.
Actually, I left out the scepticism bit in my messages. I agree that it might not happen because the media industry think they are fine the way they are. What makes me believe there will be a chance is that p2p and other forms of spreading media between people are threatening the traditional forms of distribution, so they are going to have to come up with something else. In some ways, quality ALWAYS wins over content. If you provide users with what they think is quality, you build a good base market for yourself. If you churn out trash and fools people to buy it through advertising, you may earn a lot of money, but it could all vanish in a second.
|
| 12 MAR 2003 at 1:41pm |
jamarchandSchattenjger
Posts : 1665
Joined: 10 OCT 2002
Status : Offline | Two aspects must be analized.
First - The work itself......package, disks, time , personall and technology used and spent by the studio, publisher taxes, commerce,etc...
Second - The lenght and fun intensity that this game will give to gamers.
So, could exist 5cd games that give you a very short adventure, and in other hand, 1 or 2cd game that give you a long way to solve it.
Concluding - The relation cost/benefit is absolutelly relative and depends the pleasure level or satisfaction intensity/lenght.
 &&&&[move]Actually playing SHIVERS and Rhem 2[/move]&&
|
| 17 MAY 2003 at 10:32am |
RismiIntergalactic Janitor
Posts : 43
Joined: 11 MAY 2003
Status : Online | That's true. I can understand that PC-games are not really cheap.
That's maybe the only thing about adventure games that I don't like. Once you've played it...that's it. Ok, I could install Myst again and probably I would have some pleasure on it, but it wouldn't be the same.
Other types of games, like strategy or simgames you can stay playing forever. So you could say it's more worth the money.
Ri&Smi
|
| 17 MAY 2003 at 9:09pm |
InlandAZGuild Master
Posts : 5587
Joined: 4 MAY 2007
Status : Offline | That's maybe the only thing about adventure games that I don't like. Once you've played it... that's it.
I don't know - I really enjoyed replaying Syberia and TLJ, actually I've enjoyed replaying many adventure games.
But, your right for the most part - the game rarely replays differently (with a few exceptions).
|
| 8 JUL 2003 at 5:04am |
PamelaSpace Cadet
Posts : 152
Joined: 10 APR 2003
Status : Online | I agree with you, games are WAY too much money, PC <except dreamcatcher games> , PS2, XBOX, ETC. One game is 1/4 of buying the gaming console! Until things change I buy my console games used and my pc games new and I sell them back on halfcom or ebay and get some of my money back, only thing you can really do.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~&& Sierra, come to your senses!
|
