It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
"People will rather buy overpriced coffee than out game. Clearly it must be the fault of the coffee." Idiots need to pull their heads out of their asses.

I like this part:
Many serious gamers complain about all the casual games coming out for mobile, but don't support the serious game developers that build the games that they want! Remember when you would fork over $40 for Zelda or Pokémon games on Game Boy?
When you bought a Zelda game you got a cartridge that you knew would last for decades (literally) and would be playable with no problems. When you buy an app you get a download tied to some mystical account that might vanish tomorrow because of the company going under, a new software update or countless other reasons. You get no installer, no source code, no way to back up files, nothing. Even Steam is better than that.

Is it really any surprise that people are hesitant about spending more than the minimum on an app? That is the reason why so many apps rely on microtransactions, they trick you into spending a log in small doses at a time.
avatar
Trilarion: On the other hand I only see a good future for demanding, complex games on tablets. They have a big enough screen. Most smartphones will have a size around 4-5 inch and I think it's unlikely they get much larger soon, after all you have to carry them in your trousers or somewhere else.
Still not quite convinced. When I think about myself playing on either PC or a phone/tablet, on the latter I'd want something relatively easy to jump into and jump out, just to kill some time. On a PC I am more likely to want to spend hours on it, really leaving the real world behind me and trying to get fully immersed to the game world and the objectives.

Also, oddly, one thing that pushed me away from mobile gaming a bit is audio. My gaming PCs are always connected to some kind of speakers giving me better audio, while my tablet has only that teeny-weeny little speaker.

Using headphones with a mobile device alleviates the problem, but I tend to use headphones only if I need to keep quiet, like playing in the middle of night. Otherwise I rather use speakers.

So quite often when I have a game both for PC and Android, I still tend to prefer playing it on PC because I want the better audio output. I guess I could also connect the tablet to a set of speakers too, but then it would lose its main advantage over PCs, mobile gaming, so what would be the point anymore.

I have a Philips soundbar (connected to my TV) which my Android phones and tablets can use for audio with Bluetooth, but for gaming it isn't that good because it introduces lag to the audio, ie. what you hear from the speakers comes a bit later than what you see on the screen. For listening to music with a mobile device, it is a great option though.

Having said that, one game that IMHO worked very well on an Android tablet was Plants vs Zombies. Easy to jump into and play for one round, interesting enough gameplay, and works very well with a touch interface (I'd say it worked even better than playing with a mouse on a PC, albeit the PC version was quite enjoyable too).

avatar
Trilarion: I guess somewhere in the future complex, grown up adventures, strategy or simulation games followed by other genres will make the jump from PC only to PC and tablets.
There already are such games, but people just don't tend to play them on mobiles, it seems. Like that Avadon: Black Fortress RPG I have also on Android, it just seems the kind of game I'd rather play on PC.
avatar
jamyskis: [...]
(why you do think we never saw the likes of Candy Crush Saga on PC?).
[...]
http://candy_crush_saga.en.downloadastro.com/

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/store/games/candy-crush-saga/9nblggh18846
Post edited October 21, 2015 by amok
avatar
Trilarion: But then, interestingly, why is music or watching movies at cinemas or on mobiles not equally cheap or even free the way gaming is? They work with the same mechanisms (easy to produce, easy to distribute, all digital), so one would assume that they should have the same problems??

Maybe producing music or movies is still harder than making video games? Maybe consumers should pay for video games by time they play.
It depends on the movies and games, but I'd say that producing music is easier, and certainly writing books is easier. I'd also say that a B movie is easier to make than a B game. In any case, how hard it is to produce something doesn't have a direct effect on price. I'd say that the value of games is low partly because it's so hard to produce them, that so many aspects work together and that they can easily fail to play correctly, something that no other media has trouble with.

IMO stores devalued games. GOG used to say that the deep Steam sales hurt gaming, then started its own deep discounts. Bundles really killed value, as did mobile. There's simply a perception that games aren't worth much. Once you go down in price it's hard to go up.
avatar
ET3D: IMO stores devalued games. GOG used to say that the deep Steam sales hurt gaming, then started its own deep discounts. Bundles really killed value, as did mobile. There's simply a perception that games aren't worth much. Once you go down in price it's hard to go up.
Could say it was in their best interests to not offer "deep" sales, as they'd make more money per game, all things being equal, but I think they realised they didn't have a choice. If they were to sort of compete with that cesspit of evil, they had to offer good discounts too, or too few people got tempted to buy games. I guess it works. I have over 100 games here and have played maybe 10-20%, and I've tried to be conservative when buying games.
Post edited October 21, 2015 by Pangaea666
avatar
ET3D: IMO stores devalued games. GOG used to say that the deep Steam sales hurt gaming, then started its own deep discounts. Bundles really killed value, as did mobile. There's simply a perception that games aren't worth much. Once you go down in price it's hard to go up.
avatar
Pangaea666: Could say it was in their best interests to not offer "deep" sales, as they'd make more money per game, all things being equal, but I think they realised they didn't have a choice. If they were to sort of compete with that cesspit of evil, they had to offer good discounts took, or too few people got tempted to buy games. I guess it works. I have over 100 games here and have played maybe 10-20%, and I've tried to be conservative when buying games.
Honestly, if you asked me, I wouldn't blame Steam or GoG for the devaluation of games.

I blame piracy.

We have an entire generation of gamers growing up with the realization that they can get games for literally nothing. Games literally have no worth in that sense and it completely skews the idea of what has value and what doesn't.

It's why people complain about AAA game pricing when the million dollar production values clearly justify a $60 price tag, but have no problem paying a mobile developer $2.50 for a palette swap skin that probably cost the dev $0.20 to make, an over 1200% difference in the cost versus value of the skin.

To the average consumer who grew up with AAA games costing $0, a price increase by $60 seems absurd. A $2.50 microtransaction seems much more reasonable, even though the ratio of quality and production value per price of the microtransaction could be over a thousand times lower than the AAA game. People are drawn to lower prices, but no longer have any way to judge actual value simply based on price.

And the aggressive DRM practices by developers and publishers didn't help any either. It just drew more attention to piracy sites, thus leading to more people using them and the further devaluation of games.
avatar
Gengar78: In that case, what's Portal best played with?
avatar
cal74: A friend ;)
I mean portal 1 not portal 2
avatar
TheTome56: .
I blame badly tailored regional prices. You can't expect someone who makes $300/month to shell out $80 for a game and another $100 for DLCs. Yet that is the case in most non-russian countries.
Post edited October 21, 2015 by blotunga
avatar
TheTome56: <snip>
As unpopular a view as it may be, digital distribution has been the inherent cause of the devaluation of games:

1) First problem is the obvious issue of supply and demand. It plays a somewhat secondary role in this case, but because there is no issue of scarcity, and because supply is infinite, the actual value of a game is zero, which represents the lowest that a price can go.

2) The biggest problem is competition. Because digital distribution lowers market entry barriers, there is so much competition that the race to the bottom as far as pricing is concerned was inevitable. Because prices can't really go any lower without cutting into the core development and marketing costs, developers have had to start using alternative business models and try and market games as being that cheap whereas additional investment is actually required to play them properly.

3) People don't see value in digitally-distributed games. Indeed, the reason behind many people's decision to go partly or fully digital is because they can get games for near-zero value. This might have lured many former pirates away from that scene, but it also lured many former full-price payers in, who now pay a fraction of what they were paying before.

Back in the 1990s, there was an industry push to promote the superior value of genuine products over piracy - namely boxart, manual and the like. OK, nowadays you don't have the manual, and many games don't even have a decent box, but the superior value is still there in the form of resellability and collectability (also collector's editions with manuals, figures, maps etc.). Not to mention that in many cases (especially on Steam, as well as digitally-distributed games on PSN and Xbox Live), the pirated product is actually superior. GOG is essentially the only digital distributor to date that has done anything towards keeping the digital product on an equal footing with at least pirated versions quality-wise.

The new technologies and distribution models have a reason for their continued existence - it's just that this reason may not be what developers were hoping. With the physical/digital share balancing out now, there's unlikely to be an all-digital future - instead, digital distribution is likely to remain the realm of lo-fi indies and casual titles, as well as extending the long tail of back catalogue titles and as an alternative distribution channel for major titles. I don't see digital for major titles stretching much beyond the present 10-15% mark, and neither do publishers, if their apparently diminished interest in the digital future is anything to go by.

Even now, many developers and publishers have started targeting physical releases, partly to stem devaluation of the product (addressing point 3 above), partly to enter a less competitive marketspace (addressing point 2 above).

Along these lines, the future of mobile is likely to lie in short, cheap, casual titles that are suitable for 5-10 minute breaks, which the format is best suited to. As others have said, mobile is not really suited to long-lasting, in-depth experiences, in part due to the nature of distribution, in part due to the nature of the format.
Post edited October 21, 2015 by jamyskis
avatar
TheTome56: <snip>
avatar
jamyskis: As unpopular a view as it may be, digital distribution has been the inherent cause of the devaluation of games:

1) First problem is the obvious issue of supply and demand. It plays a somewhat secondary role in this case, but because there is no issue of scarcity, and because supply is infinite, the actual value of a game is zero, which represents the lowest that a price can go.

2) The biggest problem is competition. Because digital distribution lowers market entry barriers, there is so much competition that the race to the bottom as far as pricing is concerned was inevitable. Because prices can't really go any lower without cutting into the core development and marketing costs, developers have had to start using alternative business models and try and market games as being that cheap whereas additional investment is actually required to play them properly.

3) People don't see value in digitally-distributed games. Indeed, the reason behind many people's decision to go partly or fully digital is because they can get games for near-zero value. This might have lured many former pirates away from that scene, but it also lured many former full-price payers in, who now pay a fraction of what they were paying before.

Back in the 1990s, there was an industry push to promote the superior value of genuine products over piracy - namely boxart, manual and the like. OK, nowadays you don't have the manual, and many games don't even have a decent box, but the superior value is still there in the form of resellability and collectability (also collector's editions with manuals, figures, maps etc.). Not to mention that in many cases (especially on Steam, as well as digitally-distributed games on PSN and Xbox Live), the pirated product is actually superior. GOG is essentially the only digital distributor to date that has done anything towards keeping the digital product on an equal footing with at least pirated versions quality-wise.

The new technologies and distribution models have a reason for their continued existence - it's just that this reason may not be what developers were hoping. With the physical/digital share balancing out now, there's unlikely to be an all-digital future - instead, digital distribution is likely to remain the realm of lo-fi indies and casual titles, as well as extending the long tail of back catalogue titles and as an alternative distribution channel for major titles. I don't see digital for major titles stretching much beyond the present 10-15% mark, and neither do publishers, if their apparently diminished interest in the digital future is anything to go by.

Even now, many developers and publishers have started targeting physical releases, partly to stem devaluation of the product (addressing point 3 above), partly to enter a less competitive marketspace (addressing point 2 above).

Along these lines, the future of mobile is likely to lie in short, cheap, casual titles that are suitable for 5-10 minute breaks, which the format is best suited to. As others have said, mobile is not really suited to long-lasting, in-depth experiences, in part due to the nature of distribution, in part due to the nature of the format.
So you are saying that it was not piracy that caused the current race to the bottom with game prices and devaluation of games, but rather that the most popular distribution channel, digital storefronts, produce a product that is identical, or in some cases, inferior, to the product of piracy.

So digital prices have to be lowered to compete with the nonexistent prices of pirated copies?

Interesting. I hadn't considered that thought before. You might be right.

It would certainly explain why microtransactions, DLCs and season passes have become such a dominate model in the industry. Low cost goods spammed out in large amounts, often requiring patches for bug fixes, make it more of a hassle to hunt down pirated copies then just purchasing it. Another cost versus time and effort calculation there
Post edited October 21, 2015 by TheTome56
avatar
TheTome56: So digital prices have to be lowered to compete with the nonexistent prices of pirated copies?
Not exactly what I mean, but essentially, yeah, that's true as well. While piracy only plays a part in this (as I said, market forces and the race to the bottom in general caused most of the present situation), it's certainly true in places like Russia that prices are set at rock bottom to compete against an ingrained piracy culture.

I'm sure Starmaker or Redfern can corroberate what I say when I say that people who pay for their games in Russia are looked upon a bit strangely, as if they had too much money to spend.
avatar
timppu: ...I have a Philips soundbar (connected to my TV) which my Android phones and tablets can use for audio with Bluetooth, but for gaming it isn't that good because it introduces lag to the audio, ie. what you hear from the speakers comes a bit later than what you see on the screen. For listening to music with a mobile device, it is a great option though. ...
That's sad to hear because it sounds like the obvious solution to use a sound system with different input devices and therefore enhancing the experience with a tablet. Maybe the latency can be eliminated one way or the other, for example by not compressing the audio data before transmission if that is possible. A typical data transfer rate limit of Bluetooth is in the order of Mbps which should be enough for streaming audio with low latencies, given the right equipment.
avatar
MarioFanaticXV: If not a rental, what do you call it when you pay money to use something that you do not own?
avatar
rtcvb32: Television?
Cable is more a service than a rental, unless you mean things like Blockbuster, Redbox, or Netflix (the physical side). Then again, I suppose any service is basically a rental of labor.
Post edited October 21, 2015 by MarioFanaticXV
avatar
MarioFanaticXV: Cable is more a service than a rental, unless you mean things like Blockbuster, Redbox, or Netflix (the physical side). Then again, I suppose any service is basically a rental of labor.
Unless you're saving your recordings, it is just a rental. Quite annoying that i'd record and save up a few seasons of some TV series and the DVR is set up so i intentionally can't copy or keep what i've recorded.
avatar
TheTome56: <snip>
avatar
jamyskis: As unpopular a view as it may be, digital distribution has been the inherent cause of the devaluation of games:

1) First problem is the obvious issue of supply and demand. It plays a somewhat secondary role in this case, but because there is no issue of scarcity, and because supply is infinite, the actual value of a game is zero, which represents the lowest that a price can go.

2) The biggest problem is competition. Because digital distribution lowers market entry barriers, there is so much competition that the race to the bottom as far as pricing is concerned was inevitable. Because prices can't really go any lower without cutting into the core development and marketing costs, developers have had to start using alternative business models and try and market games as being that cheap whereas additional investment is actually required to play them properly.

3) People don't see value in digitally-distributed games. Indeed, the reason behind many people's decision to go partly or fully digital is because they can get games for near-zero value. This might have lured many former pirates away from that scene, but it also lured many former full-price payers in, who now pay a fraction of what they were paying before.

Back in the 1990s, there was an industry push to promote the superior value of genuine products over piracy - namely boxart, manual and the like. OK, nowadays you don't have the manual, and many games don't even have a decent box, but the superior value is still there in the form of resellability and collectability (also collector's editions with manuals, figures, maps etc.). Not to mention that in many cases (especially on Steam, as well as digitally-distributed games on PSN and Xbox Live), the pirated product is actually superior. GOG is essentially the only digital distributor to date that has done anything towards keeping the digital product on an equal footing with at least pirated versions quality-wise.

The new technologies and distribution models have a reason for their continued existence - it's just that this reason may not be what developers were hoping. With the physical/digital share balancing out now, there's unlikely to be an all-digital future - instead, digital distribution is likely to remain the realm of lo-fi indies and casual titles, as well as extending the long tail of back catalogue titles and as an alternative distribution channel for major titles. I don't see digital for major titles stretching much beyond the present 10-15% mark, and neither do publishers, if their apparently diminished interest in the digital future is anything to go by.

Even now, many developers and publishers have started targeting physical releases, partly to stem devaluation of the product (addressing point 3 above), partly to enter a less competitive marketspace (addressing point 2 above).

Along these lines, the future of mobile is likely to lie in short, cheap, casual titles that are suitable for 5-10 minute breaks, which the format is best suited to. As others have said, mobile is not really suited to long-lasting, in-depth experiences, in part due to the nature of distribution, in part due to the nature of the format.
I always loved those retail boxes with all the stuff, and if handled with at least basic care these games lasts for a long time. The disks I do can check (all but the 5 1/4" disks; drive is in the basement) still work.

And when I say "digital drove me away from retail" I mean "I don't see any value in a retail box that does contain nothing but a printed Serial and a launcher to a digital platform on the disk".

If publishers want to go back to the "golden age" of retail they should make sure that the core of a retail game release, the gamedisk inside, is of value all on its own; without requiring outside sources like Origin, Steam or Uplay?... whatever UBI Soft calls their store.

All the other stuff in the luxury editions like maps, dice, cards, fancy manuals, etc where to enhance the value of the core of the gamebox. And if that is next zero its not a good foundation to enhance. It is just a pointer to somewhere else; where one might even see the very same game for 50% less than what one paid 30 min ago in the store; there is a good chance that every time one looks at the box it feels like mockery. People do not like being mocked.