I wish Maxis would stop distracting themselves with things like The Sims and Spore and just make a Sim City 5 already, pl0x.
I wish Maxis would stop distracting themselves with things like The Sims and Spore and just make a Sim City 5 already, pl0x.
And if people continue to want to play it so much that they save up that amount so they can buy it, so be it. If you don't think something is worth the price attached to it you just don't buy it. It's pretty straight-forward, really.Originally Posted by Captain Maxx Power
And for a long time, I couldn't either. Now I can. I worked hard to get there. I'm sure it would be all lovely and super if everything was cheap, but the fact is that's not the way things work. I am not privileged enough to be able to buy an HDTV right now, but that doesn't mean I will get all moody because the price is so high for something like that. If I don't feel it's worth saving up for then I won't save up for it. If I can't afford it at all, even if saving for a year, then I simply can't afford it and that's that. Tough. I deal with it.Also you have to keep in mind that not everyone is as privaleged as you to be able to pay full price for games.
But it's not artificially inflated or anything like that. They simply forced out the second-hand business. I for one don't see this as such a big deal. Maybe I am paying for the 'rental' of three installs, but I also don't see this as such a big deal. Again, it's just a case of whether or not you think the money is worth what you get for it. I still think it's worth it. If they did this with a game I didn't want to play as much, I might not buy it for such reasons. If I re-installed games regularly then I wouldn't pay the amount. So you're paying for a "rental". Big whoop. Either you think it's worth it, or you don't. If EA are making more money by using this process then there is no reason for them to stop using it. If my money helps them not want to change, so be it. I just got a game and I could care less about the 'problems' associated with it, as I still think it's worth £27.I myself haven't bought a game that's been priced over ten quid in the past few years simply because I can't afford to spend anymore. But I still like to play games and new games (I'm presently doing a degree in them). Everyone should have a right to the trade worth of a product, not have it perpetually artificially inflated.
I don't know. How pissed off would you be? As for myself, I wouldn't be that pissed off. I'd have known that this was going to happen eventually and would shrug and carry on with life.You also don't seem to be thinking in the long run. Just recently I have started re-playing a lot of my older games that I've had for a number of years. How pissed off would I have been if I'd have gone to install these games which I paid for legitimately and found out that I couldn't play them any more?
Complain to Maxis about this, not EA. Maxis, as a seperate company from EA (as you point out) have every right to opt for a different publisher, but they don't. So basically even if you gave the developers a nice donation or something, that money is still going towards people who promote EA.EA don't develop games, they publish them. If you really wanted to help out you'd give your money straight to the development houses. A lot of the money you're giving them in an attempt to help out is only going to line the pockets of someone not even remotely involved in the production of games.
Will Wright worked for a company that endorsed EA in some way, and therefore he is just as much at fault as anyone.Plus the main reason why Spore came as far as it did was due to the involvement of Will Wright, a man who has a proven track record of producing high-selling games (Sim series primarily). I'd doubt EA would invest heavily in a notably different game simply because they thought it would be innovative. Like every other company they're out to make money, and the vast majority of the time they'll just go with what works and sells. That's why they have such a huge thumb in the Sport games pie, because these games regularly sell like clockwork every year.
I imagine the developer does have some say in who publishes their games, given they are making them. It would be kind of silly to think that EA are actually getting whatever they want - they only get the developers who choose EA. And therefore they are just as 'evil', surely?Take it from someone who knows; EA is not a very nice organisation. They have a track record being as greedy as you can get, aggressively driving their competitors out-of-business and essentially wanting to make a monopoly on games publishing.
It's not. It really isn't. The developers choose to go to EA. There will never be a monopoly as long as there is a choice - and there is.It heartens me that their present plans of absorbing every development house going hasn't worked out, because I'd rather not have a single giant entity with full control over not only the games we play but also have the ability to observe and track us in order to make even more cash. It's all extremely sinister and morally objectionable, which is what we're all trying to explain to you.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Bend over, Bob.
Ooh, a penny!
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
*thrust*
there was a picture here
I work in Game and they said they have never seen a game sell so well on pc!
I'd love this game, shame my PC isn't nearly powerful enough for it.
We're deviating from the point here. This isn't about the price as it stands, it's about the price in the long term.
It's not like we're talking about the most expensive of the expensive, they're just games.
Do you not see anything wrong with this statement?
I wish you would move on from this idea about the worth of a game because it has nothing to do with what I'm trying to get at here. A game could be made from the golden butthairs of God-almighty itself it wouldn't matter. What matters here is the DRM that is attached to the game. Your passive nature to all of this gets my goat because A: This is an industry I want to work in and B: You're essentially saying you don't care just how shabbily you're treated by publishing companies. I'm beginning to wonder just how far you're prepared to tolerant this. What about when you have to pay for the game in full every year (a move they've talked about), or when you have to pay extra just to register the game so you can get it updated? If this needless intrusion into your gaming isn't enough to make you care then what the hell is?
Are you even listening to yourself right now? You're essentially taking the part of the complacent consumer to new heights. I'm amazed that you have an attitude that is this lousy in regards to where your money; I repeat that, your hard earned cash, is going. If you're just going to let this go then you may as well flush your money down the toilet because that's as good as it is in this situation.
There is such a thing as contractual obligations. No matter how much money Maxis has made them attempting to separate from EA would cost them a lot. Considering the amount of money that would have been needed to make Spore, and that EA is probably the only company that could finance them in the long-term, going with EA wasn't really a choice.
Will Wright doesn't design and implement the DRM on the game. Chances are the DRM is probably part of the contractual obligation as part of the publishing deal. EA could in theory do whatever they wanted with the storage medium that is used to distribute the game itself.
No, developers don't "choose" EA. They get bought out, pure and simple. It's a stockholders deal that means the people who actually make the games get no say in the matter. Quite often such deals are done between publishing houses. Plus individuals who work at companies often don't have a say themselves in the business transactions, they just work there. So it's difficult if nye on impossible to say every developer has a choice as to whether or not they become a part of EA, because they just don't.
No. They. Do. Not. This is a business matter, developing houses quite often can't do anything about it. Does the phrase "forceful takeover" mean anything to you?
See how that works? But this is an apt metaphor; you're literally being screwed over by EA and not only that but you're defending them and saying we're wrong in the process. If you don't want to do anything when you're being given a bum deal to say something against it then be it on your own head.
There is no signature here. Move along.
Sometimes I pay £20 for a nice meal. The next day, I don't have that meal anymore. It's gone. But while I had it, it was nice, and I don't mind that I spent the £20 for it. I mean, I could have bought myself some food that would have lasted me for most of the week with £20, let alone a third of a day. But I spent it, and I spent it knowing what the downsides of it were, and I still wasn't bothered.
They have put out games that you pay for on a yearly basis - in fact, on a monthly basis. Online gaming is a ripoff as far as I'm concerned. £5 per month (and most charge you twice that, at least) is far more than £28 for three installs. I would rather people spent their time complaining to Square Enix and Blizzard than complaining to EA. These online games such as Final Fantasy XI are the ones I would love to try out for a long term period but they are the ones which I don't feel able to afford. So I guess there is a line which I'd draw it at, but other companies outside of EA are already screwing those customers in a far worse way, so I don't see the big issue.
I mean, I would prefer that my game lasted for unlimited installs, but I can live with the fact that this is not the case. This may seem like complacency to you, and maybe it is - but keep in mind that this problem doesn't affect me (I rarely reinstall games and it's extremely rare that I play a game for longer than a year, let alone longer than three months) and you'll see why I'm so indifferent to the whole thing.
Maybe something you don't know about me is that I'm a capitalist and therefore have no problems with the idea of a business, shock-horror, wanting to make more money!
If going with EA wasn't a choice, why do so many games out there not get published by EA? Halo, GTA, Final Fantasy, Mario - all these big names seem to manage without EA. I'm sure there are other choices. As for stockholders, again, why not those games? Couldn't EA buy them out? Surely? Or not - I guess there is a choice. See, I know of someone in my family who once had the decision to float their business on the stock market but declined. You have to be smart with these kind of things. Once you let your own company be taken out of your own hands, it's no longer your company. If it falls into the hands of EA, any person such as Will Wright is perfectly able to hand in his two week's notice and find another area. But he didn't. I'm sure he loved the money that EA fed hm.
Of course, if you want a summary of my opinion, it's that I don't care about the backroom politics of these companies. Everyone has their own salary and they can all leave if they want. They aren't using ten year old illegal immigrants to make these games against their will in exchange for a tiny amount of food, are they? So long as it's all legal and the people involved have every option to leave and find another job, I'll just go ahead and have my concience clean with buying from a company. As for the price, the only thing I care about is: Do I want to play the game enough to pay that price for what I'm going to get out of it? If I do, then I buy it. If I don't, I don't. I really don't see how anyone can really have a problem with that. It's called supply and demand, and no small protests will make a big business give up on an opportunity to rake in millions. That's business, and that's life.
I have no objection to anybody pirating material, though, either. What people do in their own time is their business, so long as they know the risks involved.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
I doubt EA could buy out Microsoft or Nintendo. Two companies that aren't going to publish Spore or anything else that isn't exclusive to their consoles. Also, they're trying to take over Take Two, who are responsible for GTA. There really aren't a lot of choices out there.If going with EA wasn't a choice, why do so many games out there not get published by EA? Halo, GTA, Final Fantasy, Mario - all these big names seem to manage without EA. I'm sure there are other choices. As for stockholders, again, why not those games? Couldn't EA buy them out? Surely?
To hell with the potential for 2nd hands sales. I don't care about the fact that you don't mind paying full price for games (as I don't either).
What I do care about is being able to play the game I paid full price for WHEN I want to play it on ANY machine I want to play it on. I reformat my primary HD pretty often and my household has 4 computers between my wife and myself. I have to be very careful of where I install it because if I buy new hardware or format I may have forfeited the right to install the game on further systems.
I can only imagine if a game like Deus Ex had that type of BS on it. I've uninstalled and reinstalled that game at least a dozen times and more than half-a-dozen machines since I bought it so many years ago. It's a great game and to this day I feel like playing it occasionally. What if I just couldn't because I'd been limited to 3 installs? That's horse-crap and you know it.
Whether you care about piracy, 2nd hand marketing, full price or any other BS, you should care that you get to keep using a game you paid for.
If they want to kill piracy, this obviously didn't do it. The game has been pirated even by the honest. I'll probably torrent it just to have a 'full version' to supplement my full price, purchased copy so that if I run into a brick wall with installs I'll still be able to play.
If they want to kill 2nd hand markets they need to find a better way to do it. I have no solutions, but pissing on your primary customers isn't the way to do it.
You have four computers between the two of you and you're complaining about having to pay for two games instead of one? Damn, man. Sell one of your PCs and buy an external USB hard drive.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Have 3 external HDs. I keep important stuff there so I don't clutter my primary with needless stuff. Whether I can afford to buy another copy isn't the issue. The issue is the fact that I can't get full use of the copy I paid for. I'm sure you'd be pissed if you bought a DVD instead of renting it through Netflix and it was only valid for 3 viewings. If you bought it you shouldn't be limited on its uses.
That comparison is a bit off considering I can play through Spore three times and still play it again. Installs != Plays. However, if, say, a DVD could only be played on three DVD players (somehow) then it would make more sense. And personally I still wouldn't mind. xD As I said, so long as you KNOW about this 'issue' then you just need to weigh up whether or not it's worth the money (which is a personal decision each person can make) and pay depending on your decision.
I've said it before that I too would PREFER to have endless installs or whatever, but I'm not going to boycott a game over it and I don't give a crap if this makes me "part of the problem" because for me, it's not a problem.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
