Game developers say that the used market hurts them because they don't get any of the revenue. Well, when John Doe is ANXIOUSLY awaiting not the release, but the PRICE DROP of your title (and not entirely because he doesn't have $60 to spend, he just doesn't find that much value in your title - rightfully so most likely) then you're forcing the people who WANT TO PLAY your game to not pay you for it. Why? Because you had to release it at $60 - or else who would have bought it at all?
EA is laying off an unknown number of individuals from across its Battlefield teams, including workers at Criterion, Dice, Ripple Effect, and Motive Studios, IGN understands.
Replies(1)
When logic meets EA it generates anti-matter ..... so try not to apply it in any meaningful way. Entropy is what matters in there !!
cue the apologist saying that these are mostly just contractors hired for this specific project bla bla bla
The free-to-play reboot topped 15 million players in under three weeks, but EA now claims it needs to reshape the development team.
The community warned them this would happen but nope they knew better they continued with the live service push the made the art style cartoonish and this is the result
It's always so bizarre when studios announce something super early in development under the suggestion of forming the game to player feedback, and then they push against all feedback heading straight for the cliff while everyone is warning them along the way
The Congressional Labor Caucus sent a letter to the FTC warning the debt-financed, largely PIF-owned deal could be bad news for workers
lol ya think? they're sending all that work to the cheaper labor market as soon as possible. and FYI, that labor market has exploded in the last 5-10 years. They have enough people to replace every single job. But honestly, EA is over filled with useless upper management as it is. You could probably trim 25% of their staff with no real loss in production. They aren't gamers, they're business execs. Just look at how many AI related jobs they're already starting to post. Its also hilarious that PIF owns Battle field 6
Wait,
The same congress that attacked Lina Khan when she fought the Microsoft Activision purchase.
The same congress that allowed Disney to buy 90% of Fox
The same congress that allowed Liv Golf to buy the PGA
The same congress that sits back while Paramount tries a hostile takeover despite losing the bid for Warner Bros.
NOW, the suddenly cares about doing what's "right" for works? Yeah, right.
EA now owned by The Saudis and Ubisoft to inevitably be owned by China. In hindsight, once EA and Ubisoft started having their financial woes, they should have pulled a Koei Tecmo/Bandai Namco by merging their operations into one.
Well yeah it becomes avalibble to a bigger market
I think that a good selling price would be around $40, for most people.
If I'm not mistaken, ain't that what most PC games are priced at?
Great article. I had never even thought about this. It is so true. "You get what you pay for" just doesn't apply to the pricing scheme of console video games.
Games should be on T.V. It is the only thing that makes gaming so alien to casual people. Almost everyone has a T.V. and Most likely HD set ups with Satellite, or for yanks, cable. With gaming, you have to buy a console which is rather expensive for some, especially for those who aren't particually interested in gaming, then you have to buy each game, which on release costs £40 each!
Imagine it, you have your drama and soap opera equivalent games, perhaps even online T.V. gaming. Then You have your movie equivalent games such as Uncharted and Gears Of War which you can buy on disc or play on T.V. at a later time and advertisements would pay for the game.
L.A. Noire, in my opinion would be better suited as a T.V. series than a full feature length game. I can this happen eventually, On Live is a step closer, but it is a rather flawed system.
There is one big flaw in the article and that makes it totaly broken. Writer defines good and bad games as given, while this is very relative. Everyone has different taste in a game and someone can consider game good, someone bad. Which game is average enough to go $30 ? game which has average reviews of 6 out of 10, 7 or 5 ? And most of all, developer doesnt know whether his game will be average. Most of the developers try to make best game they can. Sometimes it wont work out. They might know they are not making another metal geard solid 4, but they deffinitely dont know whether game will get 8, 7 or 6 out of 10. While i am pretty sure you would consider 8 good game and 6 average. So if they picked $30 and game received good reviews it would be big mistake, but they woulndt be able to know this forehand.
About the developers complaints about used games, its as stupid as it can get. I realy dont know if they are that stupid, or if its just complaining out of habit. People who buy game at full 60 and then sell it, buy the game with itention to sell it, because they cannot affor to spend full 60 and then keep the game. So if you remove them option to sell the game ( by forcing people who bought used game to register and pay, thus raisinng cost of used game and shrinking used games market ), then people who buys the game at full 60 and then sell it, wont be able to afford it and you lose this people. People who buy only used games wont start buying new games for 60. So only outcome is that developers will lose people who buys games at full retail price and then sells the games.