henke on 26/9/2013 at 09:07
You mean the risk of spending 60 bucks on a game without bothering to read reviews first and finding out that it's not any good? This is more of a risk than the publisher takes on pumping millions of dollars into the development of a triple-A title which might not pay off in the end? This is more of a risk than the ones the developers take every time they introduce a new feature or take any decision about the gameplay, knowing that if this game doesn't pan out they might be out of a job?
Most of us aren't happy about some/many of the decisions being made with this game, but please Shinrazero, don't take this as a free pass to just post whatever ill-thought-out mumbojumbo that falls out of your head.
SLIEZER on 26/9/2013 at 14:06
Quote Posted by Briareos H
"THE HARDEST SAFE TO CRACK IS IN THE BIGGEST BANK"
haha, what kind of tagline is that even
THE MOST INTERESTING BARGAINS ARE THE CHEAPEST ONES
THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GOOSE IS THE ONE WHICH WON THE CONTEST
THE BEST DIGITAL TO ANALOG CONVERTER INTERFACE IS THE ONE FOR WHICH THE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO IS THE HIGHEST WHILE MINIMIZING HARMONIC DISTORTION WITH THE LARGEST SAMPLING RATE POSSIBLE
Haha this, the writing seen so far is stellar!
fett on 26/9/2013 at 16:09
Quote Posted by Briareos H
"THE HARDEST SAFE TO CRACK IS IN THE BIGGEST BANK"
haha, what kind of tagline is that even
THE MOST INTERESTING BARGAINS ARE THE CHEAPEST ONES
THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GOOSE IS THE ONE WHICH WON THE CONTEST
THE BEST DIGITAL TO ANALOG CONVERTER INTERFACE IS THE ONE FOR WHICH THE SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO IS THE HIGHEST WHILE MINIMIZING HARMONIC DISTORTION WITH THE LARGEST SAMPLING RATE POSSIBLE
We should run with this. Let's all post in this format until T4 release:
THE BIGGEST TURD IS THE ONE THAT HURTS THE MOST
THE GREENEST GRASS IS OVER THE SEPTIC TANK
THE OLDEST GUY IS THE ONE WHO DIES FIRST
THE CHEAPEST WRITER IS THE ONE WHO GETS THE JOB
THE BEST HAMBURGER ALWAYS COMES FROM COWS
Holy Jesus F Christ what a complete clusterf*ck EM has made of this. I can't think of a worse promotional campaign in all my years of gaming. Maybe Diakatana. Nah. Not even Diakatana.
Queue on 26/9/2013 at 16:58
WHOEVER SMELT IT DEALT IT.
Beleg Cúthalion on 26/9/2013 at 17:14
Quote Posted by Llama
Following your logic "the house heist" would be a good enough mission name for you.
What is this I don't even.
Shinrazero on 26/9/2013 at 18:07
Quote Posted by henke
You mean the risk of spending 60 bucks on a game without bothering to read reviews first and finding out that it's not any good? This is more of a risk than the publisher takes on pumping millions of dollars into the development of a triple-A title which might not pay off in the end? This is more of a risk than the ones the developers take every time they introduce a new feature or take
any decision about the gameplay, knowing that if this game doesn't pan out they might be out of a job?
Most of us aren't happy about some/many of the decisions being made with this game, but please Shinrazero, don't take this as a free pass to just post whatever ill-thought-out mumbojumbo that falls out of your head.
Henke, you better check yourself before you wreck yourself. Spending 60 dollars on a game isn't a drop in the bucket for everyone so yes, there is considerable risk for the consumer. Video game reviews are so freaking skewed, hardly something to rely on in making good buying decisions. You don't think its odd that triple-A games are advertised heavily with reviews: 10/10, MUST BUY!, etc etc? It isn't coincidence. Go take a look at metacritic and see the divide between what "professional" reviewers say and what real users think. Think grand canyon. At any rate you miss the larger point. I don't give a shit if they pump a billion dollars into a game, the risk
should be on the developers end, they stand to gain the most. As a consumer, if I buy game and it is a clunker, what is my recourse? A trade in at Gamestop for 10 bucks? Maybe a sell it online for a bit more? Either way, I won't be seeing the full amount of money back if the game blows.
You say its mumbo jumbo, I say it is modern day gaming. Hype and hyperbole with minimal risk for the developers, maximum for the consumer. Buy this game! Why? Because we say its awesome. Look at this trailer, look at these perfect 10 scores that Kotaku, IGN, and Game Informer gave us! Look at these amazing screens, look but don't touch! Sorry mang, it's not enough, not anymore. I gotta play it first before I reach for my wallet. Perhaps there was a time when reviews, word of mouth, or even a game's established history was enough to sway me to purchase. The fact is, those things are not entirely reliable like they used to be. Why do you think demos are rare these days? Because if the game sucks, we'll know. They want us to make that discovery
after we've purchased it. No thanks.
Renault on 26/9/2013 at 18:48
Agreed. To say we should just be good little soldiers and pay our $60 because the dev company is spending millions, that kind of thinking is just so flawed. We're just trying get a quality product for our hard earned $$$ and a little bit of entertainment - they stand to make millions. Why should I care at all about their risk? They made the choice to be in that position. That goes for both corporations and the employees that work there.
And game reviews by the major sites are just a racket, everyone's seen it time and time again. Not to mention it's just one person's opinion and it won't be indicative of whether others think the final game is any good or not.
I stole this from the EM forums, it's a good explanation for why game demos are rarely released these days:
(
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QM6LoaqEnY)
henke on 26/9/2013 at 19:07
Quote Posted by Shinrazero
Go take a look at metacritic and see the divide between what "professional" reviewers say and what real users think.
Ok, so then listen to what the real users are saying instead, if you trust them more than the reviewers. Point is, you don't have to "take a risk" uninformed. In fact, you don't have to take a risk at all. Game don't sound good? Don't buy it! Game sounds like it might be ok, but not worth full price? Wait for a Steam sale.
Chade on 26/9/2013 at 21:30
Measuring risk is usually a case of measuring uncertainty in expected returns. It's not entirely clear how to measure a game player's expected return from purchasing a game.
However, the cost of producing the game forms the lower bound of the producer's expected return. The cost of purchasing forms the lower bound of the player's expected return. We know the expected return should be distributed with a mean slightly but not too much above zero in both cases, and we know the variability in outcomes is wide in both cases, so the lower bound should be a decent proxy for the risk taken by producer and player.
I believe that SE has an annual turnover of about $1.5 billion, and spends about $100 million developing a modern AAA game, or about 7% of their annual turnover.
I understand that a player in the US working full time at the minimum wage has a salary of about $15k, and spends about $60 on the game, or about 0.4% of their annual wage. This is an order of magnitude lower then the risk taken by the publisher.
But wait! Does it really make sense to compare a worker's total wage to a companies turnover? After all, a worker's total wage has to go towards many expenses, while a producer's entire annual turnover is dedicated to producing games. Perhaps we should only consider disposable income? Disposable income can be arbitrarily close to $0, so hey, a player takes much more risk!
But wait again! Is it really fair to compare a companies annual expenditure, which includes bread and butter and a roof over the head of thousands of families working for the studio, with someone's disposable income? After all, if you lose your disposable income, big deal ... but if the company goes under, that's an enormous amount of damage to a lot of people.
The only conclusion I can think of is that publishers and players are completely different entities, and any comparison between the risk taken by players and publishers is completely meaningless.
But it was fun to think about.
Shinrazero on 26/9/2013 at 23:47
Quote Posted by Chade
Measuring risk is usually a case of measuring uncertainty in expected returns. It's not entirely clear how to measure a game player's expected return from purchasing a game.
Not entirely clear? Players want a good game. Its that simple.
