Really good stuff here.

I agree with pretty much everything it says.

"story by
Jim Sterling"

Bleh.

Anyways, misuse of budgets, not some rocket science or out of this world crap that is implied in that "story"... more like a rant by 12 year old kid. He's dismissing every AAA game because a few that were badly managed to begin with failed. Oh, and even more stupid, is the "graphics are the only evil!" crap that is mentioned.

I think you need to read the article again.

The point is that Cliffy's argument is the required larger budgets for success make used games impossible to support, yet every example of exceptional success in video gaming has nothing to do with graphics and budget.

Know what game is really fun?
Rage.

Honestly the power of the big retailers (enabled largely by the used games market) might be worse for consumers than the publishers.

Aren't all the things that guy posts just pure rage?

How is Gamestop is worse to me as a consumer, it was publishers that used the now standard $60 at retail, and even if Gamestop stop selling used games, Publishers will still keep the price high, and lets not forget that retailers to put it in laymen's term, 10% profit from New games while publishers take 90%.

:D I love the way the main character dismounts the quad-bike when you bump into an obstruction at a certain velocity.
Edit: There it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDvGPjCM7S8
I initially thought I could use this to get past all those invisible walls, but you just warp back near the bike. =/

Maybe things are drastically different in Macedonia, and the proletariat engage in daily beatings of the starved artists. Because we all know if video game designers don't have Aeron office chairs, its the end of the world. All I ever see from Eastern European developers is a true love of their craft, Western Developers in General "Why am I not being paid more!"....

His article makes valid points, your inability to see them says a lot.


***Pro Tip for Publishers*** Detroit is nice and has inexpensive living conditions!

Not necessarily. The used games market is actually a big factor in new game prices, always has been. You're paying for the risk the publishers are taking that you'll trade your game through a store to someone else, which is lost profits for them, and huge profits for the retailers.

At any rate, you won't see a change in price without a change in the underlying structure defining that price. It's not down to "tradition" that new games tend to cost about $60, like we're still just doing what Nintendo started doing in the 90s. That seems to be the "sweet spot" with the current distribution model, which has stayed pretty much the same since the 90s.

Then Steam came along and kind of threw a spanner in the works. But they still have to compete with the retailers, which drives up the price point for them - publishers are swayed by retailers, who would not allow Steam to severely undercut their prices.

And lets not forget that Steam is competing of other digital distribution stores.

But there is this point that Jim Sterling made that I agree, if EA for the time was so against used games and such and they have Origin to comlete bypass retailers, why are they still charging retail prices?

Yeah. Let's stop with bashing the author and examine the points made.

Do the most successful video games sales wise always have super high production values? No.

Do big publishers spend a ton of money not on on graphics, but also on corporate bloat? Yes.

So then should we blame the consumer and his nasty trading/piracy/whatever when games that cost way too much to make "only" sell 6 million copies and are deemed failures?

These are good points.

I agree with the article. Its quite obvious big publishers equate big production values & visuals over gameplay (in the most part). And the enormous amounts spent on marketing alone is ridiculous (dont companies have the ability to write off marketing costs of something along those lines)