Just because someone trades in a game, that does not necessarily mean that they were dissatisfied with it. Likewise, keeping a game doesn't necessarily mean that it provided some endless value. When I traded Fallout 3 in, does that mean that Bethesda "didn't do their job" in providing some fantastic experience worth my money? **** no (though there were tons of bugs). It's a 100+ hour game, and I had my fill and would never play it again. I buy games for the experience they provide me when I buy them, and if I decide I want to hold onto them beyond that, fine. If not, they served their purpose, and there's nothing wrong with that.
For all your bragging about Nintendo, I own 12 Wii retail games, only 4 of which were published by Nintendo. I've gotten rid of all the other Nintendo-published Wii games I've purchased. So as far as I'm concerned, Nintendo's failed to make much of anything in the past generation I wanted to keep, yet I'm not going to say their games weren't worth the money for the time I had them. And not every game I've kept on my 65-game PS3 retail collection is a flawless classic. I just like playing them from time to time.
*addressing your points out of sequence*
Personal habits aside and tastes aside, you can't say Nintendo didn't sell a lot of games in the first few years of the Wii. They made a ton of money, which was kind of the gist of Cliffy's tantrum--that gamers aren't giving developers enough money. I'm not bragging about Nintendo (funny, I usually get **** for being the least bit critical of Nintendo, most threads), I'm saying they sold a bunch of games that didn't cost $100M to make, which is just an objective observation that Cliffy doesn't seem to address at all.
If you hold onto a game, instead of selling it, it's because it's worth more to you(FOR WHATEVER REASON) to keep it than sell it. This is just a simple logical conclusion. The inverse is also true. It has no bearing on how much or how little you spent on the game or how much or how little you like the game... whatever the reason is, you've made a decision about the objective value of the game and are acting rationally. Someone that buys a game is acting rationally. Someone that sells a game is acting rationally. Someone that keeps a game is acting rationally. These are all true things that free-market economies demonstrate repeatedly. As a consumer, your purchasing habits are always correct--this is another given.
Given the free-market option of selling back games they no longer want, some people want to play a lot of games but aren't going to hold onto everything they buy. I think this is an entirely acceptable way for a consumer to behave (as did a young Cliffy). Since the market has basically operated this way from the start, why are developers escalating development costs into the hundred million dollar range? Either make games that people want to keep (or that doesn't flood the secondary market) or keep your costs down and price your game accordingly. Crying about spending $100M on a $60 game that people are going to sell as soon as they've had their fill just makes Cliffy look like a pansy.
Topic: Cliff Bleszinski says things. (Read 11750 times)
