| code.samurai said: Ok, now you're just making yourself look bad. You should know that anything with software can be replicated under the correct conditions you should ask your QA team maybe they can teach you a few tricks. Since you're not very quick on the uptake and so I'll try to explain why it is not a good idea a bit more slowly. The point I was trying to make, which you obviously (obliviously?) missed is that when you develop technologies that maliciously cripple a pirates computer is that you would end up in a heap of trouble and your company will shut down faster that you can say "damn you pirates." And you pay for bad reputation for the rest of your life. I am not disagreeing that piracy does not hurt the industry, it does. What I'm explaining is how the publishers can sell more games by finding a sweet spot that everybody could afford so that they would not have to turn to piracy to play games. And yes if a game was 20-10 we would be seeing wii-like sales figures in games, and it would generate Movie-like revenues which is only $5-$10 a pop but ends up generating $50m to $100. $60 may have made sense back when this generation was just starting with customers under a million, but at this point they can make a killing if they actually found the price point where everybody agreed they'd buy at launch date. |
You apparently totally misread or didn't read my previous post before this, so in turn I guess I'll avoid your snotty retort, as you went WAY off the mark of what I was saying in the first paragraph.
The end means is that we're on the same page, though you communicate like an Aries. =P
It is a rare day when I buy a $50 game, and usually will give any game a shot for $20 or less. I'm living proof of your exact argument. Our title, when it is ready to be released, will be sold for $10.
