StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The following is a little survey I put together for my business communications class. I PM'ed one of the mods about it a Looooooooong! time ago, and he said it was alright to post.

EDIT: Added question eleven.

Only yes/no answers will be recorded as data, but comments are welcome, and may be quoted in the report or presentation i'm putting together based on the survey data.

1. Have you ever purchased a game that you felt did not have enough
content to justify its price?

2. Should gaming companies release titles with less content at lower prices?

3. Have you or anyone you know ever had a bad experience with a games copyright protection?

4. Should gaming companies be legally or otherwise prevented from boxing games with potentially malicious or exploitive copyright protection software?

5. Should a games End-User-License agreement be made publically available for prospective buyers to review should they wish to?

6. If games’ EULA agreements were made publically available, would you review them before purchasing a game?

7. Should an independent third party, outside of the company that developed or published it be established to review the amount of content in games, and decide whether or not they should be released at full price?

8. Should any prospective copyright protection software be reviewed by an independent third party (governmental or otherwise) to determine whether or not it is potentially malicious or exploitive?

9. Do gaming companies place more emphasis on profit than on satisfying the needs and wants of gamers?

10. Should gaming companies form an independent third party committee or organization to review copyright protection technology and amount of game content?


11. Should gaming companies be forced to continue providing support in the form of online servers and patches for games while they are still in stores.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. No
7. No
8. Yes
9. No
10. No

By the by, game companies do already lower prices for games with less content. It's not that common, but it does happen.

Also, Yes/No responses for several of these questions are inadequate. Case in point, "Game companies focus on profits more than fulfilling the desires of gamers". There is no way to answer that adequately within the simple binary of yes/no. Some game companies do, yes, but others do not. Do you define a game company as a publisher, or developer houses with deals to publishers? The list goes on.

Hotfoot wrote:
By the by, game companies do already lower prices for games with less content. It's not that common, but it does happen.

I know they do, but certain companies (*glares angrily at EA games*) are developing a trend where each game in a progressive series has less and less content, or relasing expansion packs at full price (I paid forty bucks for C&C3: Kane's wrath)

Darksider wrote:

Hotfoot wrote:
By the by, game companies do already lower prices for games with less content. It's not that common, but it does happen.

I know they do, but certain companies (*glares angrily at EA games*) are developing a trend where each game in a progressive series has less and less content, or relasing expansion packs at full price (I paid forty bucks for C&C3: Kane's wrath)

Since when is $40 full price? Full price is $50-60 and has been for a long time.

Meanwhile, people keep buying it, so clearly it is what they want. Look at the Sims 2. It's been out for not even four years and it has 7 expansion packs and 7 "stuff" packs. People gobble it up. Meeting the demands of hardcore gamers and meeting the demands of casual gamers are two entirely different goals.

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. yes
5. yes
6. no
7. no
8. yes
9. yes
10. no

A regulatory commission for video games is not something we want right now....

1. Yes
2. Yes

3. No

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. No (In general, I might if something particularly dodgy or sensitive became an issue)

7. No

8. Yes

9. No (for developers, that is, who mostly make games because they like to. Some publishers, however, do)

10. No

1 No
2 No
3 Yes
4 Yes, obviously
5 Yes
6 No
7 No
8 Yes
9 No
10 No

Strange that you're mixing content and copy protection; I think a lack of content for the price is generally well-corrected through low sales (generally), and wonder why you think it's so closely linked to malicious copy protection. What's the reasoning here?

1. Yes

2. No
This is sort of a tricky question. From the perspective of the publisher - especially one which is a corporation with a charter to deliver profit to investors - they should charge as much as will net them the most money. Also, there's a matter of quality - Portal only lasts a few hours (if that) but it's a hell of a lot better (in my view) than, say, Asian GrindQuest 18 - Now With 280 Hours Of Guaranteed* Fun!.

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. No
I say 'no' because I generally have no intention of specifically abiding by the EULA. I doubt most gamers do.

7. No
Without more information, I can't agree to such a proposal. How would the criteria for "more content" be defined? Would the decision of the review board be binding? How would the members of that review board be selected? How would the board be structured to avoid companies using devices like "bonus content" or "alternate skins" or whatever in order to claim "50% more content than our competitor!" when in fact there has been minimal added value?

8. Yes
Yes, because the proposal does not include any provision for said third party to have any authority beyond declaring certain software 'malicious' or not.

9. No
Some of them do, but not all. This does not seem like a good yes/no question.

10. No

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. Yes

7. No

8. Yes

9. Yes/No, depends on the company

10. Yes

11. No

Argh! dammit.

I forgot to add one of the questions for the survey.

I'll update the OP with it as well. I apologize for those who have already taken the survey. You don't have to re-take it if you don't want to

11. Should gaming companies be forced to continue providing support in the form of online servers and patches for games while they are still in stores.

Bounty wrote:
Strange that you're mixing content and copy protection; I think a lack of content for the price is generally well-corrected through low sales (generally), and wonder why you think it's so closely linked to malicious copy protection. What's the reasoning here?

They aren't linked. The two are separate issues, but I am addressing both, depending on how the responeses come back

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes
5) Yes
6) Yes. Not for every game, but definitely ones from companies I distrust, such as EA or Sony.
7) No. It would still likely consist of people from publishers and might even be used as a justification to raise prices even more.
8) Yes
9) Yes. Although this is to be expected. Companies exist to make money, not necessarily to please gamers.
10) No. As I understood the question, it would create a regulatory body to ensure that games have a sufficient amount of content. That's impossible.
11) Yes. Online play is likely listed as a feature on the game box, and so I believe that a company has an obligation to carry through on things they have advertised, along with ensuring that the game you bought is as free of bugs and exploits as possible.

Darksider wrote:1. Have you ever purchased a game that you felt did not have enough
content to justify its price?

Yes.

2. Should gaming companies release titles with less content at lower prices?

I don't really care either way.

3. Have you or anyone you know ever had a bad experience with a games copyright protection?

Yes. But I haven't heard of any copy protection systems that prevent piracy.

4. Should gaming companies be legally or otherwise prevented from boxing games with potentially malicious or exploitive copyright protection software?

Yes.

5. Should a games End-User-License agreement be made publically available for prospective buyers to review should they wish to?

Yes if they want it to be legally binding.

6. If games’ EULA agreements were made publically available, would you review them before purchasing a game?

Yes.

7. Should an independent third party, outside of the company that developed or published it be established to review the amount of content in games, and decide whether or not they should be released at full price?

Only if it's a non-binding judgment.

8. Should any prospective copyright protection software be reviewed by an independent third party (governmental or otherwise) to determine whether or not it is potentially malicious or exploitive?

Yes.

9. Do gaming companies place more emphasis on profit than on satisfying the needs and wants of gamers?

I'm not sure.

10. Should gaming companies form an independent third party committee or organization to review copyright protection technology and amount of game content?

Yes, as long as it stays independent.

11. Should gaming companies be forced to continue providing support in the form of online servers and patches for games while they are still in stores.

No.

11. Should gaming companies be forced to continue providing support in the form of online servers and patches for games while they are still in stores.

Should they? Yes. Should they be forced? No.

1. Yes
2. Yes

3. Yes.
(VM:Bloodlines).

4. Yes

5. Yes

6. No.
(Barring aberrations that were made known to me)

7. No.

8. Yes

9. Yes

10. Yes

11. Yes

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. Yes
6. No
7. No
8. Yes
9. Yes
10. No
11. No

1. No, but I only buy games after I've played a demo.

2. No

3. Yes

4. Hell yes

5. Hell yes

6. No

7. No

8. Yes

9. Yes, of course they do. That's their job. By the way, gamers don't have needs. They're games.

10. No - how would that be independent?

11. No, don't be ridiculous. The amount of product a company sells is up to the company; the decision to buy is up to the informed consumer. They should, however, be required to warn the customer if the don't intend to provide support for a reasonable time.

Darksider wrote:The following is a little survey I put together for my business communications class. I PM'ed one of the mods about it a Looooooooong! time ago, and he said it was alright to post.

EDIT: Added question eleven.

Only yes/no answers will be recorded as data, but comments are welcome, and may be quoted in the report or presentation i'm putting together based on the survey data.

1. Have you ever purchased a game that you felt did not have enough
content to justify its price?

Yes. Quite a few. In some situations, it was as a gift, in others, I needed a current distraction.

2. Should gaming companies release titles with less content at lower prices?

Yes. Sam & Max anyone?

3. Have you or anyone you know ever had a bad experience with a games copyright protection?

Yes.

4. Should gaming companies be legally or otherwise prevented from boxing games with potentially malicious or exploitive copyright protection software?

Yes, copyright software should be boxed and be relevent only to it's application.

5. Should a games End-User-License agreement be made publically available for prospective buyers to review should they wish to?

Yes. It's just like sys specs.

6. If games’ EULA agreements were made publically available, would you review them before purchasing a game?

No.

7. Should an independent third party, outside of the company that developed or published it be established to review the amount of content in games, and decide whether or not they should be released at full price?

No. Under what sort of market system would such a party be acceptable?

8. Should any prospective copyright protection software be reviewed by an independent third party (governmental or otherwise) to determine whether or not it is potentially malicious or exploitive?

Any sort of copyright software that intrudes on the user's system should have signed drivers(ergo, be monitored). But thats a OS problem.

9. Do gaming companies place more emphasis on profit than on satisfying the needs and wants of gamers?

Uh duh?

10. Should gaming companies form an independent third party committee or organization to review copyright protection technology and amount of game content?

Maybe, but it can't be binding. Like the ESA for hardware gamers.

11. Should gaming companies be forced to continue providing support in the form of online servers and patches for games while they are still in stores.

No.