Valve: Optimal Pricing Better than Licensing Source

Status
Not open for further replies.

NatureTM

Distinguished
Oct 19, 2010
27
0
18,540
2
"Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice."

I guess only the rich will get to be assholes now. Talk about games getting more realistic!
 

gokanis

Distinguished
Apr 26, 2011
233
0
18,690
1
Yes, buttheads should pay more. But, I can see the discrimination lawsuits piling up over that. I like a voting system where you can ban anyone from the server for good. After awhile, jerks and cheaters will have to play with themselves (so to speak).

 

jalek

Distinguished
Jan 29, 2007
524
1
18,995
1
Discrimination suit? Nobody has a "right" to a specific price or maybe I need to sue a car salesman over a deal I didn't get. Trolls are not a protected class. Australians can't even sue for being overcharged for games due to location discrimination.

I can already guess the methodology, so the vast majority of people won't even see this except for some kids asking everyone to be their friend and to rate them highly.
 

zkevwlu

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2011
69
0
18,630
0
Discrimination lawsuits usually target discriminators of race, gender, age, etc. I don't think it'll hold up in court of it's discrimination against voluntary behaviour. Bars have the right to throw you out for being obnoxious and causing a scene, restaurants have the right to refuse service if you come in without a shirt, so similarly Valve have the right to charge you full price on a game for being a gianormous knob.
 

Assmar

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2009
249
0
18,690
1
[citation][nom]tommysch[/nom]Censorship?[/citation]
Two answer your question: No, that's not anything like censorship at all.
 

SirGCal

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
310
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]blurr91[/nom]Microsoft already tried this by charging different rates of Windows to different OEM. Guess who got sued?[/citation]

That is an entirely different situation. Even to the levels of companies vs individuals. It does not apply to this situation.

[citation][nom]assmar[/nom]Two answer[/citation]

"To", not two. But yes, it is not censorship... Not even close. Infact there is no word right now for what this would be considered. But still, act like a jerk in public, get arrested and pay your fine, or worse... From that respect, I don't see much difference here what-so-ever. I'm all for the idea.

Internet jerks just because they are on the internet have no (insert your favorite derogatory body part here)... I laugh my butt off when the kid from Kansas (or where ever it was) got arrested for hard-core badmouthing an FBI agent's kid. Then they play all innocent... You're not innocent, you just got busted! DUMB***! You get what you deserve... If only more would...
 

schmich

Distinguished
Sep 17, 2009
284
0
18,780
0
Haha Valve over their heads once again. A lot of talk from that company and very little walk. Sure once they do take a step it's a classy one but in between...lets just say they shouldn't have access to "voice".
 

Trialsking

Distinguished
Mar 2, 2007
733
0
19,010
6
It not like the internet asshole has to pay more. Its just the people with better online reputation will pay less. But this is the US, so people can file lawsuits if you sneeze wrong. Oh come save us ACLU, from nice people getting games for free!

God forbid some hard working modder get a free copy of a game as the thanks for his mod that has given us all 100+ hours of more replay value. I think that would be awesome idea. I wish I could mod 100th as good as some of the FREE mods I have used. I say give all the cool modders free/reduced priced games!
 

Anaxamenes

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2010
79
0
18,630
0
I have always preferred rewarding good people over punishing bad behavior. I look forward to seeing what Valve has in mind, because it is a positive way of making the web better for gamers and hopefully everyone.
 

Gamer-girl

Distinguished
May 29, 2010
404
0
18,860
31
I can already see this is going to be an abused system especially if it is going to be voting based, unless they monitor everything from game play to voice and text chat.

People would just ask their friends to give them good votes so they can get better discounts. They will just randomly vote bad, for example in a shooter game (MW2 in this case). Bad rep if you:

- camp in one place too long
- if you noob tube
- if you hard-scope
- if you repeatedly kill the same person
- if your really bad or really good
- etc

I'm not sure how it is in the states but in new zealand some off them et really miffed by the above.
 

blurr91

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2004
339
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]sirgcal[/nom]That is an entirely different situation. Even to the levels of companies vs individuals. It does not apply to this situation.[/citation]

How is that different? You're making up arbitrary rules for your customers to follow. Those who play ball will get a discount. Those who do not will be charged full price. Sounds the same. If Valve follows through, there will be a class action lawsuit against it. Valve's legal team better be very good.
 

RogueKitsune

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2009
78
0
18,630
0
Its great they are focusing providing customers(good ones at least) with good service on steam, but I would like to see some more games(half-life 2 ep 3) from them. Preferably ones that run on a brand new engine
 

theroguex

Distinguished
Dec 9, 2009
130
0
18,680
0
Aaaand what about those of us who don't play online via Steam? I've never once played Team Fortress 2, even though I got it with the Orange Box. I was into Half-Life for its single player game, but now it seems like Valve doesn't give a shit about us. Yes, I played the hell out of Counter-Strike when it was cool. And Day of Defeat, when it was cool. Team Fortress was never 'cool' in my book, so I didn't play it. I've never played any other Valve multiplayer... so I get screwed?

Instead of rewarding players for being not-jerks, why don't you address the REAL price issue: Charging the EXACT SAME PRICE for digital downloads as you do for retail content. That's just plain robbery.
 
G

Guest

Guest
This is currently illegal in the UK. Everybody must be offered the same price.
 

NuclearShadow

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2007
1,535
0
19,810
5
The problem is with Gabe's goal is that it simply cannot be done. Valve can't watch every game and analyze the conduct of such. If they expect the community to do this then things can greatly backfire. There is nothing stopping angry gamers from what I would assume being a voting system to vote them down even if the other player never did anything wrong.
Then there is nothing also stopping people joining to a mutual agreement to voting each other up as part of communities to cheat the system.

I have proof that this form of system does not work and that is through Games For Windows Live. You can make players preferred or not and I use to play Street Fighter 4 a-lot. I tend to be a friendly gamer I wished them luck before the fight begins and always say something kind when the fight finished no matter what the outcome. I stopped playing with about a 94% win rate (no I am not exaggerating) and a 80% of players I have played with down rating me (again literally 80%). This is what this system brings.

[citation][nom]gokanis[/nom]Yes, buttheads should pay more. But, I can see the discrimination lawsuits piling up over that. I like a voting system where you can ban anyone from the server for good. After awhile, jerks and cheaters will have to play with themselves (so to speak).[/citation]

As a person who has had servers and admin on former clans and friends servers from my experience I cannot agree with this. Not even for kicking never-mind any form of ban. Countless times I have seen vote-kicks started against totally innocent players for reasons of either their skill or just plain jerks. Quite a bit of the time I have seen these votes become successful. So I no longer use a democratic vote and encourage any clans I may be a member of or on friends servers to simply remove it. Yes, it may be useful against jerks or cheaters sometimes but I would rather have a good team of admins watching the server than handing it over to mob rule.

Also your suggestion leaves a opening to be exploited by griefers that work in teams. Imagine joining a game and suddenly a vote ban that will ban you forever from that server comes up and its your name. We will say 10 griefers joined together to exploit this fact and all vote yes. Then there are people who want that vote off the screen and hit anything some voting yes, then there are people who simply find it funny to vote yes without reason even if they had no part in stating the vote. Guess what?
Your gone. Under your own suggestion you are now forever banned from that server. And what is to stop it from happening on the next, and the next?
 

tmax

Distinguished
Aug 24, 2007
107
0
18,710
8
I dont play TF2 much anymore because of the annoying people in voice chat. I like this concept. I just want to have fun when I play games. I know I am terrible at it. My score proves that. I don't need to be reminded by others as I play.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY