jake21 |
12-03-2008 01:51 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roman
(Post 60668)
I agree that Atari is not such a bad distributor from the consumer point of view. I don't think it could have known the potential of King's Bounty, that's probably why the lack of advertising and presence (and it is true that it has utterly failed on this account) - it would hopefully know better next time. There are much more vile publishers than Atari though. I won't be so hesitant as you are and I will mention Electronic Arts as a publisher that it seems utterly hates its customers and seeks to alienate them at every opportunity with draconian DRM (DDRM) (that does nothing to stop piracy and ONLY affect the legitimate user) and banning on forums for complaining. I am currently boycotting EA no matter how good their games until they clean up their act and don't punish legitimate customers with DDRM.
|
Yea. EA has done an excellent job of destroying pc gaming - many of their games make little attempt to provide a pc gaming experience. Pity because they own many of the better known titles (via buying up companies that produce gems in earlier years).
I guess some of it is economic and some is perception. I like stardock approach - they attempt to develop games they think won't be pirated. There are a lot of small developers - mostly in europe that I think have done a very good job but dont' receive the benefits of their labor but survive then there are developers (like iron lore) which have some decent talent but can't pay the bills. Two examples that come to mind are titan quest (iron lore) and Wizardry 8 (Sir tech). Both games (esp Wizardry 8) seemed to be well received but somehow the money just didn't materialize.
Oh well I wish I could see the numbers behind a typical game - cost to develop; sales; distribution cut/middle man cut; ....
|