C-G's Virtual-Mate?

Visual Novel Community Archive, 2000-2009
#601
quote:
Originally posted by SCDawg:
Presuming this works and G-Collections last for 100 more years, even if we all live 100 more years we will have changed computers more then 3 times meaning the games will eventually become useless long before that 100 years. Figure there are major updates or computer changes for many people every 5 to 6 years in about 15 to 18 years these games will no longer be usable give or take a year.

Absolutely. This goes back to my "ten year" rule. I upgrade more often than every 5 to 6 years (there is probably going to be a time when I have to bite the bullet and go with 2K or XP, and that will probably be when I switch to Linux and need another machine.)

I didn't mention this because, realistically, GC isn't going to maintain their servers for this long. See http://www.mobygames.com/featured_article/feature,7/section,21/

Other companies have pulled the same thing before. Just try getting technical support for really old games from even companies that still exist. Many times people will barely remember the game exists (in the case mentioned in the article, it was as if the game had never existed at all).

My guess is we won't have terribly long to wait for a patch; GC will release a patch when they abandon VMate. I don't see that taking more than a few game releases, because I just don't see it working. I expect they'll quietly release a patch, and then after awhile the games won't even require a patch anymore (kind of like how new versions of Chain and Kana don't require the patch either).

#602
quote:
Originally posted by woodelf:
Well I believe in the Elves. But the old %$@! won't send me any female ones for X-mas. [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/smile.gif[/img]
Wouldn't one of those be nice to find under the tree, a female elf? Yeah he won't send me one either. [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

Wow over 600 posts.


[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 10-24-2004).]

#603
quote:
Originally posted by Nandemonai:
Other companies have pulled the same thing before. Just try getting technical support for really old games from even companies that still exist. Many times people will barely remember the game exists (in the case mentioned in the article, it was as if the game had never existed at all).

My guess is we won't have terribly long to wait for a patch; GC will release a patch when they abandon VMate. I don't see that taking more than a few game releases, because I just don't see it working. I expect they'll quietly release a patch, and then after awhile the games won't even require a patch anymore (kind of like how new versions of Chain and Kana don't require the patch either).

That is an interesting article. I had just thrown this out in part to show what I saw as a flaw that as far as I know had not previously been pointed out in that manner.

Tech support is a worry, and I believe it was you who mentioned trying to get support from Sierra for some of the old Quest for Glory games would be near to impossible.

The patches for Chain and Kana you mention are the de-moasic patches they still have on their sight? I really hope you are right about the patch and their quietly going back to games without the V-Mate system, otherwise some of their very recent games might have the "what game" happen to them a lot sooner through lack of interest in the system and default the games.

#604
quote:
Originally posted by SCDawg:
Someone expects to see a positive return but we have no idea if it is GC or some parent company back in Japan while GC here knows this move is brash and frankly dangerous when it comes to alienating once current (now former) customers.
Why does it matter where the decision was reached? What leads you to believe that "GC here knows this move is brash"?
quote:
First of all that last statement is not fully logical. A lot of people that play these games for free, a lot of that 20%, might either be underaged (16 or 17) and cannot buy them legally, or cannot (does not) want to spend 50 bucks for one of these games espeically while putting it on their credit card for various reasons.
I'm just offering an explanation for GC's decision to cut prices. I'm not trying to defend that decision. Perhaps you are right about the flaws in their reasoning, but can you suggest a different motive for their actions?
quote:
In fact I would figure of those that go to pirates without such a system would simply stop playing the games rather then buy the games, meaning even if it is bad way to spread the market, the notice this market is getting would be further reduced.
I think you're looking for someone to defend GC's decision, but I'm only trying to understand the reasoning behind it. Can you offer an alternate explanation for what they did?
quote:
Yes Interlex is a successful company with a proven track record in another culture in another market.
Once again, I'm not arguing that it will work here. I'm just looking for the reason why VM was chosen at this particular time. We may never know the exact cause behind what happened, but we can assume it wasn't a random event.
#605
quote:
Originally posted by perigee:
Why does it matter where the decision was reached? What leads you to believe that "GC here knows this move is brash"?
It matters at least to me because if it was the home office and not GC then I know someone was smart enough to at least try and stop this before it started and I have more respect for GC itself.
quote:
I'm just offering an explanation for GC's decision to cut prices. I'm not trying to defend that decision. Perhaps you are right about the flaws in their reasoning, but can you suggest a different motive for their actions?
To try and get people to jump on this, to lessen the blow, that is why they perhaps offer the cheaper prices. I am just saying if this system really cost them money and at the same time they can feel confident in lowering prices, then it will be a harder sale on me to come back later and cry out about how much they are losing from decreased sales which means yet another system is needed to stem more piracy and offer more "extras" in order to bring people back, especially if some of us that are talking boycott buy instead this time. Not saying they would do it, but who knows I never thought they would use a system like this either.
quote:
I think you're looking for someone to defend GC's decision, but I'm only trying to understand the reasoning behind it. Can you offer an alternate explanation for what they did?
You mean to start V-Mate, yes they did not think it through they heard the words "could reduce piracy, has worked in Japan" and so on and perhaps jumped at it. It's like the people that jump at the sales that can save you 100 dollars (on every 500 spent), they never hear the second part or question things beyond the bullet selling points. That is what I think happened, they wanted to stop pirates obviously but they did not stop to think if this was the best method for both their existing customers, future customers and to reduce piracy, instead just charged ahead.

Also it would be nice if G-Collections could do more then give prepared statements and the same ones over and over.

quote:
Once again, I'm not arguing that it will work here. I'm just looking for the reason why VM was chosen at this particular time. We may never know the exact cause behind what happened, but we can assume it wasn't a random event.
I actually think there is more of a random element to this then most think. If you are going to use this system start at the first of the year, clear out all the games you promised after Idols Galore then start with the one people have been pestering them to translate for a while now, that shows some thought since people won't like it but more might cave-in since it is a game a lot have wanted for some time. The lack of foresight to even have a parital plan, something to release as being worked on (other then the possible existent or non-existent patch) also speaks to me of a much more random element in this release at this time.

If it was not random at least I would think someone would surely have predicted a possible backlash and have had some plan as a back-up to at least offer as a short term possible long term solution to sooth the anger that occured from the announcement and prevent the further anger that occured from the patch fiasco. Perhaps foresight would have lead to them coming out and saying (when this all started) they have several plans such as "the patch, an alternative version which will cost 20 dollars more, etc" but offer a lot as being 'in the works' rather then seemingly having no clue as to what is going on or what to do to sooth customers and keep customer loyalty.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 10-24-2004).]

#606
quote:
Originally posted by perigee:
I'm just offering an explanation for GC's decision to cut prices. I'm not trying to defend that decision. Perhaps you are right about the flaws in their reasoning, but can you suggest a different motive for their actions? [/B]

My gut instinct on the price cut can be described simply by this word: appeasement. G-C surely realized the news of a transition to VM would go poorly for us, and they may have offered a price cut as a way to soothe our anger. Now the interesting question is whether the price cut is permanent for all future VM linked releases, or just for LMM.

#607
quote:
Originally posted by Ecchifan:
My gut instinct on the price cut can be described simply by this word: appeasement. G-C surely realized the news of a transition to VM would go poorly for us, and they may have offered a price cut as a way to soothe our anger. Now the interesting question is whether the price cut is permanent for all future VM linked releases, or just for LMM.

That is another route my mind went, after saying they spent a lot of time and money on this, they lower the price for this game, does that mean after a few games (supposing V-Mate lasts that long or perhaps even if it does not) they will quietly raise it two or three dollars higher then it was to begin with? If they actually spent a lot of money on this then they have to make that money up somehow and it does not look likely it will be through increased sales given the fact that even if new people buy, they are losing people that would have bought the game without the system.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 10-24-2004).]

#608
quote:
Originally posted by SCDawg:
It matters at least to me because if it was the home office and not GC then I know someone was smart enough to at least try and stop this before it started and I have more respect for GC itself.
And that is important because...
quote:
To try and get people to jump on this, to lessen the blow, that is why they perhaps offer the cheaper prices.
I agree. When a merchant lowers prices it's to sell more goods or attract more customers. GC had to believe this move would ultimately gain them more customers.
quote:
You mean to start V-Mate, yes they did not think it through they heard the words "could reduce piracy, has worked in Japan" and so on and perhaps jumped at it.
But why did they "jump at it"? Was it because they oppose piracy on moral grounds or because they thought it would earn them more money? If it's the latter, how did they think it would increase profits? Where did they expect the new business to come from?
quote:
That is what I think happened, they wanted to stop pirates obviously but they did not stop to think if this was the best method for both their existing customers, future customers and to reduce piracy, instead just charging ahead.
Disagree. I think they reasoned it was the best method available. I don't think they just "charged ahead". The premise upon which they based their decision may have been wrong, but I think this was a carefully planned maneuver - kind of like the attack on Midway Island in WWII.
quote:
I actually think there is more of a random element to this then most think.
But randomness implies lack of planning. If there's one thing the Japanese are known for, it's careful planning. Sometimes their plan fails, but they never go into battle without one.
quote:
The lack of foresight to even have a parital plan, something to release as being worked on (other then the possible existent or non-existent patch) also speaks to me of a much more random element in this release at this time.
I think the patch idea must have been discussed during the planning phase. It's not something they'd pull out of thin air. As you say, it's clear they didn't give enough weight to the possibility of a customer backlash, however.

#609
quote:
Originally posted by perigee:
And that is important because...

Well perhaps to make it clearer it matters because, who it is means I might consider buying from them again in the future if it is not their fault, if it is their fault I might consider never buying from them again.

quote:
But randomness implies lack of planning. If there's one thing the Japanese are known for, it's careful planning. Sometimes their plan fails, but they never go into battle without one.
Maybe, but then it was not careful enough planning. Also it might just have been how I was raised but I was taught no matter how careful your plans always have at least one backup that can be put into action in a very short amount of time, a matter of days if not hours, rather then having all that careful planning come to naught and therefore be (or appear) meaningless and anything but careful planning.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 10-24-2004).]

#610
quote:
Disagree. I think they reasoned it was the best method available. I don't think they just "charged ahead". The premise upon which they based their decision may have been wrong, but I think this was a carefully planned maneuver - kind of like the attack on Midway Island in WWII.

Also disagree because if they had reasoned it out, I think they would have better anticipated the response. With Midway Island their problem was their codes had been broken for a long time and they had no clue they were broken, here they have no such 'excuse' they have a company, a branch office, that has been working here that knows this market, they have all the information they want to reason and plan at their finger tips if they but asked for it. If they did and still made this decision to me that is still charging ahead, rather then looking carefully at the responses everyone is likely telling them to expect and pulling back at least for the moment.

quote:
But why did they "jump at it"? Was it because they oppose piracy on moral grounds or because they thought it would earn them more money? If it's the latter, how did they think it would increase profits? Where did they expect the new business to come from?
I do not know if they thought it would actually bring them more business in my personal opinion I doubt it will bring them enough to be meaningful. I figure they are savvy enough to realize that even if they stop all pirates they will not likely gain even half (maybe even a quarter) of the former pirates as new customers. In truth they might have not thought so much of increased profits in terms of more sales but increased in terms of nothing is being lost, that is without the system they are making 100 dollars for every 200 dollars lost through the actions of pirates but now with this system they are only making that 100 dollars rather then in effect losing a net of 100 dollars if that makes sense.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 10-24-2004).]

#611
quote:
Originally posted by SCDawg:
The patches for Chain and Kana you mention are the de-moasic patches they still have on their sight?

Yes. Original with their first 4 releases they came censored and you could download a patch to uncensor them. They said they thought this offered the best compromise, because you could have the game uncensored should you desire it, but could also experience it censored.

DOR never had an uncensor patch, because it's DOR and it's all really old (I think DOR is a compilation of even older games, and DOR itself is old). I doubt very much the original CG was still available.

There were also some scenes in the other 3 (Kana, Chain, and Kango Schicyauzo) that were not uncensored. (I don't know why.)

That attitude did not last very long. They found out very quickly uncensored was the way it would have to be in the US, and adapted. I believe subsequent printings of those 3 titles came with the patch pre-applied. The patch is really only there for people like myself, should I ever fool around with (say) unvoiced Kango 1 again. (And yet the patch apparently still gets a lot of downloads. Go figure.)

Personally I have the censored editions and think it's kind of neat.

#612
quote:
Originally posted by perigee:
I'm just looking for the reason why VM was chosen at this particular time. We may never know the exact cause behind what happened, but we can assume it wasn't a random event.

Agreed. This has been in the works for quite some time - they even took to asking in a survey what kind of internet access we had; several months ago. Obviously this has been planned for months.

#613
quote:
Originally posted by Nandemonai:
Agreed. This has been in the works for quite some time - they even took to asking in a survey what kind of internet access we had; several months ago. Obviously this has been planned for months.
Then why not be more open with us earlier? Why the basic round about ways to ask about this that in hindsight make it obvious they were up to something along these lines?
#614
quote:
Originally posted by SCDawg:
In truth they might have not thought so much of increased profits in terms of more sales but increased in terms of nothing is being lost, that is without the system they are making 100 dollars for every 200 dollars lost through the actions of pirates but now with this system they are only making that 100 dollars rather then in effect losing a net of 100 dollars if that makes sense.

This reasoning doesn't make any sense. GC doesn't lose any money when their products are pirated. All they lose are potential sales. The idea behind anti-piracy measures is to get back these sales. If sales (and thus profit) don't increase when the anti-piracy measure is used, then the measure has failed, whether it actually prevented piracy or not. Of course, I'm ignoring factors such as the price cut, which complicates matters in this case. I'm also ignoring the possibility that GC's suppliers are coercing them into this move.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Shiki (edited 10-24-2004).]

#615
quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Shiki:
This reasoning doesn't make any sense. GC doesn't lose any money when their products are pirated. All they lose are potential sales. The idea behind anti-piracy measures is to get back these sales.

That is sort of where I am coming from, they do lose money if you look at it in the way they obviously could be looking at it, and it not be logically but it is a way to look at this beyond simple +/- signs next to income.

Example: "Gamer A" doesn't give them money but gets their game anyway, hence a loss of money (income) to them, they stop "Gamer A" from getting the game that way again and hope "Gamer A" will get it through them yet even if "Gamer A" does not they do not 'lose' that possible income of money by having "Gamer A" have a game he did not buy from them. Does that make sense?

Said differently, think of it this way, if 8 people have their game but only 1 bought it is that not in effect the loss of income equal to 7 games? Now if they can stop that 'loss of income' even if they are still only selling that one game is that not in a sense a gain for them? Granted not in paper and not in actual money but in a way it is a gain for them because there are not 7 unbought games out there and the potential for 7 additional sales now exist.

It makes a lot more sense in my head and I would love to draw a chart or something to show it clearer, if I could describe it clearer it would make sense of that I have little doubt.

[This message has been edited by SCDawg (edited 10-24-2004).]

#616

I understand where you’re coming from…but still, it makes no logical sense in terms of cause and effect. The only gain from preventing piracy, if not in sales, is just the “warm feeling inside” you get from seeing that your products aren’t being distributed without your consent. I suppose that could have an effect on overall company morale, but why lose sales over fuzzy feelings?

[This message has been edited by Dark_Shiki (edited 10-24-2004).]

#617

This gets into the whole issue of “piracy is not theft”.

Basically the only measure of success is “how much money does GC make off the game?” The only question that matters is, when you factor in the expenses from using VMate - did GC make more money using it than they would’ve if they hadn’t? The question of “how many pirate copies are you preventing” is an interesting one, but not necessarily reflecting the answer to “how many extra sales will they get”.

A game sold for $40 will (all other things equal) sell more copies than the same game sold for $50. It stands to reason that the “free” games will have many ‘customers’ who would never buy the game for $50. It is equally true that some people who would have bought the game for $50, won’t because it’s “available” for nothing.

Since there are obvious drawbacks to GC’s current plan (2 of which are the price drop and the fact they had to pay some initial expense for VMate) they must expect to make a fair amount of additional money.

#618

They must think it’s a brilliant idea that will make them rich quickly. Therefore, convincing them that it is not (by getting people to not buy the game so that they see a loss rather than a gain) should get the point across fairly swiftly.

The risk is that more people will not know what’s going on and will just be excited by the lower price, or will be wanting to “give it a chance”, and cause them NOT to see a loss right away. If they don’t see a loss on this game, then even if they DO see a loss on the NEXT game (when people have learned about the system) they may cling on and insist that it was a fluke; after all, Meow sold so well!

Also, I suspect that fewer people will have the guts to return or call for support on a hentai game that they can’t play because of net issues than they would a less embarassing game… Again, other small companies that I know have tried things like this were swamped by the customer support issues. GC may have more customers who are afraid to ask for help (or get bogged down in the language issues…)

#619

… In other news, PP raises prices to compensate for all the bandwidth burned during the Great V-Mate Wars of 2004…

#620

Nah, it just comes out of Lamuness’s paycheck…