Volition developer blasts used game business

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Every used sale that would have been a new sale in the absence of a used option hurts developersQuistisTrepe_

Here's some insider info for you, in order for there to have been a used game available, it means someone already bought it new.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] Every used sale that would have been a new sale in the absence of a used option hurts developersrawsavon

Here's some insider info for you, in order for there to have been a used game available, it means someone already bought it new.

What the hell is LJ? You were carrying on as though used games were lying in wait like a crouching tiger ready to pounce developers to steal their profits. Admittedly it was a little snarky on my part, but it was a lead up to the rest of my point that you chose to leave out.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Here's some insider info for you, in order for there to have been a used game available, it means someone already bought it new.QuistisTrepe_

What the hell is LJ? You were carrying on as though used games were lying in wait like a crouching tiger ready to pounce developers to steal their profits. Admittedly it was a little snarky on my part, but it was a lead up to the rest of my point that you chose to leave out.

But it was a 'nope...not going any more' moment

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] not at all. diversification is a good thing to point (as with all things) But there is a difference in diversification (which can be good or bad) and shifting ...there is a major shift going on. this is not the same as diversificationrawsavon

Businesses have to change with the times, this isn't anything new.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Businesses have to change with the times, this isn't anything new.

guynamedbilly

in regards to the later, that is one way that there still is innovation.
I actually like it. but I do not think gamers will flock to 'lower budget' titles on PSN, etc.
I hope I am wrong. I don't care much about graphics and such...but the cash cow games have shown that I am in the minority

I actually like it. but I do not think gamers will flock to 'lower budget' titles on PSN, etc.
I hope I am wrong. I don't care much about graphics and such...but the cash cow games have shown that I am in the minority

rawsavon

XBL Marketplace/Arcade says hello.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

I actually like it. but I do not think gamers will flock to 'lower budget' titles on PSN, etc.
I hope I am wrong. I don't care much about graphics and such...but the cash cow games have shown that I am in the minority

QuistisTrepe_

XBL Marketplace/Arcade says hello.

in regards to the former, see all the major studios going bust or leaving the console market.
if that is what you want, then that is fine

in regards to the later, that is one way that there still is innovation.
I actually like it. but I do not think gamers will flock to 'lower budget' titles on PSN, etc.
I hope I am wrong. I don't care much about graphics and such...but the cash cow games have shown that I am in the minority

rawsavon

I do think it would be good for them to be forced to not make every other game a huge, big-budget ordeal. If they don't rethink their position now, they will have to when they eventually over-saturate the first-sale market. At that point, they will probably have less customers to help save them because not everyone can buy a $60 game every week.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] in regards to the former, see all the major studios going bust or leaving the console market.
if that is what you want, then that is fine

in regards to the later, that is one way that there still is innovation.
I actually like it. but I do not think gamers will flock to 'lower budget' titles on PSN, etc.
I hope I am wrong. I don't care much about graphics and such...but the cash cow games have shown that I am in the minority

guynamedbilly

I do think it would be good for them to be forced to not make every other game a huge, big-budget ordeal. If they don't rethink their position now, they will have to when they eventually over-saturate the first-sale market. At that point, they will probably have less customers to help save them because not everyone can buy a $60 game every week.

former: good luck with that

later:
I agree that games do not need to be big budget productions costing 10million (at a min) to make.
But that is what 'sells'. People here forget what a very small % of the current market we are.
Big Budget Sequals are the money makers right now.
Low Budget PSN titles can make money too.
It is those mid level games that are not making money...that hurt the developer...the new IP that does not take off (not necessarily due to quality).
Even worse though is the 30million dollar+ game that flops
...that kind of risk creates an environment where 'risks' just are not worth it = be safe and make COD 10, 11, 12, etc

...that kind of risk creates an environment where 'risks' just are not worth it = be safe and make COD 10, 11, 12, etc

rawsavon

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

...that kind of risk creates an environment where 'risks' just are not worth it = be safe and make COD 10, 11, 12, etc

QuistisTrepe_

no rule/generality is absolute. only fools and zealots deal in back and white.
for anything anyone ever argues, there will be an exception
-and you know this...which only makes your attempts even more annoying

then a gaming market crash like they had before really could happen again.guynamedbilly

Complete and total bullsh!t. Every single industry that is in the business of selling entertainment goods has a second-hand market. Video games aren't special in this regard and shouldn't be treated any differently.AcidSoldner

Came here to say this. Thanks sir.

...please stop being LJ...you are better than that.
don't be (as Colin Cowherd says) the 'exception guy'

no rule/generality is absolute. only fools and zealots deal in back and white.
for anything anyone ever argues, there will be an exception
-and you know this...which only makes your attempts even more annoying

rawsavon

Please stop bringing Off-Topic Forum crap in here. NO ONE CARES ON THIS BOARD. And I could very well list at least another 50 titles, but nothing is going to convince you at this point.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

...please stop being LJ...you are better than that.
don't be (as Colin Cowherd says) the 'exception guy'

no rule/generality is absolute. only fools and zealots deal in back and white.
for anything anyone ever argues, there will be an exception
-and you know this...which only makes your attempts even more annoying

QuistisTrepe_

Please stop bringing Off-Topic Forum crap in here. NO ONE CARES ON THIS BOARD. And I could very well list at least another 50 titles, but nothing is going to convince you at this point.

and I would be glad to leave that 'ot crap' out of here if you will stop acting like the worst user there

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

...please stop being LJ...you are better than that.
don't be (as Colin Cowherd says) the 'exception guy'

no rule/generality is absolute. only fools and zealots deal in back and white.
for anything anyone ever argues, there will be an exception
-and you know this...which only makes your attempts even more annoying

rawsavon

Please stop bringing Off-Topic Forum crap in here. NO ONE CARES ON THIS BOARD. And I could very well list at least another 50 titles, but nothing is going to convince you at this point.

and I would be glad to leave that 'ot crap' out of here if you will stop acting like the worst user there

This is precisely what I and others here are trying to get though to you in some way or another. Everything is going to be an "exception" to you now. You yourself admitted that not every game has to be a big budget production. There is a thriving indie market that has emerged over the past few years. If used games are killing gaming because of the diminishing returns, then how is there room for this market to compete in the first place?

So what are you going on about?

Here is why something needs to change with the current model
-that something does not have to be 'used' games, but it needs to be something

Average Development costs since PS1:
Playstation 1 games...about 700k
Xbox...1.8 million
"Games for Xbox 360 and PS3 cost between USD 20 million and USD 30 million to make"

so from $750k up to 20 million in development/production costs = 27 times as expensive to make
while prices have increased $10 a game = cost 1.2 times as much to buy
LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN (to let it sink in):
COST 25+ TIMES AS MUCH TO MAKE, SELLING FOR 1.2 TIMES AS MUCH
...that is a severely flawed model even with the increased user base...in other words, it is MUCH harder just to reach the break even point for a developer

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6130901.html
http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Video_game_costs
http://www.develop-online.net/news/33625/Study-Average-dev-cost-as-high-as-28m
http://www.shacknews.com/article/61911/video-game-development-costs-continue

As for the break even point mentioned above (relates to units sold)

Userbase (going off consoles sold, so actual users will be less...but best I got atm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Console_wars

5th gen (ps1 era): 145 million units sold
6th gen (ps2 era): 206 million units sold
7th gen (current): 203 million units sold thus far

So development costs that are a min of 15x [and as much as 40 times] as much as they were 2 generations ago versus a userbase that has not even doubled

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

Please stop bringing Off-Topic Forum crap in here. NO ONE CARES ON THIS BOARD. And I could very well list at least another 50 titles, but nothing is going to convince you at this point.

QuistisTrepe_

and I would be glad to leave that 'ot crap' out of here if you will stop acting like the worst user there

This is precisely what I and others here are trying to get though to you in some way or another. Everything is going to be an "exception" to you now. You yourself admitted that not every game has to be a big budget production. There is a thriving indie market that has emerged over the past few years. If used games are killing gaming because of the diminishing retunrs, then how is there room for this market to compete in the first place?

So what are you going on about?

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"] then a gaming market crash like they had before really could happen again.rawsavon

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] of course you could...50 titles would be quite easy. I completely agree.
But 50 titles that succeeded (versus their budget) versus how many that did not...that is what makes you 'exception guy'

and I would be glad to leave that 'ot crap' out of here if you will stop acting like the worst user there

rawsavon

This is precisely what I and others here are trying to get though to you in some way or another. Everything is going to be an "exception" to you now. You yourself admitted that not every game has to be a big budget production. There is a thriving indie market that has emerged over the past few years. If used games are killing gaming because of the diminishing retunrs, then how is there room for this market to compete in the first place?

So what are you going on about?

First off, you went to Trailer Trash University, so you have no room to call anyone dense. Second, your premise was factually incorrect. Your argument never had a leg to stand on. Don't get pissy with me because you've been wrong all along.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

This is precisely what I and others here are trying to get though to you in some way or another. Everything is going to be an "exception" to you now. You yourself admitted that not every game has to be a big budget production. There is a thriving indie market that has emerged over the past few years. If used games are killing gaming because of the diminishing retunrs, then how is there room for this market to compete in the first place?

So what are you going on about?

QuistisTrepe_

First off, you went to Trailer Trash University, so you have no room to call anyone dense. Second, your premise was factually incorrect. Your argument never had a leg to stand on. Don't get pissy with me because you've been wrong all along.

rofl...using a university as a cut down. Is that all you have, seriously. You really did go full LJ

So your data up there reinforced my thoughts, at least to me, that publishers have to cut the big budget development and then offer cheaper games. They can still offer huge games like Skyrim at a premium price. At the very best, killing the used market might double the number of gamers which won't even come close to the amount of profits they'd like.guynamedbilly

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]So your data up there reinforced my thoughts, at least to me, that publishers have to cut the big budget development and then offer cheaper games. They can still offer huge games like Skyrim at a premium price. At the very best, killing the used market might double the number of gamers which won't even come close to the amount of profits they'd like.rawsavon

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] either you are dense and I have given you too much credit in the past or you have gone full LJ on me.
if it is the former, I will try and explain better...like dealing with the slow kid in cIass just tell me what you don't get (and don't say all of it).
if it is the later, then just tell me so we can stop this crap OT styIe dance that I abhor

rawsavon

First off, you went to Trailer Trash University, so you have no room to call anyone dense. Second, your premise was factually incorrect. Your argument never had a leg to stand on. Don't get pissy with me because you've been wrong all along.

rofl...using a university as a cut down. Is that all you have, seriously. You really did go full LJ

What have I backed up, oh man.:lol: What is this...........I don't even.

You calling out someone else's logic as **** scores big time lulz. The irony in your posts is killing me. You couldn't even maintain an argument within the parameters of the topic and you call someone else dense? Wow.:lol:

Please stop acting like the intellectual superior here, it comes off as desparate on your part. You must be an internet gimmick of some kind, no one could be this much of a tool if they tried.

how gamers hurt the industry...the market hurts by 1. buying used 2. refusing to pay more for games (prices don't even reflect inflation) 3. rebuking other attempts to offset costs...DLC, passes, etc The model is fine for the cash cow. The model is broken for other releases thoughrawsavon

Use games have not been proven to hurt the market. The movie industry has not tanked or collapse because of used sales or rentals so try another arguement or claim.

We are paying more than previous gen. The cost of these "HD" games increased by 20%. Games are shorter and less interactive yet they want gamers to pay more. Making a game CAN be expensive but it also CAN be inexpensive. Poor management is the reason for these failures not the lower prices. It is foolish to spend more money on developing a game than what you can realistically expect to get back. That error is not gamers error but the developer or publisher's error.

DLC is nothing short of milking. You are paying grossly more for grossly less. Gamers buy a game with a single player campaign and 15 multiplayer levels for $60 but 2 maps cost $10. And they wonder why DLCs are not being embrassed.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]So your data up there reinforced my thoughts, at least to me, that publishers have to cut the big budget development and then offer cheaper games. They can still offer huge games like Skyrim at a premium price. At the very best, killing the used market might double the number of gamers which won't even come close to the amount of profits they'd like.guynamedbilly

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

First off, you went to Trailer Trash University, so you have no room to call anyone dense. Second, your premise was factually incorrect. Your argument never had a leg to stand on. Don't get pissy with me because you've been wrong all along.

QuistisTrepe_

rofl...using a university as a cut down. Is that all you have, seriously. You really did go full LJ

What have I backed up, oh man.:lol: What is this...........I don't even.

You calling out someone else's logic as **** scores big time lulz. The irony in your posts is killing me. You couldn't even maintain an argument within the parameters of the topic and you call someone else dense? Wow.:lol:

Please stop acting like the intellectual superior here, it comes off as desparate on your part. You must be an internet gimmick of some kind, no one could be this much of a tool if they tried.

so you advocating raising the prices on premium games? -just want to make sure we are clear If so, what price? keep in mind that games cost less than the snes era without inflation and cost less than any era post NES with inflationrawsavon

Games cost less becasue the market is larger. Games cost less because its more mainstream than before. Games cost less because the availability of more advance and streamline software. Games cost less because making a game is more accessible than ever before. However, inspite of all of this developers are still racking up the expenses in all sorts of nonsense especially in advertising, which have superseeded the cost of making the game in some instances.

Games cost more before

• It was niche
• Gaming making required an indept understanding of programming
• There wasn't a standardise API
• Computers were begining to be seeded in the home
• The technology for the catridges were expensive

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]how gamers hurt the industry...the market hurts by 1. buying used 2. refusing to pay more for games (prices don't even reflect inflation) 3. rebuking other attempts to offset costs...DLC, passes, etc The model is fine for the cash cow. The model is broken for other releases thoughPedro

Use games have not been proven to hurt the market. The movie industry has not tanked or collapse because of used sales or rentals so try another arguement or claim.

We are paying more than previous gen. The cost of these "HD" games increased by 20%. Games are shorter and less interactive yet they want gamers to pay more. Making a game CAN be expensive but it also CAN be inexpensive. Poor management is the reason for these failures not the lower prices. It is foolish to spend more money on developing a game than what you can realistically expect to get back. That error is not gamers error but the developer or publisher's error.

DLC is nothing short of milking. You are paying grossly more for grossly less. Gamers buy a game with a single player campaign and 15 multiplayer levels for $60 but 2 maps cost $10. And they wonder why DLCs are not being embrassed.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"] what have you backed up exactly?
don't be mad b/c now your alt is getting called out like your main account for sh*t logic.

rofl...using a university as a cut down. Is that all you have, seriously. You really did go full LJ

rawsavon

What have I backed up, oh man.:lol: What is this...........I don't even.

You calling out someone else's logic as **** scores big time lulz. The irony in your posts is killing me. You couldn't even maintain an argument within the parameters of the topic and you call someone else dense? Wow.:lol:

Please stop acting like the intellectual superior here, it comes off as desparate on your part. You must be an internet gimmick of some kind, no one could be this much of a tool if they tried.

I never used an alt account. I used my partner's account until I decided to open my own after I decided I wanted to post here full-time. But there you go again. "My terrible argument isn't winning so I'm going to engage in ad-hominem attacks." Good one brah.

Your numbers are barely relevant to the topic. You force feed your points without even acknowledging anyone else's points. Anyone who doesn't accept your points as truth is labeled as "dense."

Yea, but people are making less money too due to inflation. It's a matter of adapting.guynamedbilly

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]so you advocating raising the prices on premium games? -just want to make sure we are clear If so, what price? keep in mind that games cost less than the snes era without inflation and cost less than any era post NES with inflationPedro

Games cost less becasue the market is larger. Games cost less because its more mainstream than before. Games cost less because the availability of more advance and streamline software. Games cost less because making a game is more accessible than ever before. However, inspite of all of this developers are still racking up the expenses in all sorts of nonsense especially in advertising, which have superseeded the cost of making the game in some instances.

Games cost more before

• It was niche
• Gaming making required an indept understanding of programming
• There wasn't a standardise API
• Computers were begining to be seeded in the home
• The technology for the catridges were expensive

that would be great if not for the stats/figures I gave about userbase v costs v selling pricerawsavon

Which are specious at best. Your numbers don't account for all other factors affecting the gaming industry. You're just going off of raw data and assuming that there are no other factors to consider.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

What have I backed up, oh man.:lol: What is this...........I don't even.

You calling out someone else's logic as **** scores big time lulz. The irony in your posts is killing me. You couldn't even maintain an argument within the parameters of the topic and you call someone else dense? Wow.:lol:

Please stop acting like the intellectual superior here, it comes off as desparate on your part. You must be an internet gimmick of some kind, no one could be this much of a tool if they tried.

QuistisTrepe_

I never used an alt account. I used my partner's account until I decided to open my own after I decided I wanted to post here full-time. But there you go again. "My terrible argument isn't winning so I'm going to engage in ad-hominem attacks." Good one brah.

Your numbers are barely relevant to the topic. You force feed your points without even acknowledging anyone else's points. Anyone who doesn't accept your points as truth is labeled as "dense."

Please explain how development costs, userbase, selling price do fit with this topic...
Gaming companies are attempting to offset the increasing costs, decreased selling price and a user base that has not kept up through alternative means.
-things like DLC, Passes, etc

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

that would be great if not for the stats/figures I gave about userbase v costs v selling priceQuistisTrepe_

Which are specious at best. Your numbers don't account for all other factors affecting the gaming industry. You're just going off of raw data and assuming that there are no other factors to consider.

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Yea, but people are making less money too due to inflation. It's a matter of adapting.rawsavon

You have not factored in inflation since the start of last era (more than a decade ago) when saying prices are up 20%. You have not factored in development costs (shown above). The 'short' game point has no merit...go back and play some of the 'greats' of the Genesis era (like Streets of Rage). There have always been short and long games. This is nothing new If these things anger you, How would you solve the problem (the problem being games cost 25x more to make than the PS1 era, sell for less, and the userbase has not kept up...less than 2x as many users). I am open to hearing what you would do. Your assertion about DLC is what I have been saying...that is how a great many gamers feel. But companies need some way to better offset the costsrawsavon

Firstly we do not use memory modules any more for games. This automatically reduces the cost of games. The transition to optical storage made gaming more affordable. We are not gaming with catridges. If we were the cost would reflect that, so there is absolutely no need to compare optical storage gaming to that of memory module storage gaming. With that said, the cost of gaming did increase by 20% for CD,DVD,Bluray gaming. This is not a debate.

Development cost is ENTIRELY up to the developer. Games should always be made with realistic profit in mind. Spending irresponsibly and expecting to make great returns is foolishness on the developers part. There are many successful companies which small budgets that do an exceptional job making games and they accomplish this by staying within the budget.

And I do apologise but I am not angered by anything discussed in this thread. Try not to create illogical or baiting responses and stick to the topic at hand. :)

And I will repeat the solution to this "problem" reduce the cost of making the game. This is done in every other industry when the profit margin is being affected. Its a simple and proven practice. :)

Please explain how development costs, userbase, selling price do fit with this topic...
Gaming companies are attempting to offset the increasing costs, decreased selling price and a user base that has not kept up through alternative means.
-things like DLC, Passes, etc

rawsavon

We're talking about the effect of used games on developers. Now if the topic were "How much does it cost to produce a game" or "Alternative revenue streams for game developers" then you'd have me there.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

that would be great if not for the stats/figures I gave about userbase v costs v selling pricerawsavon

Which are specious at best. Your numbers don't account for all other factors affecting the gaming industry. You're just going off of raw data and assuming that there are no other factors to consider.

Selective literacy, FTW!!

I tried so hard to take you seriously, but at this point trolling appears to be all that you've got to fall back on.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]Yea, but people are making less money too due to inflation. It's a matter of adapting.guynamedbilly

And I do apologise but I am not angered by anything discussed in this thread. Try not to create illogical or baiting responses and stick to the topic at hand. :)

Pedro

Yeah, but you're just being dense now.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]how gamers hurt the industry...the market hurts by 1. buying used 2. refusing to pay more for games (prices don't even reflect inflation) 3. rebuking other attempts to offset costs...DLC, passes, etc The model is fine for the cash cow. The model is broken for other releases thoughPedro

Use games have not been proven to hurt the market. The movie industry has not tanked or collapse because of used sales or rentals so try another arguement or claim.

I have heard the movie industry being used as an argument for a long time now, however, there are more channels that movies are able to be sold through. Take licensing on network TV, DVD format, Blu-ray format, Movie theaters, Digital distribution (EX: Netflix) and iTunes for example and you see that there are more outlets for the movie industry put in place for revenue generation than there are for the video game industry so in essence the rent/buy/trade quadrant of the industry won't have the same negative impact.

I agree with you on the rest of your post as I find the DLC to be completely absurd at times in regards to pricing and offerings.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

You have not factored in inflation since the start of last era (more than a decade ago) when saying prices are up 20%. You have not factored in development costs (shown above). The 'short' game point has no merit...go back and play some of the 'greats' of the Genesis era (like Streets of Rage). There have always been short and long games. This is nothing new If these things anger you, How would you solve the problem (the problem being games cost 25x more to make than the PS1 era, sell for less, and the userbase has not kept up...less than 2x as many users). I am open to hearing what you would do. Your assertion about DLC is what I have been saying...that is how a great many gamers feel. But companies need some way to better offset the costsPedro

Firstly we do not use memory modules any more for games. This automatically reduces the cost of games. The transition to optical storage made gaming more affordable. We are not gaming with catridges. If we were the cost would reflect that, so there is absolutely no need to compare optical storage gaming to that of memory module storage gaming. With that said, the cost of gaming did increase by 20% for CD,DVD,Bluray gaming. This is not a debate.

Development cost is ENTIRELY up to the developer. Games should always be made with realistic profit in mind. Spending irresponsibly and expecting to make great returns is foolishness on the developers part. There are many successful companies which small budgets that do an exceptional job making games and they accomplish this by staying within the budget.

And I do apologise but I am not angered by anything discussed in this thread. Try not to create illogical or baiting responses and stick to the topic at hand. :)

And I will repeat the solution to this "problem" reduce the cost of making the game. This is done in every other industry when the profit margin is being affected. Its a simple and proven practice. :)

[QUOTE="rawsavon"]

Please explain how development costs, userbase, selling price do fit with this topic...
Gaming companies are attempting to offset the increasing costs, decreased selling price and a user base that has not kept up through alternative means.
-things like DLC, Passes, etc

QuistisTrepe_

We're talking about the effect of used games on developers. Now if the topic were "How much does it cost to produce a game" or "Alternative revenue streams for game developers" then you'd have me there.

But it is far from 0:1...so it affects sales (which is part of the 3 things I listed)

still not using your mainaccoutn either, how sad

[QUOTE="Pedro"]

And I do apologise but I am not angered by anything discussed in this thread. Try not to create illogical or baiting responses and stick to the topic at hand. :)

QuistisTrepe_

Yeah, but you're just being dense now.