Cliffy B defends X1 used games policy

Numbers don't compute huh cliff?  Be sure to tell yourself that when you fire that baby up every day.

I would rather the game giants like EA go bankrupt than to have them continue to rip-off consumers. That is how capitalism is supposed to work. I can not accept that a 18-billions of dollar per-year industry is suddenly incapable of supporting ownership. Movie budgets have never been bigger, yet I can still buy a DVD or Blu-ray, resell it, lend it to a friend, or keep it forever as part of my collection. I can do the same with a PS4 game. What makes Xbone different? Greed.waggs

The film industry makes its money from the Box Office.  DVD and Blu-ray sales are simply a secondary income source.

If the games industry had something as reliably profitable as Box Office receipts(not to mention impossible to replicate) with something as big as DVD/Blu-Ray for a secondary market, then it wouldn't even be close to being an issue.

However, gaming is in the rather precarious position of having a massive industry that finds even its biggest developers constantly on the verge of bankruptcy.  Publishers are the ones making money.  If costs keep ballooning like they have been, soon developers will find themselves out of a job if they have even one major flop.

 

Numbers don't compute huh cliff?  Be sure to tell yourself that when you fire that baby up every day.

MirkoS77

[QUOTE="waggs"]I would rather the game giants like EA go bankrupt than to have them continue to rip-off consumers. That is how capitalism is supposed to work. I can not accept that a 18-billions of dollar per-year industry is suddenly incapable of supporting ownership. Movie budgets have never been bigger, yet I can still buy a DVD or Blu-ray, resell it, lend it to a friend, or keep it forever as part of my collection. I can do the same with a PS4 game. What makes Xbone different? Greed.KingsMessenger

The film industry makes its money from the Box Office.  DVD and Blu-ray sales are simply a secondary income source.

If the games industry had something as reliably profitable as Box Office receipts, then it wouldn't even be close to being an issue.

However, gaming is in the rather precarious position of having a massive industry that finds even its biggest developers constantly on the verge of bankruptcy.  Publishers are the ones making money.  If costs keep ballooning like they have been, soon developers will find themselves out of a job if they have even one major flop.

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

 

Numbers don't compute huh cliff?  Be sure to tell yourself that when you fire that baby up every day.

II_Seraphim_II

The problem I have with this is we get nothing in return for the destruction of used games, these greedy companies will still have Day one dlc, on the disc dlc, Microstranscation, Content cut from the game resold as dlc, short campaigns with tacted on multiplayer and I am almost certain they will incease the cost of new games but $70 eventually and hide behind High development costs.

They live in a fantasy world....

Metro Last Light alone makes this guys comment seem stupid, that game was made under budget and its a brilliantly super A rated game. Also look at the Indie space, those guys are making some really impressive games, if you give them 5yrs, i will not be suprised when Indie games start to rival big games seriously. They need to do some seriously accounting, spending money on celebrities to promote a game just isnt a reasonable endeavour. The idea that the industry can focus on used games, a consumer right is even ridiculous, no other industry can get away with the first sale practice that has existed since the dawn of man, heck the music industry tried it and see how that turned out, they killed CD and people went pirate crazy on their digital songs, almost everyone downloads songs for free now, most artist have to rely on Music concerts to make a buck, they better stop threading this part or its going to get bloody for these AAA publishers

 

Numbers don't compute huh cliff?  Be sure to tell yourself that when you fire that baby up every day.

MirkoS77

We sound silly? 

If your business model is unsustainable, that is entirely your fault. You need to try to figure out a way to fix it instead of dicking over legitimate consumers so you can keep the current system on life support.

Games in i-tune format is unfortunately the future. 

We sound silly? 

If your business model is unsustainable, that is entirely your fault. You need to try to figure out a way to fix it instead of dicking over legitimate consumers so you can keep the current system on life support.

DarkLink77

That's a little over-simplification... the world has changed and people these days are spanking things for free. Just as music is raped and artists are left undue, so it will be for for other mediums of entertainent and art - games included... He does have a point. 

Cliff reminds me of Metallica's Lars Ulrich.
*swimming in a pool of cash*
-Hey we ain't getting enough cash stop downloading our music, you're making as poor!

Developing an Xbox one game confirmed

NoodleFighter

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]

We sound silly? 

If your business model is unsustainable, that is entirely your fault. You need to try to figure out a way to fix it instead of dicking over legitimate consumers so you can keep the current system on life support.

poptart

That's a little over-simplification... the world has changed and people these days are spanking things for free. Just as music is raped and artists are left undue, so it will be for for other mediums of entertainent and art - games included... He does have a point. 

Something does need to change. Switchover to main focus on digital distribution seems like the next logical step.dave123321

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

 

Numbers don't compute huh cliff?  Be sure to tell yourself that when you fire that baby up every day.

jg4xchamp

He just strikes me as a king crying poverty, advocating screwing people over so he can eat.

make the games cheaper, may be at 40$, then may be, may be more ppl will tolerate DRM.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"]

 

Numbers don't compute huh cliff?  Be sure to tell yourself that when you fire that baby up every day.

MirkoS77

He just strikes me as a king crying poverty, advocating screwing people over so he can eat.

Well then the obvious problem is between the Developer/Publisher relationship. If your publisher is rolling in dough, and you, the developer arent...then you made a real crappy contract. I know if I was an author and my publisher made mad money off of my book and I was broke, I would probably try to renegotiate that contract, rather than try to restrict what my fans can do with the book they paid for with their own money.II_Seraphim_II

Easier said than done.

Developers can't expect us to support them when they treat us like we are all criminals and shouldn't be allowed to control our own products that we paid full price for.

You've never truly had ownership of the product(you've never been able to dig through the source code and modify the games you've bought).  You've always just had ownership of the license to use the product.  They are simply changing the terms of that license.  I understand why you are upset about that, but PC Gamers have dealt with the same terms for years and been perfectly OK.

As for Box office sales, understand that a movie ticket is under $20. One game is $60. So us purchasing a game is the equivalent of us going to watch the same movie 3+ times. That's the price point they chose and so that's how it is. Everyone like everything new, but at $60 a game...hell no! If games were cheaper, perhaps more people would be willing to buy them new, but as they remain $60, used games are the only way that some people can keep up with their hobby

Movies = $20 for a one time view license.  

Games = $60 for an unlimited license.

Would you rather the gaming industry adopt a model similar to the film industry where they offer games for $20 for a single use license(Box Office) and then have a $40 license for unlimited use(Home Video).

But keep in mind, games (ever the shortest of which) are much longer than 1.5 - 2 hours.  Furthermore, the marketplace for gaming is such that playing such a game requires ownership of a secondary expensive product to facilitate play(a console).  So, perhaps to fix that we can string up a massive infrastructure of venues where the games can be played on the single use license(movie theater), and you can go visit those places to play your games.

Oh wait, this is all completely absurd.  Almost as absurd as trying to compare the film industry with the gaming industry.  They operate on two completely different business models and have vastly different market penetration.

Cliff svckin MS d!ck. Call me when its news

This coming from a guy who hasnt created a innovative game in his life and rips off everything someone else has already done.

They should just lower their game budgets.

D4W1L4H

Now I agree with the notion that maybe these guys need to consider dialing budgets back. How about they focus on the quality of the game itself and not the f*cking production value, but these same guys have also argued it's not that simple. I would actually like one of them to argue why it's not that simple, or maybe one of the many shitty game journalists to actually do some journalism and shine some light on this subject.

 jg4xchamp

It isn't that simple because if you aren't playing the game(rising production values) then you get absolutely crucified by gamers, the press, publishers, and generally everyone involved in the industry.  

Gamers demand higher and higher production values, otherwise they bitch and moan about how X game doesn't stack up to Y game in Z aspect.

The gaming press do the same thing that gamers do, because lets face it, the gaming press are just a bunch of glorified gamers with bigger megaphones than everyone else.

Publishers demand higher production values, because that is what gamers and the press are demanding, and because that is what their marketing departments are demanding...

I know it may seem silly, but marketing demands are probably the biggest influence on it.  Being able to say that they have X production value better than other games is a huge part of marketing.  Being able to point to even the smallest thing that you are doing better than your competitors is vital to most marketing campaigns.

People who buy used games are not giving money to the people who made that product. I dont beleive they should have access to it for that reason and that reason alone. Its not about policy its about principle.

Its all well and good ripping on the X1's policies and praising the playstation to the holy grail because it places none of these restrictions.

The fact remains however comparing the two consoles in terms of pushing boundaries and innovation...is like comparing a sports car to a wheelbarrow.

These policies are not restrictive. I can access 10 other peoples libraries and play their games at any time, seamlessly from my own home. Thats not restrictive, that convienience. I could add my brother to my LIVE family and split the cost of every single game I buy in half and BOTH of us could play that same game at the same time. Its not restrictive, its convienience.

1-stop making games so linear and short. I put 200 hours into Skyrim but only 10-12 hours at most into every Gears game.

2-Games like The Witcher and Metro Last Light show huge budgets are not 100% needed.

3- If there is no profit why are you driving a lamborghini.

1-stop making games so linear and short. I put 200 hours into Skyrim but only 10-12 hours at most into every Gears game.

2-Games like The Witcher and Metro Last Light show huge budgets are not 100% needed.

3- If there is no profit why are you driving a lamborghini at 33 years old.CanYouDiglt

Regarding #2

[QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"]1-stop making games so linear and short. I put 200 hours into Skyrim but only 10-12 hours at most into every Gears game.

2-Games like The Witcher and Metro Last Light show huge budgets are not 100% needed.

3- If there is no profit why are you driving a lamborghini at 33 years old.KingsMessenger

Regarding #2

I made a threa don this and no one cared :cry:

http://uk.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29407074/do-aaa-games-cost-too-much-to-make-at-present

Also Cliffy is an idiot and Jim Sterling ripped him a new one

[QUOTE="Jim Sterling"]

What really infuriates me about the used game debate is that, when people bring up the stratospheric development and marketing costs, it's treated as though they are noble endeavors, too sacred to be compromised. Rather than ask the question, "Do games need to be this expensive to make?" the question instead becomes, "How can we squeeze more money to keep making very expensive games?"

Why are people like Cliffy B simply accepting the absolutely ridiculous high price of game development as immutable fact, quickly moving on to blame something else instead of examining the problem at its source?

seanmcloughlin

Source

I don't think this is a black and white issue. Both points are correct. We want the freedom of used games, but we don't want to give up on those big block buster games.

1-stop making games so linear and short. I put 200 hours into Skyrim but only 10-12 hours at most into every Gears game.CanYouDiglt

[QUOTE="CanYouDiglt"]

1-stop making games so linear and short. I put 200 hours into Skyrim but only 10-12 hours at most into every Gears game.rjdofu

People who buy used games are not giving money to the people who made that product. I dont beleive they should have access to it for that reason and that reason alone. Its not about policy its about principle.

Its all well and good ripping on the X1's policies and praising the playstation to the holy grail because it places none of these restrictions.

The fact remains however comparing the two consoles in terms of pushing boundaries and innovation...is like comparing a sports car to a wheelbarrow.

These policies are not restrictive. I can access 10 other peoples libraries and play their games at any time, seamlessly from my own home. Thats not restrictive, that convienience. I could add my brother to my LIVE family and split the cost of every single game I buy in half and BOTH of us could play that same game at the same time. Its not restrictive, its convienience.

always_explicit

Cliffy B likes to play Devils advocate but in doing so tends to write really dumb things.

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

I made a threa don this and no one cared :cry:

http://uk.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29407074/do-aaa-games-cost-too-much-to-make-at-present

Also Cliffy is an idiot and Jim Sterling ripped him a new one

[QUOTE="Jim Sterling"]

What really infuriates me about the used game debate is that, when people bring up the stratospheric development and marketing costs, it's treated as though they are noble endeavors, too sacred to be compromised. Rather than ask the question, "Do games need to be this expensive to make?" the question instead becomes, "How can we squeeze more money to keep making very expensive games?"

Why are people like Cliffy B simply accepting the absolutely ridiculous high price of game development as immutable fact, quickly moving on to blame something else instead of examining the problem at its source?

HalcyonScarlet

Source

I don't think this is a black and white issue. Both points are correct. We want the freedom of used games, but we don't want to give up on those big block buster games.

If the publishers aren't making enough of a profit then they're just going to have to raise the game's launch price to $80. There will probably be less sales at first, but it will eventually pick up after everyone saying how awesome it is. Publishers could even pay off a reviewer or two. Or raise the price of next gen games to $74.99 and make them down loadable only. What's the gamer to do? Not buy the exclusive? Yeah right. Cliff, you're a smart man, if you got paid to say that.LOXO7

"GameStop takes a more reasonable tack in negotiating this emotional minefield. Company president Paul Raines draws the stats from his holster, saying that 70 percent of income that gets handed over to consumers for traded goods is immediately spent on new games. That's a $1.8 billion injection into the games industry."

That's all I gotta say about that.

GD1551

[QUOTE="waggs"]I would rather the game giants like EA go bankrupt than to have them continue to rip-off consumers. That is how capitalism is supposed to work. I can not accept that a 18-billions of dollar per-year industry is suddenly incapable of supporting ownership. Movie budgets have never been bigger, yet I can still buy a DVD or Blu-ray, resell it, lend it to a friend, or keep it forever as part of my collection. I can do the same with a PS4 game. What makes Xbone different? Greed.KingsMessenger

The film industry makes its money from the Box Office.  DVD and Blu-ray sales are simply a secondary income source.

If the games industry had something as reliably profitable as Box Office receipts(not to mention impossible to replicate) with something as big as DVD/Blu-Ray for a secondary market, then it wouldn't even be close to being an issue.

However, gaming is in the rather precarious position of having a massive industry that finds even its biggest developers constantly on the verge of bankruptcy.  Publishers are the ones making money.  If costs keep ballooning like they have been, soon developers will find themselves out of a job if they have even one major flop.

'AAA gaming' needs to just die in a rolling car accident with fire. The fact the publishers are using this as an excuse for DRM shit policies is a testament to how much they are over-exaggerating their role in video game development, especially when other games that aren't 'AAA' movie experiences do just as good if not better than their shit. On top of this, I am sick of Cliffy B's commentary.

Here's an excellent response to Cliffy B's bullshit: http://www.destructoid.com/used-games-and-aaa-games-are-incompatible-good--256227.phtml

[QUOTE="way2funny"]

[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]I really dont understand the issue here. On average, movies cost a lot more to make than video games, yet you don't pay $60 to buy a DVD/Blu-Ray. Even if you take into account the price of going to the theater to watch a movie, and then buying the DVD/Blu-Ray, it still doesnt add up to $60. Even if you liked a movie so much that you watched it twice in theaters and then bought the blu-ray, its still not $60, yet I can freely trade my Blu-Ray once i buy it, no problem. So im not understanding why video games deserve special treatment. I bought a product, it's mine to do with as I please. End of story.II_Seraphim_II

Movies have many more ways to make money, from the box office, to dvd, and then licensing out to tv channels. And 2 of those don't invole any kind of second hand market.

Well I already talked about box office and all that jazz, the only point that you made that makes sense is licensing out to tv channels, but at the same time, video games make significantly more profits from a single sale. Each game costs $60...no movie retails for that price. No movie debuts at the movie theater for that price. Once they start selling video games for $20 or less, then they can start complaining about not making enough money. Its the same reason why people dont complain about iOS games or andriod games, you dont spend a lot of money on them so its not as big a deal. But if I spend $60 on a game, a damn right should be able to do anything I want with it.

Think about pretty much every other physical product on the market. If I sell my car to my neighbor, does the company get money for it? NO. If I sell my book to my neighbor, does the author get money for it? NO. If I sell my pretty much anything I paid for and bought with my own money, does the company get reimbursed? NO. So why should games be any different? The matter o the fact is that game developers are just being greedy as hell. They already charge $60 for them, and yet they still want more money? As for your example with movies being licensed to tv, note how that doesnt come at an added cost to us, or to our detriment? So how about game publishers talk to people like gamestop and gamefly, and organize some licensing program for game rental? When a club wants to play an artist's music, they license it. When a cable company wants to play a company's movies, they license it. So how about making it so that if people wanna have a rental service they license it?

With that in place, people who rent a lot of games can get a subscription (like cable) where they pay a monthly fee to rent games and the publishers get paid. That seems to make more sense than to remove my right to do what I want with a product I bought.

The purge cost 3 million to make. Made 36 million at the box office. See? Low cost...more room for net profit. The video game industry is insane spending million and millions when they can't possibly expect more than a sale of a million copies or less. Bread_or_Decide

[QUOTE="Bread_or_Decide"]The purge cost 3 million to make. Made 36 million at the box office. See? Low cost...more room for net profit. The video game industry is insane spending million and millions when they can't possibly expect more than a sale of a million copies or less. X_CAPCOM_X

Easier said than done.

KingsMessenger

So what you are saying is rather than taking their time to fix their industry, they should come and put all their bullshit on us? Cause fixing their own mess is "easier said than done"? Come on, game developers are becoming whinning little babies, and if they think that pissing us off, the people who buy their prodcuts and thus allow them to continue to exist, is the way to go, well maybe they deserve to go out of business. There is clearly a problem on their end with the distribution of wealth. I cant sign a record deal and then complain that my fans should pay more money for my albums because my record label is ripping me off. I mean, I could try, but my fans would tell me to go frak myself. Besides game development isnt a charity. You aren't guaranteed success. Its a highly competitive world. Some people make it and some dont. Imagine if every single stock broker and accountant complained that they arent making millions like the people on Wallstreet. Or if every amateur singer/actor complained that they arent getting paid millions. You knew the business before you came in. Its highly selective so quit bitching.

You've never truly had ownership of the product(you've never been able to dig through the source code and modify the games you've bought).  You've always just had ownership of the license to use the product.  They are simply changing the terms of that license.  I understand why you are upset about that, but PC Gamers have dealt with the same terms for years and been perfectly OK.

KingsMessenger

No one expects that level of ownership. When I buy a product, I want to own the FINISHED product, not all the work that went into creating a finished product. That would be like after buying a new Ferrarri, you go over and demand the company give you their highly sensitive and top secret documents on their latest technology that was used in the car to give it that competitive edge. No company has ever done that, and no company ever will. They promise to give you the finished working product, not the instruction manual on how you can replicate their product and put them out of business, so I dont understand your second point. And while there are licenses saying all this legal mumbo-jumbo, most of the ridiculous stuff (regarding physical ownership) has never been enforced because they know it would be unenforcable.

 

Movies = $20 for a one time view license.  

Games = $60 for an unlimited license.

Would you rather the gaming industry adopt a model similar to the film industry where they offer games for $20 for a single use license(Box Office) and then have a $40 license for unlimited use(Home Video).

But keep in mind, games (ever the shortest of which) are much longer than 1.5 - 2 hours.  Furthermore, the marketplace for gaming is such that playing such a game requires ownership of a secondary expensive product to facilitate play(a console).  So, perhaps to fix that we can string up a massive infrastructure of venues where the games can be played on the single use license(movie theater), and you can go visit those places to play your games.

Oh wait, this is all completely absurd.  Almost as absurd as trying to compare the film industry with the gaming industry.  They operate on two completely different business models and have vastly different market penetration.

KingsMessenger

Sorry man, do you forget that movies are also sold on DVD and Blu ray? Those are unlimited licenses. Pretty much what is happening is that the gaming industry is spending more money than they can afford, and then they are complaining when they go out of business. That's all there is to it. In any other business in the world, I learn to spend the money that makes sense for my profits. If your games are averaging 60million dollars in profit, then dont go spending 100 million to make the game. Its a gamble to you take plain and simple. Look at that new Will Smith movie, After Earth. It cost over 100mil to make and it made less than half of that. So should the movie company

A) Enforce new DRM to ensure that they can make more money from the movie

or

B) Not make a crappy movie the next time, or perhaps not spend as much money on a single movie that they are unsure about?

Pretty much what is happening here is the equivalent of you going to a casino, leaving with less money than you came in with, and then complaining that the Casino's should change their rules and make the pay out more and the winning ratio more. You came into the casino knowing what it was. So bet with the money you can afford to lose. Dont throw in all your money then complain when you leave broke.