Cliffy B on XB1 DRM (Plus a jab at Gamespot....LOL)

 

Piracy is no why PC prices go down fast when speaking of the last 5 or so years. PC game prices go down because its an open platform open to competition from whom ever has the ability to join, is open to several different pricing structures and markets and the lack of publishing fees and physical distribution makes it several times easier to lower your price. Anyone who was gonna pirate your game isn't gonna give a shit if its 5 bucks when they were always gonna get it for 5 bucks cheaper.

ActicEdge

No is piracy and has been like that for enless years and still is,developers know that fresh games have a window of sales,if they miss that window they are screwed,so when teh game has a month or 2 you already see them $10 and $20 cheaper,depending on the game,by month 6 the game could be half price.

Is not about been open or not,games cost money to make on PC to regardless of how open the platform is.\

This is not new when games use to ship on CD on PC they hit lower prices soon to,i never ever payed $50 dollars on the PS1 or PS2 era for any of my PC games,and download only was something rare to not say non existent.

New PC games hardly are $40 or $50,most of them when are red hut on the the start of the window sales are $60.

http://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-4-Pc/dp/B00BXE4KYE

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003O6CB6S

http://www.amazon.com/Watch-Dogs-Pc/dp/B00BGHUS5S

Here 3 dollars on this one,you will not get this games on 5 dollars unless the sales windows is over.

[QUOTE="BPoole96"][QUOTE="Zophar87"]

Make a game so good that people don't want to trade-in.

Zophar87

That's odd. I'm looking at a shelf full of great games I'd never trade in.

...because...you know...they're great...

[QUOTE="Chutebox"]

He's an idiot.  Why does anyone expect to make money on the same product that was sold twice?  It doesn't and shouldn't happen.

If publishers and developers are finding it hard to make money, reduce the damn budget.

Edit:  Didn't read it, I assumed it was his twitter rants.  Doesn't change what I said though.

heeweesRus

I don't understand why people would rather give their money to gamestop instead of to the developers themselves. Mind boggling for me.

SexyJazzCat

People just like to be cheap regardless. They don't care who the money goes to as long as they can save some $$.

Ignore what everybody else says. They're just trying to justify being cheap.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="tormentos"]

 

 

The are huge and popular games on PC far far more than any console,sadly for hermit those games don't represent them in any way,more people play Candy Crush on facebook on PC than those who play any hardcore PC game,hell i would dare say more than several hardcore games combined..

PC gaming suffer allot from piracy,is the sole reason the prices go down way fast.

If game developers want to really put preasure on gamestop offer day one download like the PS3 did with several games,but do so at $10 or $15 under gamestop $60 price motivate the consumer to move and buy those games,but why would i download a damn 12GB game that will take me hours to download,and that i have to re download it if something bad happen and that i have no power to re self.?

I buy the retail one for $60 and play in just 10 minutes,gamestop is right around the courner of my house.

DontGetBigIdeas

Piracy is no why PC prices go down fast when speaking of the last 5 or so years. PC game prices go down because its an open platform open to competition from whom ever has the ability to join, is open to several different pricing structures and markets and the lack of publishing fees and physical distribution makes it several times easier to lower your price. Anyone who was gonna pirate your game isn't gonna give a shit if its 5 bucks when they were always gonna get it for 5 bucks cheaper.

If the used market were eliminated, the thought process is that pricing formats would change drastically, but considering EA and others mentioned they need to make cheaper, smaller games and then DIDNT, I can't say I trust anyone to really do it. that's why fans want the used market to stay alive. The truth about Steam sales is that the games that do go on sale are either very old, but beloved, indie or old AAA games with new version coming out soon. For example ACIII didn't go on sale during the Steam Winter sale, but AC1 and 2 did. It made sense and it paid off.

My hope is that with PS4/Xbox One, they see the value in this. Digital only isn't bad. You just need to give us a reason to go digital only. Microsoft's reason was "because we said so" and that's not good enough. What they should really do is put all their pre-order bonuses and beta access on the digital only copies. Make retail buyers have to purchase it seperately. Boom, there's your digital incentive right there and I'd be all for it on PS4 and Xbox One.

The used market exists because carrying games is risky for retailers because they don't make that much money off of new games and would actually make far more money using that space to stock something else. I don't blame retailers and as a person who plays games, it flat out benefits me as well. PC gaming is great but there is a barrier of entry that you don't have with a console and that is having a PC. Its downloading all your games, its being connected and its the lack of focus on multiple people playing ie local multiplayer. Steam sales are great but people around here over hype what actually goes on sale. Brand new games don't get dropped to 10 bucks. Games that have exhausted there value at their high price are the ones that get slashed to stupid low prices and by that time, the publisher is just seeing peanuts and that game is a non factor in their upcoming financial plan. Its just low to generate interest. 

Consoles can survive if publishers scale back the amount of games they laser focus at 18-35 year old males. You can't sell that crowd the same game forever and expect them to sustain the level of growth you want.

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

[QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"] The console market isn't going anywhere for at least another gen. PC isn't the end all be all people say it is because the majority of people don't have gaming PCs and those who are upgrading from their current low level PCs are replacing them with tablets. Tablets are the main competitor to gaming because of the ease of use/mobility and they appeal to the casual/Wii audience. After that, it's on consoles and PC to fight for the core market and that's what this gen will decide.DontGetBigIdeas

The console industry has been declining for years, and dozens of studios have closed their doors this gen as a result. Just look at the ratio of games released on consoles and PCs, or consoles and tablets. It's like 100:1 in favor of PC/Tablets.

Also, "Gaming PCs" don't matter. You can play the vast majority of PC games with a store-bought laptop these days. Someone not being able to play Crysis 3, or BF4 is not going to cripple the PC market. The PC market brings in more money than every other gaming market. It has worldwide appeal, and every single gamer can not only find something interesting on the PC, but something they can actually afford as well, and actually access at their leisure.

After reading this and watching the video link the Cliffy posted. I have a totally different stance.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

 

Piracy is no why PC prices go down fast when speaking of the last 5 or so years. PC game prices go down because its an open platform open to competition from whom ever has the ability to join, is open to several different pricing structures and markets and the lack of publishing fees and physical distribution makes it several times easier to lower your price. Anyone who was gonna pirate your game isn't gonna give a shit if its 5 bucks when they were always gonna get it for 5 bucks cheaper.

tormentos

No is piracy and has been like that for enless years and still is,developers know that fresh games have a window of sales,if they miss that window they are screwed,so when teh game has a month or 2 you already see them $10 and $20 cheaper,depending on the game,by month 6 the game could be half price.

Is not about been open or not,games cost money to make on PC to regardless of how open the platform is.\

This is not new when games use to ship on CD on PC they hit lower prices soon to,i never ever payed $50 dollars on the PS1 or PS2 era for any of my PC games,and download only was something rare to not say non existent.

New PC games hardly are $40 or $50,most of them when are red hut on the the start of the window sales are $60.

http://www.amazon.com/Battlefield-4-Pc/dp/B00BXE4KYE

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003O6CB6S

http://www.amazon.com/Watch-Dogs-Pc/dp/B00BGHUS5S

Here 3 dollars on this one,you will not get this games on 5 dollars unless the sales windows is over.

Dude. That is a mirror of the console industry exactly. It has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with games simply depreciating in value extremely quickly.

[QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"]

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

Piracy is no why PC prices go down fast when speaking of the last 5 or so years. PC game prices go down because its an open platform open to competition from whom ever has the ability to join, is open to several different pricing structures and markets and the lack of publishing fees and physical distribution makes it several times easier to lower your price. Anyone who was gonna pirate your game isn't gonna give a shit if its 5 bucks when they were always gonna get it for 5 bucks cheaper.

ActicEdge

If the used market were eliminated, the thought process is that pricing formats would change drastically, but considering EA and others mentioned they need to make cheaper, smaller games and then DIDNT, I can't say I trust anyone to really do it. that's why fans want the used market to stay alive. The truth about Steam sales is that the games that do go on sale are either very old, but beloved, indie or old AAA games with new version coming out soon. For example ACIII didn't go on sale during the Steam Winter sale, but AC1 and 2 did. It made sense and it paid off.

My hope is that with PS4/Xbox One, they see the value in this. Digital only isn't bad. You just need to give us a reason to go digital only. Microsoft's reason was "because we said so" and that's not good enough. What they should really do is put all their pre-order bonuses and beta access on the digital only copies. Make retail buyers have to purchase it seperately. Boom, there's your digital incentive right there and I'd be all for it on PS4 and Xbox One.

The used market exists because carrying games is risky for retailers because they don't make that much money off of new games and would actually make far more money using that space to stock something else. I don't blame retailers and as a person who plays games, it flat out benefits me as well. PC gaming is great but there is a barrier of entry that you don't have with a console and that is having a PC. Its downloading all your games, its being connected and its the lack of focus on multiple people playing ie local multiplayer. Steam sales are great but people around here over hype what actually goes on sale. Brand new games don't get dropped to 10 bucks. Games that have exhausted there value at their high price are the ones that get slashed to stupid low prices and by that time, the publisher is just seeing peanuts and that game is a non factor in their upcoming financial plan. Its just low to generate interest. 

Consoles can survive if publishers scale back the amount of games they laser focus at 18-35 year old males. You can't sell that crowd the same game forever and expect them to sustain the level of growth you want.

 

NPD 2012

"Both December and the year as a whole were down 22 percent from their respective 2011"

NPD 2011

"All metrics -- videogame hardware, software, and accessories -- were down in December as compared with December 2010, and ditto for 2011 as compared with 2010"

NPD 2010

"Tracking results from the NPD Group for new U.S. retail video game sales in December showed industry revenues for the important December sales period shrinking 9 percent compared to the same month last year, leaving the industry down 5 percent for the entire year"

NPD 2009

"U.S. retail sales of video games, which includes portable and console hardware, software and accessories, generated revenues of close to $19.66 billion, an 8 percent decline over the $21.4 billion generated in 2008. "

Ly_the_Fairy

Yeah year over year the sales are down,but that is because MS and sony refuse to lower the price of their units accordingly,by its 4 year the original xbox was $129 the PS2 by its almost 6 year was also $129,both of the console now are $200 or more and are on theyr 8 and 7 year.

Hell the PS2 by 2002 was $199,on 2002 the PS2 was 2 year old.

So even with a stiffer price tag this generation of consoles in 8 years surpass it the PS2 generation by 43 million units..

Hell do i have to bring that the PS3 was $600 damn dollars.?

In relation to PC that would be the equivalent of PC gamers buying a $4,000 dollar PC,the PS3 was double the price of its 2 oldest brothers,and still this generation outsold last one by many millions.?

Consoles are not going any where.

I read it and don't care what he said about GS. The guy makes a lot of sense. Gamers want theyre cake and have it too. look at the complaints about no family sharing on x1 now. Think about that. I buy a game, share it with 10 people on my list, then lend the disc to Charlie and he does the same. that's 22 people playing a game on one sale. How is that good for the game industry?cainetao11

As much as I disagree with Cliffy, what can I say?  I can disagree but the fact remains he sees the inner workings of this industry.  He has experience, he knows the ropes of development.  I'm simply a Joe Blow......perhaps  he's right?  What's going on with gaming worries me, because of the two sides I don't know which would ultimately be healthier for this industry to thrive.  Would I rather give up some of the rights I've long held if it meant gaming could flourish, or would I rather retain them and (if he's correct) watch it struggle?

I can't argue with someone so involved and with such history in gaming development with any accuracy or foundation.  In the end I can only hope that he's wrong but considering his and my history, I have no idea.

[QUOTE="Ly_the_Fairy"]

 

NPD 2012

"Both December and the year as a whole were down 22 percent from their respective 2011"

NPD 2011

"All metrics -- videogame hardware, software, and accessories -- were down in December as compared with December 2010, and ditto for 2011 as compared with 2010"

NPD 2010

"Tracking results from the NPD Group for new U.S. retail video game sales in December showed industry revenues for the important December sales period shrinking 9 percent compared to the same month last year, leaving the industry down 5 percent for the entire year"

NPD 2009

"U.S. retail sales of video games, which includes portable and console hardware, software and accessories, generated revenues of close to $19.66 billion, an 8 percent decline over the $21.4 billion generated in 2008. "

tormentos

Yeah year over year the sales are down,but that is because MS and sony refuse to lower the price of their units accordingly,by its 4 year the original xbox was $129 the PS2 by its almost 6 year was also $129,both of the console now are $200 or more and are on theyr 8 and 7 year.

Hell the PS2 by 2002 was $199,on 2002 the PS2 was 2 year old.

So even with a stiffer price tag this generation of consoles in 8 years surpass it the PS2 generation by 43 million units..

Hell do i have to bring that the PS3 was $600 damn dollars.?

In relation to PC that would be the equivalent of PC gamers buying a $4,000 dollar PC,the PS3 was double the price of its 2 oldest brothers,and still this generation outsold last one by many millions.?

Consoles are not going any where.

[QUOTE="cainetao11"]I read it and don't care what he said about GS. The guy makes a lot of sense. Gamers want theyre cake and have it too. look at the complaints about no family sharing on x1 now. Think about that. I buy a game, share it with 10 people on my list, then lend the disc to Charlie and he does the same. that's 22 people playing a game on one sale. How is that good for the game industry?xscrapzx

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"] PC Games also don't have to do major in-store marketing campaigns like console games do, as well as digital distribution is cheaper and thus cutting the price 30% twice a year still makes the game profitable. Also, dropping the price on your game and getting more people familiar with your franchise (and potential DLC) can lead to more future sales. The reason consoles can't do this is the used market.

If the used market were eliminated, the thought process is that pricing formats would change drastically, but considering EA and others mentioned they need to make cheaper, smaller games and then DIDNT, I can't say I trust anyone to really do it. that's why fans want the used market to stay alive. The truth about Steam sales is that the games that do go on sale are either very old, but beloved, indie or old AAA games with new version coming out soon. For example ACIII didn't go on sale during the Steam Winter sale, but AC1 and 2 did. It made sense and it paid off.

My hope is that with PS4/Xbox One, they see the value in this. Digital only isn't bad. You just need to give us a reason to go digital only. Microsoft's reason was "because we said so" and that's not good enough. What they should really do is put all their pre-order bonuses and beta access on the digital only copies. Make retail buyers have to purchase it seperately. Boom, there's your digital incentive right there and I'd be all for it on PS4 and Xbox One.

DontGetBigIdeas

The used market exists because carrying games is risky for retailers because they don't make that much money off of new games and would actually make far more money using that space to stock something else. I don't blame retailers and as a person who plays games, it flat out benefits me as well. PC gaming is great but there is a barrier of entry that you don't have with a console and that is having a PC. Its downloading all your games, its being connected and its the lack of focus on multiple people playing ie local multiplayer. Steam sales are great but people around here over hype what actually goes on sale. Brand new games don't get dropped to 10 bucks. Games that have exhausted there value at their high price are the ones that get slashed to stupid low prices and by that time, the publisher is just seeing peanuts and that game is a non factor in their upcoming financial plan. Its just low to generate interest. 

Consoles can survive if publishers scale back the amount of games they laser focus at 18-35 year old males. You can't sell that crowd the same game forever and expect them to sustain the level of growth you want.

I actually just straight up disagree. I know its hard for people to swallow but no human being has time to play all the games focused at the 18-35 males demographic. Publishers need to expand their range and stop focusing on delivering high quality content to exclusively that demographic. We can't buy all of it to keep developers of mid tier games alive at they level they want. Its not possible, it makes no sense why they don't scale back and focus on making a broader range of content. Shit like Far Cry or Cod that has multi million dollar marketing campaigns and massive AAA developers are not in trouble. You never hear Activision, EA or Ubi say, Cod, Battlefield or Far Cry underperfomed. Its all the middle of the pack stuff that crashes and burns. In the same notion, video game developers should suck up their dreams because you're gonna constantly be outta a job if all you wanna do is chase triple A games. You can't all make them, they don't all review like them and the market can't support every one of your attempts. Sorry.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="cainetao11"]I read it and don't care what he said about GS. The guy makes a lot of sense. Gamers want theyre cake and have it too. look at the complaints about no family sharing on x1 now. Think about that. I buy a game, share it with 10 people on my list, then lend the disc to Charlie and he does the same. that's 22 people playing a game on one sale. How is that good for the game industry?DontGetBigIdeas

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="cainetao11"]I read it and don't care what he said about GS. The guy makes a lot of sense. Gamers want theyre cake and have it too. look at the complaints about no family sharing on x1 now. Think about that. I buy a game, share it with 10 people on my list, then lend the disc to Charlie and he does the same. that's 22 people playing a game on one sale. How is that good for the game industry?DontGetBigIdeas

Wasn't it just sharing within family and NOT friends?

I read it and don't care what he said about GS. The guy makes a lot of sense. Gamers want theyre cake and have it too. look at the complaints about no family sharing on x1 now. Think about that. I buy a game, share it with 10 people on my list, then lend the disc to Charlie and he does the same. that's 22 people playing a game on one sale. How is that good for the game industry?cainetao11

I agree in that gamers demand too much but that's only because when you have the world handed to you anything less is not acceptable. The X1 sharing thing being gone is flat out fine imo. Like the whole point of the service (which I don't even believe was gonna be without a hitch) was to lend games out since they took away our right to get used and borrow. Now we have it back, why should they give us extra? 

[QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

The used market exists because carrying games is risky for retailers because they don't make that much money off of new games and would actually make far more money using that space to stock something else. I don't blame retailers and as a person who plays games, it flat out benefits me as well. PC gaming is great but there is a barrier of entry that you don't have with a console and that is having a PC. Its downloading all your games, its being connected and its the lack of focus on multiple people playing ie local multiplayer. Steam sales are great but people around here over hype what actually goes on sale. Brand new games don't get dropped to 10 bucks. Games that have exhausted there value at their high price are the ones that get slashed to stupid low prices and by that time, the publisher is just seeing peanuts and that game is a non factor in their upcoming financial plan. Its just low to generate interest. 

Consoles can survive if publishers scale back the amount of games they laser focus at 18-35 year old males. You can't sell that crowd the same game forever and expect them to sustain the level of growth you want.

ActicEdge

I actually just straight up disagree. I know its hard for people to swallow but no human being has time to play all the games focused at the 18-35 males demographic. Publishers need to expand their range and stop focusing on delivering high quality content to exclusively that demographic. We can't buy all of it to keep developers of mid tier games alive at they level they want. Its not possible, it makes no sense why they don't scale back and focus on making a broader range of content. Shit like Far Cry or Cod that has multi million dollar marketing campaigns and massive AAA developers are not in trouble. You never hear Activision, EA or Ubi say, Cod, Battlefield or Far Cry underperfomed. Its all the middle of the pack stuff that crashes and burns. In the same notion, video game developers should suck up their dreams because you're gonna constantly be outta a job if all you wanna do is chase triple A games. You can't all make them, they don't all review like them and the market can't support every one of your attempts. Sorry.

Say, if I buy one game and end up not liking it, must I be obligated to keep it forever?Vatusus

Retailers and publishers have the full right not to except returns or trade-ins. If you open a movie or PC game you cannot return it.

How do you not know this? Do you live in Europe or something?

[QUOTE="Vatusus"]Say, if I buy one game and end up not liking it, must I be obligated to keep it forever?Jebus213

Retailers and publishers have the full right not to except returns or trade-ins.

How do you not know this? Do you live in Europe or something?

who's saying anything about retailers or publishers? I must be able to sell it on ebay or somethin. I bought it, I must be able to do with it w/e I want. simple

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="Vatusus"]Say, if I buy one game and end up not liking it, must I be obligated to keep it forever?Vatusus

Retailers and publishers have the full right not to except returns or trade-ins.

How do you not know this? Do you live in Europe or something?

who's saying anything about retailers or publishers? I must be able to sell it on ebay or somethin. I bought it, I must be able to do with it w/e I want. simple

Sure you can sell on Ebay or Amazon. Nobody is keeping you from doing that. It just won't let the person who's buying it play the game.

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"] If anyone actually believes that Publishers were going to let one person buy a game, and then share the full game to 10 more people and lose out on $600 worth of sales, they're kidding themselves. The share program sounded way too good to be true and it most likely is if rumors about it are correct.DontGetBigIdeas

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"] 100% agree but its not that they don't want to sell tot he 18-35 males. It's more that in between AAA games, they need smaller budget games to fill time. For example Blood Dragon sold very well and it was a 15 dollar downloadable game. Think about if Ubisoft could release FarCry 3, have Blood Dragon in the wings, then have their next game a few months after that. That seems a bit more reasonable because Blood Dragon was made very quickly, used the FC3 engine so it didn't need any massive new tech and it was an unique idea with true inspiration behind it. That's a recipe for success.DontGetBigIdeas

I actually just straight up disagree. I know its hard for people to swallow but no human being has time to play all the games focused at the 18-35 males demographic. Publishers need to expand their range and stop focusing on delivering high quality content to exclusively that demographic. We can't buy all of it to keep developers of mid tier games alive at they level they want. Its not possible, it makes no sense why they don't scale back and focus on making a broader range of content. Shit like Far Cry or Cod that has multi million dollar marketing campaigns and massive AAA developers are not in trouble. You never hear Activision, EA or Ubi say, Cod, Battlefield or Far Cry underperfomed. Its all the middle of the pack stuff that crashes and burns. In the same notion, video game developers should suck up their dreams because you're gonna constantly be outta a job if all you wanna do is chase triple A games. You can't all make them, they don't all review like them and the market can't support every one of your attempts. Sorry.

There can't be a between. If they want to make smaller titles they have to take people off AAA titles. Otherwise they have to expand and that would flat out be dumb. That's what I'm saying publisher have to STOP making as many AAA games as they currently do and expand to other areas. Diversify into other demographics if they want their current method to work. Its not about buying time, its just about selling to profit well. If publishers wanted games out in a year they would hire 1000 person teams and they could get that done. That's outrageously expensive to do however. If you want more diversit in games, you really either want indie games or you want less AAA blockbuster games. You CAN'T have both, there is no market for it proven by this generation.

[QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"][QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

I actually just straight up disagree. I know its hard for people to swallow but no human being has time to play all the games focused at the 18-35 males demographic. Publishers need to expand their range and stop focusing on delivering high quality content to exclusively that demographic. We can't buy all of it to keep developers of mid tier games alive at they level they want. Its not possible, it makes no sense why they don't scale back and focus on making a broader range of content. Shit like Far Cry or Cod that has multi million dollar marketing campaigns and massive AAA developers are not in trouble. You never hear Activision, EA or Ubi say, Cod, Battlefield or Far Cry underperfomed. Its all the middle of the pack stuff that crashes and burns. In the same notion, video game developers should suck up their dreams because you're gonna constantly be outta a job if all you wanna do is chase triple A games. You can't all make them, they don't all review like them and the market can't support every one of your attempts. Sorry.

ActicEdge

There can't be a between. If they want to make smaller titles they have to take people off AAA titles. Otherwise they have to expand and that would flat out be dumb. That's what I'm saying publisher have to STOP making as many AAA games as they currently do and expand to other areas. Diversify into other demographics if they want their current method to work. Its not about buying time, its just about selling to profit well. If publishers wanted games out in a year they would hire 1000 person teams and they could get that done. That's outrageously expensive to do however. If you want more diversit in games, you really either want indie games or you want less AAA blockbuster games. You CAN'T have both, there is no market for it proven by this generation.

You don't need to take 50 members from The Last of Us and shove them into a new team to make that small game you want. You just need a developer with an idea that really doesn't require a ton of funding, and the help of a publisher to get the game out there. The main reason small developers have so much trouble in getting their games out there, and turn to Steam, is that they need Publishers to get them on the consoles. Now Publishers are actively seeking those players out to join them and work on smaller projects to buy the AAA guys time.

This generation hasn't proven this model can't work because this model is only beginning right now.

I completely sympathize with what he is trying to convey and I think it is probably the MOST intelligent piece written on the subject of DRM.

What I rebuke his argument with is the fact that no business should be guaranteed success.  The publishers are gambling big to get a big payoff rather than acting in a sustainable manner.  The gamers don't deserve the punishment for that.

This whole time, the subtle pointing of the finger at gamers for wanting bigger and better games belies the fact that gamers ARE buying games like Minecraft and all kinds of smaller games by the ton.  These publishers are waging war on each other and ballooning budgets based off of a false premise.  That is what has to stop.  Gamestop is just a convenient scapegoat when you're not willing to accept the problem is just bad thinking within the industry.

Just lower the budget? Do you understand how silly you sound right now?

heeweesRus

All you have to do is look towards something like Assassin's Creed. Post brotherhood, the scope has expanded and the quality has decreased over the years. Look at Resident Evil 6 too. The game received poor critical reception, still sold 5 million copies, but underperformed for Capcom. If you're game sells 5 million copies and still isn't making enough profit for you to break even, there is something deeply wrong with the current "AAA" strategy.

So yes it was going to happen, I don't see why it is being seen as a fairy tale.xscrapzx

As far as i know it was confirmed to be a 1h max length demo of the said game.

Anyways, CliffyB does make alot of sense in some areas and so does TotalBiscuit but using TB's own words "let me shoot that full of holes for you".

For the people that didn't see TB's 30 min vid, here are his major points:

- Game (europe equivalent to Gamestop) pushes it's workers to aggressively try and make sales of used games OVER new ones because they get almost ALL of the cut.

-He claims people compare dvd's/blurays and cd's to used games and makes very solid points about artists not relying on the cd copies for most of the income but royalties instead (among other things) also movies making most of the investment back in the box office with bluray sales comming as a plus.

It's true that game sales is the primary income source for publishers/devs, but most of them put their greed before the consumer.

I'm a pc gamer, and yet i'm forced to buy a console to play alot of games. Why? Because apparently it's the platform with the biggest ammount of piracy, even thou the second hand market i also little to non-existent.

It also has the best game selling services (Steam, GoG, ...) providing alot of games with GUARANTEED income for pub/devs.

Not like cd/dvd's which can be run on whatever player we buy for them, they also try to reach as much countries as possible... So right there game companies are shooting themselves in the foot by opting not the enter potentially profitable markets. (I can understand studios subsidized by sony/ms, but what about console multiplats?)

So they go to consoles and then realize "oh no, used games sales are the devil's plot!"

So what do they do to combat that? Online passes! On-disc DLC!

NO! Why don't you give us sweet deals like steam does, games at such great prices that people would rather buy them new than used!

Why is it that the pc doesn't have a second hand market but consoles do? Perhaps it's because console companies and devs can't communicate well enough to provide GOOD value that makes the consumer want to buy the product new rather than used...

Do you know how many times i see rock band dlc at discounted prices? very LITTLE and that's only because Harmonix (RB dev) bother themselves to do so. If there were sales on that very frequently on psn i would have probably spent alot more money on that...

Then there are country policies... why is it that RB discs in US are different than EU? If i buy dlc in the US store i can't use it in my game... making us unable to benefit from all discounts... steam sales are for everyone!

And lastly why aren't there insane summer sales like steam does... steam still sells old games, if Sony could get some servers selling digital copies of games like Valkyria Chronicles or MGS4 etc... at irresistible prices they could still be cashing in on that...

In my eyes it's console companies and game devs who are at fault here, why are you trying to bully us around with "24h check in" every day or preventing us to borrow our physical disc? Why aren't you making digital deals SO FRICKIN GOOD that we'd rather buy it online than at the store? If you can make exclusive dlc for gamestop (god... i hate that) then why aren't you giving us so much more from buying from YOU!

 For the record i haven't bought used games for a while, i just wait on the games i want to drop their price and buy them new, which coupled with PS+ makes it enough for me (i also game mostly on pc).

Also LOL at "My money is on the PC, mobile and tablets for the near future."

Let us reminisce a little bit here:

Epic's Cliff Bleszinski has said that the studio is focusing on producing console titles for the time being, claiming PC gaming is currently in "disarray".
"I think people would rather make a game that sells 4.5 million copies than a million and Gears is at 4.5 million right now on the 360," he told MTV Multiplayer.
"I think the PC is just in disarray... What's driving the PC right now is Sims-type games and WOW and a lot of stuff that's in a web-based interface. You just click on it and play it. That's the direction PC is evolving into."
"For me, the PC is kind of the secondary part of what we're doing," confirmed Bleszinski. "It's important for us, but right now making AAA games on consoles is where we're at."
Bleszinski declined to name said games, refusing to be drawn on a much-rumoured sequel to the multi-million selling global hit Gears of War. However, he did say Epic is sticking to making games for the demographic it's familiar with.
"I don't want to win over [someone's] little college sister, because that's not the kind of game I do," he said. "I'm not going to make f***ing Cooking Mama."

No wonder he worked at MS, both seem very quick to change their minds...

[QUOTE="SexyJazzCat"]

I don't understand why people would rather give their money to gamestop instead of to the developers themselves. Mind boggling for me.

Jebus213

People just like to be cheap regardless. They don't care who the money goes to as long as they can save some $$.

Ignore what everybody else says. They're just trying to justify being cheap.

I completely sympathize with what he is trying to convey and I think it is probably the MOST intelligent piece written on the subject of DRM.

 

What I rebuke his argument with is the fact that no business should be guaranteed success.  The publishers are gambling big to get a big payoff rather than acting in a sustainable manner.  The gamers don't deserve the punishment for that.

 

This whole time, the subtle pointing of the finger at gamers for wanting bigger and better games belies the fact that gamers ARE buying games like Minecraft and all kinds of smaller games by the ton.  These publishers are waging war on each other and ballooning budgets based off of a false premise.  That is what has to stop.  Gamestop is just a convenient scapegoat when you're not willing to accept the problem is just bad thinking within the industry.

Shewgenja

.

[QUOTE="ActicEdge"]

[QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"] That's not really what I'm getting at. I'm saying that in between their big AAA titles, they need diverse titles that are smaller, appeal to both the 18-35 ages (who are their bread and butter) AND more people, and to spend less time focusing on making a new Call of Duty when they can bring new IPs in the mix to give franchises time to work. That's why I brought up Blood Dragon. It was a FPS built on a AAA games' engine that appealed to hardcore gamers, Far Cry fans, old school gamers who like nostalgia and it was cheap to make and sold cheaply. It sold very well. It's just one example of how you can use a smaller game to buy time for other, larger games. The problem is, making diverse games with new IPs and ideas, is very risky and gamers don't flock en masse to new IPs, hence why Publishers are hesitant to just churn out a ton of new IPs late in a console generation.DontGetBigIdeas

There can't be a between. If they want to make smaller titles they have to take people off AAA titles. Otherwise they have to expand and that would flat out be dumb. That's what I'm saying publisher have to STOP making as many AAA games as they currently do and expand to other areas. Diversify into other demographics if they want their current method to work. Its not about buying time, its just about selling to profit well. If publishers wanted games out in a year they would hire 1000 person teams and they could get that done. That's outrageously expensive to do however. If you want more diversit in games, you really either want indie games or you want less AAA blockbuster games. You CAN'T have both, there is no market for it proven by this generation.

You don't need to take 50 members from The Last of Us and shove them into a new team to make that small game you want. You just need a developer with an idea that really doesn't require a ton of funding, and the help of a publisher to get the game out there. The main reason small developers have so much trouble in getting their games out there, and turn to Steam, is that they need Publishers to get them on the consoles. Now Publishers are actively seeking those players out to join them and work on smaller projects to buy the AAA guys time.

This generation hasn't proven this model can't work because this model is only beginning right now.

Wait, so you're suggesting that publishers that can't even make money right now go and hire more staff or fund more projects? :| That's not smart. Indie studios aren't going to be where billion dollar publishers look for man power either. And no, the model does not work. You can keep saying it does but go look at the financials of EA, Take 2, Ubi, they are atrocious. I don't get what you are insinuating? AAA games need to die down in numbers, its not about filling in spacing in scheduling because the 18-35 year old male demographic can't support that number of titles aimed directly at them. THEY CAN'T. The amount of developers closed down or experiencing excessive lay offs because of it are enormous. I think you're unaware of the financials you're supporting, if I had shares in any of these companies, I would demand EA stop producing Dead Space for example. This series is a collosal waste of money. Focus your effort on something else.

[QUOTE="cainetao11"]I read it and don't care what he said about GS. The guy makes a lot of sense. Gamers want theyre cake and have it too. look at the complaints about no family sharing on x1 now. Think about that. I buy a game, share it with 10 people on my list, then lend the disc to Charlie and he does the same. that's 22 people playing a game on one sale. How is that good for the game industry?xscrapzx

 [QUOTE="heeweesRus"]

Just lower the budget? Do you understand how silly you sound right now?

Haziqonfire

All you have to do is look towards something like Assassin's Creed. Post brotherhood, the scope has expanded and the quality has decreased over the years. Look at Resident Evil 6 too. The game received poor critical reception, still sold 5 million copies, but underperformed for Capcom. If you're game sells 5 million copies and still isn't making enough profit for you to break even, there is something deeply wrong with the current "AAA" strategy.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="SexyJazzCat"]

I don't understand why people would rather give their money to gamestop instead of to the developers themselves. Mind boggling for me.

no-scope-AK47

People just like to be cheap regardless. They don't care who the money goes to as long as they can save some $$.

Ignore what everybody else says. They're just trying to justify being cheap.

Modern gamer entitlement is disgusting.^

They're out to make profit. Buisness is buisness.

Xbox One's DRM was completely stupid. A 24 hour check in is completely unnecessary and a burden nobody would want to deal with. But I'd have no issue if they put a complete stop to used games, returns, and trading if simply opening up the game voids the warranty.

[QUOTE="DontGetBigIdeas"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"] There were restrictions with it though, only one person could play it at one time. AND it was up to the publisher if they would allow said scenario. So yes it was going to happen, I don't see why it is being seen as a fairy tale.xscrapzx

He's making the horrible assumption that people would buy this game at regular retail price.

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/53457606850/brutal-honest-thoughts-on-this-whole-debacle

I LOL'ed at the Gamespot jab....Great read.

timbers_WSU

hmmmm.

1.Developers need to stop having budgets that get them into trouble, marketing dollars are fine but getting voice actors that cost loads of money, and trying to push the graphics of your game every single time thus requiring large development teams is a problem.
2. He is right about gamestop pushing for used game sales they're claims of helping new game sales truly are shown for lies when you enter into any gamestop and the first word when you bring up a new copy of a game to purchase is we have that used for "enter money amount" less.
3. Used games are only good on the small scale mom and pop stores, once you go global and control a market and actively push for used sales over new you hinder the new sales aspect of the business.

He's an idiot.  Why does anyone expect to make money on the same product that was sold twice?  It doesn't and shouldn't happen.

If publishers and developers are finding it hard to make money, reduce the damn budget.

Edit:  Didn't read it, I assumed it was his twitter rants.  Doesn't change what I said though.

Chutebox

He clarified that stance. There's nothing wrong with the notion of 'used games'. However, it is the business practices associated with it which he has a problem with. When a game is sold at 60 bucks, retailers like Gamestop may only get a 20 dollar profit. However, if they take a used game off your hands for 5 bucks, and resell it at 55 bucks, they make a 50 dollar profit. Naturally, Gamestop would prefer used games sales over new sales for that very reason. And as such, Gamestop literally pushes for used sales and their managers are told to prioritize a used game sale whenever possible. This is a typical example of a concept that isn't fundamentally bad, but thoroughly exploited in a capitalistic way. DLC is no different. What's wrong with extra content for a price? Nothing wrong at all. However, developers have moved way past that, and are now withholding content from us (which should be complimentary in the first place)....for a price. Metro: Last Light's Ranger mode is a classic example of that. Since when is it 'okay' to withhold a difficulty setting unless we pay extra?

the guy is a total moron scrambling to save his nexr 10 years

kingoflife9