Xbox One System Discussion

[plasmid303]

Yeah those are bad examples for arguing the death of used sales. Kingdoms of Alamur beats expectations sells 1.2 million but doesn't make money, how is that the used game market's fault? The game's budget was too large for the expected return. If you expect to sell 1 million units your budget should reflect that.

Warhammer, lets not get started on THQ, they were a terrible company who had many issues.

lets look at Tomb Raider reboot, it sold I think 3.5 million copies a series high. But Square Enix needed between 5-6 million for it to be profitable. Well lets look at that for a second, the game was great but it had a Multiplayer mode no one asked for or cared about. There are large problems in the industry and used games is just a scapegoat.

Dark Souls sells 2 million units is a hit with players and is a financial success. Because Namco Bandai were aware of the player base for this type of game from its predecessor Demon's Souls so the game's budget was set accordingly and marketed properly. Now they are saying for Dark Souls 2 they are treating it like a AAA title and trying to expand it's player base so now the odds are Dark Souls 2 a game that will never appeal to the casual market will be considered a failure if it doesn't sell like 4 million units.

Every game has to have online because hey Call of Duty has online so does Halo and Gears and everyone loves these games....but people already have those games they may say I won't buy it unless it has online but in reality they already have their online games. Why would you want to play Warhammer a 3rd Person shooter that plays like Gears of War when you already have Gears of War. The people who are going to play Space Marine are Warhammer fans if you target them and budget accordingly you'll be fine. Expect it to sell like Gears of War (which I'm sure THQ expected) and your going to end up screwed.

Now do I think that publishers should get something out of Gamestop's used game business? Yes they should get a cut and that should have been worked out ages ago, instead we have used games as the latest in a line of reasons why games don't sell.

The people saying used games are the problem are the same who said rentals were killing the industry and that pirates were killing the industry. The industry is broken and instead of addressing the problems they are just trying to break it more in hopes that magically everything will be better.

Very well considered post, and I like that bit about unecessary multiplayer modes, which carries an extra dimension of irony because many developers shoehorn those modes into their games to discourage gamers from trading the game in.

 

[Serpentor]

Very well considered post, and I like that bit about unecessary multiplayer modes, which carries an extra dimension of irony because many developers shoehorn those modes into their games to discourage gamers from trading the game in.

That's what I mean when I say broken industry, lets throw in Muliplayer so they won't trade it in spend X amount of extra dollars on the game. No one plays the MP portion and then your game falls short. I think after the first 2 weeks or 2 months or something Dead Space 2's Multiplayer was dead that didn't really help anyone, EA realized that was useless. So Dead Space 3 comes along you know why that had Co-op? One of the Producers on the game said I like Co-op games so Dead Space 3 is now a Co-op game. Add to that it has MICO TRANSACTIONS and yet Dead Space 3 didn't sell its 5 million copies to ensure a Dead Space 4.

Dead Space 2 proves that Dead Space is better off as single player game, producer decides it needs Co Op so more money gets spent developing the Co-Op mode, then they throw in micro transactions to make more money. But you know Used Games are the problem here.

 

[lerath666]

Exactly, I'm sure most games don't even reach a $10 million budget, so they don't need the same sale numbers to cover their costs, just like not all movies have multimillionaire budgets.

Those articles don't really add to your point, how does the used game market bear any guilt of a game not selling well? If a game is not selling well in the new game market you can be sure is not going to sell well on the used game market either.

And if a game doesn't sell well for whatever reason, the used games block will only provoke that even less people play said game because of the price.

And it's also unjustifiable the fact that they take away the rights over YOUR property, once you purchased the game, it's yours to dispose of it or re-sell it, that includes the intellectual property of that specific copy/disk you purchased, if I understand correctly.

I don't know how law in the US works, but maybe you can tell me if this is still in force:

"The first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. § 109, provides that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted work from the copyright holder receives the right to sell, display or otherwise dispose of that particular copy, notwithstanding the interests of the copyright owner."

I think this is where you and I are gettting hung up.

I get first sale doctorine. I get that once you've bought it, it's up to you to do whatever you like with it.

I'm Perfectly fine with people doing whatever they like with their own property

What I'm not fine with, is a middleman entity ( Gamestop, Bestbuy, etc) making Bank off someone elses work. While I don't have Exact figures, I know that my store made 70+% of it's buisness off used games, and there is speculation that gamestop might make as much as 90% of their profit off that.

THAT'S what's hurting the industry.

I don't see anything wrong with developers, OR publishers seeing a percentage of that used game sale.


I DO see a problem with charging the customer directly.

AND Before people complain about this hurting gamestop's bottom line, Lets take into account that they're making more money now than they ever have before, and last time I checked with my local store, they were paying their staff LESS than ever.

I see NO harm in requiring GAMESTOP and other RETAIL chains Being forced to kick back a small amount, say between 2-10% of thier used game proftis to the developers and/or publishers (who should then kick back part of that to the Developer if it goes through the publisher first) to aleviate what is a problem, whither people want to admit it or not.

Becuase if a publisher is making more money, they should then ( IN THEORY, practice might be another issue) be more willing to take more chances on risky, innovative games an Ideas, further enriching this hobby that we love. Instead of crapping out the latest sequel to last years cawadoodie.

Hey Darth Viper, if memory serves, youwork in the industry as well. can you back me up on some this?

As for private sales from citicens between each other, or loaning games, or selling on ebay? that's not a major retailer. it should be exempt. It's an individual, and should therefore be coverd under first sale doctorine.

 

[Serpentor]

I think this is where you and I are gettting hung up.

I get first sale doctorine. I get that once you've bought it, it's up to you to do whatever you like with it.

I'm Perfectly fine with people doing whatever they like with their own property

What I'm not fine with, is a middleman entity ( Gamestop, Bestbuy, etc) making Bank off someone elses work. While I don't have Exact figures, I know that my store made 70+% of it's buisness off used games, and there is speculation that gamestop might make as much as 90% of their profit off that.

THAT'S what's hurting the industry.

I don't see anything wrong with developers, OR publishers seeing a percentage of that used game sale.


I DO see a problem with charging the customer directly.

AND Before people complain about this hurting gamestop's bottom line, Lets take into account that they're making more money now than they ever have before, and last time I checked with my local store, they were paying their staff LESS than ever.

I see NO harm in requiring GAMESTOP and other RETAIL chains Being forced to kick back a small amount, say between 2-10% of thier used game proftis to the developers and/or publishers (who should then kick back part of that to the Developer if it goes through the publisher first) to aleviate what is a problem, whither people want to admit it or not.

Becuase if a publisher is making more money, they should then ( IN THEORY, practice might be another issue) be more willing to take more chances on risky, innovative games an Ideas, further enriching this hobby that we love. Instead of crapping out the latest sequel to last years cawadoodie.

Hey Darth Viper, if memory serves, youwork in the industry as well. can you back me up on some this?

As for private sales from citicens between each other, or loaning games, or selling on ebay? that's not a major retailer. it should be exempt. It's an individual, and should therefore be coverd under first sale doctorine.

I agree with you that Gamestop is not innocent in all of this, they give you like 30 dollars tops these days(at least here in Canada) for a game usually it will be COD, most other games are about 20-25. They sell it for 55. They make about 20-30 dollars off each used game the publisher on new games should get I'd say a 5 dollar cut per game. But Gamestop doesn't want to give up any profits nor do the publishers. But they keep bowing down to gamestop with all these exclusive pre order DLC. So they are part of the problem except when they are useful to drive pre order up.

The whole industry from the console makers, to the publishers to gamestop is a giant broken mess. And now because of greed and that's all this is we will no longer own any games, we are no longer buying property we are buying licenses and somehow this is suppose to fix things. If PS4 does the same thing, I hope no one buys any console and just sticks with the PS3 and 360 and then maybe, maybe everyone will wake up and realize the problems that exist. Maybe publishers will set budgets that are in line with expected sales, maybe gamestop will start giving that 10 percent back to publishers off their used games. And then maybe we'll own what we buy again. But sadly too many people are too willing to give up their rights these days.

 

[lerath666]

I buy a lot of games full priced, but you don't seem to understand that my arguement was that A LOT of people cannot afford to buy games full priced. And the concept of "full price" is fluid. People are more open to the idea of sub-$60 games. At $40, publishers/developers still make a good profit. This is something that the market should dictate.
.

This same argument is frequently made for Piracy as well. It's also a scapegoat of sorts. If you can't afford 60$ for a new game ( and I AGREE, it is too much, a 40$ new game pricepoint would be more thean sufficent, but that's a COMPLETELY different arguement) Then WAIT a few months, and get it when the price goes down. YES, it puts you behind the "new title curve" a little, but in the end you're still supporting the industry, and playing the games you want.

How many of you have a backlog of games you've not finished becuase every time a new one comes out, you go buy it?

how much money would you save if you waitied to get a new one untill you finished the old one?

Things to consider.

 

[wanderlai]

If MS tries to cram all this crap down everyone's throat and thinks they just take it they are in for a rude awakening.

 

[GasparZizou]

I think this is where you and I are gettting hung up.

I get first sale doctorine. I get that once you've bought it, it's up to you to do whatever you like with it.


I'm Perfectly fine with people doing whatever they like with their own property

What I'm not fine with, is a middleman entity ( Gamestop, Bestbuy, etc) making Bank off someone elses work. While I don't have Exact figures, I know that my store made 70+% of it's buisness off used games, and there is speculation that gamestop might make as much as 90% of their profit off that.

THAT'S what's hurting the industry.

I don't see anything wrong with developers, OR publishers seeing a percentage of that used game sale.

I do, that alone contradicts the 1st sale doctrine, it's simple, once you legally bought it or it was given to you as a gift, you own it, I can't emphasize that enough, thus reaching a conundrum since, axiomatically, Gamestop is not doing anything illegal or wrong, the wrong lies in the fact that GS pays laughably low prices for used games for then resell them at practically normal prices.

Regardless, I agree with you that rental chains are capitalizing of an honest traditional exchange that should be gamer-to-gamer mostly, but I still have a hard time believing the industry is hurting because of that.

AND Before people complain about this hurting gamestop's bottom line, Lets take into account that they're making more money now than they ever have before, and last time I checked with my local store, they were paying their staff LESS than ever.

I see NO harm in requiring GAMESTOP and other RETAIL chains Being forced to kick back a small amount, say between 2-10% of thier used game proftis to the developers and/or publishers (who should then kick back part of that to the Developer if it goes through the publisher first) to aleviate what is a problem, whither people want to admit it or not.

Except that that's not what's happening exactly, plus I still see no guilt on used games for the regrettable fact that GS employees are getting low salaries so GS can maximize their profit.

As for private sales from citicens between each other, or loaning games, or selling on ebay? that's not a major retailer. it should be exempt. It's an individual, and should therefore be covered under first sale doctorine.

Yup-

 

[darthviper107]

Halo 4 grossed $300 mill on launch week, it cost $60 mill to make.

There is no way to justify nor good reason to kill the used games market.

It's pure 100% concentrated greed.

It may have cost $60 million to make, but it can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to market. And the publisher has to look at their entire game offering as far as profit is concerned. So the successful games have to cover the loss of the failure games which means that they make far less profit than you think they do. On used games they also end up having to offer more support than they planned for, like if a game has multiplayer then they have to pay for the servers to support the gameplay. So if someone sells a game then it means that the developer has to support twice as much.

So it's not all greed, but I don't think it justifies doing something like this. If only for that it makes things way too complicated.

 

[FQRizzo]

When developers like EA get their cut of used game sales, guess where Gamestop is going to pass the buck? Gamers. You think trade in values are low now? Just wait.

 

[jonny88]

Ok... I'm going to put this out there, and it's a comment of a fairly sexual nature. But I think it needs to be brought up, and adressed, as people ARE thinking about it.

Males between the ages of 10-30 will play this thing. Some people have entertainment centers that already include Computers. I know I do.

Sometimes underage kids Look at porn, and /or do sexual things While looking at porn. It Happens. Deal with it.

By extension, this has set microsoft up to be the LARGEST collector of what amounts to child pronography in the world. As well as regular amature porn for that matter.

I wonder if they've thought that through

That has nothing to do with it. MS is not recording us with the kinect camera (apparently) so what we are doing inf ront of it doesn't matter, atleast l think. It can't be legal for the camera to be recording, and the footage being sent into a MS database.

The whole kinect thing is just ****ing stupid though. Why does it even need to be part of the console, why cant it be like the current xbox and kinect? It should be an accessory only if you want it for certain games.

 

[darthviper107]

When developers like EA get their cut of used game sales, guess where Gamestop is going to pass the buck? Gamers. You think trade in values are low now? Just wait.

Trade-in values shouldn't change since they're already too low, but the used game value will go up since it'll now be 3 groups getting a piece of that.

 

[GasparZizou]

It may have cost $60 million to make, but it can cost hundreds of millions of dollars to market. And the publisher has to look at their entire game offering as far as profit is concerned. So the successful games have to cover the loss of the failure games which means that they make far less profit than you think they do. On used games they also end up having to offer more support than they planned for, like if a game has multiplayer then they have to pay for the servers to support the gameplay. So if someone sells a game then it means that the developer has to support twice as much.

So it's not all greed, but I don't think it justifies doing something like this. If only for that it makes things way too complicated.

No, it cost $60 million INCLUDING marketing, promotion and advertising.

It is plain and simple greed.

 

[darthviper107]

Actually no, that was the stats for Halo 3

Marketing these days costs more than the game development. For instance, marketing for Modern Warfare 2 was $200 million

 

[GasparZizou]

Actually no, that was the stats for Halo 3

Marketing these days costs more than the game development. For instance, marketing for Modern Warfare 2 was $200 million

Yeah I know Halo 3 also cost 60$ million, but the word on the internet, since there's not an official figures yet, is that Halo 4 cost "a little more" than Halo 3, let me dig a little deeper though.

Edit: No luck, some people speculate that around $80 - $100, promotion included, which in fact doesn't alter my original point.

Although I did find a couple other examples of games that cost from $10 to $20 mill to make, and ended up profiting several times their cost. i.e. Uncharted 2.<

That MW2 marketing benchmark is crazy, certainly not a good example for an average game.

 

[darthviper107]

Games can cost quite much less--Gears of War was only made by like 30 people, and the upcoming Star Citizen is probably 20 million or so but very large in scope.

 

[jonny88]

Games can cost quite much less--Gears of War was only made by like 30 people.

Really, that's crazy. The First Gears is one of the best games ever made. The second was an alright sequal, the third sucked beyond belief. The prequal looks really stupid though as well.

 

[darthviper107]

It makes a big difference when the developer is the only one working on the project and they don't have so many expectations. That's why Star Citizen can be done with so much less money.

 

[Matt S]

I have no love of Gamestop, really. Don't care what happens to them - they take advantage of gamer's weaknesses by offering crappy trade in values, then make a killing off that.

That being said, no gamestop = zero competition in the used marked. Companies like EA will make Gamestop look like pu55y Cats

 

[I camp dbs]

Really, that's crazy. The First Gears is one of the best games ever made. The second was an alright sequal, the third sucked beyond belief. The prequal looks really stupid though as well.

3 is the shizz, 2 was rubbish, 1 was awesome for its time, judgement .....lol

 

[FQRizzo]

3 is the shizz, 2 was rubbish, 1 was awesome for its time, judgement .....lol

Gears 1 was the best. Obviously the game mechanics were more refined in the following two, but one had the best atmosphere and tone.