Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Go **** yourself THQ
Options
Comments
-
Grumpypants wrote: »Dear Developers,
I will stop trading in my games if you promise to make games that i want to play for longer than one day.
That is all.
Kind Regards,
Grumpy.
Dear Grumpy,
Seeing as you haven't paid us for these games you complain about, we don't care about what you want.
That is all.
Kind Regards,
Publishers.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,154 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 27866
Games should be as long as they need to be. Some games have provided six hours of play and been worth every cent. Others have provided one hundred repetitive ones and been barely worth a tenner.
Games are more than a product that should be measured as cost vs content.0 -
hooradiation wrote: »Dear Grumpy,
Seeing as you haven't paid us for these games you complain about, we don't care about what you want.
That is all.
Kind Regards,
Publishers.
A simplistic yet completely incorrect response.
I actually did pay for the games as i bought them all new delivering loads of money to the publishers who then give a % to the devs, i then used the facility to sell that old game on to subsidize the cost of even more new games Increasing the number of new games i bought ten fold. Generating even more money for the publishers who then gave even more money to the devs saying build us more games we are selling loads of new games. The dev said yippee with all this money we can hire more people to build even better games, the publisher said wow even better games that's great people like better games we will sell loads of them.
Reducing the number of games i will buy by a factor of 10 really will not help the industry.0 -
You think DLC is created with a magic wand?
Spare parts are made to replace existing parts and are not an option. DLC is new content and is entirely optional, regardless of the quality. The comparison is therefore invalid.
A few posters have already dealt with this. The reasons (in context) range from car purchases being far larger than a game, to the product being designed to last a lot longer to and most importantly the fact that their existance helps drive the demand for the replacement parts. The markup on which, I can only imagine, is "considerable".
This is total nonsense and again has been refuted in a number of threads. Games have not increased in price yet the development costs have risen astronomically. Therefore the people who are hurting are the publishers/developers as their margins are what is being cut, not the retailers. The larger retailers jumped on the second hand market for one reason and one reason only, massive profits. As has been posted before, Gamestop, one of the biggest culprits in this case, has seen approximately 50% of their profits come from the second hand market. That's two billion dollars. And you want to blame publishers for "pushing" them in this direction?
Well knowing you on boards.ie, I know that you will defend game developers even f they will use baby blood just for ****s and giggles.
Both: retailer and developer are not saint. Bouth of them a bigger piece of ham, so they fight with each other Any way the can. This is world of money, so they will do anything to make more money.
I wont bother the qoute every single sentence, as I cannot be arsed and it's a pain in the hole on phone, but you just completely missing the whole point. Yes it's not 100% similar and have their own way of doing, but in the end they got same outcome. If you want to argue and just prove me I am wrong just for the sale of it, then have fun.
Removing second hand games out of market won't influence me at all, as i almost always buy new and most of my games are for pc. I did not bought dark souls on launch, because it was expencive, but now I bought it new when it came down in price and developer got my money.
Thing is developers are going all so twisted in their pants and going with even more annoying **** for paying customer. I am all for online passes if needed. It works. It gives money to developer from a copy they sold already, it hurts GameStop as they can't sell it for that much anymore and have to drop prices as gamers don't buy second hand of they want play online. I wonder how many second hand copies of bf3 are in gamestops rotting away?
Developers should make really good quality games, so that people would not trade them in. Wtf can they expect if they sell a 4-5 hour game for 50eu, which has no reply value. It is very arguable, but games like mw2 or black ops were very very rare as second hand games. Why? Because they were good and popular so people did not wanted to trade them in, and the fella who wanted to play it had to go for brand new copy and pay full price to developer ( quality of cod games is a subject and sensitive matter lol ), because there were no second hand copies. ( if he was a cheap bastord in first place ).
If developers would have more quality products, that people would hold on to, then second hand market would not be such big problem. You don't see many good games I second hand shelfs. So yeah, bouth did a **** up: developers and retailers. No saints there.0 -
ShadowHearth wrote: »Well knowing you on boards.ie, I know that you will defend game developers even f they will use baby blood just for ****s and giggles.
As johnny_ultimate already said, I'm not in favour of completely abolishing second hand sales but at the same time I cannot, on any level, support the current practices of the larger retailers.ShadowHearth wrote: »Both: retailer and developer are not saint. Bouth of them a bigger piece of ham, so they fight with each other Any way the can. This is world of money, so they will do anything to make more money.ShadowHearth wrote: »I wont bother the qoute every single sentence, as I cannot be arsed and it's a pain in the hole on phone, but you just completely missing the whole point. Yes it's not 100% similar and have their own way of doing, but in the end they got same outcome. If you want to argue and just prove me I am wrong just for the sale of it, then have fun.ShadowHearth wrote: »Developers should make really good quality games, so that people would not trade them in. Wtf can they expect if they sell a 4-5 hour game for 50eu, which has no reply value. It is very arguable, but games like mw2 or black ops were very very rare as second hand games. Why? Because they were good and popular so people did not wanted to trade them in, and the fella who wanted to play it had to go for brand new copy and pay full price to developer ( quality of cod games is a subject and sensitive matter lol ), because there were no second hand copies. ( if he was a cheap bastord in first place ).0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 50060
TBH people buying used games are mugs. I only ever buy a used game when the game is genuinely out of print and hard to come by. Go into Game HMV or Gamestop right now and I'll put money on the fact that any used game in there I can find cheaper brand new online. CEX seem a bit better priced. The high street stores are such a rip off. Why would I buy something like Dead Space 2 when I can get it for less than 15 online brand new and sealed?
As far as I can see the only people buying used are young people without access to credit cards, a demographic that can't afford to get all the latest releases as soon as they are released. Perhaps games companies should sort out better pricing structures and be more willng to heavily reduce games once the initial months sales are up.0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »TBH people buying used games are mugs. I only ever buy a used game when the game is genuinely out of print and hard to come by. Go into Game HMV or Gamestop right now and I'll put money on the fact that any used game in there I can find cheaper brand new online. CEX seem a bit better priced. The high street stores are such a rip off. Why would I buy something like Dead Space 2 when I can get it for less than 15 online brand new and sealed?Retr0gamer wrote: »As far as I can see the only people buying used are young people without access to credit cards, a demographic that can't afford to get all the latest releases as soon as they are released. Perhaps games companies should sort out better pricing structures and be more willng to heavily reduce games once the initial months sales are up.
As for the pricing structure, I've posted about this on several occassions. Games are heavily discounted soon after release, immensely so. So much so in fact that many of my friends often ask me why I bother buying new games on release when they'll be so much cheaper in a couple of weeks. There are a couple of exceptions of course but by and large, their drop is of a free fall nature.
Anyway, on a more important note, is baby's blood different from normal blood? Is it...tastier?0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 50060
I've moved from bathing in virgins blood to babies blood, seems to keep the ravages of a 500 years curse to stalk the earth as the undead at bay and does wonders for my complexion. Sparkiling vampires really do have it a lot easier, why the hell do they have to be so emo about it. 'Blah, blah, blah.. I'm too strong to have sex with my girlfriend... whinge.' Tell her to get on top you ****ing moron or are you afraid she'll see how small it really is. Eddie can be such a pussie.0 -
"it won't play used games at all," Durall writes.
At first I read that as "it wont be used to play games at all"
Still nice line from the spanner, that the change is good because "it won't kill" the customer.0 -
Advertisement
-
Grumpypants wrote: »A simplistic yet completely incorrect response.I actually did pay for the games as i bought them all new delivering loads of money to the publishers who then give a % to the devs,
Wrong.
Unless you've managed to find some kind of crazy publisher who don't like having money, the developers are paid on a milestone to milestone basis.
Once the game ships all the money from sales goes to the publisher, the developer sees none of it.
Occasionally there will be a performance related bonus, if the game sells over X copies the developer will get a tiny % on each subsequent copy sold.
This is nowhere near the norm though.Grumpypants wrote: »I then used the facility to sell that old game on to subsidize the cost of even more new games Increasing the number of new games i bought ten fold.
I can only assume that when you said that "On the other hand i can't remember the last full price game i bought" you meant it in euphemistic sort of sense as opposed to any kind of accurate or realistic statement.
Also, I'd question your maths, but I'm going to assume you're being hyperbolic.Grumpypants wrote: »Generating even more money for the publishers who then gave even more money to the devs saying build us more games we are selling loads of new games. The dev said yippee with all this money we can hire more people to build even better games, the publisher said wow even better games that's great people like better games we will sell loads of them.
Well, your initial premise is wrong, so all this is nonsense too. But it's refreshing to see how charmingly naive people are when it comes to how the games industry actually works.
I also love the misguided concept that's prevalent among plenty of people on here that developers and publishers are simply not considering that they should make 'better' games.
My god, what genius!
Better games, you are truly a visionary.....
As if there was some kind of universal metric for better and even if there were such a thing that this thought has never crossed a single developers mind. Clearly developers are just incapable of the kind of transcendental thought that leads to stunning breakthroughsGrumpypants wrote: »Reducing the number of games i will buy by a factor of 10 really will not help the industry.
It's ok, you've solved all the games industries problems, you can reduce your mathematically impossible spending binge all you like.0 -
Omfg. This separate quoting of section... Is it me or is it the ultimate step at douchiness?
( no personal attacks and not aimed at post above. Have to say it before I will get missunderstood and accused of child abuse )0 -
ShadowHearth wrote: »Omfg. This separate quoting of section... Is it me or is it the ultimate step at douchiness?
its just you
it makes things a lot easier to read that way and it takes no time at all to do0 -
0
-
ShadowHearth wrote: »Omfg. This separate quoting of section... Is it me or is it the ultimate step at douchiness?
Just you.
I mean if someone makes a long post and it contains several points, surely taking the time to respond to all of them separately and with the original context in place is the polite thing to do.
But then again, apparently I'm worse than borg-hitler and get people crying about my salty language so what do I know?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50060
-
Retr0gamer wrote: »I've moved from bathing in virgins blood to babies blood
Would assume baby blood would be virgin blood, or is it just aged.
Or are you a very evil vampire.ShadowHearth wrote: »( no personal attacks and not aimed at post above. Have to say it before I will get missunderstood and accused of child abuse )
Your not but Retr0gamer is a.....0 -
hooradiation wrote: »Wrong.
Unless you've managed to find some kind of crazy publisher who don't like having money, the developers are paid on a milestone to milestone basis.
Once the game ships all the money from sales goes to the publisher, the developer sees none of it.
Occasionally there will be a performance related bonus, if the game sells over X copies the developer will get a tiny % on each subsequent copy sold.
This is nowhere near the norm though..
Dam those crafty developers i talk to every day, they lied to me and have now made me look quite the fool as my understanding of basic economics has come unstuck.
So what you are saying is the final sales of the game have nothing to do with the developers getting paid? So therefore the new games V used games argument that has raged here all day is completely invalid! As none of the money goes to the developers anyway.
So when in the original post the Developer was concerned about used games we should just say it doesn't matter you would never see any of that money anyway.
Glad that's cleared up.0 -
Grumpypants wrote: »Dam those crafty developers i talk to every day, they lied to me and have now made me look quite the fool as my understanding of basic economics has come unstuck.
So what you are saying is the final sales of the game have nothing to do with the developers getting paid? So therefore the new games V used games argument that has raged here all day is completely invalid! As none of the money goes to the developers anyway.
So when in the original post the Developer was concerned about used games we should just say it doesn't matter you would never see any of that money anyway.
Glad that's cleared up.
How you've applied that logic isn't correct though as you've ignored the fact that the publisher will be less likely to fund future efforts by the developer if the sales of the previous game isn't up to scratch. Nor will they be receptive to riskier pitches from the studio if they haven't shown they can pull off something special previously.
The old adage of "You're only as good as your last game" most definitely holds true here.0 -
Grumpypants wrote: »Dam those crafty developers i talk to every day, they lied to me and have now made me look quite the fool as my understanding of basic economics has come unstuck.
Yup.
More fool you.Grumpypants wrote: »So what you are saying is the final sales of the game have nothing to do with the developers getting paid?
It's variable. Sometimes they're just contracted to do a project, sometimes there is a sales related bonus, but in general when the game ships that's it done.
Post sales support is either part of the contract or done on a case by case basis, but unless you happen to work for a studio with it's own title to push or contracted to do a iterative, yearly title the money is very much on a per project basis.Grumpypants wrote: »So therefore the new games V used games argument that has raged here all day is completely invalid! As none of the money goes to the developers anyway.
Not invalid. People just keep using "developer" when they mean "publisher"
Because to a lot of people they're one and the same, I can only assume they make this kind of mistake constantly and seek to receive medical care from a vet.Grumpypants wrote: »So when in the original post the Developer was concerned about used games we should just say it doesn't matter you would never see any of that money anyway.
They will, in a very round about way. So I can understand why some developers are welcoming this system even though it won't mean everyone gets a raise when 2nd hand game sales are a thing of the past.
In theory this system will see a larger RoI for publishers so they'll be less cagey about green lighting new projects - assuming that people who buy used now buy new even if they overall buy less.
It's a bit of an assumption but lets roll with it for a second.
Provided they don't move the project to a cheaper studio you could make the case that as an employee of development studio you are more likely to have a job as there would be more contracts in total available to pitch for.
Likewise, if a developer approaches a publisher with a pitch for their own title, the reasoning goes that with the publisher getting money on each sale they can get more out of choosing to finance that particular title then they would currently.
And even if it flops, they'll still have the rights to the IP so it's not a total loss, but that's just an aside, really.Grumpypants wrote: »Glad that's cleared up
Please, it's kind of you, but wait until after I've explained why everyone but me is wrong before you applaud.0 -
Advertisement
-
Gizmo, stop stealing my thoughts.0
-
Actually hooradiation is quite right with regard to the milestones and bonuses for excess sales, at least from the perspective of independent studios working for third party publishers, generally speaking. Obviously things work slightly different for internal studios with regard to milestones.
How you've applied that logic isn't correct though as you've ignored the fact that the publisher will be less likely to fund future efforts by the developer if the sales of the previous game isn't up to scratch. Nor will they be receptive to riskier pitches from the studio if they haven't shown they can pull off something special previously.
The old adage of "You're only as good as your last game" most definitely holds true here.
But he is working under the assumption that the only business model is that a publisher pays for the game to be developed then when it's finished the publisher takes ownership of it and sells to the stores and keeps all the money. Which is only true for a small % of studio's and in general its not as common as people think.
When in fact there are a ton of different options such as studio's self funding the development and using a publisher to distribute the game. A collaboration where the studio funds part of the cost and the publisher makes a contribution along with other investors, then when the game ships they all get paid from the sales. There are options to self publish where the studio funds the game then puts it onto Xbox live, PSN or Steam who distribute it and the studio pays for each game sold out of the final sales figures. there are options to pre sell the game to cover the dev costs and not use a publisher at all. Other studio's would borrow the money to fund the project then get the money back from sales. Other studio's would be so big they can cover the cost of developing the title and the publisher would just promote it. Internal studios work for the publisher so would get more of a wage than a fund to develop but would work to a budget all the same. Other studio's would work with a number of publishers for example Starbreeze worked with 2k for the Darkness, Atari for Riddick and now EA for syndicate.
The idea that a developer doesn't get paid from the final sales is just wrong.
What i think is causing the confusion is that often if a project is pre funded, this is often just a loan as such. The publisher will say give a studio 1 million to make a game then take that 1 mill back from the final sales. In much the same way an author is given a fee up front to cover the cost of writing the book but he still gets paid form the final book sales, its he just gets paid after the publisher recoups the initial up front payment.
On your second point, i agree with you. It's the same point i made, if the new game sales go well the publisher goes back to the devs as says here is more money to make more games. If new game sales drop the publisher has less money to spend on new games and will go for the bankers rather than the smaller riskier games.0 -
hooradiation wrote: »In theory this system will see a larger RoI for publishers so they'll be less cagey about green lighting new projects - assuming that people who buy used now buy new even if they overall buy less.
It's a bit of an assumption but lets roll with it for a second.
Provided they don't move the project to a cheaper studio you could make the case that as an employee of development studio you are more likely to have a job as there would be more contracts in total available to pitch for.
.
See your working under the assumption that 1 used game sale = 1 lost new game sale and if you remove the used market, new sales will go up. (or at least the % return on the investment to publishers) which in turn will lend to publishers commissioning more games.
I am working under the assumption that the current rate of new game sales is being propped up artificially by the used market subsidizing it and if you remove that the new game sales will collapse dramatically, thus reducing the % return for publishers who will in turn be less likely to commission more or riskier new IP's
A lot of assumptions on both sides.0 -
Grumpypants wrote: »But he is working under the assumption that the only business model is that a publisher pays for the game to be developed then when it's finished the publisher takes ownership of it and sells to the stores and keeps all the money. Which is only true for a small % of studio's and in general its not as common as people think.Grumpypants wrote: »When in fact there are a ton of different options such as studio's self funding the development and using a publisher to distribute the game. A collaboration where the studio funds part of the cost and the publisher makes a contribution along with other investors, then when the game ships they all get paid from the sales.Grumpypants wrote: »There are options to self publish where the studio funds the game then puts it onto Xbox live, PSN or Steam who distribute it and the studio pays for each game sold out of the final sales figures.Grumpypants wrote: »there are options to pre sell the game to cover the dev costs and not use a publisher at all.Grumpypants wrote: »Other studio's would borrow the money to fund the project then get the money back from sales. Other studio's would be so big they can cover the cost of developing the title and the publisher would just promote it. Internal studios work for the publisher so would get more of a wage than a fund to develop but would work to a budget all the same. Other studio's would work with a number of publishers for example Starbreeze worked with 2k for the Darkness, Atari for Riddick and now EA for syndicate.Grumpypants wrote: »The idea that a developer doesn't get paid from the final sales is just wrong.Grumpypants wrote: »What i think is causing the confusion is that often if a project is pre funded, this is often just a loan as such. The publisher will say give a studio 1 million to make a game then take that 1 mill back from the final sales. In much the same way an author is given a fee up front to cover the cost of writing the book but he still gets paid form the final book sales, its he just gets paid after the publisher recoups the initial up front payment.
As always, there are exceptions to most of the above but that's the general jist.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50060
I believe that if this BS does go ahead I think publishers are go to be very surprised when they see how little it affects new game sales if at all.
Why don't they try some new approaches to marketing games. How about slash the price of new games to impulse purchase price points like 25 euros? Even to just try it as an experiment. They could probably double game sales and more than make up for the price cut. I know a lot of people, myself included just can not afford the price of a new game and I have to buy when heavily discounted. When it reaches this point the publisher has already taken a heavy hit in accepting credit from the retailer for dropping the price on unsold stock.
Also there's life in these games outside of the initial launch. Whatever happened to budget rereleases or factoring in lifetime sales from online retail sales?
Trying to curtail second hand sales stinks of the recent issues like SOPA and ACTA with publishing companies trying to hang in there as long as possible using draconian methods that don't benefit the customer. Instead they should be adapting their business practice around it.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,154 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 27866
Actually just noticed that the quotes in the OP are attributed to a game designer rather than a publisher.
Which actually pretty much entirely shifts the nature of this debate on its head :pac:0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50060
CD Projekt are stepping in as the voice of reason as always and are totally against it:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-07-witcher-2-dev-next-xbox-not-playing-pre-owned-games-a-bad-thing0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »I believe that if this BS does go ahead I think publishers are go to be very surprised when they see how little it affects new game sales if at all.
Why don't they try some new approaches to marketing games. How about slash the price of new games to impulse purchase price points like 25 euros? Even to just try it as an experiment. They could probably double game sales and more than make up for the price cut. I know a lot of people, myself included just can not afford the price of a new game and I have to buy when heavily discounted. When it reaches this point the publisher has already taken a heavy hit in accepting credit from the retailer for dropping the price on unsold stock.
Also there's life in these games outside of the initial launch. Whatever happened to budget rereleases or factoring in lifetime sales from online retail sales?
Trying to curtail second hand sales stinks of the recent issues like SOPA and ACTA with publishing companies trying to hang in there as long as possible using draconian methods that don't benefit the customer. Instead they should be adapting their business practice around it.
Spot on0 -
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Actually just noticed that the quotes in the OP are attributed to a game designer rather than a publisher.
Which actually pretty much entirely shifts the nature of this debate on its head :pac:
It may have come from the lead designer but hes speaking behalf of the THQ team , just like when one team mate from a sports team does one thing out of order it looks bad for the team he plays cause hes represents the team..
:pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
Retr0gamer wrote: »CD Projekt are stepping in as the voice of reason as always and are totally against it:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-07-witcher-2-dev-next-xbox-not-playing-pre-owned-games-a-bad-thing
Now i can support the likes of these developers and creators of demons souls and dark souls. This is the way to do business0
Advertisement