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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Go **** yourself THQ

1356

Comments

  • #102
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,831 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    gizmo wrote: »
    Can't find any figures on the Dark Souls team, the only figure I can see is the 205 number from 2008 on their wiki page. I'd imagine thats grown larger but is also split between the Armoured Core and Steel Batallion teams?

    Not sure it's an even split, they've a lot of projects on going in From and a lot of cross over. Demon's Souls was made with a budget for expected sales of 40,000. I'd imagine Dark Souls budget is a bit more but not by much.
    Untitled Image




  • #103
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Not sure it's an even split, they've a lot of projects on going in From and a lot of cross over. Demon's Souls was made with a budget for expected sales of 40,000. I'd imagine Dark Souls budget is a bit more but not by much.

    They expected to sell only 40k of it?! Seriously?! Damn, they deffo sold more then that now. So I guess theyr budget was really tiny.


  • #104
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,831 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Yup Sony really didn't have much faith in it. It was an extremely niche game on a niche console (in japan at the time) with no plans of a foreign release. Games with budgets covering 40K sales expectations aren't rare in Japan in fact they are the norm at the moment. I'm sure Sony provided a lot of support and funding though and the engine for Demon's Souls and Dark Souls is a Sony developed one. It's strange that it is developed as a multiformat platform but it's not unusual for different departments within Sony to have very little communication with each other :)
    Untitled Image




  • #105
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Yup Sony really didn't have much faith in it. It was an extremely niche game on a niche console (in japan at the time) with no plans of a foreign release. Games with budgets covering 40K sales expectations aren't rare in Japan in fact they are the norm at the moment. I'm sure Sony provided a lot of support and funding though and the engine for Demon's Souls and Dark Souls is a Sony developed one. It's strange that it is developed as a multiformat platform but it's not unusual for different departments within Sony to have very little communication with each other :)

    Well they pulled it off. Who knew people love challenge and exploration in theyr games :D.
    It's sort of funny how it has no online pass stuff too :D


  • #106
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Yup Sony really didn't have much faith in it. It was an extremely niche game on a niche console (in japan at the time) with no plans of a foreign release. Games with budgets covering 40K sales expectations aren't rare in Japan in fact they are the norm at the moment. I'm sure Sony provided a lot of support and funding though and the engine for Demon's Souls and Dark Souls is a Sony developed one. It's strange that it is developed as a multiformat platform but it's not unusual for different departments within Sony to have very little communication with each other :)
    Well while the PhyreEngine doesn't officially support the 360 as a target platform, it's been extended to do so by a number of companies. Codemasters, for instance, built their EGO Engine around it so I'd imagine it was the perfect choice for From given that they'd already used it for Demon's Souls. I'm quite surprised at their sales expectations in fairness or, to be more precise, I'm quite surprised at the scale of the game given their original expectations. :)


  • #107
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,831 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    I think Sony must have been heavily involved in it and the funding. They were probably looking for a hardcore game in that mould to fit into the PS3 library and try out the engine. But yeah Sony said they made a big mistake not supporting it and giving it a worldwide release and that they didn't expect it to break 40K sales.
    Untitled Image




  • #108
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I think Sony must have been heavily involved in it and the funding. They were probably looking for a hardcore game in that mould to fit into the PS3 library and try out the engine. But yeah Sony said they made a big mistake not supporting it and giving it a worldwide release and that they didn't expect it to break 40K sales.
    If I remember correctly from an article around the time of the TGS before release, one of the guys from From was saying their Producer from Sony was really hands off, totally supported what they were doing and fought their corner when needed. This came in useful after the feedback from said TGS came in which was a general mixture of pure horror and utter bemusement at the difficulty level. Personally I don't think Sony as a company knew what they had on their hands until it was close to release and they got some proper time with it. Either way, fair dues to the Producer for sticking by them.

    As for the engine, I'd say having Codemasters build their tech around it was the most important usage of it at the time, especially since they knew it'd make its way into so many games.


  • #109
    Mr.Saturn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭Mr.Saturn


    Outkast_IRE wrote: »
    I have no problem with this, as long as it results with more money to the devolpers and not the big publishers.

    This never happens. If this notion gains any ground, all it'll mean is that the gaming landscape be decimated, and absorbed, by the big boys, who, save a smattering of exceptions, are happy to pressurize developers into speedy production times and mediocre results.

    Mind, that being said. The likes of EA and Activision et al would be happy for you to believe that this'll aid the little guy, whatever it takes to push the idea through.


  • #110
    Chris_Heilong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,974 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    The gaming industry are making enough money nowadays as they sell games in there millions as opposed to the MD/SNES days, the developer makes there money when the game is bought new as it should be, if the games does not make money then it is a flop regardless of if it does well on the 2nd hand market, Games are over priced as are films and need to come down in price as well as companies projected revenue from sale of said item. Its a silly argument that spans film/music/games industry, they try and control and squeeze every penny they can get from the customers, charging for Dl content still feels wrong and it should be a system where gamer points can be traded for avatar clothes new games and if you want them faster then you can buy them but this greedy business plan is what is killing the quality of games not the fact they are ripping us of less and there for getting less of the money we dont have, even 2nd hand games are over priced, they need to come down to around €15.


  • #111
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,049 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    hooradiation wrote: »
    Please, it's kind of you, but wait until after I've explained why everyone but me is wrong before you applaud.
    I've pirated this quote and taken it for my own. Ta


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    martyos121
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,476 ✭✭✭✭martyos121


    Serious changes must happen before this will even be considered!
    For example, I've been searching for a particular game a few years ago. I bought it pre-owned, and that was that, but if pre-owned sales are abolished, how would I buy such a game if production was stopped? I couldn't, it would be impossible to actually buy a physical copy of the game! This will not work out, not a chance, pre-owned games are definitely here to stay, get used to it THQ.


  • #113
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Consoles today are up against it big time, a move like this could seriously impact how people percieve its worth, & ultimately its sales. This could perpetuate a situation where Sony have an advantage by coming to the next market last, evaluating how this drm scheme is impacting MS, & choose to cash in on it or pitch directly against it.

    "The Playstation 4 - Play What You Want"


  • #114
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Chris_Heilong wrote: »
    The gaming industry are making enough money nowadays as they sell games in there millions as opposed to the MD/SNES days, the developer makes there money when the game is bought new as it should be, if the games does not make money then it is a flop regardless of if it does well on the 2nd hand market, Games are over priced as are films and need to come down in price as well as companies projected revenue from sale of said item. Its a silly argument that spans film/music/games industry, they try and control and squeeze every penny they can get from the customers, charging for Dl content still feels wrong and it should be a system where gamer points can be traded for avatar clothes new games and if you want them faster then you can buy them but this greedy business plan is what is killing the quality of games not the fact they are ripping us of less and there for getting less of the money we dont have, even 2nd hand games are over priced, they need to come down to around €15.
    I'm frankly amazed you've managed to squeeze so many misnomers and factual errors into such a small paragraph. :confused:


  • #115
    Chris_Heilong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,974 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    gizmo wrote: »
    I'm frankly amazed you've managed to squeeze so many misnomers and factual errors into such a small paragraph. :confused:

    What factual errors? everything I have said I stand by, even though it was written at 1:30 in the morning and I was about to fall asleep at the keyboard(hence the spellings). But as I have been a gamer since the early 80s I can really see how business plans and casual gaming have ruined the industry.


  • #116
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Chris_Heilong wrote: »
    What factual errors? everything I have said I stand by, even though it was written at 1:30 in the morning and I was about to fall asleep at the keyboard(hence the spellings). But as I have been a gamer since the early 80s I can really see how business plans and casual gaming have ruined the industry.
    Here's a quick list of the errors so:
    • The gaming industry isn't making enough money nowadays, you can tell from the number of not only developers that are closing or on the brink of closing but even publishers now.
    • Not all games sell millions, hell not all games even sell a million copies.
    • A comparison with the days of the MD/SNES is completely irrevelant given the astronomical increase in the development costs for games.
    • The developer generally does not make money directly when a game is bought new.
    • If a game was to do "well" on the second hand market then it obviously means the new sales for the title were reduced. There is most certainly a correlation between the two.
    • Games are not over priced, simply reading up on the topic will show you the large development costs involved and this is before marketing and publisher costs. Generally speaking, they simply cannot come down in price in any significant manner.
    • Charging for DLC is wrong? So they should give away content produced for free?
    • Gamerpoints have no association with marketplace items, nor should they. They are simply a nice little bonus system for people who want to achieve certain things in-game.
    • Charging for content produced is not greedy, especially when they're completely optional vanity items. They also have absolutely zero relevance to games for this very same reason.
    • Second hand games are the price they are because people will still go out and buy them just to save a fiver, not caring who gets their money. This is a retailer issue, not a developer/publisher one, so if you have an issue with it, vote with your wallet.

    So yea, a nice mix of factual errors and misnomers in there. The last one isn't so much wrong as it's a very specific area of the "industry" at fault there, even if I am loath to refer to those retailers as part of the industry.


  • #117
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    gizmo wrote: »
    Here's a quick list of the errors so:
    • The gaming industry isn't making enough money nowadays, you can tell from the number of not only developers that are closing or on the brink of closing but even publishers now.
    • Not all games sell millions, hell not all games even sell a million copies.
    • A comparison with the days of the MD/SNES is completely irrevelant given the astronomical increase in the development costs for games.
    • The developer generally does not make money directly when a game is bought new.
    • If a game was to do "well" on the second hand market then it obviously means the new sales for the title were reduced. There is most certainly a correlation between the two.
    • Games are not over priced, simply reading up on the topic will show you the large development costs involved and this is before marketing and publisher costs. Generally speaking, they simply cannot come down in price in any significant manner.
    • Charging for DLC is wrong? So they should give away content produced for free?
    • Gamerpoints have no association with marketplace items, nor should they. They are simply a nice little bonus system for people who want to achieve certain things in-game.
    • Charging for content produced is not greedy, especially when they're completely optional vanity items. They also have absolutely zero relevance to games for this very same reason.
    • Second hand games are the price they are because people will still go out and buy them just to save a fiver, not caring who gets their money. This is a retailer issue, not a developer/publisher one, so if you have an issue with it, vote with your wallet.

    So yea, a nice mix of factual errors and misnomers in there. The last one isn't so much wrong as it's a very specific area of the "industry" at fault there, even if I am loath to refer to those retailers as part of the industry.

    All this can be explained: survival of the fittest.

    You make good games - you make tons of money and your studio is alive and kicking

    You make ****y game - then here you go p45, bye bye.

    So yeah, voting with the wallet.


  • #118
    richymcdermott
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,447 ✭✭✭richymcdermott


    it should be noted that publishers arent letting people go cause of second hand games alone , the likes of thq for an example wasted100 million plus on udraw just to try to cater to the casuals that no one cared about , and i believe they wasted a **** load of money of the fps games homeworld, the only game they really had that sold very well was saints row 3 with 3.5 million.


  • #119
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,831 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    ShadowHearth wrote: »
    All this can be explained: survival of the fittest.

    This pretty much sums it up. There's far too many developers and publishers blaming second hand sales when their game flops instead of looking at the real reasons, crap poduct, bad/no marketing, releasing it at a saturated period of the year. Getting rid of pre-owned sales isn't going to be a magic bullet that sorts out all the industries problems and as I said I feel if they do go forward with this a lot will be surprised at how little an impact it will make on overall sales.

    The whole game industry is built on taking risks. It's not the first time the industry has been in such a state, lots of companies lost money and closed in the early 1990's because of the multimedia fad and Nintendos stupid policy of controlling production of cartridges for their system. If you are good and smart enough you'll survive

    Blocking pre-owned game sales is a desperation move when what the industry really needs is a shake up and not to blame all of its problems on pre-owned games sales.
    Untitled Image




  • #120
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    richymcdermott wrote: »
    it should be noted that publishers arent letting people go cause of second hand games alone , the likes of thq for an example wasted100 million plus on udraw just to try to cater to the casuals that no one cared about , and i believe they wasted a **** load of money of the fps games homeworld, the only game they really had that sold very well was saints row 3 with 3.5 million.
    Oh I don't think anyone could blame second hand sales alone but they're certainly a large contributing factor in most cases. THQ have been in the **** for awhile though thanks to a bunch of poor decisions, the uDraw fiasco has just driven them over the edge so to speak. Homefront certainly didn't help. I don't think money was necessarily wasted there it was more that Kaos were forced to work to an insane deadline to get it finished so they would have a CoD challenger. The game, unfortunately, ended up the poorer for it and then they went and closed the studio. :(

    As for their other games, the reviews for Retribution seemed great although I have no idea how it sold. Space Marine, despite being above average at worst, failed to break the one millon sales mark, at least in terms of boxed copies, which is a pity. Red Faction: Armageddon fell into the same boat however that one was most definitely average. As you said, Saints Row 3 was most definitely their biggest seller.

    2012 could be good for them anyway, they have Darksiders II with a firm release date, Dawn Of War III is looking like end of year release and then there's new Metro and UFC to come as well as the rather interesting looking South Park RPG. Here's hoping they can hold on anyway.
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    This pretty much sums it up. There's far too many developers and publishers blaming second hand sales when their game flops instead of looking at the real reasons, crap poduct, bad/no marketing, releasing it at a saturated period of the year. Getting rid of pre-owned sales isn't going to be a magic bullet that sorts out all the industries problems and as I said I feel if they do go forward with this a lot will be surprised at how little an impact it will make on overall sales.
    The only studio I've ever seen directly blame second hand sale for a drop in sales has been Quantic Dream. I also don't think anyone thinks it'll suddenly make all games sell millions but the figures don't lie, there is a massive amount of revenue being lost to the retailers which, even if they saw a fraction of it, would help developers and publishers alike.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    richymcdermott
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,447 ✭✭✭richymcdermott


    http://www.computerandvideogames.com/334982/features/xbox-720-blocking-used-games-would-be-unfair-writes-halo-dev/

    Halo Developers give their opinions


  • #122
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,049 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    "$60 is a lot to pay for a game and if a player buys a dud and is stuck with it, then that's just not fair to force him to keep it. If people buy Inversion and it's not for them, then why should they be forced to turn it into a drink coaster?

    "Publishers feel that reviewers have too much control now and if games can't be traded then reviews will become gospel. This doesn't serve anyone's interest.

    "For me the approach is to bring the cost of games down and to sell them as digital content where they can't be bought and sold. If someone pays $15 for a game, then it's less painful if they need to keep it.

    "Last time I spoke about this, some people misconstrued my comments to imply that I didn't think that games should be "full-length". This isn't the way I feel about it.

    "A $60 game has about $30 of waste in it in getting the game to retail. I really believe that with digital distribution you can get that same full-length experience for $30.

    "With Inversion (or games like Battlefield or Gears), for example, you could break that experience into two components - single-player and multiplayer - and sell them for $15 each or sell them combined for $30. If someone spends $15, then the trade-in value would be minimal anyway even if it were permissible.

    "I think thats the way to go - lower the costs for the same access by bringing them to market digitally. Then a no-used solution is fair."
    Oh look, my opinions from the mouth of someone people listen to.


  • #123
    DarkJager
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,960 ✭✭✭DarkJager


    They really haven't thought this through properly. As it is, if I pay 60 quid for a game and it's a pile of **** at least I can trade it in and they still get cash for it from my purchase.

    If that isn't available, I'd be much more inclined to check a number of reviews before going near it, and if it ain't good I won't go near it - which results in no money going to them.

    Between DLC, online passes and wanting to ban second hand games these greedy developers are pushing the wrong way and they will pay for it.


  • #124
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    Holy ****! And that's from halo guys?! Respect.


    I had same idea about SP and MP games!


  • #125
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    ShadowHearth wrote: »
    Holy ****! And that's from halo guys?! Respect.


    I had same idea about SP and MP games!

    Actually it's a guy from Sabre. They were responsible for Halo Anniversary, but nothing to do with the franchise before that. But still, indeed, commendable words :)


  • #126
    Varik
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,552 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    richymcdermott wrote: »
    http://www.computerandvideogames.com/334982/features/xbox-720-blocki-used-games-would-be-unfair-writes-halo-dev/

    Halo Developers give their opinions

    I wonder what price the next halo will be on live then, maybe the same price reach was.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Can't really say I agree with the Saber guy, specifically on a couple of points.
    "$60 is a lot to pay for a game and if a player buys a dud and is stuck with it, then that's just not fair to force him to keep it. If people buy Inversion and it's not for them, then why should they be forced to turn it into a drink coaster?
    Quite true, however neither is it fair for a developer/publisher not to see any return on a game when it is sold second hand. Does that mean we should block all sales at a console/user account level? No. But it does mean they should be looking at a solution whereby everyone is happy.
    "For me the approach is to bring the cost of games down and to sell them as digital content where they can't be bought and sold. If someone pays $15 for a game, then it's less painful if they need to keep it."
    Just because they're sold digitally does not mean there's automatically a massive saving. Sure you save on the physical distrubution side but you still have to get that game to the consumer and the percentage taken off the top by most digital distribution sites is still a complete unknown. If you were to use the AppStore figures then you'd be talking about the service taking a 30% cut which is, I'd imagine, a good chunk of what the physical side of distribution would probably cost.
    "A $60 game has about $30 of waste in it in getting the game to retail. I really believe that with digital distribution you can get that same full-length experience for $30."
    Bull****. Athough it may be cheaper if you farm out all your actual development to your Russian operation as Sabre do.
    "With Inversion (or games like Battlefield or Gears), for example, you could break that experience into two components - single-player and multiplayer - and sell them for $15 each or sell them combined for $30. If someone spends $15, then the trade-in value would be minimal anyway even if it were permissible."
    See the splitting up idea is at least interesting. The price on the otherhand, well see above.

    Also, not to engage in the ad hominem but I'm quite wary of a developer who espouses the benefits of digital distribution yet whose only foray into that area has been Battle: Lost Angeles.


  • #128
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,831 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Digital Distribution limits your customer base on consoles. Until broadband is widespread worldwide and every console is hooked up to be online then going DD only means you are losing a lot of your customer base. Unlike PC it's just not hit the right level of saturation. Couple that with the monopoly that the platform holders have over their services which means prices are ridiculously high without the sales that PC gamers expect.

    I still think that publishers and developers shoudl take into account the second hand market instead of trying to completely blocking it. I'm totally against blocking the second hand market because it benefits absolutely nobody and only a few greedy publishers and money men believe that it will make them more money. As for developers that think they'll make more money if second hand sales are blocked, good luck with that, do they really think that what little profits the publisher recoups from this are going to feedback to the developers, the same ones that from what Gizmo says seem to be getting shafted by publishers already.
    Untitled Image




  • #129
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Digital Distribution limits your customer base on consoles. Until broadband is widespread worldwide and every console is hooked up to be online then going DD only means you are losing a lot of your customer base. Unlike PC it's just not hit the right level of saturation. Couple that with the monopoly that the platform holders have over their services which means prices are ridiculously high without the sales that PC gamers expect.
    Publishers shouldn't have to cater to the whims of a certain demographic of gamer with entitlement issues. :pac:
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I still think that publishers and developers shoudl take into account the second hand market instead of trying to completely blocking it. I'm totally against blocking the second hand market because it benefits absolutely nobody and only a few greedy publishers and money men believe that it will make them more money. As for developers that think they'll make more money if second hand sales are blocked, good luck with that, do they really think that what little profits the publisher recoups from this are going to feedback to the developers, the same ones that from what Gizmo says seem to be getting shafted by publishers already.
    Well if sales were to hypothetically increase due to some measures being put in place, one of two things could happen depending on the case:

    a) More games would have a better chance of reaching the sales targets set for them by publishers based on the development costs. This would mean publishers would be more than likely to fund future projects and we'd see less cutbacks and closures across the board.

    b) Those games which have already sold enough copies to warrant royalty payments for the developers would generate even more revenue. This money could then be pumped into prototyping for new projects for future pitches, something which generally isn't funded by publishers. Or hey, maybe individual developers could start seeing decent bonuses on project completion to make up for the insane hours most of them work. :)


  • #130
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,831 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    gizmo wrote: »
    Publishers shouldn't have to cater to the whims of a certain demographic of gamer with entitlement issues. :pac:

    It's nothing to do with entitlement issues. It's just the whole online shopping experience is just so much better for the customer on the PC side of things. You can be assured that a sale will come along if you wait and can get the game you want at a reasonable price. It's still crap for new games since the retail price is always cheaper.

    Now take PSN or XBLA for instance. A lot of releases will get one sale and one sale only. Older games will likely stay on the shop at full price with no price reduction. For example I really want Hard Corps Uprising. It's on XBLA for 1200 points. I missed it when it was on sale so it will always be 1200 points from now on, about 15 euros when not in Microsofts pretend money. Whenever I have 15 euros left over on my card to spend I could buy Uprising but I don't because I can get something like Deus Ex brand new for less than the price of a downloadable title that is almost a years old now. This isn't benefiting the customer who has to pay silly prices for a downloadable title or the developer who is missing out on sales. I wouldn't mind paying the money for it on release but I was stone broke at the time but 15 quid for a downloadable title that's a year old? it would be 2.50 on steam. It's a bad system that Sony and MS really need to manage a lot better.
    gizmo wrote: »
    Well if sales were to hypothetically increase due to some measures being put in place, one of two things could happen depending on the case:

    a) More games would have a better chance of reaching the sales targets set for them by publishers based on the development costs. This would mean publishers would be more than likely to fund future projects and we'd see less cutbacks and closures across the board.

    b) Those games which have already sold enough copies to warrant royalty payments for the developers would generate even more revenue. This money could then be pumped into prototyping for new projects for future pitches, something which generally isn't funded by publishers. Or hey, maybe individual developers could start seeing decent bonuses on project completion to make up for the insane hours most of them work. :)

    Which would all be grand if these said publishers didn't hypothetically change sales, royalty and bonus targets. Of course these publishers have shown in the past that they are all benevolent masters that look after the development teams they work with and aren't a business that's trying to squeeze as much money out of their investments as they can and aren't at the whims of a bunch of shareholders that only care about profits :P

    The publishers have and always will screw over development houses, they're a business that's how they operate. It's not a new thing either it's just highlighted in the media a lot more.
    Untitled Image




  • #131
    Mr.Saturn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,962 ✭✭✭Mr.Saturn


    What scares me most about the idea of a pre-owned lockout, aside from the amount of power and influence is leaves in the hands of the big boys, but also the fact I can see such a notion being met with little resistance by a certain demographic of gamer. A brief moan on the way to counter being the extent of their protest.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    It's nothing to do with entitlement issues. It's just the whole online shopping experience is just so much better for the customer on the PC side of things. You can be assured that a sale will come along if you wait and can get the game you want at a reasonable price. It's still crap for new games since the retail price is always cheaper.

    Now take PSN or XBLA for instance. A lot of releases will get one sale and one sale only. Older games will likely stay on the shop at full price with no price reduction. For example I really want Hard Corps Uprising. It's on XBLA for 1200 points. I missed it when it was on sale so it will always be 1200 points from now on, about 15 euros when not in Microsofts pretend money. Whenever I have 15 euros left over on my card to spend I could buy Uprising but I don't because I can get something like Deus Ex brand new for less than the price of a downloadable title that is almost a years old now. This isn't benefiting the customer who has to pay silly prices for a downloadable title or the developer who is missing out on sales. I wouldn't mind paying the money for it on release but I was stone broke at the time but 15 quid for a downloadable title that's a year old? it would be 2.50 on steam. It's a bad system that Sony and MS really need to manage a lot better.
    Ah, those kinds of sales. I was specifically referring to the likes of the big Steam sales which are by no means a right on any platform. The general pricing structure on the console platforms is fairly mental alright. Whatever about the high prices for the new retail games which are available for download, I cannot understand why MS and Sony don't just have a blanket system in place which reduces older content over time.

    As a sidenote, you must have missed Uprising twice because it was on sale again recently as part of the Japanese Week thing with Bangai-O et al. :)
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Which would all be grand if these said publishers didn't hypothetically change sales, royalty and bonus targets. Of course these publishers have shown in the past that they are all benevolent masters that look after the development teams they work with and aren't a business that's trying to squeeze as much money out of their investments as they can and aren't at the whims of a bunch of shareholders that only care about profits :P
    Well there is that too, I did make a point of saying hypthetically. :)

    On a serious note though, I don't think that would happen to a particularly large extent. The budgets wouldn't also be increasing so I'd imagine the publishers would see sales falling to what could be regarded as a more natural level without the interference of second hand sales. Who knows really though, as you said it's not like they've been known to act rationally in the past. :o
    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    The publishers have and always will screw over development houses, they're a business that's how they operate. It's not a new thing either it's just highlighted in the media a lot more.
    Quite true, things are getting better though. The EA Partners program seems to be going down quite well but as long as you have the likes of Tim Schaffer unable to find a publisher for Psychonauts 2 due to the "risk" it presents then we have a problem. Of course it would be nice if gamers recognised these gems when they were relased *cough* Rayman: Origins *cough* but I can only hope that will change over time too.


  • #133
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Grumpypants wrote: »
    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.

    That's not what I said at all.
    Gizmo has pretty much said everything I would have said with regards to your misconceptions on how games are financed, so I think we're done here.
    Overheal wrote: »
    I've pirated this quote and taken it for my own. Ta

    How fascinating.
    Please, tell me more.

    I'm sure you've plenty more equally incisive bon mots to share, don't hold back.


  • #134
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    super_furry wrote: »
    It's already happened on PC, it will eventually happen on console.
    It's a choice on PC.
    EnterNow wrote: »
    Who is anyone to say that something can't be sold as used? Imagine we all had to buy new houses, new cars, new phones, new this, new that. Yeah, we wouldn't find that politically correct at all would we?
    That's already happened and it's a go to move for corporations and governments. Your houses energy rating is really bad, you need to fix that, your cars emissions are bad, here's an incentive to buy a new car. Phones have had planned obsolescence for years. It's the way of economies, unless your making more money today than you where yesterday everything you do is a failure.


  • #135
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,831 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    gizmo wrote: »
    As a sidenote, you must have missed Uprising twice because it was on sale again recently as part of the Japanese Week thing with Bangai-O et al. :)

    Being on the dole sucks donkey dick. At least I've a job coming up soon.
    Untitled Image




  • #136
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,831 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    ScumLord wrote: »
    It's the way of economies, unless your making more money today than you where yesterday everything you do is a failure.

    Thanks :'(
    Untitled Image




  • #137
    richymcdermott
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,447 ✭✭✭richymcdermott


    To be honest i want all consoles to stop being strict and be more open , take down the barriers nd allow 360,ps3 and wii u players to be able to connect and play with each other .. I would also love to see exclusives (unless companies owned studios) to be gone and all games should be on every console without worrying bout timed exclusive games, timed exclusive demos, exclusive dlc etc..


  • #138
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    richymcdermott wrote: »
    To be honest i want all consoles to stop being strict and be more open , take down the barriers nd allow 360,ps3 and wii u players to be able to connect and play with each other .. I would also love to see exclusives (unless companies owned studios) to be gone and all games should be on every console without worrying bout timed exclusive games, timed exclusive demos, exclusive dlc etc..
    So you want a PC then? :)


  • #139
    richymcdermott
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,447 ✭✭✭richymcdermott


    gizmo wrote: »
    So you want a PC then? :)

    Pretty much ..:pac:


  • #140
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    *hugs and kisses his gaming pc.


  • #141
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,049 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    hooradiation wrote: »
    How fascinating.
    Please, tell me more.

    I'm sure you've plenty more equally incisive bon mots to share, don't hold back.
    Is that you?


    Hk47portrait.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Vadakin
    Registered Users Posts: 77 ✭✭Vadakin


    So a couple of issues have been raised since I made my post a couple of pages back. I'll try to address a few of them. First though, putting aside the debate about publishers, retailers and profits there is a key thing that people don't seem to be getting. IT WON'T WORK!

    The vast majority of PC gamers have internet access. It's a requirement these days, just like having the disc in the drive whenever you want to play used to be a requirement (it still is in some cases but most people just use cracks to get around it). Up to half of 360's are never taken online and that's where the speculation about anti-used game initiatives in the Nextbox firmware falls apart.

    Any such security measure would require online access to work. A person would need to be online with their Nexbox so that when they start up a game for the first time it can register the game disc's unique ID on the Microsoft servers. If the person sells that game and someone else puts it into their own machine, that Nextbox connects to the servers and the unique ID is already linked to a different console or account, making it unplayable. This means that if you don't go online with your Nextbox, you can play second hand games all you want.

    Why is that significant? Because half of sold 360s aren't taken online. The same would likely be true of the Nextbox. If Microsoft sell 100 Million Nextbox's, up to 50 Million won't go online and thus won't be affected by anti-second hand software. That's 50 Million customers who are free to buy second hand games. That's hardly addressing the issue. Microsoft could make the Nextbox online-reliant, requiring you go online to play any game, just like with many PC games, but they'd lose half their customer base. Can you see that happening? I can't. Microsoft aren't going to give up half of their potential consumers and anti-second hand software isn't going to affect those customers one bit, making the whole exercise pointless.

    What we have in this generation of consoles is the "Online Pass" which is required if a person wants to play a game online. Buy the game new, the pass is free, by it used, you pay for the pass. This is the way forward. Publishers (not developers) will be able to profit somewhat from the used game market and retailers like Gamestop will be forced to lower their prices. After all there's not much point in buying a game second hand if the price of the online pass brings the total cost near to the price of a new game.

    That brings me back to something else. Much of the debate has centered on how much money Gamestop are making from used games. That is a completely separate debate. It has nothing to do with publishers or developers no matter how much people would like it to be. The simple fact is, once the initial sale is made, publishers have no claims over second hand sales. They can make money on used games via DLC and Online Passes. They have no right to stop me from selling my game disc. Car manufacturers can make money by selling car parts to second-hand car owners. There is no difference. None. If Gamestop wants to charge €100 for a used copy of MW3, that's their right. You'd have to be an idiot to pay that of course but with Online Passes becoming more common, used game prices are going to have to come down significantly. If that happens, more used games will be sold, more online passes will be sold and ultimately the consumer will benefit.

    Gamestop aren't the only ones fleecing the consumer at times. Don't forget that many publishers and developers will put "extra" content on a game disc and then charge you to get it unlocked. In many ways that's worse than Gamestop overcharging because it's essentially the publisher charging you more for content you already own. Apparently it's entirely legal as well. Incidentally, if you find a way to unlock the extra content on a game disc yourself, that's also entirely legal...why? Because you own it.

    The PC model doesn't work for consoles. With so many consoles, a massive part of the market, not being taken online, console manufacturers would be committing economic suicide by making consoles online-only machines. This is also why the digital distribution suggestion won't work, at least not to the extent it would need to in order to be effective.

    Yes, if publishers could distribute games digitally, it would cut costs. It would also reduce profits significantly. Once again it would mean ignoring half the market and of the half that are online, how many would be willing and able to download 20GB+ games? The broadband in Ireland is bad enough as it is. Usage caps and relatively slow speeds makes a distribution-only model unviable, not to mention that many people simply like to have something physical in their hands.

    Ultimately, games are a product. They exist to be sold to the consumer. If the consumer wants to be able to pick up a game used, publishers need to be accommodating. By all means, charge a tenner for an online pass for used games. It will drive down the price of used games and benefit the consumer in the long run. But if they try to get rid of the used game market, the publishers and the Nextbox will be the eventual losers. An online-only, anti-used game Nextbox will be Sony and Nintendo's wet dream.


  • #143
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Vadakin wrote: »
    So a couple of issues have been raised since I made my post a couple of pages back. I'll try to address a few of them. First though, putting aside the debate about publishers, retailers and profits there is a key thing that people don't seem to be getting. IT WON'T WORK!

    The vast majority of PC gamers have internet access. It's a requirement these days, just like having the disc in the drive whenever you want to play used to be a requirement (it still is in some cases but most people just use cracks to get around it). Up to half of 360's are never taken online and that's where the speculation about anti-used game initiatives in the Nextbox firmware falls apart.

    Any such security measure would require online access to work. A person would need to be online with their Nexbox so that when they start up a game for the first time it can register the game disc's unique ID on the Microsoft servers. If the person sells that game and someone else puts it into their own machine, that Nextbox connects to the servers and the unique ID is already linked to a different console or account, making it unplayable. This means that if you don't go online with your Nextbox, you can play second hand games all you want.

    Why is that significant? Because half of sold 360s aren't taken online. The same would likely be true of the Nextbox. If Microsoft sell 100 Million Nextbox's, up to 50 Million won't go online and thus won't be affected by anti-second hand software. That's 50 Million customers who are free to buy second hand games. That's hardly addressing the issue. Microsoft could make the Nextbox online-reliant, requiring you go online to play any game, just like with many PC games, but they'd lose half their customer base. Can you see that happening? I can't. Microsoft aren't going to give up half of their potential consumers and anti-second hand software isn't going to affect those customers one bit, making the whole exercise pointless.
    Completely correct. This was already mentioned awhile back though. :)
    Vadakin wrote: »
    What we have in this generation of consoles is the "Online Pass" which is required if a person wants to play a game online. Buy the game new, the pass is free, by it used, you pay for the pass. This is the way forward. Publishers (not developers) will be able to profit somewhat from the used game market and retailers like Gamestop will be forced to lower their prices. After all there's not much point in buying a game second hand if the price of the online pass brings the total cost near to the price of a new game.
    It'd tend to agree here however there has been a polarised response to such a system from gamers even on this very thread, nevermind around the net in general.

    What would be interesting to see would be a blanket implementation of this across the board, not just for online games but for all single player ones too. Basically, the CD Key system that PC gamers have been dealing with for years. The downside of this is that it would require the game to connect to the internet at least once which, as has been pointed out, isn't always possible for some gamers.
    Vadakin wrote: »
    That brings me back to something else. Much of the debate has centered on how much money Gamestop are making from used games. That is a completely separate debate. It has nothing to do with publishers or developers no matter how much people would like it to be. The simple fact is, once the initial sale is made, publishers have no claims over second hand sales. They can make money on used games via DLC and Online Passes. They have no right to stop me from selling my game disc. Car manufacturers can make money by selling car parts to second-hand car owners. There is no difference. None. If Gamestop wants to charge €100 for a used copy of MW3, that's their right. You'd have to be an idiot to pay that of course but with Online Passes becoming more common, used game prices are going to have to come down significantly. If that happens, more used games will be sold, more online passes will be sold and ultimately the consumer will benefit.
    And here we disagree. Quite simply, I do think they have a claim to the second hand sale, at least when it comes to the retail sector. Now, I'm not saying they should have a claim to all of it but I certainly believe that a deal should have been struck whereby a chunk of the revenue from the second hand sale goes back to the publisher.

    One of the primary reasons for this is that unlike other physical objects which are often resold, video games don't particularly depreciate in quality over time. Sure their physical packaging/storage may somewhat but in terms of the problem areas here, i.e. the new games that hit the second market shortly after launch thus directly eating into the important initial sales for a game, the experience the original player gets will be exactly the same as the next person get. This makes them an exception in my eyes.
    Vadakin wrote: »
    Gamestop aren't the only ones fleecing the consumer at times. Don't forget that many publishers and developers will put "extra" content on a game disc and then charge you to get it unlocked. In many ways that's worse than Gamestop overcharging because it's essentially the publisher charging you more for content you already own. Apparently it's entirely legal as well. Incidentally, if you find a way to unlock the extra content on a game disc yourself, that's also entirely legal...why? Because you own it.
    You're both mistaken and patently incorrect here.

    Firstly, with regard to content on the disc, see this post for how that often happens. There are, of course, occasional exceptions to this but that is how it works in the vast majority of cases and as such, there's nothing wrong with it.

    This also relates to the part where you are incorrect. You do not own the content on the disc in any way, shape or form, nor should you. You own a licence to play the game as it is. Just because there is content on there that is locked doesn't mean you have the right to use it. The closest analogy I can think of to this is a Sky sub. When you get one you pay for a set number of channels. Other channels exist on the service but you're not able to unlock them unless you pay for them. You're still getting what you paid for and the package represents the "complete" version of what you expected.


  • #144
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,831 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    gizmo wrote: »
    One of the primary reasons for this is that unlike other physical objects which are often resold, video games don't particularly depreciate in quality over time. Sure their physical packaging/storage may somewhat but in terms of the problem areas here, i.e. the new games that hit the second market shortly after launch thus directly eating into the important initial sales for a game, the experience the original player gets will be exactly the same as the next person get. This makes them an exception in my eyes.

    How are videogames an exception? Do books and movies depreciate over time? Also game developers and game publishers have by law absolutely no right to the game once it has been sold to the customer and the customer has every right to sell their copy on. Why in the case of games do these laws have to be broken?
    Untitled Image




  • #145
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    How are videogames an exception? Do books and movies depreciate over time? Also game developers and game publishers have by law absolutely no right to the game once it has been sold to the customer and the customer has every right to sell their copy on. Why in the case of games do these laws have to be broken?
    Well I explained one of the reasons I felt they were an exception in terms of physical items. The others are more of a gray area, for example retailers having enough cop on not to bite the hand that feeds to an extent that it can result in damage to the underlying industry. I'd regard the other two examples as being quite different also, making it hard to really compare like with like. For example with movies, as I said earlier in the thread, the studio will have made the majority of its money in theaters so that when the DVD is released they'd be less sensitive to second hand sales. On top of this, as far as I can see, the sale of second hand movies at retail hasn't reached anywhere near the level of video games either in terms of volume or retailer practices. Books are different again, not only are they infinitely cheaper at retail but they're cheaper to produce initially, and I don't mean the production, I mean the financial cost of the author. On top of that they have a potentially infinite resale value via reprints to the extent that I can't see the second hand market damaging it in a similar manner.

    As for the legal side of things, well you could argue that because you're only buying a licence to play the game you don't have the legal right to transfer it to a third party. If you did then why isn't there more objections to the inability to sell on Steam games or accounts? The only thing stopping you, apart from the technical side on the games front, is the EULA which is also what controls the transfer of licences for physical copies.

    EDIT: With regard to the (non-legal) claim of the publisher to the second hand sale, if one doesn't believe in this then how can one argue in favour of the online pass which allows them to recoup some of the losses from said sale?

    Note, I'm playing devil's advocate here, I've already stated people should be free to pass on their games however they wish. :)


  • #146
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    I cant believe this thread draged do much. .


  • #147
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Overheal wrote: »
    Is that you?


    Hk47portrait.jpg

    I see I expected a bit too much from you.
    Lesson learned, I won't try and tax you too much again, you clearly can't handle it.


  • #148
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    richymcdermott wrote: »
    To be honest i want all consoles to stop being strict and be more open , take down the barriers nd allow 360,ps3 and wii u players to be able to connect and play with each other .. I would also love to see exclusives (unless companies owned studios) to be gone and all games should be on every console without worrying bout timed exclusive games, timed exclusive demos, exclusive dlc etc..

    You'd have more luck finding a breeding pair of unicorns.


  • #149
    gizmo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    ShadowHearth wrote: »
    I cant believe this thread draged do much. .
    Well in fairness this could be one of the most important changes to how we purchase and play our games since a bunch of guys in Belleuve, Washington decided we had to download this other piece of software before we could play Half-Life 2. :D


  • #150
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    gizmo wrote: »
    Well in fairness this is could be one of the most important changes to how we purchase and play our games since a bunch of guys in Belleuve, Washington decided we had to download this other piece of software before we could play Half-Life 2. :D

    Ah... How much hate and now love it gets :D .


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Vadakin wrote: »
    The vast majority of PC gamers have internet access. It's a requirement these days, just like having the disc in the drive whenever you want to play used to be a requirement (it still is in some cases but most people just use cracks to get around it). Up to half of 360's are never taken online and that's where the speculation about anti-used game initiatives in the Nextbox firmware falls apart.

    Any such security measure would require online access to work.
    But you've already given an example of it working with PC, Half Life 2 was the first major game to implement it and it was done before broadband was available throughout Ireland. You can probably still find my posts giving out bangs about it.

    The 50% of xboxs that never went online may have not done so for many reasons. Most xbox owners I would assume have broadband. Many may not hook up because they don't need to but I'm sure they could if they wanted to so they wouldn't lose half they're user base, they'd just be forcing them to connect all their xboxs to their router.

    Remember that your console is a PC, a lot of the game types originated on PC. If it's happening on PC it's more than likely only a matter of time before it happens on consoles too.

    The bottom line is though that every thing is going to be coming through your internet connection. Hard media is dead.


Advertisement