Go **** yourself THQ

Shiminay · 07-02-2012 11:56am

When a car is sold second hand, we accept that at some stage in it's life, there may be need for something on it to be repaired or replaced and the manufacturer supplies these parts and makes a profit selling them. Similarly, game publisher will make future money via DLC/Online passes with second hand sales. However, a Car manufacturer designs, engineers and subsequently mass-produces a fleet of cars, and releases it into the wild. That's it, it's done and they have no more "responsibility" for it. A game publisher has ongoing costs of maintaining its multi-player servers for maybe 3 to 5 years - that's not cheap. Even with the horror that is console based P2P networking, they still need servers to manage that service.

Games, are software and typically, you don't own software, you own a licence to use it. Second hand sales could very easily fall under breach of licence agreements if the publishers went down that road. If Seán Sherlock's nonsense SI goes through, maybe developers could seek injunctions against the second hand retailers or eBay/Adverts/Done Deal/Buy & Sell for allowing breach of their copyright/licencing.

gizmo · 07-02-2012 11:59am

The car manufacturer example, which is used quite often in fairness, isn't as valid a comparison when you look a little deeper. When a game is sold new, that's it, neither the developer nor the publisher will get more money from the title. They also, of course, get no money from the second hand sale of said title. Sure, people can go and download additional content but the revenue stream has now ended apart from that. This is unlike the car industry where the manufacturers still continue to make money money on every car sold, old or new, via the sale of replacement parts for the vehicle. Is it as much as the sale of a new car? Of course not. However there is still an extremely important revenue stream present which is (one of the reasons) why the automobile market is probably happy to let the second hand market exist.

EDIT: Took too long posting and Shiminay got in first with the spare parts point. That being said I disagree with idea that spare parts are the same as DLC, one is to replace something that has broken and the other is new content. A more apt comparison between DLC and car parts would be after market parts however these lie outside the boundary of the analogy imo since you're generally no longer referring to a revenue stream for the original manufacturer.

stevenmu wrote: »

You could always just buy new then, or where possible buy direct.

The same thing every other shop does to deserve a share of everything they put on their shelves. They provide the shelves, the shop to hold them, and the staff to stock them and sell the games. They take a cut on everything sold, they take a cut on new games too, the same way Tesco take a cut on every can of beans they sell. And they will get their cut, if they don't get to sell 2nd hand games, they'll just stick a much bigger cut on the new games. Will anyone be happier paying €70/80 for a new game?

This is just blatent scaremongering. The online stores such as Amazon, shopto et al have long sold games at below RRP and have had no second hand sales system in place. The prices of games aren't just going to magically jump up if such anti-used games measures were enacted.

stevenmu wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to just dismiss the car argument as a strawman argument, especially if you're then going to go and compare selling a second hand game to selling a second hand cinema ticket If you want to use a movie analogy, then DVDs are much more accurate, you can buy a DVD new, sell it on to someone else, buy second hand DVDs etc. Just like you have always been able to do with games and just like people have always done with games, and the games industry has still been able to go from being a niche market to being the biggest entertainment industry going.

The difference here is that the studios have generally made their money back on the movie by the time it's released on DVDs. From this point on their investment in the product, in this case the DVD, is minimal and so the second hand market wouldn't have such an effect on it.

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.

That you want to play for longer than one day or that actually last longer than one day?

VinLieger · 07-02-2012 12:00pm

I have no problem with this and i cant understand the people who do. These developers arent getting the sales they would otherwise get if 2nd hand sales werent possible of course they are gonna want to see it stopped, their job is to make games and sell them not cater to your every whim and fancy.
If you cant afford a 50-60 euro game on the day of release NEWSFLASH wait a few months for it to go down in price and then buy it.
Because of my current financial situation i cant afford to be going out and buying a new game every week, in fact i usually have to plan out my game purchases months in advance, and in some cases it just so happens i cant afford to buy the 2 games that i really want that come out 1 week apart so ive learned to wait.
For instance i really wanted to get FF13-2 but i want SSX more so im gonna buy that at the end of march and then pick up FF a few months down the line when its dropped in price.
I wont buy 2nd hand because i disagree with it being the only reason ****ty run stores like gamestop can keep afloat and screw devs out of hard earned money.
The celtic tiger strikes again with this sense of entitlement and demand for instant gratification of something someone wants

So i say to the console ppl, welcome to how PC gamers have been living for the last 10 years, its not too bad

johnny_ultimate · 07-02-2012 12:30pm

stevenmu wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to just dismiss the car argument as a strawman argument, especially if you're then going to go and compare selling a second hand game to selling a second hand cinema ticket If you want to use a movie analogy, then DVDs are much more accurate, you can buy a DVD new, sell it on to someone else, buy second hand DVDs etc. Just like you have always been able to do with games and just like people have always done with games, and the games industry has still been able to go from being a niche market to being the biggest entertainment industry going.

It very much is a strawman, and I'm not using the cinema ticket comparison, but since the cinema industry is based around a lot of people going to see one film, it in a weird sort of way is a more valid comparison. You don't buy a car and sell it on days later after you've taken it for a drive or two. You keep it for years. Same with a house. These are long term investments, and incomparable to a piece of plastic entertainment.

There's no real evidence to suggest that if second hand sales were cut out, the extra money would go into developing more original and unique games. They already know that CoD, Fifa etc are the big money makers, they could just decide to bring them out every six months instead of once a year.

There is no definitive evidence, I agree. But look at the huge amounts of unnecessary multiplayer modes and staggered DLC: there's some reasons our games are being shipped like they are now, in some cases incomplete. The second-hand industry is a pretty clear cause of that (out of many other reasons)! One just needs to look at, say, Steam or Xbox Live to show unique games flourishing in a developer friendlier environment.

CORaven wrote: »

More realistic examples: The console its self, dvds, computers, furniture, TVs.
It is not too uncommon to find these second hand somewhere and supports Vadakin's argument.

Again, the latter three are not fair examples, since they're designed to be bought once, and you do not sell them on for a considerable period of time after sale (if at all). DVDs and books are the only really appropriate comparisons, and neither of them have pre-owned markets on anywhere near the scale of games. Books, maybe, but second hand book sales are largely relegated to car boot sales and small independent stores. You don't go into a bookstore and find a second-hand book retailing for just shy of RRP. But it's routine in gaming - I've seen games on sale in CeX for more money than a new copy is on sale around the corner.

I'd like to have this argument. But for the reasons pointed out in mine and other posts, the car argument really isn't the way to have it

And everyone's ignoring the fact we're all arguing in favour of pre-owned games: just not pre-owned games when they're taking away the revenue to the people who deserve it when they really need it (like films, a game's commercial success can almost entirely be judged by the first month of sales).

ShadowHearth · 07-02-2012 1:05pm

Cars is a good example, but not modern cars, which are.ade on purpose to have only 5 year life spam so you would buy new one or spend a fortune on parts from manufacturer.

Car manufacturers spend money on making parts too so it's not like they get them a help of magic wand. Ge developers spend money on making dlcs. Car manufacturers make profit on parts and they keep older cars on road so they can get more money of theyr old product.Game developers make dlc and expansions for games to sell.to keep same game selling and make more profit of dlc too.

Car manufacturers are not after big dealerships which sell second hand cars, so why should developers go after game shops.

The reality is that it's developers own fault that second hand market went so out of control. Gamestops and high street shops get **** all from brand new game now as big share is taken by publishers etc. so like any business game shops went to look for options how to make it profitable for them sell games, not just do a faivor for developers. So here you go, second hand sale.

No, I don't buy used games, but I want developers not to go stupid idiotic ways which won't benefit genuine buyer, just make it more annoying.

ghostchant · 07-02-2012 1:11pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

The reality is that it's developers own fault that second hand market went so out of control. Gamestops and high street shops get **** all from brand new game now as big share is taken by publishers etc.

...

No, I don't buy used games, but I want developers not to go stupid idiotic ways which won't benefit genuine buyer, just make it more annoying.

I don't think you're making the distinction between developers and publishers. What are the developers doing that's so wrong?

gizmo · 07-02-2012 1:29pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Car manufacturers spend money on making parts too so it's not like they get them a help of magic wand. Ge developers spend money on making dlcs.

You think DLC is created with a magic wand?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Car manufacturers make profit on parts and they keep older cars on road so they can get more money of theyr old product.Game developers make dlc and expansions for games to sell.to keep same game selling and make more profit of dlc too.

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.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Car manufacturers are not after big dealerships which sell second hand cars, so why should developers go after game shops.

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".

ShadowHearth wrote: »

The reality is that it's developers own fault that second hand market went so out of control. Gamestops and high street shops get **** all from brand new game now as big share is taken by publishers etc. so like any business game shops went to look for options how to make it profitable for them sell games, not just do a faivor for developers. So here you go, second hand sale.

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?

Grumpypants · 07-02-2012 1:31pm

The used market has been hugely beneficial to smaller studio's and for opening up the market.

How many people here picked up a cheap used game that they would never had bought new, then found it was brilliant and went on to buy further games from that team?

On the other hand i can't remember the last full price game i bought that i didn't know a lot about the team behind it.

wes · 07-02-2012 1:33pm

Well, there more than welcome to do this. I just won't buy the next Xbox if they do something this stupid. Nintendo and Sony will get my money instead.

TerrorFirmer · 07-02-2012 1:39pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Wtf is wrong with online pass lads? Let's be honest - it works. Why reinvent bicycle?
Online pass makes second hand games less attractive, so prices on trade ins and second hand sales droping, not growing. That would explain big high street boys having problems too.

I agree actually, with the online pass system. Recently, I borrowed my friends copy of Space Marine, and to progress past an elemental level online, whilst still having complete access to the SP campaign, I had to buy the pass, which was only 800MSP - about 8 euro. To buy the game new, the cheapest I could find was at least double that, so I was happy to pay the 8 odd euro to get full access, and even, to be honest, contribute a little back to a great game. Went on to buy the Chaos Unleashed DLC too, so that's 16 quid spent on a '2nd hand game', and I'll probably end up getting the Dreadnought expansion as well.

Obviously that only suits games with decent MP capability however, which limits it, does nothing to claw back some revenue from games designed around a single player experience.

hooradiation · 07-02-2012 1:44pm

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.

johnny_ultimate · 07-02-2012 2:09pm

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.

Grumpypants · 07-02-2012 2:13pm

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.

ShadowHearth · 07-02-2012 2:14pm

gizmo wrote: »

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.

gizmo · 07-02-2012 2:34pm

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.

Not in the slightest, I'll side with the people who I deem right. In the context of second hand sales, when you have a huge number of studios facing closure due to falling sales and more particular publishers and retailers who are reaping massive profits in th process, I think it's easy to determine who I'd be in favour of.

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.

Publishers and developers are not fighting each other. The vast majority of developers know all too well that they cannot survive without the support of publishers. The reason you see developers getting involved is because they know the effect the second hand sales is having on their livelihoods because of how it affects publishers and how they approach funding titles.

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.

I didn't miss the point, I simply disagreed with yours and you've not offered any real rebuttle outside of ad hominuum replies.

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 ).

Developers do make many many quality products and the vast majority of them are still affected by the second hand markets. For instance, in the local Game/Gamestation here there is a slew of second hand copies of Skyrim, Batman Arkham City and Uncharted 3, all fantastic titles. On the other hand, there aren't that many BF3s or MW3s primarily due to the online component of these titles. The single player campaigns only weigh in at 5-6hrs but it is the online part which stops people from trading them in, not because they are deemed better than other titles. This is also why you see so many publishers insisting on multiplayer components being tacked onto games where it really doesn't belong. Dead Space 2 or Mass Effect 3 MP anyone?

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 2:50pm

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.

gizmo · 07-02-2012 3:08pm

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?

Never mind the amusing occurances where the second hand copy is more expensive than the new version in the same store. :pac:

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.

Well there's another demographic, the people who just want to save a few quid. While generally speaking the game will be cheaper online there'll still be plenty of occassions where, soon after release, a new game can be picked up cheaper instore second hand. On these occassions the difference probably won't be much but unless people are aware of where their is money are going or simply don't care, they'll probably pick the cheaper options, especially given the sales pitches by the staff in most of the stores about how they're "basically the same as new".

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?

super_furry · 07-02-2012 3:18pm

gizmo wrote: »

Anyway, on a more important note, is baby's blood different from normal blood? Is it...tastier?

There's a higher concentration of midichlorians.

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 3:26pm

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.

Dyr · 07-02-2012 3:29pm

"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.

hooradiation · 07-02-2012 3:58pm

Grumpypants wrote: »

A simplistic yet completely incorrect response.

ohh, you want to play this game, do you? Right, chuckles.

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 breakthroughs

Grumpypants 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.

ShadowHearth · 07-02-2012 4:23pm

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

)

Helix · 07-02-2012 4:29pm

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 do

Myrddin · 07-02-2012 4:30pm

hooradiation · 07-02-2012 4:36pm

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?

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 4:38pm

Back on topic please.

Varik · 07-02-2012 4:41pm

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.....

Grumpypants · 07-02-2012 4:58pm

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.

gizmo · 07-02-2012 5:05pm

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.

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.

hooradiation · 07-02-2012 5:19pm

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.

hooradiation · 07-02-2012 5:21pm

Gizmo, stop stealing my thoughts.

Grumpypants · 07-02-2012 5:59pm

gizmo wrote: »

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.

Grumpypants · 07-02-2012 6:11pm

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.

gizmo · 07-02-2012 6:28pm

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.

Actually I'd disagree, again from an independent studio perspective that is the most prevalent means of financing a game. It's not that the publisher will keep all the money, they'll keep the money until they make their investment back or hit a certain quota before the developer begins to see royalties.

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.

Very few developers could afford to fund or part fund their own titles which is why you often see studios close after one game ships because they were unable to find a publisher for future projects.

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.

Not sure what you mean here but if it's what I think it is, it's incorrect in terms of XBox Live as you cannot self publish on that service, you must have a publisher which is often why you see small independent games coming to the service under the Microsoft Games Studios / Microsoft Studios label. Not sure about PSN but I'd imagine the setup is similar. As for Steam, well that's completely different as we're all aware.

Grumpypants wrote: »

there are options to pre sell the game to cover the dev costs and not use a publisher at all.

This just doesn't happen for AAA games.

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.

Never really heard of studios borrowing money for development purposes. Maybe for the prototyping stages before a deal is signed but never for the full development of a game. The rest is true though, you often see independent studios working with multiple publishers for different games, mainly for the reasons above.

Grumpypants wrote: »

The idea that a developer doesn't get paid from the final sales is just wrong.

As I said, this completely depends on the arrangement with the publisher but as above, the most prevalent form of financing is what was described.

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.

Same as above, it's incredibly rare for a developer to just get the entire development budget up front especially with the money involved in the last generation or so.

As always, there are exceptions to most of the above but that's the general jist.

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 7:19pm

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.

johnny_ultimate · 07-02-2012 7:25pm

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:

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 7:35pm

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

Myrddin · 07-02-2012 7:39pm

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 on

richymcdermott · 07-02-2012 7:41pm

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:

richymcdermott · 07-02-2012 7:45pm

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 business

gizmo · 07-02-2012 7:54pm

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:

I've said that twice already and still no one listened, I do wonder do people read these articles at all before grabbing the pitchfork.

richymcdermott wrote: »

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..

He doesn't even work directly for THQ, he's a designer for Volition, a studio owned by THQ so to attribute his comments to a company which numbers in the thousands is more than a bit unfair.

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

In fairness he said "It can be a bad thing", I wouldn't call that totally against it. Personally I think it's absolutely horrible that a studio like CD Projekt Red who can come out with such an outstanding game as The Witcher 2 and then support it with additional free content should have to worry about "convincing" people to stay with their game and not trade it in, nevermind the huge number of people who just flat out pirated it. Yes, that's 4.5m (and a conservative figure at that) pirated copies against 1m sales for one of the finest RPGs in years. A way to do business indeed.

johnny_ultimate · 07-02-2012 7:57pm

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

TBH they get one thing right on. We can blame the developers, the retailers and the publishers all we want (and they all significantly contribute to the situation we find ourselves in). But in reality it's the gamers who are a source of huge amounts of the problem. The ones who refuse to take risks and just buy the same franchises over and over again. The ones who come online and complain about all this nonsense without doing anything about it (remember the protest over MW2 on Steam?). The ones who pirate. The gaming community is certainly encouraging and often indirectly supporting many of these more draconian actions.

It's a Catch-22 situation. Everyone claims they want no DRM, longer games, higher production values and lower prices - almost all conflicting demands. Yet the people who do give them what they want often find themselves struggling. Frankly, there's probably no solution to keep everyone happy.

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 8:08pm

gizmo wrote: »

In fairness he said "It can be a bad thing", I wouldn't call that totally against it. Personally I think it's absolutely horrible that a studio like CD Projekt Red who can come out with such an outstanding game as The Witcher 2 and then support it with additional free content should have to worry about "convincing" people to stay with their game and not trade it in, nevermind the huge number of people who just flat out pirated it. Yes, that's 4.5m (and a conservative figure at that) pirated copies against 1m sales for one of the finest RPGs in years. A way to do business indeed.

How many of those 4.5 million are a lost sale though? Nobody can tell. Is4.5 million pirated copies even that big a number in terms of how many were sold? It's getting off topic now but what I like about CD Projekt is in articles about the games piracy rates they discussed them but never whinged and moaned about it. They know it's a fact of life and they are dealing with it without dicking over the customer. They made a big budget game and made a nice profit while without using DRM which I think a lot of other developers and publishers should look at.

ShadowHearth · 07-02-2012 8:23pm

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

That's why cd project red is my favourite developer. Witcher 2 is my goty and I freaking love that game. The whole approach they have with gamers is just amazing. I got witcher 1, witcher 2, and I will buy witcher 2 on Xbox too just so I could give them some money and have that game for my great game collection.

It weird, but when I am reading those articles about new drm and that new Xblender bull**** I feel like criminal and treated like scum who will be stealing everything. It's like they are doing us a faivor for letting us play on their new console! Atleast cd project red still sees gamers, not potential murderers, pirates and financial mastermind villains.

ShadowHearth · 07-02-2012 8:29pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

How many of those 4.5 million are a lost sale though? Nobody can tell. Is4.5 million pirated copies even that big a number in terms of how many were sold? It's getting off topic now but what I like about CD Projekt is in articles about the games piracy rates they discussed them but never whinged and moaned about it. They know it's a fact of life and they are dealing with it without dicking over the customer. They made a big budget game and made a nice profit while without using DRM which I think a lot of other developers and publishers should look at.

Spot on.

They are making customers to buy game and not trade it in by having a high quality product." If you buy our game, support us, then we can gve you more and even bigger!".

richymcdermott · 07-02-2012 8:52pm

You could look at the success of from software demons souls series , the game wasant even suppose to come out in the west and word to mouth people were talking about it and i imported my copy from china and looks at the success that had with no advertisement and no online pass or dlc and both game went to sell over a million copies, same with catherine that did very well and thats an obscure game , and heavy rain not really a videogame at all went on to sell 2million , was not even expected to sell that much but did really well.

Games are still doing great despite people buying second hand games, surely they understand no one could try out new ips if they removed second hand games completly , w be stuck it cod 47 and bf21 :P

Retr0gamer · 07-02-2012 9:08pm

Demon's Souls is kind of an exception to the rules, you get something like that every so often like Minecraft or Katamari and it can't really be predicted by software companies.

How Dark Souls is a better example. It had much less of a budget than most projects this year and was made by a tiny team in comparison but probably brought in massive profits (although server rent could have eaten into that). The fact of the matter is that From Software budgeted correctly for the current market and were rewarded.

There's too many developers out there that believe they will make it with a massive new IP then make decent games that don't excel with hardly any marketing and release it during a busy time of year expecting it to compete. Stuff like Enslaved by Ninja Theory. Developers and publishers need to know their limits. An example of handling a game well is EA's handling of Kingdoms of Amalur, a game that nobody was interested in that is being promoted on the back of Mass Effect 3 and being released during a quiet period of the year. I can see it being a surprise hit for them. A bad example is Sega releasing Resonance of Fate in the same week as FFXIII and Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey which sowed up the hardcore and casual JRPG market. It didn't matter how well regarded the game is now, it was sent out to die.

A bit more business smarts is needed by a lot of people in the industry. Nintendo had Mario Galaxy 2 ready for months but heldit back until a time when it wasn't competing with its other games. There's always a summer drought that is never taken advantage of, it worked wonders for God of War back in the day.

richymcdermott · 07-02-2012 9:14pm

Actually thats a very good point , the likes of sonic generations last year coming out same week as mw3 and skyrim , bad bad business in its own , there was also i think infamous 2 sales were poor csuse it came out in the summer when people go out on holidays or outside playing with their friends , just really bad marketing is also a cause of plummit sales...

gizmo · 07-02-2012 9:16pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

How many of those 4.5 million are a lost sale though? Nobody can tell. Is4.5 million pirated copies even that big a number in terms of how many were sold? It's getting off topic now but what I like about CD Projekt is in articles about the games piracy rates they discussed them but never whinged and moaned about it. They know it's a fact of life and they are dealing with it without dicking over the customer. They made a big budget game and made a nice profit while without using DRM which I think a lot of other developers and publishers should look at.

I'd hope you know quite well at this stage that I don't subscribe to the belief that every download is a lost sale. However, neither do I believe that a large number of those downloads wouldn't be converted to legitimate purchases were that download not available. The number is, as you say, unknown but that doesn't mean it's not a glaring issue for developers, not just because of the approximate financial loss (that's an issue too of course) but also, in the context of the thread, what it represents to publishers and their future decisions.

As for CD Projekt specifically, well one could look at the $7m profit they made from all of their operations in the first half of 2011 ($5m of that came from The Witcher 2) and think they're doing well (they're doing better than most I'd imagine) but how far do you think that would go when they move onto the next project and have to pay their 400 odd employees for the next 4 years until the next release? As for the DRM issue, don't forget they also retained the use of a law firm to go after the people who had downloaded their game and only backed down after outcry from gamers. Moral of the story, every company sees this as an issue and are experimenting with ways to deal with it. Eventually a solution will be settled upon but I'd wager it won't be as simple as throwing their hands up in the air and living with it.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

How Dark Souls is a better example. It had much less of a budget than most projects this year and was made by a tiny team in comparison but probably brought in massive profits (although server rent could have eaten into that). The fact of the matter is that From Software budgeted correctly for the current market and were rewarded.

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?

Amalgam · 07-02-2012 9:16pm

Not just Microsoft.. Sony have been putting out feelers for a system like this for a few years, hints of it being on the horizon. I think their system burned on or burned off an area of the game, making it locked to the console. Something odd like that.

Go **** yourself THQ

Comments