Alright well here's my point of view, game developers are a completely different market than other forms of media such as books/movies/television/music
A book is a book, a bunch of paper with words on them.
A movie is released (generally speaking) in the theater, then moved to the dollar theaters, then to DVD/Blu-Ray, then to streaming sites such as iTunes and Amazon Instant, depending on the studio it may be signed to services like Crackle/Netflix, then it is picked up by a television network and the royalties come in.
Music is released through singles which are then played on the radio (sometimes prior to release), then the album hits the shelves (which generally only hardcore music fans buy anymore), upon release it hits any digital distribution services that the label is signed to such as iTunes or Rhapsody, then it hits streaming services such as Spotify and Pandora (which receive royalties per play), if and when it is played on local/satellite radio, they also receive a royalty check. These means of income are pennies on the dollar when it comes to what the artist makes through live music which can range anywhere between $10-$200 for admission, then most people generally buy merch like tour-shirts and posters and whatnot.
Television shows are broadcasted, generally getting millions of views the first time meaning advertisers pay top dollar, depending on the show it is probably sold after airing through digital distribution methods such as iTunes and Amazon, then it is probably aired through the same network again and again, still getting views and money through advertisements during commercial breaks. After the season is finished, the season is sold physically at stores for a good $30-$50 for a 10-25 episode collection, the season is also sold through the instant streaming sites listed above.
Now for video games, the game is sold through various methods including physical and digital retailers but pushed off to the sidelines after 2-3 weeks much like the Hollywood box office. PC Games are an exception to this generally because people are always picking up new copies of old games through Steam/GOG.
Now, for console games, generally the publisher is responsible for the patches, updates and servers for multiplayer (if any). The [b]ONLY WAY[/b] for us to make money is to buy it new. There are no streaming services for games (onLive is shit). There are no royalty checks. There are no live performances. There may be merch but no one buys it.
Used games are sold for a bit less but when it's purchased by a customer, we get NOTHING. Yeah, we got the initial purchase but we're still paying for tech-support, we're still paying for the servers and most importantly we're probably still developing our games (based on what the publisher thinks we're worth [b]BY THE SALES NUMBERS[/b], of which used doesn't count.
Back when games used to be 4-5 month projects back in the 8/16-bit days this may have been acceptable but now, games are becoming services rather than products. Want updates? Want free content? Want quality DLC? Want games that last more than 8 hours? Buy it new so publishers see a 50-million dollar investment is worthwhile.
Otherwise, just don't be surprised when the customer gets fucked over with "online passes", account-based game licenses on consoles because we can hardly afford to recoup the costs of marketing and development, let alone keep the servers up for people that didn't even pay for access in the first place.
Everyone wonders why all these game studios are shutting down all of a sudden. Everyone wonders why games are priced ten dollars higher than they used to be (and probably will be increased this generation as well).
Publishers aren't evil businesses trying to make a quick buck. Everyone I work with cares about the products that they put out and even the guys in marketing and the business side of things I would consider "tech-enthusiasts". My boss doesn't look like Satan with dollar signs in his eyes and I think it's important that people realize this.
In my opinion the problem isn't even about banning the reselling of games, but about limiting what I can do with the product I bought.
Even if I don't plan to resell any game, such a DRM is bad for everyone. If I want to go to a friend's place with one of my games and play it with them, it should be as simple as inserting the disc and pressing the start button. If I can't simply do that and have to e.g. connect to Microsoft's servers and deal with an account system it's a regression from the past generation of consoles and that shouldn't happen.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;40832733]In my opinion the problem isn't even about banning the reselling of games, but about limiting what I can do with the product I bought.
Even if I don't plan to resell any game, such a DRM is bad for everyone. If I want to go to a friend's place with one of my games and play it with them, it should be as simple as inserting the disc and pressing the start button. If I can't simply do that and have to e.g. connect to Microsoft's servers and deal with an account system it's a regression from the past generation of consoles and that shouldn't happen.[/QUOTE]
What Microsoft should do is allow users to assign "guests" (limit of 10) which would allow you to play a friend's game without having to login/logout of your live account. I think that's fair and I think that's a better solution than the online passes.
[QUOTE=Daniel M;40832447]Alright well here's my point of view, game developers are a completely different market than other forms of media such as books/movies/television/music
A book is a book, a bunch of paper with words on them.
A movie is released (generally speaking) in the theater, then moved to the dollar theaters, then to DVD/Blu-Ray, then to streaming sites such as iTunes and Amazon Instant, depending on the studio it may be signed to services like Crackle/Netflix, then it is picked up by a television network and the royalties come in.
Music is released through singles which are then played on the radio (sometimes prior to release), then the album hits the shelves (which generally only hardcore music fans buy anymore), upon release it hits any digital distribution services that the label is signed to such as iTunes or Rhapsody, then it hits streaming services such as Spotify and Pandora (which receive royalties per play), if and when it is played on local/satellite radio, they also receive a royalty check. These means of income are pennies on the dollar when it comes to what the artist makes through live music which can range anywhere between $10-$200 for admission, then most people generally buy merch like tour-shirts and posters and whatnot.
Television shows are broadcasted, generally getting millions of views the first time meaning advertisers pay top dollar, depending on the show it is probably sold after airing through digital distribution methods such as iTunes and Amazon, then it is probably aired through the same network again and again, still getting views and money through advertisements during commercial breaks. After the season is finished, the season is sold physically at stores for a good $30-$50 for a 10-25 episode collection, the season is also sold through the instant streaming sites listed above.
Now for video games, the game is sold through various methods including physical and digital retailers but pushed off to the sidelines after 2-3 weeks much like the Hollywood box office. PC Games are an exception to this generally because people are always picking up new copies of old games through Steam/GOG.
Now, for console games, generally the publisher is responsible for the patches, updates and servers for multiplayer (if any). The [b]ONLY WAY[/b] for us to make money is to buy it new. There are no streaming services for games (onLive is shit). There are no royalty checks. There are no live performances. There may be merch but no one buys it.
Used games are sold for a bit less but when it's purchased by a customer, we get NOTHING. Yeah, we got the initial purchase but we're still paying for tech-support, we're still paying for the servers and most importantly we're probably still developing our games (based on what the publisher thinks we're worth [b]BY THE SALES NUMBERS[/b], of which used doesn't count.
Back when games used to be 4-5 month projects back in the 8/16-bit days this may have been acceptable but now, games are becoming services rather than products. Want updates? Want free content? Want quality DLC? Want games that last more than 8 hours? Buy it new so publishers see a 50-million dollar investment is worthwhile.
Otherwise, just don't be surprised when the customer gets fucked over with "online passes", account-based game licenses on consoles because we can hardly afford to recoup the costs of marketing and development, let alone keep the servers up for people that didn't even pay for access in the first place.
Everyone wonders why all these game studios are shutting down all of a sudden. Everyone wonders why games are priced ten dollars higher than they used to be (and probably will be increased this generation as well).
Publishers aren't evil businesses trying to make a quick buck. Everyone I work with cares about the products that they put out and even the guys in marketing and the business side of things I would consider "tech-enthusiasts". My boss doesn't look like Satan with dollar signs in his eyes and I think it's important that people realize this.[/QUOTE]
As it was mentioned earlier in this thread, AAA studios just got too big to the point where it's not sustainable any more. Nobody cares if a game had a 50 million budget, people just want a good game. Publishers should lower their budget (including marketing), their pricing and their sales expectations.
One day AAA devs won't be able to compete with small studios, because these small studios release better games for cheaper. Now, a small team can make an AAA-looking game fairly easily with tools like UDK. The quality and quantity of indie games is increasing, inevitably there will be a lot of niche games that are better in their specific genre than the 50M $ games targeted at the broadest audience possible. There can't be ten different military shooters that sell millions of copies at the same time.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;40832983]As it was mentioned earlier in this thread, AAA studios just got too big to the point where it's not sustainable any more. Nobody cares if a game had a 50 million budget, people just want a good game. Publishers should lower their budget (including marketing), their pricing and their sales expectations.
One day AAA devs won't be able to compete with small studios, because these small studios release better games for cheaper. Now, a small team can make an AAA-looking game fairly easily with tools like UDK. The quality and quantity of indie games is increasing, inevitably there will be a lot of niche games that are better in their specific genre than the 50M $ games targeted at the broadest audience possible. There can't be ten different military shooters that sell millions of copies at the same time.[/QUOTE]
That's true, marketing budgets are insane. Sales expectations are too high. Ever watch the credits for a game like Tomb Raider? Hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of programmers/artists/designers/third party licenses/massive orchestras.
Some markets are over saturated to say the least BUT if things continue in the direction that they're headed, you're going to have to eat your words and live with them for a while.
Online passes were a perfectly legitimate method of encouraging users to buy new but unfortunately they were rejected because they were a hassle and it didn't allow people who rented/borrowed the game to experience multiplayer.
This is why my "guest pass" idea is great because it's only necessary once and it allows friends to borrow/lend games to each other and it completely fucks over the used gaming market.
I would love to see a system where places like Redbox/Gamefly/Blockbuster had to purchase "rental copies" that would be an exception to this because renting games is a huge part of console gaming culture.
It's like you people didn't even watch the video.
[QUOTE=Daniel M;40832447]Alright well here's my point of view, game developers are a completely different market than other forms of media such as books/movies/television/music
A book is a book, a bunch of paper with words on them.
A movie is released (generally speaking) in the theater, then moved to the dollar theaters, then to DVD/Blu-Ray, then to streaming sites such as iTunes and Amazon Instant, depending on the studio it may be signed to services like Crackle/Netflix, then it is picked up by a television network and the royalties come in.
Music is released through singles which are then played on the radio (sometimes prior to release), then the album hits the shelves (which generally only hardcore music fans buy anymore), upon release it hits any digital distribution services that the label is signed to such as iTunes or Rhapsody, then it hits streaming services such as Spotify and Pandora (which receive royalties per play), if and when it is played on local/satellite radio, they also receive a royalty check. These means of income are pennies on the dollar when it comes to what the artist makes through live music which can range anywhere between $10-$200 for admission, then most people generally buy merch like tour-shirts and posters and whatnot.
Television shows are broadcasted, generally getting millions of views the first time meaning advertisers pay top dollar, depending on the show it is probably sold after airing through digital distribution methods such as iTunes and Amazon, then it is probably aired through the same network again and again, still getting views and money through advertisements during commercial breaks. After the season is finished, the season is sold physically at stores for a good $30-$50 for a 10-25 episode collection, the season is also sold through the instant streaming sites listed above.
Now for video games, the game is sold through various methods including physical and digital retailers but pushed off to the sidelines after 2-3 weeks much like the Hollywood box office. PC Games are an exception to this generally because people are always picking up new copies of old games through Steam/GOG.
Now, for console games, generally the publisher is responsible for the patches, updates and servers for multiplayer (if any). The [b]ONLY WAY[/b] for us to make money is to buy it new. There are no streaming services for games (onLive is shit). There are no royalty checks. There are no live performances. There may be merch but no one buys it.
Used games are sold for a bit less but when it's purchased by a customer, we get NOTHING. Yeah, we got the initial purchase but we're still paying for tech-support, we're still paying for the servers and most importantly we're probably still developing our games (based on what the publisher thinks we're worth [b]BY THE SALES NUMBERS[/b], of which used doesn't count.
Back when games used to be 4-5 month projects back in the 8/16-bit days this may have been acceptable but now, games are becoming services rather than products. Want updates? Want free content? Want quality DLC? Want games that last more than 8 hours? Buy it new so publishers see a 50-million dollar investment is worthwhile.
Otherwise, just don't be surprised when the customer gets fucked over with "online passes", account-based game licenses on consoles because we can hardly afford to recoup the costs of marketing and development, let alone keep the servers up for people that didn't even pay for access in the first place.
Everyone wonders why all these game studios are shutting down all of a sudden. Everyone wonders why games are priced ten dollars higher than they used to be (and probably will be increased this generation as well).
Publishers aren't evil businesses trying to make a quick buck. Everyone I work with cares about the products that they put out and even the guys in marketing and the business side of things I would consider "tech-enthusiasts". My boss doesn't look like Satan with dollar signs in his eyes and I think it's important that people realize this.[/QUOTE]
Oh don't talk such garbage. A company making more profit doesn't mean their later games will be somehow better. Activison makes absolute mother loads out of CoD yet with that series is the same thing every single year, same goes for many other game series out there by big business publishers, it's almost like a game being successful encourages them to innovate even less in the next installment. Most decent games make plenty of money, it's just publishers wanting want EVEN MORE money and thinking that buggering their customers will somehow cause their profits to shoot up.
anyone suffering from the delusion that killing the used game market will somehow lead to publishers reducing prices deserves to be heartily laughed at
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;40834150]Oh don't talk such garbage. A company making more profit doesn't mean their later games will be somehow better. Activison makes absolute mother loads out of CoD yet with that series is the same thing every single year, same goes for many other game series out there by big business publishers, it's almost like a game being successful encourages them to innovate even less in the next installment. Most decent games make plenty of money, it's just publishers wanting want EVEN MORE money and thinking that buggering their customers will somehow cause their profits to shoot up.[/QUOTE]
You don't think in the boardroom meetings they say "Well Arkane's recent project Dishonored sold ____ amount of copies so we'll allocate $______ to their next game/sequel"
If you don't, sorry to tell you but that's the industry. Not every game is a billion dollar franchise. Most AAA titles make hardly enough to cover the development/marketing costs, which is why many studios are shutting down. Forcing consumers is not "buggering their customers" with online passes and account-based DRM.
[b]They aren't their customers if they're buying used.[/b]
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;40834150]Oh don't talk such garbage. A company making more profit doesn't mean their later games will be somehow better. Activison makes absolute mother loads out of CoD yet with that series is the same thing every single year, same goes for many other game series out there by big business publishers, it's almost like a game being successful encourages them to innovate even less in the next installment. Most decent games make plenty of money, it's just publishers wanting want EVEN MORE money and thinking that buggering their customers will somehow cause their profits to shoot up.[/QUOTE]
A company making more profit is however, inclined to increase the budget for sequels, allowing for a better sequel. It does happen to CoD believe it or not, but they seem to blow a massive chunk of their money on the soundtrack (Hans Zimmer must not have been cheap for MW), or trying to improve the engine whilst allowing it to actually run on the hardware (it still looks like arse, but at least it runs smoothly).
Despite what you think, games are getting better and better. We are seeing innovations in graphical fidelity, sound design, user interaction, story, world building, and so much more with every other AAA release. I'm jaded as fuck and I can still see this. More games today are actually pulling me in with their stories than 5 years ago, and this isn't just because I grew up, the same is happening to most gamers.
Honestly, the industry is improving the output quality. It's not massive leaps like it was a few years ago, but it's noticeable if you step back and examine it. Bigger budgets are an issue for sustainability, but they are giving developers a lot more flexibility to do something impressive.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
