CliffyB thinks Sony is 'playing us' and that the industry can't survive with used games.
126 replies, posted
i think everyone did just fine this generation with used games
Can't believe that this is the same guy who brought us UT2004.
[QUOTE=The_Marine;41020502]Can't believe that this is the same guy who brought us UT2004.[/QUOTE]
Gone senile early on.
His ramblings also [B]DO[/B] match that of a senile geezer out of touch with the modern world.
[QUOTE=The Castro;41015806]Someone should ask Cliffy what Microsoft's dick tastes like.[/QUOTE]
Probably soft and micro
[QUOTE=The Castro;41015806]Someone should ask Cliffy what Microsoft's dick tastes like.[/QUOTE]
Doritos.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;41016977]no those games just set a new bar for profit, that most devs can't reach btw. Every game these days has to be AAA in publishers' eyes, but that's not true considering tons of low cost indie games doing amazing[/QUOTE]
The thing is, those low cost indie games are doing well on a vastly different scale with vastly less people behind them.
Essentially they don't have as many people behind the distribution and multiple other aspects that a big publisher, even one which would focus on small games would have.
Even Niche genre publishers like paradox will almost inevitable have bigger budgets and bigger need to make more money than small independent indie devs.
This grows even larger the bigger the publisher gets until you get to the very top with EA, activision and UBI.
[QUOTE=TestECull;41019610]We don't complain about steam because we don't need to. We already have. It doesn't change anything. Steam does need to allow secondhand sales though.
The principle of the thing. I bought it. I should be able to sell it. It's stupid that I can't. I probably never would actually use that function myself but I still think it should be there.
Incidentally those steam sales are the only way I can afford to buy new games and buy food at the same time. They're great.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that the only reason pc gamers are getting deals left and right is because there isn't a used game market on PCs, right? They can afford to sell their games for cheap because all the money goes to devs and publishers without having to deal with people selling their games again or some retailer that doesn't add anything to the chain.
[editline]13th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Valdread;41019678]Wouldn't retail game stores all close if there was no used game markets, i thought that their profits relies on used game sales.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the main goal of MS was to kick gamestop, etc in the balls but because of whiny babies it came back and bit them in the ass.
[QUOTE=Ericson666;41019477]Yeah, fuck that guy with the statistics to back up his argument, who cares about evidence lol
I don't get you guys, your solution to ballooning developer costs is just telling them to "spend less money"? That's like saying we'd have done better in the Afghanistan War if we just "killed more terrorists". Being a game developer is already hell, what with the awful hours and low wages, so they can't really lower their budgets without seriously cutting back on what they can put out. Watchdogs has a massive amount of hype behind it, and a lot of people are pointing to it as an amazing display of potential, but guess what? Without a ton of money behind it, it'd be on the technical level of GTA San Andreas, which while it was a good game, has aged incredibly shittily.
Have you noticed there are a lot of stories of hardship in the industry right now? Like with Metro: Last Light, Dungeon Defenders, most EA games and various other devs like Cliff speaking about how shitty the industry is? That's because they're basically ran like sweatshops, and if consumers keep demanding bigger and better games while rejecting coping measures from publishers like higher prices or anti used game measures, we're gonna see another industry crash
[editline]13th June 2013[/editline]
Uhm yes they do?[/QUOTE]
Your post seems to contradict itself. Who do you think the problem lies with? The consumer for wanting more, but not wanting to pay for it?
Also the example we're saying, using your example with Afghanistan is. Don't go to Afghanistan. Use Diplomacy. Get out of there. We'd do better there if we didn't throw troops at it.
Games like Watchdogs will likely sell really well, and it looks like it deserves the budget. A reboot of a game that hasn't been seen in a while like Tomb Raider, I think, doesn't. You can't take a game that hasn't been in the spotlight in a long time and instant bring it back to AAA status and assume it will explode on the market. Budget accordingly. Cut back on the fancy hair technology and stop spending on hollywood actors for a face.
And I honestly do think we will have a crash in the next 10 years in the industry, and I think we need it. As for 4A's stuff, they were working under a failing publisher, in a country which apparently doesn't have as much employee protections, and they went through a lot of troubles due to the publisher being sold off. It's not surprising.
[editline]13th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Memobot;41019608]He dismisses those who say that game budgets should be reduced. Has he not noticed how costs have spiralled to the millions, and how selling 6 million units can be considered a flop (see Tomb Raider).
Budgets [B]need[/B] to be reviewed, but taking it out on the consumer is not the answer.[/QUOTE]
Apparently the publisher wanted to sell 6 million, but sold less than 4 the first month.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;41023356]And I honestly do think we will have a crash in the next 10 years in the industry, and I think we need it.[/QUOTE]
Considering it's becoming too much of a investor & stockholder dependent industry, I'd agree.
It's inhibiting the creating of experimental, groundbreaking & controversial game designs, so we're instead fed rehash upon rehash with fuckexpensive day 1 DLC's.
[QUOTE=Lamar;41015857]The industry was not the same back then as it is today. Back then, games were made by tiny development teams. Many of them made by a sole person, today game development rivals movie production.[/QUOTE]
Yeah but back then they were also more niche and didn't make as much money so as time goes on it balances out.
[editline]13th June 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Vedicardi;41016713]still don't see anyone in this thread complaining about steam. it's such a one layered issue for so many people. honestly if they said "also because you can't sell games they are only 40 dollars" no one would give a shit[/QUOTE]
I tolerate steam because it allows me to download my game straight to my computer rather than having to go out and actually buy it. Forcing physical copies to be locked to steam is a bit dodgy but overall the benefits of steam generally outweigh the disadvantages with games getting more support on steam.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;41023431]Yeah but back then they were also more niche and didn't make as much money so as time goes on it balances out.[/QUOTE]
apparently not because game studios are being closed left and right and all they get is a few friendly ratings and 'shouldn't have made bad video games .. . .'
If AAA games are really getting that expensive to make, maybe they should step back and take some lessons from Indy devs.
[QUOTE=Juniez;41023511]apparently not because game studios are being closed left and right and all they get is a few friendly ratings and 'shouldn't have made bad video games .. . .'[/QUOTE]
That's because the companies are setting insane standards of them, as mentioned how tomb raider was considered a failure because it only sold 6 million units.
Essentially if a game doesn't sell like CoD it's considered a failure.
[QUOTE=Van-man;41023428]Considering it's becoming too much of a investor & stockholder dependent industry, I'd agree.
It's inhibiting the creating of experimental, groundbreaking & controversial game designs, so we're instead fed rehash upon rehash with fuckexpensive day 1 DLC's.[/QUOTE]
Well in a sense it's becoming a lot closer to the movie industry though. You have essentially the small movie people who tend to push things forward and then you have the blockbusters.
The main difference between the two industries are monetisation streams. Games generally only have only one and so they keep trying to cram stuff into it.
Movies on the other hand tend to have multiple avenues of generating income back which don't depend on a retail product which can be returned.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;41024313]That's because the companies are setting insane standards of them, as mentioned how tomb raider was considered a failure because it only sold 6 million units.
Essentially if a game doesn't sell like CoD it's considered a failure.[/QUOTE]
which the only response is to give them less budget to work with to make games with less production quality in hopes that gamers suddenly lower their expectations
which returns to
[QUOTE=Juniez;41016752]if this coming from the same guys who got hyped as fuck because GTA V had a bigger map than IV and Red Dead combined?
or the guys who wanted a mirror's edge that wasn't a four-hour linear game?
maybe the guys who waited 8+ years for a half-life with a bigger production?
how about the guys who give bethsoft endless praise for the sheer scale of their games?
or the guys whose dream game is actually [url=http://www.facepunch.com/threads/625672]production incarnate[/url] ?
maybe you guys should actually not want something before you talk about not wanting them
or perhaps realize that there's an entirely new industry that focuses on innovation over production (which, ironically enough, can't innovate quite as far as they hope because realizing that dream requires more money (production value))[/QUOTE]
gamers aren't going to lower their expectations
[QUOTE=Ericson666;41019477]Yeah, fuck that guy with the statistics to back up his argument, who cares about evidence lol
[/QUOTE]
where are these statistics
post em, I want to have a read
I like how many people in this thread say 'just lower the budget!' as if The Budget is a little wheel with numbers on it you can just turn.
Where does the budget currently go? To a development team that already gets paid stunningly [I]awful[/I] wages for the sake of the art. Cutting back on the budget means either paying everyone less, or firing people.
If everyone is paid less they won't be able to eat. I don't think many gamers realize just how brutal of an industry it really is.
If they fire people and have less developers, then I can only imagine the wave of complaints when games are released buggy, or unfinished, or are only four hours long. Conversely the gaming community (including Facepunch) goes apeshit when a game boasts an enormous game world or endless replayability or other features that take a lot of time, manpower, and money to develop.
Anyone calling a veteran game developer with well over a decade of experience 'out of touch' because their couch gamer perspective is 'just make the same game for less money' is an utter moron.
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;41015766]also assassins creeds by and large suck
i still haven't finished 3, its a slog to try and play it[/QUOTE]
I have finished it. Completely. Can't get my achievement for it as the game is fucking broken and won't acknowledge my last 10 progress tracker points. Fucking ubisoft.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41024856]I like how many people in this thread say 'just lower the budget!' as if The Budget is a little wheel with numbers on it you can just turn.
Where does the budget currently go? To a development team that already gets paid stunningly [I]awful[/I] wages for the sake of the art. Cutting back on the budget means either paying everyone less, or firing people.
If everyone is paid less they won't be able to eat. I don't think many gamers realize just how brutal of an industry it really is.
If they fire people and have less developers, then I can only imagine the wave of complaints when games are released buggy, or unfinished, or are only four hours long. Conversely the gaming community (including Facepunch) goes apeshit when a game boasts an enormous game world or endless replayability or other features that take a lot of time, manpower, and money to develop.
Anyone calling a veteran game developer with well over a decade of experience 'out of touch' because their couch gamer perspective is 'just make the same game for less money' is an utter moron.[/QUOTE]
We keep having this brought up. Then what is the solution? Increasing price? forcing people to be unable to sell used games? And like I brought up before, if you can't sell games for a bit of money back, then you take longer to get the money to buy a brand new game, it would just slow down the absorption of new titles.
I know this because this is exactly how I act. I can only muster the will to buy a few brand new AAA titles per year. As a PC guy, I definitely look for sales before buying because I can't justify 50-60 dollars too often for games. And even when I do spend full 60-80 dollars on a game, I'm generally really underwhelmed by many of the core mechanics. Yea production value is good, but many of the basic things in some titles are broken, something that more money won't always fix.
It might make sense for the publishers themselves to take back used copies maybe and then sell them for higher, so they also get second level revenue that way.
If your games are not selling well enough to make enough profits, YES you scale back and you get rid of staff. Just like any other business in history. If your sales can't support the budgets you push for, then yes, either increase revenue from sales/initial price, or scale back costs. Fire part of the team, change marketing, reuse assets, et cetera.
Cliffy seems to be turning into a massive tool.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;41016860]Some games I think warrant big budgets. Battlefield, COD, GTA. But when Toimbraider sold like 4.8million copies and was considered a financial failure, that's an issue. Why does tombraider need that kind of budget. I did not play the game, perhaps the budget shows in the production. I realize you can't have it both ways with big games but normal budgets, but there is also a huge inefficiency with the game market, and I'd like to see a breakdown of where a budget goes.
I know the movie industry has one of the biggest profit margins, which is one reason remakes are popular. If you don't completely bomb, it's very easy to make plenty of money back from a project. I just wonder why Games are doing this with their kind of sales figures and roughly hollywood budget levels, especially when they are charging 5-6x the cost of a movie ticket.
Edit: Bethesda seems to atleast know what their doing with their production though. I don't remember hearing them complain about not enough sales when they keep making giant scale games. Some games do need big budgets to do what they need, and some games will sell well for a reason. My problem is with games that don't have that kind of scale, yet have hundreds of millions put into them and then the publisher complains they don't get enough sales for it. EG Resident Evil 6 and Tomb Raider.[/QUOTE]
It's worth noting that some AAA games completely skew the values by having insane PR campaigns. Like Blops 2 when they featured like 10 hollywood stars in an ad? Dead Space 3 had a budget of $300 millions, and Witcher 2's budget landed on something like 20-30 million.
[QUOTE=G-Strogg;41025816]It's worth noting that some AAA games completely skew the values by having insane PR campaigns. Like Blops 2 when they featured like 10 hollywood stars in an ad? Dead Space 3 had a budget of $300 millions, and Witcher 2's budget landed on something like 20-30 million.[/QUOTE]
Dead Space 3 had a $300 million budget? What on earth did they spend that on because it certainly wasn't on the game itself.
[QUOTE=catbarf;41024856]I like how many people in this thread say 'just lower the budget!' as if The Budget is a little wheel with numbers on it you can just turn.
Where does the budget currently go? To a development team that already gets paid stunningly [I]awful[/I] wages for the sake of the art. Cutting back on the budget means either paying everyone less, or firing people.
If everyone is paid less they won't be able to eat. I don't think many gamers realize just how brutal of an industry it really is.
If they fire people and have less developers, then I can only imagine the wave of complaints when games are released buggy, or unfinished, or are only four hours long. Conversely the gaming community (including Facepunch) goes apeshit when a game boasts an enormous game world or endless replayability or other features that take a lot of time, manpower, and money to develop.
Anyone calling a veteran game developer with well over a decade of experience 'out of touch' because their couch gamer perspective is 'just make the same game for less money' is an utter moron.[/QUOTE]
I like the way you recognise that very little of the money goes to the developers, and so suggest taking money away from their wages would do very little to reduce the cost, and then go entirely off the rails and assume that the only way forwards is to fire the developers, and this is the only thing that people saying 'reduce the budget' could be asking for
hint hint, if developers get paid awfully, then maybe you should cut back in the places where people aren't paid awfully
also, for me, the issue of used games is an issue of greed until john carmack starts saying something about it
I'm pretty sure if all of these major studios don't take care of their spending habits, they'll all close down, and we'll be left with indie devs on the PC doing all of the hard work.
You can only lose money for so long before it takes it's toll.
OPEN UR EYES SHEEPLE
[QUOTE=megafat;41033157]I'm pretty sure if all of these major studios don't take care of their spending habits, they'll all close down, and we'll be left with indie devs on the PC doing all of the hard work.
You can only lose money for so long before it takes it's toll.[/QUOTE]
Well maybe they should take inspiration from the indie devs.
But wait, that means ditching ridiculous advertising campaigns and the greedy publishers.
Oh the horror, [I]surely[/I] the AAA game industry can't survive without those :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=catbarf;41024856]I like how many people in this thread say 'just lower the budget!' as if The Budget is a little wheel with numbers on it you can just turn.
Where does the budget currently go? To a development team that already gets paid stunningly [I]awful[/I] wages for the sake of the art. Cutting back on the budget means either paying everyone less, or firing people.
If everyone is paid less they won't be able to eat. I don't think many gamers realize just how brutal of an industry it really is.
If they fire people and have less developers, then I can only imagine the wave of complaints when games are released buggy, or unfinished, or are only four hours long. Conversely the gaming community (including Facepunch) goes apeshit when a game boasts an enormous game world or endless replayability or other features that take a lot of time, manpower, and money to develop.
Anyone calling a veteran game developer with well over a decade of experience 'out of touch' because their couch gamer perspective is 'just make the same game for less money' is an utter moron.[/QUOTE]
It's not that absurd of a statement. In modern gaming the majority of the money is spent towards adverts and the licensing of engines (UE3, CryEngine), platform licenses (360, PS3, Wii), industry standard software (3dsMax), equipment (Mo-cap), and tools (bink, Havok). These licenses are purchased with the intent of speeding up development.
Indie devs stray away from that type of practice and they don't break six figures from their budget.
Cliffy is still trying to stay relevant and its hilarious.
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;41034325]It's not that absurd of a statement. In modern gaming the majority of the money is spent towards adverts and the licensing of engines (UE3, CryEngine),[/QUOTE]
so they save money by not making a new engine
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;41034325]platform licenses (360, PS3, Wii),[/QUOTE]
so they could sell the game
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;41034325]so they could sell the game industry standard software (3dsMax),[/QUOTE]
so they could make the game and don't have to spend time and money training people to use new tools
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;41034325]equipment (Mo-cap),[/QUOTE]
so they could save time and money not hand-animating and still get better results
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;41034325]and tools (bink, Havok). These licenses are purchased with the intent of speeding up development.[/QUOTE]
.. which saves money
[QUOTE=CoolKingKaso;41034325]Indie devs stray away from that type of practice...[/QUOTE]
because they
1) use engines made by AAA companies (gasp) i.e. CDK 3 / UDK / Unity
2) pay for platform licences if required
3) definitely most certainly pay for standard software
4) have to hand animate (and it shows)
5) and don't have to pay for tools because it comes included in their AAA engine
Indie games are the perfect example of making more with less.
It's basic money saving techniques.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.