Support NeoGAF

[SpinningBirdKick]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

GAF doesn't get better than this.

Fantastic post.

 

[Commodore]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

What the hell man! I was just about to head to bed and now I can't sleep. Brain is revving up after reading this.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

Yes, publishers may be giving people what they want to buy, but they should also give them what they would want to keep.

Spectacular.

You and Faceless have killed it here.

 

[Dunan]

Faceless007, this is why I keep coming to GAF. Very, very well said, my man.

 

[Acosta]

It's actually quite a silly, inane screed that shows complete ignorance about why the industry actually makes that "military porn" and how good or bad it is for them. It just tells people what they want to hear in emotional, rabble-rousing language and style. And those who are too ineloquent or dim-witted to articulate the same sentiment, and instead can come up with nothing better than absurd analogies to used cars, admire it. It absolves their greed and their blame in creating the current situation. It's the publishers' fault!

And to some degree, it is, but it is an inevitable result of simply giving the largest group of customers possible what they want. They want "military porn." And sports games. Look at the Top 10 games for every month this generation. Sports games and killing games, punctuated by the occasional Nintendo or music game. Publishers made all sorts of games. And those are the ones that people bought. In disproportionately huge numbers. And the bigger the development and marketing budgets, the bigger the sales, with a few exceptions. You want to know why those games are made with the budgets they are made with? It's because that's what customers reward them for doing. It's not that hard to understand, but maybe it is a little hard to accept.

It's exactly like the people who rant about auto makers failing because they focused too much on producing SUVs. Those greedy executives! Those horrible gas guzzlers! If only they made more hybrids and plug-ins and EVs! Of course, we know that the profits from the SUVs were keeping those automakers afloat in the first place, and that those more efficient cars came nowhere near their profit margins, despite heavy subsidies, because it turns out that more people were willing to pay the premiums for the SUVs.

It's the same with the AAA dudebro shooter. I hate them. I don't buy them. I don't think they're good for the industry. But in business it's survival of the fittest, and because of a confluence of factors - the current retail model, used games, customer preferences, etc. - they are the survivors.

I read this and I just see poor excuses and some lies.

And the bigger the development and marketing budgets, the bigger the sales, with a few exceptions.

This? This is not true at all. We have just seen how Tomb Raider with a massive budget is unable to even compensate that inversion after selling more than 3 million of copies. And there are many, many cases, in one side or other, that proof there is no necessary correlation. That mentality only serves for the peace of mind of executives "we are pouring millions into this project, we are doing our job".

If AAA dudebro shooter is SO good why it's not sustaining the industry at all? Companies are tail chasers, call it COD, WoW, GTA or whatever is popular at the moment, their mentality is "this works great, let's pour millions in doing something exactly like that and get some of the pie". And what happens? The Old Republic happens, another tail chasing project with a massive budget that fails flat to make the kind of income the company expected to make.

This is the kind of blindness that will lead the companies to the slaughter house. Their problems are self-imposed. If they can't survive without changing the rules, they don't deserve to survive, that is all. Videogames will need a restart as a business and that's it, that's what faceless is saying, and he is right.

 

[Cynar]

Well, this is the disconnect I guess. You admit you only hold this view because of the detrimental effects (you think) are impacting the industry. You are asserting that a fundamental aspect of property rights and consumer rights as it has existed since the beginning of trade should be adjusted and recodified on a per-industry basis, not because it's inherently bad or unethical, but just because you think it's a threat to the industry's health. Which means you are essentially arguing for protectionism for corporations--consumers are free to exercise their consumer rights only up to a certain point, but if that free exercise is perceived to threaten the viability of the industry, then their rights must be limited in order to save the industry.

I don't think I can put into words my disgust at this demeaning display of groveling at the feet of your game developer overlords. Even a die-hard laissez-faire capitalist would not be so subservient, because even a capitalist would accept that sometimes industries die and that's the way the world works. As much as I enjoy games, there is no inherent good in this industry. The ends do not justify the means here; there is nothing that makes the gaming industry inherently worthy of preservation, not to the point that would justify carving out a special exemption for them where used games are somehow magically not OK when they are OK for every other packaged good on the planet. Just because your favored set of content producers couldn't properly adapt does not justify rewriting the rules of what "property ownership" means and fundamentally removing the ability to preserve, inherit, pass on, lend, and share its products.

The industry does not come first; consumers do. I have no sympathy for an industry that cannot properly stumble its way around a viable secondhand market like every other mature industry in the world. Sometimes your old product just isn't good enough, and the way you solve it is by making a better product, not by forcing consumers to adapt to your archaic and myopic business model with your dying breath. If this industry can't find a way to make money off the primary market -- even with DLC and exclusive pre-order content and HD re-releases and map packs and online passes and annualized sequels and "expanding the audience" and AAA advertising and forced multiplayer -- then, if I may be so blunt, fuck it. It doesn't deserve our money in the first place. If an entire industry has its head so far up its ass, is so focused on short-term gains, and has embraced such a catastrophically stupid blockbuster business model in the pursuit of a stagnant market of hardcore 18-34 dudebros that it thinks it has no choice but to take away our first-sale rights as its last chance of maybe, finally, creating a sustainable stream of profits, then it can go to hell. It doesn't need your protection, it needs to be taken out back and beaten until it remembers who its real masters are.

I especially have a hard time having any sympathy because so many of the industry's problems are of its own making. They chose to focus on shaderific HD graphics over long-lasting appeal and gameplay; they chose to focus on linear scripted cinematic B-movie imitations that were only good for one playthrough instead of replayability and open-ended design; they chose to pour so much money and marketing into military porn and fetishized violent shootbang Press A to Awesome titles, exactly the kinds of games that hardcore gamers, the most likely gamers to trade in games quickly were prone to buying and reselling; and perhaps most galling, they chose to give Gamestop loads of exclusive pre-order bonuses while they knew exactly what Gamestop would say to those customers once in the store. They kept making insanely lavish and nonsensical displays of spectacular whizz-bang, despite that being exactly the kind of game most susceptible to trading after one week because there was nothing left to do with it. And now they're discovering that putting so many insanely expensive eggs into one fragile and easily breakable basket is maybe not the most sustainable business model ever.

So forgive me if I find myself not caring one bit when the industry complains that it's just so hard to sell six million copies of Gears of Medal of Battle of Uncharted Angry Dudes VII in the first week and that's why they need to take away used sales for the entire platform. No, the problem isn't at this end.

I don't think this can be quoted enough. Beautiful post.

 

[Open Source]

I read this and I just see poor excuses and some lies.



This? This is not true at all. We have just seen how Tomb Raider with a massive budget is unable to even compensate that inversion after selling more than 3 million of copies. And there are many, many cases, in one side or other, that proof there is no necessary correlation. That mentality only serves for the peace of mind of executives "we are pouring millions into this project, we are doing our job".

If AAA dudebro shooter is SO good why it's not sustaining the industry at all? Companies are tail chasers, call it COD, WoW, GTA or whatever is popular at the moment, their mentality is "this works great, let's pour millions in doing something exactly like that and get some of the pie". And what happens? The Old Republic happens, another tail chasing project with a massive budget that fails flat to make the kind of income the company expected to make.

This is the kind of blindness that will lead the companies to the slaughter house. Their problems are self-imposed. If they can't survive without changing the rules, they don't deserve to survive, that is all. Videogames will need a restart as a business and that's it, that's what faceless is saying, and he is right.

If it were generally true, then why is Tomb Raider the only example that people are giving? For every Tomb Raider there are a dozen Halo/Call of Duty/Far Cry/Assassin's Creed/etc. games that made a bajillion dollars. And these ARE sustaining the (console side of the) industry because nothing else works on consoles now. I agree that the (console side of the)industry needs a major shift. And the way used games are handled must be part of that shift. Just like on PC.

 

[Mael]

If it were generally true, then why is Tomb Raider the only example that people are giving? For every Tomb Raider there are a dozen Halo/Call of Duty/Far Cry/Assassin's Creed/etc. games that made a bajillion dollars. And these ARE sustaining the (console side of the) industry because nothing else works on consoles now. I agree that the (console side of the)industry needs a major shift. And the way used games are handled must be part of that shift. Just like on PC.

The corpse of THQ isn't even cold and you manage to say that this model has no casualties?

 

[Open Source]

The corpse of THQ isn't even cold and you manage to say that this model has no casualties?

THQ was not a casualty of a failed attempt at AAA. Their AAA stuff like Saint's Row made them money - even a relative failure like Homefront did in the long run, I believe.

It was their drawing shit that doomed them.

 

[Mael]

THQ was not a casualty of a failed attempt at AAA. Their AAA stuff like Saint's Row made them money - even a relative failure like Homefront did in the long run, I believe.

It was their drawing shit that doomed them.

And you don't even know your history straight.
They tried to AAA uDraw.
That's why they went under, it failed so hard it killed them.
They were killed because their other AAA games didn't ofset the enormous loss of 1 AAA failure

 

[ProudClod]

Why is this even a conversation about GameStop? There are plenty of great ways to purchase used games/resell them without going through the predatory sales-folk at GameStop. An online DRM would kill the entire used game market for Xbox. Forget about Gamestop. No more selling used games through eBay, or CraigsList. No more handing a favorite game to a friend.

That's fucking ridiculous.

The used game market allows consumers to purchase a product they are unsure of at a discounted price, and to sell it in order to recoup some of the cost (if the product was unsatisfactory, for example). It is a natural and essential aspect of day to day consumer interaction. Every type of product is re-sellable. Kitchenware, clothing, music, movies, computers, cars, books, jewellery, et-fucking-cetera. Why does the video game industry pretend that this "issue" is somehow uniquely damaging to it?

This is a greedy ploy to minimize consumer options so executives of companies with weight in the industry can enjoy a marginal improvement in profits.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Why is this even a conversation about GameStop? There are plenty of great ways to purchase used games/resell them without going through the predatory sales-folk at GameStop. An online DRM would kill the entire used game market for Xbox. Forget about Gamestop. No more selling used games through eBay, or CraigsList. No more handing a favorite game to a friend.

That's fucking ridiculous.

The used game market allows consumers to purchase a product they are unsure of at a discounted price, and to sell it in order to recoup some of the cost (if the product was unsatisfactory, for example). It is a natural and essential aspect of day to day consumer interaction. Every type of product is re-sellable. Kitchenware, clothing, music, movies, computers, cars, books, jewellery, et-fucking-cetera. Why does the video game industry pretend that this "issue" is somehow uniquely damaging to it?

This is a greedy ploy to minimize consumer options so executives of companies with weight in the industry can enjoy a marginal improvement in profits.

GameStop is just an easy way for people to create an evil money-grubbing face for the used game market.

 

[Brashnir]

Many of the biggest success stories on consoles this past gen weren't even huge AAA blockbusters. The Entire Wii phenomenon was built on titles (Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Mario Kart, NSMB) which were made on very to relatively small budgets.

The Rock Band/Guitar Hero craze was also a battle of games with middling budgets generating giant revenues until the publishers burned the public out on them.

Let's Dance? Tiny budget. Dance Central and the other successful Kinect games were also small budget affairs.

FIFA is probably the second biggest game franchise in the world behind COD, and while I'm not privy to the inside financial details on it, I'm guessing it doesn't cost EA $100 million each year to put out a roster update with a couple minor enhancements. Same for Madden.


The problem with the industry isn't that a giant budget is required to sell a game. It's that big publishers refuse to pull the trigger on much of anything other than making another game exactly like one that has already sold well.

The consumers didn't throw tens of millions into Homefront. The consumers didn't throw tens of millions into Medal of Honor. The consumers didn't throw tens of millions into <insert 50 other derivitave shooter bombs here>. The publishers did. They're hanging themselves with their own rope, and I'm not willing to sacrifice my rights as a consumer to (fail to) bail them out.

Once they don't have used games to blame for their own mismanagement, they'll find something else, until they run out of things to blame and eventually go under. Then the new companies that spring up in their place will buy into a fucked up system that is already predisposed to treating its customers like shit if we don't stop it now.

 

[Open Source]

And you don't even know your history straight.
They tried to AAA uDraw.
That's why they went under, it failed so hard it killed them.
They were killed because their other AAA games didn't ofset the enormous loss of 1 AAA failure

No, uDraw was not part of the AAA software model. It was a hardware thing. They failed to sell a hardware peripheral, around which they had built several games that were not remotely AAA.

 

[Open Source]

The consumers didn't throw tens of millions into Homefront. The consumers didn't throw tens of millions into Medal of Honor. The consumers didn't throw tens of millions into <insert 50 other derivitave shooter bombs here>.

But they did, in each of those cases.

And the music games made the vast majority of their money after they were sequelized.

 

[Acorn]

What the hell man! I was just about to head to bed and now I can't sleep. Brain is revving up after reading this.

That is the best gif I've ever seen.

 

[Mael]

No, uDraw was not part of the AAA software model. It was a hardware thing. They failed to sell a hardware peripheral, around which they had built several games that were not remotely AAA.

What are you even talking about?
uDraw was released on ps3 and x360 after its success on wii, they put a massive budget (AAA if you will) behind it and were left to dry when the market responded with a massive "meh".

AAA doesn't mean Medal of Honor shootbang with big production values, it means big budget and that's it.

But they did, in each of those cases.

And the music games made the vast majority of their money after they were sequelized.

You might want to look back at the performance of Medal of Honor again.

 

[Open Source]

What are you even talking about?
uDraw was released on ps3 and x360 after its success on wii, they put a massive budget (AAA if you will) behind it and were left to dry when the market responded with a massive "meh".

AAA doesn't mean Medal of Honor shootbang with big production values, it means big budget and that's it.

AAA in this sense is understood (by everyone except you, apparently) to refer to software. Not to dance mats or MadCatz controllers or Gizmodos or Ngages or 32X or whatever other hardware you want to think up.

And Medal of Honor has made a gazillion dollars over the last decade.

 

[charlequin]

It's actually quite a silly, inane screed

Lulz. Sour grapes, etc.

(In general, responding to this kind of thing by calling the thread's other participants stuff like "dim-witted" isn't a good way to get on the staff's good side.)

It's exactly like the people who rant about auto makers failing because they focused too much on producing SUVs.

This is actually a good metaphor, in that both are tragedy-of-the-commons situations in which single-minded pursuit of a lowest-common-denominator strategy was ultimately destructive of both the industry and the broader environment.

 

[Open Source]

Lulz. Sour grapes, etc.

(In general, responding to this kind of thing by calling the thread's other participants stuff like "dim-witted" isn't a good way to get on the staff's good side.)

The repeated quoting of a long post to give the neogaf equivalent of a "Like" with no further commentary or acknowledgement of counter-arguments isn't exactly a hallmark of intelligence, is it? But point taken.

 

[Mael]

AAA in this sense is understood (by everyone except you, apparently) to refer to software. Not to dance mats or MadCatz controllers or Gizmodos or Ngages or 32X or whatever other hardware you want to think up.

uDraw is not just a peripheral unless you missed the whole thing spectacularly.
It was a platform for softwares.
When we're talking about uDraw, no one is talking about only the funny tablet.
The whole operation was very costly and as such was a project with a huge budget.

And Medal of Honor has made a gazillion dollars over the last decade.

You're changing the subject even quicker than an anchor on tv.
The latest MoH sold so well EA canned the sequels.
No one in this thread but you refers to MoH from before the reboot when IW's people were making a game about WWII.
Customers aren't buying MoH anymore that's for sure.
In the same way when people talk about Tomb Raider being AAA they're not talking about the Saturn game.

 

[Open Source]

This is actually a good metaphor, in that both are tragedy-of-the-commons situations in which single-minded pursuit of a lowest-common-denominator strategy was ultimately destructive of both the industry and the broader environment.

Well, somewhat. It was vulnerable to dramatic shifts in the economy, gas prices, etc. But it was not the cause of the automaker failures. They had massive issues that would have sunk them long ago if not for stuff like SUV sales keeping them afloat.

And there are massive systemic weaknesses in the game industry as well, and dramatic shifts occurring, that revenues from blockbuster games have been covering up and that revenues lost to used games have been helping to reveal.

 

[Mael]

The repeated quoting of a long post to give the neogaf equivalent of a "Like" with no further commentary or acknowledgement of counter-arguments isn't exactly a hallmark of intelligence, is it? But point taken.

This thread moves and if people feel like the post in question should be read again, you're in no position to call them dumb.

And really what is said can't be said enough :

The industry does not come first; consumers do.

 

[Open Source]

uDraw is not just a peripheral unless you missed the whole thing spectacularly.
It was a platform for softwares.
When we're talking about uDraw, no one is talking about only the funny tablet.
The whole operation was very costly and as such was a project with a huge budget.



You're changing the subject even quicker than an anchor on tv.
The latest MoH sold so well EA canned the sequels.
No one in this thread but you refers to MoH from before the reboot when IW's people were making a game about WWII.
Customers aren't buying MoH anymore that's for sure.
In the same way when people talk about Tomb Raider being AAA they're not talking about the Saturn game.

Yeah, we're not talking about hardware platforms. That's not what AAA refers to. It was costly, sure, but it wasn't a blockbuster game. It was a peripheral designed to be used with multiple games. Expensive game-related initiative and AAA game are not the same thing.

And it seems like you are trying to say that companies are dumb for making big bets on games that have been successful in the past. Are you? Because that is not borne out by evidence. You can point out failures of execution and implementation in any decision-making strategy anywhere. It doesn't mean the strategy is a bad one, especially when it is proven successful many times over in other instances.

 

[Open Source]

This thread moves and if people feel like the post in question should be read again, you're in no position to call them dumb.

And really what is said can't be said enough :

Yes, reposting a long essay 15 times on the same page and adding nothing to the discussion is absolutely necessary! Good point!

And customers do not exist without products.

 

[Jallopy]

And customers do not exist without products.

Funny, I'm a customer, and I'll exist just fine without a console that doesn't allow me to freely lend a game to a friend.

 

[Pureauthor]

And customers do not exist without products.

No shortage of products, though.

 

[Mael]

Yeah, we're not talking about hardware platforms. That's not what AAA refers to. It was costly, sure, but it wasn't a blockbuster game. It was a peripheral designed to be used with multiple games. Expensive game-related initiative and AAA game are not the same thing.

By your own definition Rock Band, wiifit, skylanders and all that should be discounted of the discussion because they're not software sold on disc alone.
Hey going that way you can also remove every single failure from all publishers because of one reasons or another.
Heck according to you Medal of Honor was a roaring success!

And it seems like you are trying to say that companies are dumb for making big bets on games that have been successful in the past. Are you? Because that is not borne out by evidence. You can point out failures of execution and implementation in any decision-making strategy anywhere. It doesn't mean the strategy is a bad one, especially when it is proven successful many times over in other instances.

No they're dumb for betting the farm on products that have no chance in hell in becoming a phenomenon.
If you're not doing the best job of the industry it's absolutely nigh impossible to make a phenomenon game based on paradigm that have proven unsuccessful in the past.
Smashing success is not the norm in this industry, very far from it.
The market can absolutely not support all the projects being CoD level success, with the economy in the way it is, that's even less likely.

Yes, reposting a long essay 15 times on the same page and adding nothing to the discussion is absolutely necessary! Good point!

And customers do not exist without products.

Pfahahahahahahah ok that's it I'm out.

 

[SouthernDragon]

If I was on the wrong side of the most epic dunk of Gaming-side's history, I'd be sour, too.

 

[Open Source]

By your own definition Rock Band, wiifit, skylanders and all that should be discounted of the discussion because they're not software sold on disc alone.
Hey going that way you can also remove every single failure from all publishers because of one reasons or another.
Heck according to you Medal of Honor was a roaring success!


No they're dumb for betting the farm on products that have no chance in hell in becoming a phenomenon.
If you're not doing the best job of the industry it's absolutely nigh impossible to make a phenomenon game based on paradigm that have proven unsuccessful in the past.
Smashing success is not the norm in this industry, very far from it.
The market can absolutely not support all the projects being CoD level success, with the economy in the way it is, that's even less likely.

Medal of Honor was a roaring success! A very large percentage of its titles were, anyway, and the one that wasn't hardly was a catastrophe for its publisher. So it was a smart bet for them. And if the game had been good, it would have worked out fine. A failure of execution, not strategy. But I don't expect you to understand the difference the second time I explained this any more than the first.

There are a lot of things the market cannot support. It's natural that a casual observer with no real knowledge of the games business would give more attention to the high-budget, high-profile failures, but claiming that they failed because they were high-budget and high-profile and ignoring the massive amount of lower-budget, lower-profile failures that also happened is silly. Not to mention ignoring all the high-profile, high-budget successes.

As far as the peripheral stuff, are you now saying that Activision was foolish for doing the AAA product that is Skylanders, if we accept your definition of AAA? And for doing Guitar Hero, EA for Rock Band, etc.? I thought I read just a while ago from another poster that those music games were non-AAA games that other publishers should be emulating! Y'all should get your stories straight.

 

[Open Source]

If I was on the wrong side of the most epic dunk of Gaming-side's history, I'd be sour, too.

Nah, I just find it amusing how the rabble gets all agitated and emotional when they think someone's going to take away their ba-ba. And how fired up they get when they can get behind an advocate who, unlike them, can articulate their irrational desires into something more than a plaintive whine.

Carry on!

 

[CambriaRising]

Nah, I just find it amusing how the rabble gets all agitated and emotional when they think someone's going to take away their ba-ba. And how fired up they get when they can get behind an advocate who says crazy shit they want to hear in an inspiring, believable tone.

Carry on!

Ah. So we are the equivlent of babies for agreeing with that post now. It's a good thing you aren't being a condecending jerk or anything.

 

[Mael]

You condescending tone coupled with the inanity of your replies makes for a peculiar picture.

Medal of Honor was a roaring success! A very large percentage of its titles were, anyway, and the one that wasn't hardly was a catastrophe for its publisher. So it was a smart bet for them. And if the game had been good, it would have worked out fine. A failure of execution, not strategy. But I don't expect you to understand the difference the second time I explained this any more than the first.

Not lately no, they should have known better than packaging a bland linear shooter, totally forgetting what made the competitor move copies and slapping a "popular" name on it was a recipe for disaster.
At this point it's a failure of strategy and not execution when you look at how bad the whole line of products are.
Medal of Honor was selling but that was aeons ago with another developper.

There are a lot of things the market cannot support. It's natural that a casual observer with no real knowledge of the games business would give more attention to the high-budget, high-profile failures, but claiming that they failed because they were high-budget and high-profile and ignoring the massive amount of lower-budget, lower-profile failures that also happened is silly. Not to mention ignoring all the high-profile, high-budget successes.

Making games is hard, banking everything on roll of a dice isn't a sound strategy by any measure.
If it was as easy as you claim to make big budget successes EA and SE wouldn't have changed CEOs lately and Nintendo would have closed in 2008.

As far as the peripheral stuff, are you now saying that Activision was foolish for doing the AAA product that is Skylanders, if we accept your definition of AAA? And for doing Guitar Hero, EA for Rock Band, etc.? I thought I read just a while ago from another poster that those music games were non-AAA games that other publishers should be emulating! Y'all should get your stories straight.

ATVI is much smarter than EA will ever be.
They didn't bet the farm on Guitar Hero or Skylanders, they made sound projections and knew how they would sell.
That's why they could milk it as long as they could.
ATVI's Kotick may be the devil for some but at least he have his feet on the ground and doesn't expect the moon from side projects.
EA? Let's not even talk about them.
Same with Ubisoft, they don't overbloat their Just Dance because they perfectly know it's a low risk franchise to begin with.
In comparison EA managed to piss off the extremely loyal Sim City fanbase and even them scaled back on their anti consumers practices on their Sims cashcow.

 

[Open Source]

Ah. So we are the equivlent of babies for agreeing with that post now. It's a good thing you are being a condecending jerk or anything.

No, it's not the agreement that I think is amusing. It's the inability to participate in the discussion in any meaningful way, combined with the act of posting - pantomimed participation. I mean, why post if you have nothing to add, other than to hear yourself talk? It's not a big thing to me, just a wtf?

Kind of like people who post with nothing but "." or "this". Maybe the admins could add a Like button to channel that into a non-text form so that it doesn't dilute the discussion with dozens of "I agree with this post" posts.

 

[Dascu]

Nah, I just find it amusing how the rabble gets all agitated and emotional when they think someone's going to take away their ba-ba. And how fired up they get when they can get behind an advocate who, unlike them, can articulate their irrational desires into something more than a plaintive whine.

Carry on!

I don't think you've answered my question(s) earlier:

Do you think that Vanquish would've done better if it had been coupled with a DRM preventing its resale?

 

[Open Source]

I don't think you've answered my question(s) earlier:

Do you think that Vanquish would've done better if it had been coupled with a DRM preventing its resale?

Oh, must have missed it. No idea. Possibly. I'd have to see the resale stats. And even if it were so, what about people buying other used games as a substitution?

 

[Dascu]

You think publishers will lower prices when faced with less competition from the secondary market?

 

[Open Source]

You think publishers will lower prices when faced with less competition from the secondary market?

Yes, as they have on Steam and XBLA and elsewhere. The additional revenue gives them greater flexibility, and the increased effectiveness of discounts gives them reason to do so. Right now, a publisher can cut the price of a game, and GameStop will just cut theirs further, since they have a huge margin on those and can afford to, thus preventing the discount from having much of an effect. So, because they do not maximize revenues, discounts are less common on consoles than on digital platforms. Without used games to undercut those discounts, publishers would then have more reason to do them. This is borne out on pretty much all digital platforms.

They won't lower launch prices, since that would not increase their revenue, but the discounts will come faster and steeper than they would otherwise.

 

[Nebula]

I'm sorry but it's 100% bull that prices will drop because profits for devs/publishers will rise from the removal of second hand purchases. If anything, the profit increasing will make them more reluctant to decrease the price, especially with the famous AAA development costs, which are only going to increase.

 

[Open Source]

I'm sorry but it's 100% bull that prices will drop because profits for devs/publishers will rise from the removal of second hand purchases. If anything, the profit increasing will make them more reluctant to decrease the price, especially with the famous AAA development costs, which are only going to increase.

Why do they not do that on Steam?

 

[Dascu]

Yes, as they have on Steam and XBLA and elsewhere. The additional revenue gives them greater flexibility, and the increased effectiveness of discounts gives them reason to do so. Right now, a publisher can cut the price of a game, and GameStop will just cut theirs further, since they have a huge margin on those and can afford to, thus preventing the discount from having much of an effect. So, because they do not maximize revenues, discounts are less common on consoles than on digital platforms. Without used games to undercut those discounts, publishers would then have more reason to do them. This is borne out on pretty much all digital platforms.

They won't lower launch prices, since that would not increase their revenue, but the discounts will come faster and steeper than they would otherwise.

Now how do you deal with the following two issues:
- There not being an infinite supply of used games. I don't know how the situation is with GameStop, but in mainland Europe it's not really that easy to find a used game (at a price lower than in stores or from online sales for new games). Is the situation really that bad that GameStop immediately has the supply ready to undercut any sale and increase in demand?
- The issue of piracy on PC. I've already brought this up and you seemingly dismissed it. Yet I do not see the discrepancy between used and pirated copies on PC. Steam may offer lower sales that will not be undercut by used copies (ignoring for a bit the sizeable amount of PC games still sold via retail and without DRM restriction on transfer), but surely whatever deal they offer, they will still be undercut by pirated copies. The quality degradation is practically nil. Pirated copies are easier to find than used games, any DRM is often already removed and the price is always zero. Games with major multiplayer components are locked out, but these games will face less competition from used games anyway. And we want to focus on short singleplayer games now, since that is the market most at risk, no?

 

[CambriaRising]

Why do they not do that on Steam?

Because steam competes with GOG, Amazon, Gamefly, Gamersgate, Greenmangaming, etc etc etc.

 

[snap0212]

Oh, must have missed it. No idea. Possibly. I'd have to see the resale stats. And even if it were so, what about people buying other used games as a substitution?

Even if you had all resale data it'd be impossible to use that information to make an argument.

Let's say GameStop sold 500,000 used copies of Vanquish. We cannot assume that the 500,000 people who have bought a used copy of Vanquish would have bought new instead if it not available used. The assumption here is that the only goal people have is to buy and play a certain game – it completely ignores the fact that price is an important factor here as well. They're buying a certain product at a specific price.

 

[hooijdonk17]

Why do they not do that on Steam?

About 20 people already explained this to you. And yet..

Unbelievable.

 

[Yagharek]

About 20 people already explained this to you. And yet..

Unbelievable.

Probably explains the need many people feel to keep quoting that post time and again.

 

[IrishNinja]

if it wasnt done countless times already, faceless' post would be again quoted here, with a clapping/crying/celebratory gif

Requesting that Open Source should be renamed to "Open Wallet"

seconded, but PogiJones should not be left unscathed

 

[StevePharma]

Yes, as they have on Steam and XBLA and elsewhere. The additional revenue gives them greater flexibility, and the increased effectiveness of discounts gives them reason to do so. Right now, a publisher can cut the price of a game, and GameStop will just cut theirs further, since they have a huge margin on those and can afford to, thus preventing the discount from having much of an effect. So, because they do not maximize revenues, discounts are less common on consoles than on digital platforms. Without used games to undercut those discounts, publishers would then have more reason to do them. This is borne out on pretty much all digital platforms.

They won't lower launch prices, since that would not increase their revenue, but the discounts will come faster and steeper than they would otherwise.

Hey Open Source are you familiar with the Japanese used market? Just asking.

 

[Nibel]

if it wasnt done countless times already, faceless' post would be again quoted here, with a clapping/crying/celebratory gif



seconded, but PogiJones should not be left unscathed

PennyJones

 

[truly101]

No, it's not the agreement that I think is amusing. It's the inability to participate in the discussion in any meaningful way, combined with the act of posting - pantomimed participation. I mean, why post if you have nothing to add, other than to hear yourself talk? It's not a big thing to me, just a wtf?

Kind of like people who post with nothing but "." or "this". Maybe the admins could add a Like button to channel that into a non-text form so that it doesn't dilute the discussion with dozens of "I agree with this post" posts.

Clearly the plebeian and proletariat masses of NeoGaf cannot participate in such an informed yet impassioned debate, so lets mock and deride them.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Kuchera has a new article

http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/...and-sony-why-the-xbox-one-backlash-doesnt-mat

It’s important to remember that the things we don’t know about how the Xbox One will handle things like used games and accounts outnumber the things we do know. Many are outraged, and some are taking to social networks to let Sony know that they want support for used games, and they don’t want any form of DRM on the PlayStation 4.

They’re fighting a losing battle

Let’s get a few things out in the open before we start. Sony is sure to offer a similar system to whatever Microsoft will ultimately announce. Sony executives danced around this issue during their own reveal, and their strategy of letting Microsoft take the heat on this issue has proved effective. Microsoft is taking a massive PR hit right now, and Sony is comfortable sitting back and letting that happen. Right now, they look like the good guys.

But the restrictions that Microsoft is talking about placing on how we will buy and sell games aren’t a bright idea that Microsoft thought up in a vacuum. These are concessions made to publishers, the companies that will benefit the most from these moves, which many see as anti-consumer.

This is why EA was comfortable removing the online pass for both the PS3 and Xbox 360 games moving forward; the publisher knows that both companies have their back. If Sony doesn’t give publishers the same protections as Microsoft, publishers like EA can just put their focus on Microsoft’s systems.

Sony may be gaining a reputation for being friendly to small developers, but if they don’t make sure to make themselves just as hospitable to large publishers the game is lost. EA has already all but pulled support for the Wii U, and Microsoft has locked down the timed exclusive for Call of Duty: Ghosts DLC. Everyone is playing favorites and striking deals. Support is not a sure thing.

This isn’t a backlash

The second thing we have to remember is that a hashtag and a few blog posts isn’t a backlash. No one at Microsoft or Sony cares about what you post on the forums of your favorite gaming website. I hate to be the bearer of bad news in this regard, but right now the reaction to the possible used game restrictions amounts to a fart in the wind.

What matters is consumer behavior, and we don’t have any data points to show us how things have changed. Well, we know that outlets are reporting Blockbuster pre-orders of the Xbox One are “record-breaking,” but we don’t have a good idea of what that means, nor if that behavior will translate to other regions and other retailers.

Companies don’t care about what you say, they care about what you do, and right now no one has had the chance to do anything. From Sony and Microsoft’s point of view, you haven’t reacted to this news at all. Twitter is noise, they care about what you do with your wallet.

If you really want to scare Microsoft and Sony, you’d buy a Nintendo Wii U, the only “next-generation” console on the market that is letting you buy and sell games with no restrictions, and is backwards compatible. Rewarding that behavior with a boost in sales would be ridiculously effective, and send a much louder message than you ever could on Twitter, but that requires a change of behavior. In other words, no one should expect this to happen. We won’t see the true will of the players, for good or ill, until pre-orders begin.

Hell, the price for both systems could simply be too high, and sales will flag for that reason. There are so many variables at play that it’s hard to make any guesses about what will happen.

Will there be a backlash? It’s hard to say, and there is usually a gulf between what we say we’re going to do and our real-world behavior. Will players really not buy another console if both platforms place some restriction on used games? It’s doubtful, and Sony and Microsoft are aware of this fact.