Xbox One on the way. DRM removed, more details to come.

[Ashane]

Oh, I get it. Game developers hated GameStop's trade-in business but didn't care about private sales, so Microsoft responded by only allowing game trades at retail and completely eliminating private sales. That would've really cut into GameStop's business model. Makes total sense.

Total.

Sense.

I'm sure the intention was to completely phase out disc based games after a period of time, thus the trading at retail would then be a moot point, eh? Not to mention which each developer could have charged Gamestop a fee for doing the trade in, which most likely would have been passed on to you, but still would have hurt Gamestop's used game sales.

Also pretty sure that's still the plan, and we will either see it later on in the consoles life or on the next console. I mean, reading everything before the reversal, it was kind of clear they wanted to go a all digital direction... and just kept discs for ease of install/familiarity.

 

[Kazuya]

Oh, I get it. Game developers hated GameStop's trade-in business but didn't care about private sales, so Microsoft responded by only allowing game trades at retail and completely eliminating private sales. That would've really cut into GameStop's business model. Makes total sense.

Total.

Sense.

It's too bad you talk so much about how this but you never truly understood it. Try again.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-24-this-is-how-xbox-one-game-trade-ins-will-work-apparently

What was that you said about cutting into Gamestop's business model?

Total.

Sense.

 

[MetalSlugger]

It's too bad you talk so much about how this but you never truly understood it. Try again.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-05-24-this-is-how-xbox-one-game-trade-ins-will-work-apparently

What was that you said about cutting into Gamestop's business model?

Total.

Sense.

GameStop still stood to profit and could do business as usual, you ing dolt. The article only specifies that RETAIL tradeins would still be possible, not private sales. In one of his E3 interviews Major Nelson confirmed it: beyond the initial 30 day waiting period bullshit trade, the game disc was worthless and unusable by new owners unless you renewed the license at an "authorized" retailer.

 

[Kazuya]

GameStop still stood to profit and could do business as usual, you ing dolt. The article only specifies that RETAIL tradeins would still be possible, not private sales. In one of his E3 interviews Major Nelson confirmed it: beyond the initial 30 day waiting period bullshit trade, the game disc was worthless and unusable by new owners unless you renewed the license at an "authorized" retailer.

Nobody said they wanted Gamestop out of business, you brainless baboon. They simply wanted their cut off of used games that Gamestop so aggressively pimps next to their new games. I know you people have Stockholm Syndrome from being bent over by Gamestop all of this time, but trust me, the industry can exist with a balanced system. Learn how to read.

 

[MetalSlugger]

Nobody said they wanted Gamestop out of business, you brainless baboon. They simply wanted their cut off of used games that Gamestop so aggressively pimps next to their new games. I know you people have Stockholm Syndrome from being bent over by Gamestop all of this time, but trust me, the industry can exist with a balanced system. Learn how to read.

Right, Microsoft gets a cut but GameStop gets to cut out a huge chunk of their competition in return. The reason most used games are priced so low is to compete with private sales since the games are OOP at that point. Eliminate the secondary market and GameStop has little reason to cut prices. Herp derp.

 

[Kazuya]

Right, Microsoft gets a cut but GameStop gets to cut out a huge chunk of their competition in return. The reason most used games are priced so low is to compete with private sales since the games are OOP at that point. Eliminate the secondary market and GameStop has little reason to cut prices. Herp derp.

Microsoft doesn't get a cut, the publishers do. Gamestop doesn't have any competition. I don't know what hillbilly town you live in but I haven't seen a Mom and Pop video game store in a decade, and to say they compete with private sales is a joke. Developers don't care what happens to the used game market, just like Gamestop and consumers don't care about the developers sob stories when they buy their $55 used game. And what's Gamestop going to do, raise the price of used games from $55 to $58? LOL... they haven't left themselves a lot of room there. Herp to the derp.

 

[DNukem170]

I just checked GameStop's website. The only used games over $40 were bundles. Where the hell are you getting these $55 used games?

I have several used game/anime import shops around here, all in high traffic shopping areas. One in particular is so successful they have a spin-off chain focusing on TCGs.

Best Buy and Target have also started selling used games, though Best Buy has a slightly poorer selection and slightly higher prices. FYE also sells used games at their larger stores.

Also, why the hell are you so hung up on GameStop? Did their owner run over your puppy or cut you off in traffic or something?

 

[thenutman69321]

Microsoft doesn't get a cut, the publishers do. Gamestop doesn't have any competition. I don't know what hillbilly town you live in but I haven't seen a Mom and Pop video game store in a decade, and to say they compete with private sales is a joke. Developers don't care what happens to the used game market, just like Gamestop and consumers don't care about the developers sob stories when they buy their $55 used game. And what's Gamestop going to do, raise the price of used games from $55 to $58? LOL... they haven't left themselves a lot of room there. Herp to the derp.

I live in Austin, TX. I can think of two local stores immediatley and multiple big chain stores that sell used games, one of the locals specializes in retro games but they do also sell current ones but no matter where you live there are a ton of internet sites that are definitely competition to Gamestop including private sales all over Craigslist and Ebay. Just because other sites don't currently and probably never will do the same amount of business doesn't mean they aren't competition.

As for the raise the price from $55 to $58 argument, it assumes all used games are $55. What would have been more likely to happen is a game that before might have been $20 would have ended up being $30 instead. This point is moot though since the used games fees are gone, I'm just sick of people making anti used games arguments trotting out $55 over and over.

On a side note, can't people disagree without all the insults being thrown around.

 

[Kazuya]

I just checked GameStop's website. The only used games over $40 were bundles. Where the hell are you getting these $55 used games?

I have several used game/anime import shops around here. One in particular is so successful they have a spin-off chain focusing on TCGs.

Best Buy and Target have also started selling used games, though Best Buy has a slightly poorer selection and slightly higher prices. FYE also sells used games at their larger stores.

I thought I was pretty clear about which games were the $55 ones that were so thoroughly loathed by the industry:

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-legendary-edition/109334

http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/the-last-of-us/98630

 

[DNukem170]

...A Limited Edition game and a game that's barely a week old? Seriously? Should I even mention that they don't even HAVE any used copies in stock?

EDIT: And Skyrim Legendary Edition's used price at GameStop is actually the CHEAPEST price out there. Amazon is $57, eBay is $61, and Hastings is also $54.99.

 

[Kazuya]

...A Limited Edition game and a game that's barely a week old? Seriously? Should I even mention that they don't even HAVE any used copies in stock?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? That's the whole point.

 

[kcobra22]

I thought I was pretty clear about which games were the $55 ones that were so thoroughly loathed by the industry:

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-legendary-edition/109334

http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/the-last-of-us/98630

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii/101863

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/injustice-gods-among-us/104577

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/fuse/91374

http://www.gamestop.com/xbox-360/games/metro-last-light/91250

People will buy $55 used games because they're cheaper than $60, then trade it back in for $20 and gamestop will continue selling that one copy over and over again for $55.

And this is at the end of a generation where prices drop within weeks...its much worse during the first few years of a new generation.

 

[DNukem170]

And yet, Amazon's cheapest used copy of Last of Us is $50 and most copies on eBay are going in the high 40's on the low end. GameStop's current trade-in value for the game is $32.50 before adding in promos. Using the current promo and their Rewards Program, that nets you $45. Not too bad.

 

[Ashane]

I'm not sure what the argument here is...

One simply needs to look at Gamestop's financial reports to see that they make almost as much from used game sales as new game sales. You do not get that from buying $14.99 games guys. There was a discussion earlier in the thread where people were actually defending the $5 off price and saying it was a great deal, so uh, yeah.

 

[thenutman69321]

I'm not sure what the argument here is...

One simply needs to look at Gamestop's financial reports to see that they make almost as much from used game sales as new game sales. You do not get that from buying $14.99 games guys. There was a discussion earlier in the thread where people were actually defending the $5 off price and saying it was a great deal, so uh, yeah.

Almost as much, is that true? I thought they made way more money off used games than new. You get that money from people buying all prices of games though. Whether someone buys a game for $55 that they payed $30 for or someone buys a game for $15 that they payed $8 for it's still about the same profit margin.

I would never personally buy a $55 used game but I also have very rarely bought a $60 new game either. If everywhere the game is being sold new it's still $60 then I'd still call $55 for the used a deal even if I wouldn't personally buy it.

 

[DNukem170]

It's not a great deal, but it is still cheaper pre-promos than any other B&M store. Target and Best Buy usually charge just as much and they only recently had any promotions for said used games.

 

[brandtron8000]

I'm not sure what the argument here is...

this is the argument:

Developers don't care what happens to the used game market, just like Gamestop and consumers don't care about the developers sob stories when they buy their $55 used game.

This puts all the blame on the consumer and retail, when the problem is with the publishers and game budgets.

They only look at used game sales as a loss because they need to justify their huge budget annual releases. Do we really need annual Sports and COD and Assassins Creed releases? Their solution to losing money is to inflate budgets and never take risks or emulate what is already popular. It's the same reason Hollywood studios are more likely to remake or bring back a proven movie/story before they take the risk on something different/good.

 

[Richard Kain]

This puts all the blame on the consumer and retail, when the problem is with the publishers and game budgets.

Well, lets be fair, the consumers do deserve a healthy chunk of the blame for the current situation. GameStop has been a terrible place to purchase or sell games for quite some time. It's just laziness that keeps a lot of consumers trading in their games there. If most of those consumers had a little more sense, they would realize they're being suckered into participating in an over-priced rental service. If consumers refused to opt into GameStops perpetual money churn, GameStop would have already gone under, or been forced to change their business practices.

So in a sense, consumers are to blame for the current state of the industry. Saying no to GameStop, and looking to better outlets for trading and selling your games would have us all in a better position.

 

[StryderOmega]

Well, lets be fair, the consumers do deserve a healthy chunk of the blame for the current situation. GameStop has been a terrible place to purchase or sell games for quite some time. It's just laziness that keeps a lot of consumers trading in their games there. If most of those consumers had a little more sense, they would realize they're being suckered into participating in an over-priced rental service. If consumers refused to opt into GameStops perpetual money churn, GameStop would have already gone under, or been forced to change their business practices.

So in a sense, consumers are to blame for the current state of the industry. Saying no to GameStop, and looking to better outlets for trading and selling your games would have us all in a better position.

Lol, wut?

You can say that about literally anything.

 

[TimboSliceGB]

if people do things right and trade in games during right promotions at GS they can easy make more trading games into gamestop then they would even selling it on c.l and ebay. the dumb people are the ones that trade in games to gs when no promotion is going on that is worth while.

 

[io]

^ For once I agree with Timbo .

I also think it's funny when "studies" (mostly funded by Gamestop) say that games are traded in to fund new game purchases. What a crock! I was burning time before a movie at a mall Gamestop yesterday and the first thing that popped into my mind was, "Where ARE the new games?" I couldn't find one anywhere in the entire gigantic store. Finally I found a small area that had the VERY newest releases, maybe 5 or 6 different games. The entire rest of the wall was used.

You can look down on whatever studies it is you are talking about but me and a lot of other CAGs do this all the time. (And if you can't find the new games you aren't looking - all the GS stores I go to have at least 1/3 of the store dedicated to new games). In fact, if it wasn't for Gamestop trade-in deals (and also my own ability to sell games on eBay and Amazon marketplace), I wouldn't even be buying an Xbox One. The only reason I'm most likely getting one at launch is because I have a surplus of trade-in credit from some recent deals there and am currently getting some cash from my own private sales. X1 would have reduced the value of the former for consumers (since GS would have no competition) and completely eliminated the latter. As others have said, most of the games I am trading/selling are out of print and very hard to find in most stores new anyway. Yeah, some are available digitally - but guess what? Either they still cost too much that way or people are not willing to go digital a lot of the time which is just more evidence we aren't quite ready to jump into that realm yet.

Microsoft doesn't get a cut, the publishers do. Gamestop doesn't have any competition. I don't know what hillbilly town you live in but I haven't seen a Mom and Pop video game store in a decade, and to say they compete with private sales is a joke. Developers don't care what happens to the used game market, just like Gamestop and consumers don't care about the developers sob stories when they buy their $55 used game. And what's Gamestop going to do, raise the price of used games from $55 to $58? LOL... they haven't left themselves a lot of room there. Herp to the derp.

You don't have to live in a hillbilly town to use eBay and Amazon - the used prices for games there put downward pressure on Gamestop's used game prices. Without that competition, and under the now-defunct MS policies, they would have been able to keep used game prices up higher for a longer period of time. The only pressure on price would have been the digital pricing. And as we've seen much of the time, that doesn't drop nearly as fast as even new retail copies (let alone used). It wouldn't be that GS would charge $58 instead of $55, it is that they would give less for the trade-in in the first place since consumers would have no other outlet but to trade them to GS (and a few other big retailers).

And I agree that anyone that buys a used game at GS for $55 straight up is an idiot. First of all, having a PUR Pro membership makes that game $55 game really $49.50. Plus there are often additional 20% off coupons and B2G1 sales. But yet I keep seeing CAGs pushing the narrative that people trade games in for $5 and pay $55 for used copies - 'cause even though it is complete nonsense it makes a nice sound bite.

 

[WV Matsui]

How is the GameStop talk related to the X1?

Also io can we finally name this forum the Xbox 360 and Xbox One forum?

Crackdown 3?

"Oh... Crackdown is one of my favourite games, and not just because it's a Microsoft first-party game," he said.

"I have a lot of love for that franchise. The homage to Crackdown in the [21st May 21] reveal screenshots was... I know there was some, like, 'Did we accidentally sneak that...?' It wasn't accidental. Definitely."

 

[Cindaddy]

Crackdown was expected. I think everyone is willing to give Crackdown one more shot as an open world game.  They need to give it to a good dev.

 

[benjamouth]

Crackdown was expected. I think everyone is willing to give Crackdown one more shot as an open world game. They need to give it to a good dev.

I really liked the first one, second one should have been DLC.

 

[bjstucker]

when i look at sony i look at them more the gaming people seem to forget they sell other electronics and they are not the good guys far from it. One they over price thier products. 2. they over do in features that no one wants like thier tv's. Their customer service is god awful.

You could say the exact same thing about Microsoft in computers and MS has some of the worst CS I have ever had to call its basically looking at the Xbox site and reading from the screen.

 

[thenutman69321]

^ For once I agree with Timbo .

You can look down on whatever studies it is you are talking about but me and a lot of other CAGs do this all the time. (And if you can't find the new games you aren't looking - all the GS stores I go to have at least 1/3 of the store dedicated to new games). In fact, if it wasn't for Gamestop trade-in deals (and also my own ability to sell games on eBay and Amazon marketplace), I wouldn't even be buying an Xbox One. The only reason I'm most likely getting one at launch is because I have a surplus of trade-in credit from some recent deals there and am currently getting some cash from my own private sales. X1 would have reduced the value of the former for consumers (since GS would have no competition) and completely eliminated the latter. As others have said, most of the games I am trading/selling are out of print and very hard to find in most stores new anyway. Yeah, some are available digitally - but guess what? Either they still cost too much that way or people are not willing to go digital a lot of the time which is just more evidence we aren't quite ready to jump into that realm yet.

You don't have to live in a hillbilly town to use eBay and Amazon - the used prices for games there put downward pressure on Gamestop's used game prices. Without that competition, and under the now-defunct MS policies, they would have been able to keep used game prices up higher for a longer period of time. The only pressure on price would have been the digital pricing. And as we've seen much of the time, that doesn't drop nearly as fast as even new retail copies (let alone used). It wouldn't be that GS would charge $58 instead of $55, it is that they would give less for the trade-in in the first place since consumers would have no other outlet but to trade them to GS (and a few other big retailers).

And I agree that anyone that buys a used game at GS for $55 straight up is an idiot. First of all, having a PUR Pro membership makes that game $55 game really $49.50. Plus there are often additional 20% off coupons and B2G1 sales. But yet I keep seeing CAGs pushing the narrative that people trade games in for $5 and pay $55 for used copies - 'cause even though it is complete nonsense it makes a nice sound bite.

Lots of good points io. Unfortunately as do all your and others good posts that make good arguments the anti used gamers will probably just completely ignore it and move on to repeating some ignorant derivative of "GS is raping you idiots.

 

[brandtron8000]

How is the GameStop talk related to the X1?

Ask Kazuya. Besides, it's only been about a week since the reversal. The stink is still here.

Well, lets be fair, the consumers do deserve a healthy chunk of the blame for the current situation.

If consumers refused to opt into GameStops perpetual money churn, GameStop would have already gone under, or been forced to change their business practices.

So in a sense, consumers are to blame for the current state of the industry. Saying no to GameStop, and looking to better outlets for trading and selling your games would have us all in a better position.

The only fair thing would be for the game publishers to take responsibility for their failures, and not pass down their inability to reign in budgets onto consumers. That's the epitome of unfair if you ask me.

Besides, this argument ignores one of the most annoying aspects of Gamestop's business model: pre-order pushes.

I personally have never had a gamestop employee push a $55 used game on me when I'm trying to buy a game, but I can't even reach for my wallet to pull out my PUR card without them hounding me on what games I want to pre-order. How is that hurting the game industry? Why do publishers make pre-order DLC deals with gamestop if they don't like the used sales? Why was gamestop going to be one of the biggest participating retailers in the DRM plan if they are such a problem?

 

[MetalSlugger]

Why cutting out used games is a terrible idea:

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoshKanownik/20130624/194872/The_Economics_of_Used_Games.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GamasutraNews+%28Gamasutra+News%29

 

[phantomfriar2002]

And yet, Amazon's cheapest used copy of Last of Us is $50 and most copies on eBay are going in the high 40's on the low end. GameStop's current trade-in value for the game is $32.50 before adding in promos. Using the current promo and their Rewards Program, that nets you $45. Not too bad.

You're using the top selling game on the market right now as evidence of what they'd give you. Look at other titles and they're not commensurate with what you can get elsewhere.

 

[Erad30]

I've mentioned it before, used games is an easy scapegoat when the development model is just extremely broken. And yeah GS is pushy on pre-orders but anybody who claims you only get $5 for your games and pay $55 for something slightly used has never been in one or just has unrealistic expectations of how that works(what do you mean my copy of Madden 2008 is only worth that much?!?). Hell if I'm getting something used I usually don't pay more than $30 for it.

 

[Ashane]

Why is the development model broken exactly?

Do you not consider .40 cents per hour a good deal for a game? That comparison comes from how much I've played Call of Duty, in regards to the $60 I paid for it. What other form of entertainment could you possibly have that's .40 cents per hour?

You'll likely respond that it's a isolated case, as all FPS's are, and how about single player games.

I'd counter with thus is the reason we see so few single player games at E3 this year, although even a game like TLoU which is around 15 hours.... is still $4 per hour. A damn good value honestly.

If you were implying it's broken because developers take very little risks for new IP's, Idea's, etc...there's a platform for that. Two in fact. Mobile and PC. The short answer is absolutely nothing will touch those two platforms in the short term for variety and indie games. It simply wont happen. 

 

[MetalSlugger]

Why is the development model broken exactly?

Do you not consider .40 cents per hour a good deal for a game? That comparison comes from how much I've played Call of Duty, in regards to the $60 I paid for it. What other form of entertainment could you possibly have that's .40 cents per hour?

You'll likely respond that it's a isolated case, as all FPS's are, and how about single player games.

I'd counter with thus is the reason we see so few single player games at E3 this year, although even a game like TLoU which is around 15 hours.... is still $4 per hour. A damn good value honestly.

If you were implying it's broken because developers take very little risks for new IP's, Idea's, etc...there's a platform for that. Two in fact. Mobile and PC. The short answer is absolutely nothing will touch those two platforms in the short term for variety and indie games. It simply wont happen.

woosh

 

[brandtron8000]

Why is the development model broken exactly?

Ask THQ.

 

[Ashane]

woosh

We here at Care.co appreciate your feedback. Please reset assured, Care.co cares.

Your insightful commentary will be analyzed by our top men and woman, in a righteous attempt to figure out just what is wrong with you. Initial study seems to imply a lack of nutritional diet, likely resulting from the consumption of far too many slim jims.

Care.co will get back to you at a further date with our full analysis. Thank you for your time.

Ask THQ.

Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

THQ's failures amount to two primary reasons: U-Draw, which was a massive failure, and losing their lead on children's games due to the free to play alternatives which they had no answer for at the time.

Many financial analysts point to U-Draw as the main reason the company finally sunk, which was nothing short of a financial disaster.

 

[WV Matsui]

Whoa.

When Sony announced that PlayStation 4 would be priced at $399 to an uproar of applause from the audience at its E3 press conference, it secured a critical edge over the Xbox One. But the advantage came at a cost: the PlayStation 4 camera. According to multiple sources, in the months leading up to E3, Sony nixed plans to include the camera add-on with every system and shave $100 off it's originally planned price of $499. Most importantly, it did so quietly, informing its retail partners only of the removal of the camera, not specifying the lower price so as not to tip its hand to Microsoft.

But in its efforts to undercut the Xbox One, Sony has damned the accessory to a future of fragmented consumer adoption and inconsistent software support. The decision has also rendered a major design element of the DualShock 4 controller — the built-in LED Move tracker — largely useless.



http://m.ign.com/articles/2013/06/26/sony-sacrificed-the-playstation-4-camera-to-beat-microsoft-on-price

 

[dmaul1114]

I still give that a huge thumbs up as I HATE motion control and voice command stuff--the fact that the Kinect is packed in is the main reason I'm sticking with my PS4 preorder.  I don't want that stuff shoe horned into games, leave it as an option for people who want to play Dance Central and things like that.  I don't want gestures or voice commands in my shooters, WRPGs etc.

So I'm very glad Sony decided to scrap packing in the Eye as I have no interest in paying more for something that adds features I hate to games.

 

[brandtron8000]

Which has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

THQ's failures amount to two primary reasons: U-Draw, which was a massive failure, and losing their lead on children's games due to the free to play alternatives which they had no answer for at the time.

Many financial analysts point to U-Draw as the main reason the company finally sunk, which was nothing short of a financial disaster.

I'm sure the $50 million they put into Homefront and the "failure" of selling only 1 million units shows the developer model is fine and dandy. But, I bet it's because everyone bought it used is the reason it failed.

 

[Erad30]

Why is the development model broken exactly?

Are you serious? I can point out several examples off the top of my head-The Deadpool team being laid off before the game is even out, the "failure" of games such as Sleeping Dogs, Dead Space 3 & Tomb Raider to hit completely unrealistic sales figures, etc.

 

[Ashane]

I'm sure the $50 million they put into Homefront and the "failure" of selling only 1 million units shows the developer model is fine and dandy. But, I bet it's because everyone bought it used is the reason it failed.

Funny you should mention Homefront, since it sold near 3 million units in 3 months. It actually did nothing to contribute to THQ's downfall, was actually a success for THQ.

As I said, children's games..and U-Draw which was near 4 times the cost of Homefront and did a fraction of Homefront's sales.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/the-rise-and-fall-and-hopeful-rebirth-of-thq/

It's important to remember.. THQ was a children's gaming company. Not a "hardcore" gaming company. The majority of its sales, profits, etc were from kids games.

Are you serious? I can point out several examples off the top of my head-The Deadpool team being laid off before the game is even out, the "failure" of games such as Sleeping Dogs, Dead Space 3 & Tomb Raider to hit completely unrealistic sales figures, etc.

Sleeping Dogs and Tomb Raider are developer successes. The *publisher* was the one who "felt burned", if anyone did. They put completely unreachable goals on the game in order to save their flagging lineup. (Hello FF14 disaster) Although it seems they havent learned anything, as you can now purchase a soundtrack and a in game pet for the low low price of $50. (....)

As for Deadpool, I fail again to see how that implies the development process is broken? They had completed the game. A vast majority of software companies (not JUST video game companies) reduce the workforce once their product has been released. You simply do not need 40 developers for a game that's done. Why keep them on your payroll? It's idiotic and bad business sense.

.............

I think your main issue is publishers honestly. Publishers push the number of units they need to sell, not the developer. I would agree that the *publishing process is completely broken*.

Which is simply because of shareholders. It's the entire reason the majority of the US industry is broken. The push for more profit, more profit, more profit at *all costs*. Developers are developing quality games, more then making up their development cost, but it's simply not enough for the publishers stock holders.

 

[Erad30]

The Deadpool team wasn't under a temporary contract. They were full time employees of the company They worked on games before Deadpool.They could've easily moved onto another project. And you pointing out unrealistic Publisher expectations isn't an example of a broken model? Maybe I should've just said the AAA model to be clearer but publishing is part of development. THAT'S HOW DEVELOPERS GET MONEY.

 

[brandtron8000]

Funny you should mention Homefront, since it sold near 3 million units in 3 months. It actually did nothing to contribute to THQ's downfall, was actually a success for THQ.

Got a link to prove that number? I can't find anything saying so. Most I've seen is 2 million units shipped, not even sold.

As I said, children's games..and U-Draw which was near 4 times the cost of Homefront and did a fraction of Homefront's sales.

It's important to remember.. THQ was a children's gaming company. Not a "hardcore" gaming company. The majority of its sales, profits, etc were from kids games.

Despite the type of games they make, *ahem* Saint's Row, their business failed because as you said, the budget for uDraw far exceeded any profits they made. How is that not a broken model?

 

[Ashane]

Maybe I should've just said the AAA model to be clearer but publishing is part of development. THAT'S HOW DEVELOPERS GET MONEY.

Now yeah, that I can agree with

Of course that's how developers get their money, but it's not like they have any influence on what a publisher expects for a given title. Crystal Dynamics couldn't simple walk up to Square-Enix and tell them to lower their forecast, that's simply not how it works.

Got a link to prove that number? I can't find anything saying so. Most I've seen is 2 million units shipped, not even sold.

Despite the type of games they make, *ahem* Saint's Row, their business failed because as you said, the budget for uDraw far exceeded any profits they made. How is that not a broken model?

"More pointedly, California-based software publisher THQ has this week revealed it has already shipped 2.6 million copies of the Kaos-developed military shooter since it launched on Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and PC back on March 15.

Speaking during a conference call with industry analysts, THQ chief executive officer Brian Farrell also said Homefront has sold beyond 2 million units, which now leaves the company raking in 60 percent profit on every copy passing through store checkouts.

However, while Homefront’s impressive sales may warrant a sequel, the game’s retail appeal is evidently a shining beacon of success in an otherwise dark and disappointing fiscal fourth quarter for 2011."

So, between 2 and 2.6 million sales. http://www.thetechherald.com/articles/THQ-trumpets-Homefront-as-sales-move-past-2-million-units

As to U-Draw, so your implying that a non successful product means that the ENTIRE INDUSTRY is broken? Really? Then, oddly enough, every industry on the planet earth is broken. Nice.

Attempting to say that the industry is broken because U-Draw failed is reaching so far, you might be able to hit Pluto.

 

[Kazuya]

I still give that a huge thumbs up as I HATE motion control and voice command stuff--the fact that the Kinect is packed in is the main reason I'm sticking with my PS4 preorder. I don't want that stuff shoe horned into games, leave it as an option for people who want to play Dance Central and things like that. I don't want gestures or voice commands in my shooters, WRPGs etc.

So I'm very glad Sony decided to scrap packing in the Eye as I have no interest in paying more for something that adds features I hate to games.

So I'm guessing under your watch, the 100 million unit selling Wii would never have been launched. Thankfully, for better or worse Nintendo marches to their own beat... a lesson Microsoft may wish it heeded. You don't let angry 15 year old Neogaf rejects design your console. Now they are scrambling to support a vision they didn't come up with while not really even winning over any skeptics since they still cost more (among other things). Reminds me of an old sports saying about coaches/general managers: if you start listening to the fans, you'll soon be sitting with them.

 

[Erad30]

Really? The buzz for the Wii was HUGE. Everybody thought it was great at the time. It might've continued to be great had the Wii not been buried in crappy shovelware. Microsoft's vision was almost universally condemned by everyone including mainstream press. It had it's defenders and people who believed in the potential and positive benefits versus the drawbacks, sure but they were drowned out in the massive negative buzz. There's the difference. At least part of it was MS' massive cluster on delivering their message, but that's completely on them for not being able to sell their vision.

 

[TooPoor]

Guess I have the answer to my earlier question regarding Windows dev kits for the Kinect 2.0.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/26/xbox-one-kinect-for-windows-developers-priced-at-399

 

[dmaul1114]

So I'm guessing under your watch, the 100 million unit selling Wii would never have been launched. Thankfully, for better or worse Nintendo marches to their own beat... a lesson Microsoft may wish it heeded. You don't let angry 15 year old Neogaf rejects design your console. Now they are scrambling to support a vision they didn't come up with while not really even winning over any skeptics since they still cost more (among other things). Reminds me of an old sports saying about coaches/general managers: if you start listening to the fans, you'll soon be sitting with them.

I don't care about the business side of things. I care about having the types of games I want to play--and for me that's without motion controls of any kind.

If the industry goes toward having motion control crap in every game eventually, so be it. I have plenty of other hobbies I enjoy more than gaming as is, so I'd just quit gaming and spend more time on those if that happened.

Thankfully, I've got at least one more gen I don't have to worry about that since Sony didn't force the camera into every PS4 sold.

 

[brandtron8000]

So, between 2 and 2.6 million sales. http://www.thetechherald.com/articles/THQ-trumpets-Homefront-as-sales-move-past-2-million-units

So not 3 million in 3 months.

As to U-Draw, so your implying that a non successful product means that the ENTIRE INDUSTRY is broken? Really? Then, oddly enough, every industry on the planet earth is broken.

Look at my original post: "This puts all the blame on the consumer and retail, when the problem is with the publishers and game budgets."

You've already consented that publishers expectations are unreasonable. We're all talking about the AAA game budget model used by COD and every MP-tacked on copycat since, not even just THQ's specific attempt at it.

So I'm guessing under your watch, the 100 million unit selling Wii would never have been launched.

Nobody bought the Wii because it had motion controls, and were then delightfully surprised by Wii Sports. Everyone bought it for, and arguably ever since, FOR Wii Sports. The game was a system seller, and we all know that it's huge install base and mandatory motion controls lead to a glut of great innovative games on the Wii ever since.

 

[Ashane]

So not 3 million in 3 months.

Look at my original post: "This puts all the blame on the consumer and retail, when the problem is with the publishers and game budgets."

You've already consented that publishers expectations are unreasonable. We're all talking about the AAA game budget model used by COD and every MP-tacked on copycat since, not even just THQ's specific attempt at it.

I said "near" 3 million. 2.5-2.6 is indeed "near" 3 million. So, yeah Far cry from your below 2 million eh bud? You even attempted to say homefront was a failure, which was a complete lie, which again I proved. I'd just ssshhh about homefront to be honest. Move on to other points.

Indeed, I've agreed that publishers are putting unrealistic demands on certain titles. However, U-Draw does not fit into that category. It was not a software solution, it was a hardware idea. You simply cannot say with a straight face that U-Draw was a "AAA" hardware idea... or hell I dont know, maybe you can. I certainly cant, nor could THQ themselves.

Your original post attempts to shift all the blame away from consumers and retail, when clearly they are part of the problem. Are they the ONLY problem? Of course not. The world isnt black and white. However, you clearly said the problem is publishers and big budgets.

Here's a small hint for you: Consumers push developers. If consumers did not constantly want that next big thing, developers would not develop it. If consumers said we dont want another call of duty, it would not be made. Consumers *want* blockbusters. They *want* multi-million dollar CGI, Music composition, and in engine graphics.

Let's look at the best selling list of 2012 shall we?

1. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 (Xbox 360, PS3, PC, Wii U)
2. Madden NFL 13 (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, Vita, Wii U)
3. Halo 4 (Xbox 360)
4. Assassin's Creed 3 (Xbox 360, PS3, PC, Wii U)
5. Just Dance 4 (Xbox 360, Wii, Wii U, PS3)
6. NBA 2K13 (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PSP, Wii U, PC)
7. Borderlands 2 (Xbox 360, PS3, PC)
8. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PC)
9. Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes (Wii, Xbox 360, NDS, PS3, 3DS, Vita, PC)
10. FIFA 13 (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, Vita, 3DS, Wii U, PSP)

..............

If that does not show you that consumers want blockbusters, I'm not sure what will.

In short: I completely disagree with your assumptions, and further say that you are the minority. That indie games are not the "next great coming of gaming", that the people who actually drive game sales do not give a crap about Fez or anything of the sort, and simply want their shooters, their sports games and occasionally a action/adventure game.

 

[io]

Whoa.

When Sony announced that PlayStation 4 would be priced at $399 to an uproar of applause from the audience at its E3 press conference, it secured a critical edge over the Xbox One. But the advantage came at a cost: the PlayStation 4 camera. According to multiple sources, in the months leading up to E3, Sony nixed plans to include the camera add-on with every system and shave $100 off it's originally planned price of $499. Most importantly, it did so quietly, informing its retail partners only of the removal of the camera, not specifying the lower price so as not to tip its hand to Microsoft.

But in its efforts to undercut the Xbox One, Sony has damned the accessory to a future of fragmented consumer adoption and inconsistent software support. The decision has also rendered a major design element of the DualShock 4 controller — the built-in LED Move tracker — largely useless.



http://m.ign.com/articles/2013/06/26/sony-sacrificed-the-playstation-4-camera-to-beat-microsoft-on-price

I agree with that - I would have been glad if the PS4 was, say, $450 and included the Eye accessory. There is no way the tech in the Eye is nearly as expensive as the new Kinect camera so they probably could have gone a little lower than $450 even - but then a price like $430 or $440 doesn't have the marketing appeal of $399.99. I really liked Move (thought it worked the best out of all the motion controls) but it was woefully underdeveloped because of it being a late-to-the-party accessory. Sports Champions was a lot of fun and even though I haven't gotten to them yet (backlog and all), I really want to play Sports Champions 2 and a few others (Deadmund's Quest and Sorcery).

Also io can we finally name this forum the Xbox 360 and Xbox One forum?

That is for Cheapy to decide (and do) - mods have never been able to change forum names.

 

[DNukem170]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the biggest problem with uDraw them putting it on the 360 and PS3? I thought it was a decent success on the Wii?