CliffyB Thinks Used Games Are Bad, Sony is "Playing Us"

[Something Amyss]

Lets not compare Liefeld with kindergarteners. At least kindergarteners tend to improve in their artwork as oppose to Rob Liefeld, whose creations seem to suffer from massive deformities (I.E. oversized thighs, number of teeth that outnumber the attendance record for a Justin Bieber concert, tiny feet, etc.).

I admit, I was unfair to kindergartners. They at least make an effort.

 

[thewatergamer]

AHHHHH
is Wittle Cliffy B Upset that his precwous gears of war franchwise won't sell on the Xbone?
Boo-F*cking Who

 

[TheWanderingFish]

If they didn't spends millions upon millions more then they needed to on marketing, for games most people have already made up there minds on no less, no one would even care about 'the evils of used games'

They can't simply stop marketing if every other company continues to do so. That would be financial suicide. The problem is the marketing campaigns have grown to big for what they're selling.

Ex. Dark Souls recently clocked over 2 million copies, and is considered a financial success because the marketing for it (which was not very much compared to other games) was the right amount.
Call of Duty can do the massive marketing campaigns because it can afford it.
Most games market themselves like Call of Duty, yet sell like Dark Souls. As such, they fail.

So while they need to sell themselves, they need to find ways to innovate and capture the attention of gamers without competing with CoD, because that is a battle they will not win.

 

[The AmeriCanadian Gamer]

I think CliffyB is a great developer with a lot of imagination and a love for what he does, but he is the undisputed champion of foot-in-mouth PR.

 

[Quellist]

The poor sad sack doesn't even seem to understand that games don't have to be triple A titles costing the GDP of a small country to be worth playing. Either that or he does and he's just denying reality because he knows when the triple A market crashes he's likely to be one of the first to go. Either way he's talking out of his arse

 

[Weaver]

Maybe marketing budgets don't need to be so big they could pay 200 people's salaries for a year?

 

[GAunderrated]

Maybe marketing budgets don't need to be so big they could pay 200 people's salaries for a year?

200 is kinda a small development team these days. I remember reading that AC had thousands of people working on the project.

I am worried with so many corporations attitude of "throw more money at it will solve the problem" since there is proof that throwing more money and getting bigger budgets does not = more sales.

captcha: cop an attitude, yes I would say that CliffyB does have quite an attitude towards the consumer. Just not a positive one.

 

[The Jovian]

It's strange how a person can be right and wrong at the same time.

He's right that the model can not be sustained but he's wrong in who is supposed to change to accomidate it.

When a game has to sell 3,000,000 copies to remain in the black the first thing one must ask is "why did you budget a game to require 3,000,000 sales in order to remain profitable?".

Three million copies being sold requires there to be 3 million people who think the game is worth the price that is being asked AND they can afford the price being asked.

Okay let's do the math here: 60 X 3,000,000 = 180,000,000 Dollars. WHERE THE FUCK DO THESE GUYS SPEND ALL THAT MONEY ON!?!?!?! You can make a summer blockbuster with all that cash. Hey publishers, you wannna make profits, cut it out with the hyper realistic graphics, stop blowing millions on marketing campaigns, STOP MINDLESSLY FOLLOWING TRENDS AND COPYING THE POPULAR TITLES!!!! TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR FAILURES!!! STOP BLAMING OTHERS FOR SOMETHING YOU DID!!! STOP IGNORING OR TREATING YOUR CONSUMERS LIKE RETARDED ANTS!!!!!! AND DO!! SOMETHING!! NEW!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Because as we all know graphics are the most important thing above story and actual gameplay. No we need those brown and grey chest-high-walls to be photo realistic!

I want my chest high walls to be brown AND have pictures of SPIDER-MAN!

 

[Weaver]

Maybe marketing budgets don't need to be so big they could pay 200 people's salaries for a year?

200 is kinda a small development team these days. I remember reading that AC had thousands of people working on the project.

I am worried with so many corporations attitude of "throw more money at it will solve the problem" since there is proof that throwing more money and getting bigger budgets does not = more sales.

captcha: cop an attitude, yes I would say that CliffyB does have quite an attitude towards the consumer. Just not a positive one.

Then maybe Ubisoft needs to step their game up.

4A games managed to release Metro: Last Light and Metro 2033 with a team about as big as a cutscene team in other studios at about 10% of the budget while working in about the most horrific conditions in this technology sector. Their games are also some of the best looking games out there right now. Oh, they also developed their own proprietary engine in house.

http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/news-14926-Metro--Last-Light-Devs-4A-Games-Endured-Horrific-Working-Conditions--Says-Ex-THQ-President.html

If Ubisoft is wasting money, I don't see why I should have to foot the bill.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Honestly, I hate that the industry is full of entitled idiots...

Makes me feel bad that game development is the closest thing I have to a career skill.

Cliffy, seriously. Get a clue.

Second-hand sales have been a part of life for products as far back as people have been making things.
If the development budget and marketing costs for game development are so high that you need to prevent second hand sales to make a profit...

then guess what? It's not second hand sales that are the problem, it's you.

Being a producer of something does not give you a free pass to demand whatever you like.

All this constant whining does is prove the point I've suspected for ages:

Copyright laws encourage monopolistic behaviour, and are fundamentally broken.
(But, unfortunately, good luck fixing that while maintaining a capitalist economy...)

Where else but a monopoly could you start making such insane demands that imply if your development costs exceed your income, it's your income that needs to go up, and not your expenses that need to go down? And then try and forcibly increase your profits using such anti-consumer methods?
This is only possible when both the laws and means of enforcement are completely out of balance...

 

[Iwata]

This dude is a corporate shill, and always has been. Is it any wonder he had an exclusivity deal with Microsoft for his shitty macho games?

 

[CaptainBill22]

People are really not going to like this but Cliff B. is right. Production costs are high and companies are barely making their investments back if at all on new game sales. I think it goes without saying if all major devs and producers go the way of THQ, gamers won't be happy. What Microsoft is doing may not be popular, but it's necessary.

 

[SkullKing84]

Dude....

I see your lips moving but all I hear is:
"PONCEPONCEPONCEPONCEPONCE"

Ugh never liked this dude.

Damn it, you made soda come out my nose.


My stance on used games. I'll go into GameStop when i have time to kill and some cash (never have enough for a new "NEW" game). I rummage a bit to see what is in my price range and whatever peaks my interest I'll buy. Play it, if it stinks it'll collect dust. But, more often then not, I'll find a new series to collect or company to support. Then I'll pre-order or save up to get new games of said game series or company. (now looking at my games) Majority of my games are new...

 

[CaptainBill22]

*Starts talking to Cliff like he is a dog

BAD CLIFFY BAD! That argument was utterly assanine. Please stop urinating on my consumer rights.

Seriously this guy needs to fuck off.

Your consumer rights? How about the rights of a business to not being ripped off? If a developer and producer can't make money you can forget about new and awesome games. You have to remember developers and producers are in business to make money. It's not evil, taboo, or a sin to want to make a profit and be successful. Especially when you want to make an amazing game and get the talent and resources to make it.

Come off your high horse, I am a consumer just like you. The difference is I seek to understand why a company does what it does. Not ***** and moan about it.

 

[CaptainBill22]

Honestly, I hate that the industry is full of entitled idiots...

Makes me feel bad that game development is the closest thing I have to a career skill.

Cliffy, seriously. Get a clue.

Second-hand sales have been a part of life for products as far back as people have been making things.
If the development budget and marketing costs for game development are so high that you need to prevent second hand sales to make a profit...

then guess what? It's not second hand sales that are the problem, it's you.

Being a producer of something does not give you a free pass to demand whatever you like.

All this constant whining does is prove the point I've suspected for ages:

Copyright laws encourage monopolistic behaviour, and are fundamentally broken.
(But, unfortunately, good luck fixing that while maintaining a capitalist economy...)

Where else but a monopoly could you start making such insane demands that imply if your development costs exceed your income, it's your income that needs to go up, and not your expenses that need to go down? And then try and forcibly increase your profits using such anti-consumer methods?
This is only possible when both the laws and means of enforcement are completely out of balance...

I think that consumer base of game industry is filled with entitled idiots.

Games 20 years ago were vastly cheaper to produce than today's Triple A titles, therefore used game sales didn't really have as much of an impact. The cost of production of one game has increased through the years with the development of technology. The industry is at a breaking point. They cannot live off of a loyal fan base alone. They need money (gasp).

Producers can ask what ever the hell they want for a game. They will spend 2 to 5 years making a game it is their right to ask what they want for it. Luckily for the entitled consumer there is a standard pricing system for games. Which is why collectors editions are put out for consumers. Think of it this way, you bake a bunch of a cookies to make money for yourself. Does it really serve your wants and needs to charge the same as or less than the cost of ingredients and materials alone?

Copyright laws don't encourage monopolies, they protect ideas and intellectual property. Besides you are not even remotely close to any monopolies in the game industry.

 

[lacktheknack]

It's strange how a person can be right and wrong at the same time.

He's right that the model can not be sustained but he's wrong in who is supposed to change to accomidate it.

When a game has to sell 3,000,000 copies to remain in the black the first thing one must ask is "why did you budget a game to require 3,000,000 sales in order to remain profitable?".

Three million copies being sold requires there to be 3 million people who think the game is worth the price that is being asked AND they can afford the price being asked.

Okay let's do the math here: 60 X 3,000,000 = 180,000,000 Dollars. WHERE THE FUCK DO THESE GUYS SPEND ALL THAT MONEY ON!?!?!?! You can make a summer blockbuster with all that cash. Hey publishers, you wannna make profits, cut it out with the hyper realistic graphics, stop blowing millions on marketing campaigns, STOP MINDLESSLY FOLLOWING TRENDS AND COPYING THE POPULAR TITLES!!!! TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR FAILURES!!! STOP BLAMING OTHERS FOR SOMETHING YOU DID!!! STOP IGNORING OR TREATING YOUR CONSUMERS LIKE RETARDED ANTS!!!!!! AND DO!! SOMETHING!! NEW!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uh... you forgot to slice out the various cuts taken by retailers, shipping and manufacturing. The amount that the publisher gets their hands on is way lower than that. It's probably closer to $15.

Not including pre-order sales, etc.

Also, if they cut down on the hyper-realistic graphics, marketing campaigns and popular-copying, they lose a ton of their audience. More than they can afford. And while the trajectory can be fixed, sticking your fingers in your ears and shrieking about what you want to see with no regard to financial reality is not going to fix it, you're just going to annoy people.

 

[Agayek]

I think that consumer base of game industry is filled with entitled idiots.

Games 20 years ago were vastly cheaper to produce than today's Triple A titles, therefore used game sales didn't really have as much of an impact. The cost of production of one game has increased through the years with the development of technology. The industry is at a breaking point. They cannot live off of a loyal fan base alone. They need money (gasp).

Producers can ask what ever the hell they want for a game. They will spend 2 to 5 years making a game it is their right to ask what they want for it. Luckily for the entitled consumer there is a standard pricing system for games. Which is why collectors editions are put out for consumers. Think of it this way, you bake a bunch of a cookies to make money for yourself. Does it really serve your wants and needs to charge the same as or less than the cost of ingredients and materials alone?

Copyright laws don't encourage monopolies, they protect ideas and intellectual property. Besides you are not even remotely close to any monopolies in the game industry.

This has well and truly flabbered my gast. The audacity and lack of basic business sense here is mind-blowing.

Any business whose cost of production exceeds its revenue cannot stay in business. There's two ways to do that. The first is to get more people to buy your product, the second is to reduce costs. As anyone with any experience in business will tell you, the former cannot be guaranteed. Assuming consumers will buy your product when they have no real need to does nothing but risk your entire business on hopes and prayers.

If your cost of production exceeds your revenue, there's really only one reliable way to keep yourself in business. Lower the cost of production. Spend less and then you will start making money. Then you can use that money to make your product better, which will attract more customers, which will let you spend more money to make your product even more better, which will attract yet more customers and increase your profits. Rinse repeat ad nauseum and you will have a successful business.

A company too stupid to realize this does not deserve to remain in business. If their spending outstrips their revenue, they're far too idiotic to stay in the market.

 

[lacktheknack]

*Starts talking to Cliff like he is a dog

BAD CLIFFY BAD! That argument was utterly assanine. Please stop urinating on my consumer rights.

Seriously this guy needs to fuck off.

Your consumer rights? How about the rights of a business to not being ripped off? If a developer and producer can't make money you can forget about new and awesome games. You have to remember developers and producers are in business to make money. It's not evil, taboo, or a sin to want to make a profit and be successful. Especially when you want to make an amazing game and get the talent and resources to make it.

Come off your high horse, I am a consumer just like you. The difference is I seek to understand why a company does what it does. Not ***** and moan about it.

With regards to the 'sin' comment, you are aware that greed, which is basically what this whole issue boils down to, is in fact one of the seven deadly sins.

You're the one on your high horse. You're telling people they have absolutely no right to be angry when a complete idiot comes out and says that people should passively accept the gradual erosion of their basic consumer rights because the people who make the products can't sustain their business model. That makes you just as bad as Bleszinski, if not worse.

Businesses don't deserve to make money just because they put out a product. They certainly don't have the right to continually find ways to steal from their consumer base just because they're not making enough money. Second hand sales are both perfectly legal and one of your basic rights as a consumer, a right that needs defending.

Actually, they have EVERY right to do that.

As long as they don't break any laws, they can do ANYTHING THEY WANT to turn a profit. If they wish to disable second hand sales to do that, they're allowed as long as they aren't treading on government toes.

If they decide to make the product short itself when tampered with because it helps turns a profit and protect their trade secrets, they can do that.

If they decide they don't want to sell their product but only give licenses to copies, permanent or temporary, they have the right to do so.

The question I ask is "Why the hell does this turn a profit?"

And thus, I turn to the terrible, contradictory gibbering mess that we call "modern consumers". You're the bloody ones that keep letting them turn profit and then expect the government to step in because you bought stuff that you didn't like. YOU'RE the ones that let them do this. You're enablers of the worst kind.

I'm not defending corporations, I'm blaming you.

And if you're NOT buying the product, then... you have absolutely no reason to be so ticked off. Stop it, you're making this site increasingly unbearable. Just snicker and move on.

EDIT: And before you get upset about it, no, I think Cliffy is wrong. I think that the industry should focus on making current tech cheaper, not pushing it forward. That's why I default to indie and retro games. I support what I believe in and don't make a massive fuss about stuff that doesn't directly affect me.

 

[lacktheknack]

Any business whose cost of production exceeds its revenue cannot stay in business. There's two ways to do that. The first is to get more people to buy your product, the second is to reduce costs. As anyone with any experience in business will tell you, the former cannot be guaranteed. Assuming consumers will buy your product when they have no real need to does nothing but risk your entire business on hopes and prayers.

If your cost of production exceeds your revenue, there's really only one reliable way to keep yourself in business. Lower the cost of production. Spend less and then you will start making money. Then you can use that money to make your product better, which will attract more customers, which will let you spend more money to make your product even more better, which will attract yet more customers and increase your profits. Rinse repeat ad nauseum and you will have a successful business.

A company too stupid to realize this does not deserve to remain in business. If their spending outstrips their revenue, they're far too idiotic to stay in the market.

This reminds me of the fact that tons of people live this way in real life.

They spend more than they make, then they complain that they don't have enough money and want government help and/or a raise at work.

Hmmmmm... that request sounds familiar... (glances at OP) Huh.