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

[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.

 

[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...

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.

OK, seriously? Copyright laws create a monopoly be definition. Have you ever actually looked at them?

"A copyright is a legal device that gives the creator of a literary, artistic, musical, or other creative work the sole right to publish and sell that work. Copyright owners have the right to control the reproduction of their work, including the right to receive payment for that reproduction. An author may grant or sell those rights to others, including publishers or recording companies."

(http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/copyright)

Firstly it is a right granted solely by law, secondly it grants the creator the exclusive right to do something, which is by definition a monopolistic right. (And historically speaking not a right originally given to the creator of something.)

In fact, much of the laws leading up to it were related to the government (usually a monarch) granting a specific company or person the exclusive right to do something to the exclusion of anyone else.
Copyright derives from the exclusive rights held by printers, and originally had nothing to do with the creators of any work. (in fact, an author could be lucky to get paid for their work at all, and certainly had little say in whether their work got sold or not.)


Consistent pricing of games for instance is a symptom of a monopoly. Prices for most products fluctuate quite a bit as the various associated costs go up and down.
With a market where there are a large number of nearly interchangeable products, since the consumer wants the lowest price possible, and the producer the highest, the effects are to stabilise the cost near that of production (allowing for some profit, but not any huge amount, generally).
In a monopoly, the price bears little relation to the cost of production.

The pricing of a product is not the consumer's responsibility.

If I bake 10 cookies and try and sell them, obviously, I will try and sell them for more than it cost me to make them.
But... People can, as it happens get cookies elsewhere. - If I demand that people pay my chosen price anyway, people will laugh and go elsewhere if the price is not to their liking. - If that price is too high, that's my fault, not the people I'm trying to sell to.
And if the price needs to be that high for me to pay my costs... Again, that's my own fault, not that of my buyers.

I certainly can't demand that other people stop selling cookies just because I can't cover the costs of me baking them.

Let me just reiterate the point:
Producers have NEVER been entitled to restrict second-hand sales. - In fact, demanding this largely goes against several well-established consumer protection laws. (Ever heard of first sale doctrine?)

For most products you cannot impose demands or restrictions on what someone is allowed to do with it after buying it.
Copyright somehow makes you exempt from paying any attention to this principle whatsoever?

If you make something, and can't sell it for a high enough price to cover your costs, then you either need to lower your costs, or increase your prices. (If you can).

DEMANDING that well-established consumer rights which even have laws specifically enshrining the principles involved should be changed just for you is entitlement.

Demanding rights you already have, and have had for many years actually be respected, is not.

Second hand sales are a long established consumer right. There's nothing entitled about it.

A producer is not entitled to be compensated just for making something. If they make something not enough people want, to actually pay for them making it, that's their own damn fault, and trying to shift the blame onto something that people have being doing with stuff they've bought for centuries, if not millenia, is childish, and shows a huge sense of entitlement...

 

[Jigero]

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.

When did Corporations manage to fool idiots into thinking that the market NEEDS to change in order to keep them in business?

Yes you're right they do have the right to do that stuff. But guess what consumers have the right no to support it. If your business is not meeting the demands of the market, you fail it's as simple as that.

How are consumers "entitled" by executing their free will? Is it not publishers who are entitled by demanding their markets change and give up their free will just so they can stay in business?

 

[suntt123]

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.

Irrelevant. They may need money, but that does not exempt them from criticism when they make poor decisions. Nor does it protect them WHEN poor decisions come back to bite them in the butt. Spending more money on production than could logically be made back is their own fault not the consumer's. Of course they should pay the price for it.

The solution? Spend LESS, maybe? COD basically reuses the same EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME and gets away with it. Making less go farther is what they should be trying, rather than assuming that throwing more money at something will make a greater amount bounce back.

Publishers may have the right to spend and charge what they want, and take how ever long they need, but that doesn't guarantee anyone will BUY THE THING. And even if they do, and certainly it doesn't guarantee that what ever ridiculous goals they've set for themselves will be met.

As an example, let's use Tomb Raider. Tomb Raider was revealed to need to sell 6 MILLION copies. How did they plan to achieve this? Hair physics, Hollywood voice actors and a multiplayer mode NOBODY asked for? How is that going to draw in consumers or increase sales? Who looks at a tomb raider game and thinks "OH I GOTTA PLAY THAT MULTIPLAYER"?? Did they think people would go "WOW I MUST HAVE THAT HAIR PHYSICS"??? I didn't even recognize the friggen voice actors. But you know what? IT WAS A REALLY GOOD GAME!! IT SOLD!! It sold REALLY WELL! But 6 MILLION???!!?? That would have been optimistic FOR MARIO it's just insane for Tomb Raider. Money poorly spent. Their fault. Their loss.

Sales of new games are still pretty high. If they can't break even, that sucks but it's their own fault. Why should they make us pay for it?

 

[Agayek]

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 work.

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

Indeed. Many people have no idea how to manage their money and restrain their spending.

It's one of the reasons I despise credit cards. It's far too easy for stupid, unthinking people to spend themselves into irrecoverable debt.

 

[lacktheknack]

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 work.

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

Indeed. Many people have no idea how to manage their money and restrain their spending.

It's one of the reasons I despise credit cards. It's far too easy for stupid, unthinking people to spend themselves into irrecoverable debt.

The general trick is to write down your card purchases and constantly recalculate the total you've spent. On paper.

Hmmmmmmm...

I can TOTALLY see this having a stunning impact on current game development.

 

[Agayek]

The general trick is to write down your card purchases and constantly recalculate the total you've spent. On paper.

Hmmmmmmm...

I can TOTALLY see this having a stunning impact on current game development.

Eh, that's what receipt scanners/parsers and Excel are for. I'm way too lazy to actually write it out by hand.

But yea, having anyone in a position of power in a publishing company with any degree of fiscal responsibility and sense would revolutionize game development. They'd actually start turning profits again.

 

[Milanezi]

Shut up and get back into doing games I actually enjoy, like the first 3 Gears of War. I don't want you to think outside your STRICT work, it stinks when you do.

 

[Milanezi]

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 work.

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

Indeed. Many people have no idea how to manage their money and restrain their spending.

It's one of the reasons I despise credit cards. It's far too easy for stupid, unthinking people to spend themselves into irrecoverable debt.

I don't despise credit cards, I despise the way they get pushed on people who don't really know how to use them. Here in Brazil there's a limit to how much interest can be placed upon the value of a purchase... Unless you used a credit card, then it's limitless, this was meant to scare people from doing something stupid and creating a hell of a problem to banks and all, but it turns out that's obviously not how you teach people.

 

[lacktheknack]

The general trick is to write down your card purchases and constantly recalculate the total you've spent. On paper.

Hmmmmmmm...

I can TOTALLY see this having a stunning impact on current game development.

Eh, that's what receipt scanners/parsers and Excel are for. I'm way too lazy to actually write it out by hand.

But yea, having anyone in a position of power in a publishing company with any degree of fiscal responsibility and sense would revolutionize game development. They'd actually start turning profits again.

You see, that's the problem. Letting a computer handle it means that you're usually not parsing exactly what's going on... which leads to guessing... which leads to you being on an episode of Money Morons (man, I love that show). Not saying that'll happen to you (you implied you don't even use credit cards), just a general statement.

But yeah, I'd love to see an accountant crowned CEO of a games company, just to see what would happen.

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

Well cliffy I'm glad your so well off as to be able to afford full price on all games you buy (Shit i bet the guy gets given a bunch for free anyway). Turn's out some folks aren't as wealthy as you so can't afford to pay full retail on every game they buy. Also not every game is worth full fucking retail asshole!

So i can either buy used or only buy the titles I'm fairly sure i'm gonna like and fuck the rest which i'm pretty sure will affect your bottom line if enough people choose that option.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

You have made my blacklist. Good job. You are not taking away my rights just because you can't manage a budget.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Then stop spending Hollywood budgets on games when the market is nowhere near as big as the film market. If you absolutely MUST make these ultra-pretty psuedo-films then find a way to make them cheaper. If that's impossible, then stop making them. Obviously the demand does not justify the cost.

 

[Agayek]

You see, that's the problem. Letting a computer handle it means that you're usually not parsing exactly what's going on... which leads to guessing... which leads to you being on an episode of Money Morons (man, I love that show). Not saying that'll happen to you (you implied you don't even use credit cards), just a general statement.

But yeah, I'd love to see an accountant crowned CEO of a games company, just to see what would happen.

Nah, I use credit cards. In this world, unfortunately, you have to. I never spend more than I have and I always pay it off immediately, but I do use one. Mostly so that I can have credit when I eventually attempt to get a loan to purchase a house. And I get past the problem you're talking about here by having the computer parse my receipts and put them into an excel spreadsheet, then double-checking them all and making sure the values are correct. Sometimes I cut out the middleman and just type it all out. I just can't be fucked to write it all out by hand. Typing > writing and all.

I don't despise credit cards, I despise the way they get pushed on people who don't really know how to use them. Here in Brazil there's a limit to how much interest can be placed upon the value of a purchase... Unless you used a credit card, then it's limitless, this was meant to scare people from doing something stupid and creating a hell of a problem to banks and all, but it turns out that's obviously not how you teach people.

That's true enough. When used responsibly, credit/loans/etc are not bad. My issue is that people like to claim credit that they can't afford, and the people giving it are willing to give it to them.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

The general trick is to write down your card purchases and constantly recalculate the total you've spent. On paper.

Hmmmmmmm...

I can TOTALLY see this having a stunning impact on current game development.

Eh, that's what receipt scanners/parsers and Excel are for. I'm way too lazy to actually write it out by hand.

But yea, having anyone in a position of power in a publishing company with any degree of fiscal responsibility and sense would revolutionize game development. They'd actually start turning profits again.

You see, that's the problem. Letting a computer handle it means that you're usually not parsing exactly what's going on... which leads to guessing... which leads to you being on an episode of Money Morons (man, I love that show). Not saying that'll happen to you (you implied you don't even use credit cards), just a general statement.

But yeah, I'd love to see an accountant crowned CEO of a games company, just to see what would happen.

"THAT is the proposed budget?"
"Yes."
"What are you basing this sales projection on? Wishes and fairy dust?"
"Well, we are pretty optimistic about the product."
"Uh huh. And I was optimistic about my last marriage. I want the research you are basing this on."
"Well...uh..."
"Ah, I've found a way to cut a bit of the costs."
"How, sir?"
"You're fired."

 

[chiggerwood]

Cliffy B's entire argument is "games are so expensive we have to hurt consumers to pay for them, suck it up."

Amazing how he doesn't even seem to consider that game devs could, I don't know, stop making games that cost more than the market can bear. It's like Michael Bay saying we need to eliminate sales of used DVDs in order to have more explosions in film.

Not interested in being held responsible for your excesses and inability to realistically budget and control costs on your projects.

Yes, yes, yes yes yes, I could not have said it better myself. Thank you for saving me some time.

OT: Maybe if game devs and publishers would budget production cost, and advertising responsibly, like adults, they wouldn't be having so many problems. The fact of the matter is that gamers will forgive a lack of graphical fidelity and multiplayer for a good experience. Bethesda has proven this time and time again. And say what you will about Bethesda's games, I know I've done my fair share of bitching about them, but at least they offer good experiences.