CliffyB Thinks Used Games Are Bad, Sony is "Playing Us"
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Movies with higher budgets to make and lower costs to be able to see in a theater and own on DVD(or even blu-ray) are capable of turning a profit. You guys sell $60 products with rather low budgets in comparison to the movie industry, how are you incapable of turning a profit? Either you need to scale back, or make better games, because clearly you must be doing something wrong here. You're like the Movie executives for "Coupon: The Movie" on Mr. Show with Bob and David. I'm surprised he hasn't tried suing the American people for not buying enough of his new games. It's not his fault we aren't buying enough of his games, it's our fault.
Honestly, I think it has more to do with his marketable nickname. People like something short and snappy. If his surname was easier to write, he wouldn't get anywhere near the press even AS a major player.Baresark said:
I get that he had a hand in Unreal Tournament and such, but....
Honestly, this is the primary reason I buy used. And oddly enough, I don't buy used in competition with new titles. That is to say, if I'm buying a game used, it's probably not a new title to begin with (and might not even still be on shelves in the new section).FizzyIzze said:
And further agreement: do you know what I don't buy? Gears of War games. Why don't I buy them? Used games? No. Rentals? No, though the fact that you can beat them in a rental period is probably why Cliff hates rentals. No, the reason I don't buy them is they're BORING, borderline unenjoyable experiences. I had fun with the first, but...Four games? No. Just...No.
Actually, he's probably lucky people remember him for Gears and UT, because when he steps off the tried and true....Yeah. Not pretty.
I think I see the point you're making, Baldr, and its one I hadn't considered to be honest. I suppose it makes my comparisons not really hold up well. Though I will say I do think it is the publisher's responsibility to make a game both worth buying new and kept to a budget it can cover with reasonable unit numbers sold.Baldr said:
Assuming that applies, there's one problem with that. If I sell a game, I no longer have any use for their customer support and/or QA people.Baldr said:
In other words, no matter what happens, only one person is ever consuming their service. That means the service for that disc/license has already been paid for. It does not matter who currently holds that license. One license has been paid for, therefore they have been paid to provide one person those services. Since only one person can hold the disc, there can only ever be one person that consumes their service.
Therefore, they need to stop demanding more money to provide the service they've already been paid for.
I don't like this guy. He favors a bunch of stupid practices that only hurt everyone in the industry. If he honestly thinks that eliminating the used game market is a good idea, and that allowing budgets to balloon more is an even better idea, he should not be allowed to manage the money because he is quite clearly irresponsible with said cash. One of the problems with the industry is the fact that budgets have ballooned, and has to be countered. Attempting to steal ownership rights way from the consumer is only going to make more problems in the future.
Even so, with $60 per copy of a new game, and how many games are sold within a week of AAA releases, there is a profit somewhere, and I don't know if Cliffy is hiding it somewhere, but he's making more money than he cares to confess.Zachary Amaranth said:
Where is this extra money supposed to come from? What do you think people do with the money they get selling games? People have a limited budget to buy games with, if they can't sell them they'll just buy fewer games, or pirate. The people involved in used games are already putting as much spare income as they're willing to into this hobby. Tell me, who is providing this magical extra money you need to market your game? Since you want to talk about numbers that don't work, how about you DON'T SPEND MORE MONEY MARKETING THE GAME THAN DEMAND FOR THE GAME CAN SUSTAIN? If your business model is unsustainable, that's your business' fault, not your customers'. Don't be running your mouth off about numbers until you've learned to put two and two together!
Wow, that's also a really excellent point. Another reason I'm skeptical of this whole product to service transition. I don't know I always buy games new because I want to support games being made that I think are worth buying fully so I don't really have a lot of experience buying used or with its long-term consequences.Agayek said:
Actually, I don't find it admirable at all, just sad.Lunar Templar said:
It's not just marketing that makes it overly expensive. Among other things, it's the idea that you need "top-tier" graphics in order to make a successful game. If a game were kick-ass in the first place, it wouldn't matter if each character had physics calculations determining where each bloody *strand* of hair should fall on their shoulders when they walk or fire a gun.
Irrelevant. The money that is spent on that is pennies compared to what they get from sales.(and not every game has customer support btw) It does not justify, at all, the blocking of used games. Consumers who actually use customer support -> 0,0001% of the buyers. Besides, used games do pay more than enough money to get customer support. See dlc sales. Many people who buy used actually get a lot of the dlc because they fot the game for cheap. Used game blocking is a solution for a inexistent problem. The problem with the industry is unrealistic expectations and budgets. If Tomb Raider, from a franchise that has long lost its importance, sells 3 millions in a month and it is deemed a failure........ believe me, the problem is not in the used games. Furthermore, EA,Ubisoft and Sony, all recently spoke against used game blocking.Baldr said:
Okay, y'know what, I know a couple-dozen people have already said this, but I'm just gonna' go ahead and say it again, since it really is worth repeating on the off-chance Cliffy, or some other industry head-honcho reads this thread;
Captcha: stony-hearted
That I am, captcha, that I am.
THEN LOWER YOUR GODDAMN BUDGETS THEN!!!
Captcha: stony-hearted
That I am, captcha, that I am.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bleszinski seems to have bought into the mainstream gaming industry's primary equation: (budget x hype) = sales. There's no room in there for understanding how customers think, no comprehension of stories like yours; in their minds, even if gamers buy and hate GenMilShoEMU (Generic Military Shoot-Em-Up) 2, if GenMilShoEMU 3 comes in a slick-enough package with enough whiz-bang commercials and Mountain Dew / Doritos contests, those gamers will buy it anyway. And they believe that, without the ability to buy the game used or rent / borrow it, those same gamers will buy it on release day for full price.FizzyIzze said:
These beliefs are wholly divorced from reality- sorry, Cliffy, but if I think your $60 is only worth $20, I'll either wait until it goes on sale or just not buy it at all- and another sign that the mainstream gaming industry is bound and determined to dig its own grave.
I knew I was forgetting something when I hammered that out, so thanks for the correction.frizzlebyte said:
I think I know of a simple solution, don't have games cost bajillons of dollers just so they can look slightly prettier.
Now Mr. B, I would like to review some of these basic concepts. Which part of that equation do you control? That's right, the budgets. Now which part don't you control? Good, the used and rental games. So which part should you be trying to change? ...Steven Bogos said:
I think I'll sign you up for the remedial lessons.
Wait? Who's being played? Cliffy B's argument is entirely circular, in that the massive costs for these games is mostly extraneous to the games themselves, ie it is the marketing, PR, licensing, etc which racks up the expenditure. That's not to mention to huge salaries going to upper management in many of these companies. They are certainly not feeling the pinch. If these extravagances and inefficiencies were cleared up, games would be significantly less expensive to put out there.
And after all, marketing is only a method of inviting sales through appeals to sheer popularity, NOT the actual worth of the product itself. A brilliant game need not have billions wasted in advertising, gifts and travel for journalists and PR, huge parties, cross media promotions and so on, for it to sell well. Sales targets are therefore largely to recoup the costs of selling, not creation and manufacture. It's as ass backwards and circular as Cliffy B's argument.
Also, just a thought about the home video industry, which seems to be doing OK without resorting to the destruction of consumer property rights, sharing and second hand. Most movies cost significantly more to put out there than a video game. Perhaps, if Cliffy B wanted to think outside the box, he'd offer alternatives which mirror the 'Box Office' period of any film's release, which is when those films tend to recoup much, if not all of their costs.
Instead Cliffy B is toeing the corporate line in further tormenting the current whipping boy of game publishers. Console makers themselves should be glad of any sale which results in a purchase of their hardware.
And after all, marketing is only a method of inviting sales through appeals to sheer popularity, NOT the actual worth of the product itself. A brilliant game need not have billions wasted in advertising, gifts and travel for journalists and PR, huge parties, cross media promotions and so on, for it to sell well. Sales targets are therefore largely to recoup the costs of selling, not creation and manufacture. It's as ass backwards and circular as Cliffy B's argument.
Also, just a thought about the home video industry, which seems to be doing OK without resorting to the destruction of consumer property rights, sharing and second hand. Most movies cost significantly more to put out there than a video game. Perhaps, if Cliffy B wanted to think outside the box, he'd offer alternatives which mirror the 'Box Office' period of any film's release, which is when those films tend to recoup much, if not all of their costs.
Instead Cliffy B is toeing the corporate line in further tormenting the current whipping boy of game publishers. Console makers themselves should be glad of any sale which results in a purchase of their hardware.