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

[NKRevan]

WHile I don't fully agree with Mr. B here, I think some people are a bit ignorant when it comes to the whole budgets thing.

The budgets for games have not exploded just because dev studios want to do that or because they don't know different. There are a lot of factors, including, the people buying the games, who expect high end graphics. Yes, the Escapist may go ahead and tell me that no, graphics are not a seller, but anyone who says that is fooling themselves in regards to the mass market and the mass market is where the money is.

Fact is, to make a AAA Core Blockbuster game these days, you need a massive amount of people. With the industry being made a better place to work at, these massive people require a lot of money to be payed. That's not even going into middleware, which you need unless you want to stretch development time and thus costs again.

Cliffy B is, IMHO wrong, that used game sales don't have a place in the industry at all. But saying huge dev budgets are only the fault of developers/publishers is ridiculous. Do realize that the market expects standards and those standards have become increasingly expensive to meet.

Publishers/Developers have dug their own hole here. It's like when Disney said that they won't be making any traditionally drawn 2D animation because there's no demand for it. Well studios like Disney set the demand and they flood the market with 3D CGI features, which means that's what people will go to watch. If Disney flooded the market with traditional 2D features that's what people would watch, and there would be no demand for 3D CGI films.

It's exactly the same thing here. Developers keep spending tons and tons of money on expensive graphics technology, so that's what people expect. There's also an added element, and that is the role of Video Game 'journalists' who emphasise elements like graphics and sound when they struggle to say anything good about the game. As a result, publishers/developers think that graphics and sound (and not good game design for instance) are something they can fall back on.

As for team sizes, they're part of the problem. Developers think they need absolutely massive development teams to make a good game, with the result being that there's a lot of pushing and pulling in different directions. When something goes wrong with a game, large teams mean the publisher either needs to fork out billions of dollars to fix said problem, which would take a lot of manpower as well, or else the problem goes unresolved and they release these problematic games as is. The irony is that some of the best games ever made were not particularly revolutionary in the graphics department, and had teams of about 20 people, all of which would do a little bit of everything. Treasure for example, small studio but they usually make great games and the big reason is because the team size is small and focused.

Spending in the games industry is out of control, the people here aren't wrong about that, the fact that independents can make great games with far lower budgets and far less man power is probably proof of that statement.

Digging their own hole? I guess you can lay blame on both ends of the coin, but I really, really can't blame dev's alone for the expectancy of consumers. Consumers ALWAYS wanted more realistic graphics (not every one, but a lot of them). So dev's delivered.

I agree with Journalists. They are part of the "problem" as it were.

This is not how it works. The majority of team members go into the art department and programming. And that's not just because developers THINK they need that many people, it's just a matter of how much can one person realistically do. Some of the best games made in whose opinion? Critics? Public? Consumer?

How many games by small teams do you think pull down enough money to break even? How many hundreds of failures for every ONE Minecraft/Braid/Super Meat Boy? And not because the games are bad necessarily, but because they fail to capture the audience. It's just really not seeing the whole picture if you think that AAA Blockbuster titles are a problem that could just be done away with.

And again, I do not doubt independents can make great games with little budget. But they cannot make AAA Blockbuster games. Now you and other people can tell me that that doesn't matter, because all that matters is that the game is good, but that would be silly. If anyone here claims they would never enjoy a good AAA Blockbuster title (and they exist, please don't do that whole, all AAA games are bad anyway thing), they are just trying to simplify the problem.

 

[Vault Citizen]

If such big budgets can't be supported in the same industry as rentals and pre owned games maybe game budgets should be smaller.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Ok then CliffyB, show me the study where they concluded that the number of new purchases would be larger without the additional income from trading in used games. Show that fucking study and I will concede some ground. Until then, I plain don't believe you, and I can do that because you have no fucking evidence. What's more, used games have a right to exist, games are a product, and just like any product if you want one that someone else has used and they're happy to give it to you for a fee, there's nothing wrong with that, and putting systems in place to erase that practise devalues your product when purchased. Free to play and microtransactions are just shittier models for the consumer in most cases. The industry wants to go from single purchase (meaning you can get as much value as you want out of a game and do whatever you want with it) to as subtle subscriptions and microtransactions as possible, because frankly people are less price-sensitive to the latter. Which is why when the stance of making good games that people will want to buy, perhaps at reasonable prices at launch, and do whatever they want with them afterwards, is taken by a company, they should be fucking applauded for it.

And yes, Sony probably isn't morally for used games, and rumours of its own disc-locking system were circulating before it probably caught on to the smart course of action (directly opposing Microsoft). But the consumers have shown that supporting used games will be profitable, and that's what we have to do when we want something. Give money to the suppliers. If you want used games, don't buy an Xbone and grumble about it. Don't buy digital for the same price where there is no system for resale. Buy the things that do what you want, and the people who make them will be happy to keep them that way.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I guess Cliffy B never learned some basic economics.

The firms with the highest costs are generally the first to leave when shit goes south.
You can only push costs onto demand so hard before demand rejects it outright. (that's what a demand curve describes, literally)

The loss of rentals and used games; that's a cost overall since it costs the consumer more overall.

It's up to those firms to get their costs under control.

 

[Karadalis]

Wasnt there a little zombie game with pretty bland graphics for this day and age that sold over 250000 copies in the first day? Just because they tapped into a concept that hadnt been realized like that yet?

Overwhelming success both financial and units sold and that on a comperativly small budged, without any "professional" marketing whatsoever.. just by using LPers and word of mouth? What does cliffy say to that?


"BAH HUMBUG!"

But seriously... Clyffy.. shut your mouth. Theres enough hot air around this time of year as is...

 

[ColeusRattus]

There's one thing I don't get: How do used games "take the cut"? That's just based on the false assumption that every used game sale would be a new game sale if it wasn't for used games. That's simply not true.
Also, when buying used, the developers/publishers DID ALREADY GET THEIR CUT! Somebody bought it full price for it to even appear on the used games shelf. Every used game out there is a former new sale.
Also, while I do buy most games new, the ones I bought used I bought because I wasn't that interested in them that they warranted full price. I bought Uncharted used because I thought the premise to be not that interesting, but I wanted to have a cheap shooter. But I fell in love with the series, which made me buy UC2 at full price and preorder part 3 and The Last Of Us. Not only did sony and naughty dogs NOT lose anything, as I wouldn't have bought it new, but the guy I bought it from did, they actually gained a new customer, resulting in a revenue of +300% with no investment needed from them whatsoever.

Also, I tend to sell games I played through that don't have any replay value, or that I haven't touched in a year, and use the little money I get to buy one or two new games I wouldn't have bought otherwise. Again, allowing for used games actually increased new sales in my case.

Thus, calling used sales a blight for devs/publishers, let alone outrightly preventing them, is IMHO stupid. There's nothing to gain by it, and a lot to lose, both paradoxically in sales and in image.

 

[Waddles]

Then spend less money on saturation advertising you moron

 

[Karadalis]

Then spend less money on saturation advertising you moron

They cant!

Without bribing the "game journalists" whos going to top rate their shitty shooters?

 

[Strazdas]

cliffy, i think your name is trying to tell you something.

Sure, instead of stop wasting money on inflated budgets and utterly retarded marketing mappings that market games to the wrong audience, lets kill something that keeps your game alive for more than the initial 3 months and actually wants people to be interested in sequel.

Sadly, he will still have money for his unreal engine, that isnt THAT great to begin with, and if developers were forced to build their own engines more maybe we wouldnt have ahalf the market look identical....

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

This guy's blog articles have more holes in it than a fishing net, and now you're taking him seriously enough to post an article on? What, are you going to post a PeterMolydeux article next?

Hehe. Have you seen the article above this one?

 

[Legion]

People have pretty much said everything there is to say on this matter, and I have to agree with the general consensus. Perhaps developers and publishers ought to start learning to use their budget more wisely rather than throwing money at everything. It's not our problem that they are making games so expensive to create, so we shouldn't be the ones having to take the hit.

When you get indie developers making more exciting games than huge developers who throw over one hundred million dollars at a game, claiming you have to keep spending money to make good ones becomes nonsensical. I had more fun playing Mark of the Ninja than I did Dead Space 3, and the difference in the cost to make them is insane.

This guy's blog articles have more holes in it than a fishing net, and now you're taking him seriously enough to post an article on? What, are you going to post a PeterMolydeux article next?

I see what you did there, and I like it.

 

[purifico]

Oh Cliffy, you couldn't be more of an obnoxious asshole even if you tried.

 

[EHKOS]

Well CliffyB can shut his big ugly face. HOW ABOUT THAT. HOW WAS THAT RETORT. HA.

Seriously though, the dude needs to run and fall with that lancer.

As for Sony playing us, we;ll see when TLOU comes out tomorrow.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing. The numbers do NOT work people.

Wrong. It's exactly why game rentals and used games must exist. Without renting, borrowing and selling used games, gamers will be a lot more careful what games they buy. They will not want to risk buying something that they'll end up hating. If you're so worried about used games, maybe you should try to make them so good that people will not want to sell them. If used games disappear, I can see a lot less people buying CoD every year.

You're all being played!

It's actually possible. But highly unlikely unless Xbone fails and Sony ends up with a monopoly.

The visual fidelity and feature sets we expect from games now come with sky high costs. Assassins Creed games are made by thousands of devs.

That number is going to get lower. One of the things about the new architecture inside the new consoles is the fact that it allows developers to do a lot more with a lot less people. We can expect layoffs simply because it will be possible to make better games with less staff.

Newsflash. This is why you're seeing free to play and microtransactions everywhere.

Sorry Cliffy but that's not true. Microtransactions and free-to-play games are a direct result of too much competition.

 

[petrolmonkey]

The guy is called "Cliffy B" and apparently has some sort of a tribal tattoo. Why are people listening to what he says?

 

[WashAran]

Bleszinkski went on to explain his stance, saying that games have gotten so big that there is just no way the next generation can survive if the used game and game rental markets keep taking a cut. "The visual fidelity and feature sets we expect from games now come with sky high costs," he says, "Assassins Creed games are made by thousands of devs."

Then maybe the big games should not survive.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

Tomb Raider reboot sold 3.4 million copies at, let's say, $50 a pop. That's 190 MILLION DOLLARS in revenue. How does a generic, mostly average third person action adventure fail to generate profit from almost $200 million in sales?

There's just a huge disconnect between what game publishers are providing and what people actually want. COD is gangbusters? Good for it. Stop trying to replicate that success. The industry can only have one such franchise at any given time. If you can't topple it, you need to seek out niche markets. These can still be profitable, but you have to adjust your budgets and expectations accordingly. You can't just throw 1000 people at yearly asscreed releases and expect to surf a rising tide of infinite growth.

EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc. - they're going through the motions, painting by numbers in what is a CREATIVE MEDIUM and expecting the same returns as non-creative industries. Those returns are obviously not meeting with their projections, so it's time to start reshaping the market to suit their strategies. Gaming is uniquely vulnerable to this tactic because of the closed garden control of consoles, but that doesn't mean people are going to necessarily take it lying down.