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

[CriticalMiss]

And once again Cliffy B reminds us why noone cares what he thinks. He mustn't be familiar with Minecraft, it didn't need thousands of developers and a budget in the millions of dollars to be successful. It's probably a fluke though because obviously the more money a studio spends on a game the better it must be! It's the consumers fault if it doesn't sell well, BAD CONSUMERS!

At this point can we assume that he is being paid by Microsoft to rabble about how evil Sony are for not having anti-consumer practices? Next he will say how great it is to have a spy-camera in your living room and how Sony are destroying the games industry with their not-having-a-spy-camera.

 

[Sejborg]

Snip

Where did you get this information?

From a MS employe.

Sorry but then I will dismiss this as hearsay until confirmed by a reliable source.
I'm not saying your lying, in fact it sounds plausible, but without source it is not reliable.

That is your prerogative.

However if I were you then I would be very hesistant to believe, that only half the gamers in theory would need to buy a game to be able to play it with eachother.

Imagine a whole dorm, where people decide that it would be fun to play FIFA or COD together. Then they could just pair up in two and two's, and then that dorm would only have to buy the half amount of games to play online with eachother. I asked this because it sounded to good to be true. And I was told that it wouldn't work like that because the cloud would keep track of where the game was active and any game copy could only be active one place at a time. Then you could circumvent it to a degree with offline play because of the 24 hour vs. 1 hour cycle.

 

[Zac Jovanovic]

Used games and game ownership are all well and good, until you get retailers that aggressively force used games sales in order to make money from nothing, taking a huge chunk out of new game sales. The very same people that are supposed to be selling new games and ensuring a profit for game makers.

Does anyone really think Sony wants used games out of the picture any less than MS?

 

[Daveman]

"You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing"

Hmm, I know which I'd pick of the two to get rid of.

To be honest the issue with game development isn't really either of those. It's not the principle of used/rental games people really care about (well, maybe some people do), it's more to do with affordability. The game devs and publishers are spending too much money and in return expecting a massive payment for these games, and used/rentals take away from this. In fact very few people value the games as highly as the game devs do.

I mean at the moment they are essentially whining about how some customers can't afford to play their games but they expected them to buy them anyway. Either reduce the price (even if this means you have to reduce the budget) so they can buy them or shut up.

At the very least reduce the price on a reasonable time scale. If a year goes by and somebody hasn't bought your $60 game, making it $5 cheaper isn't going to go very far towards making people want to buy it, especially when you just released a brand new title. Games depreciate in value faster than most game devs would want to admit. Steam gets it about right with the sales, often knocking up to a third off less than a year old game. I wouldn't have bought Skyrim when I did if they hadn't done exactly that and I was a huge fan of Oblivion.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118547-Valve-If-Steam-Sales-Didnt-Work-We-Wouldnt-Run-Them

You've got to reduce the cost of making games, because the extra bit of fidelity in the graphics doesn't matter to me enough to pay the price tag currently set, and a lot of people agree.

 

[timboo_drow]

"You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing"

Hmm, I know which I'd pick of the two to get rid of.

To be honest the issue with game development isn't really either of those. It's not the principle of used/rental games people really care about (well, maybe some people do), it's more to do with affordability. The game devs and publishers are spending too much money and in return expecting a massive payment for these games, and used/rentals take away from this. In fact very few people value the games as highly as the game devs do.

I mean at the moment they are essentially whining about how some customers can't afford to play their games but they expected them to buy them anyway. Either reduce the price (even if this means you have to reduce the budget) so they can buy them or shut up.

At the very least reduce the price on a reasonable time scale. If a year goes by and somebody hasn't bought your $60 game, making it $5 cheaper isn't going to go very far towards making people want to buy it, especially when you just released a brand new title. Games depreciate in value faster than most game devs would want to admit. Steam gets it about right with the sales, often knocking up to a third off less than a year old game. I wouldn't have bought Skyrim when I did if they hadn't done exactly that and I was a huge fan of Oblivion.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118547-Valve-If-Steam-Sales-Didnt-Work-We-Wouldnt-Run-Them

You've got to reduce the cost of making games, because the extra bit of fidelity in the graphics doesn't matter to me enough to pay the price tag currently set, and a lot of people agree.

Agreed. One of the principles in setting price is supposed to be considering what the market can bear. The proliferation of affordable alternatives suggests that game companies are charging more than the market can bear and should re-evaluate the pricing model, not try to cut-out the part of the industry that is making gaming more affordable and just expecting people to shut up and pay.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Dude Huge also thinks that Sony has its own used game solution up its sleeve and is just playing on the internet outrage for free PR. "You're all being played!" he warns us. Rumors that Sony's own machine would block used game sales in some way surfaced in the lead up to the PS4's reveal.

I am also curious about this. Either Xbox is run by people that know less about business than me, they have an extremely unlikely Ace under their sleeve or Sony will indeed force some new DRM or use the current one to emulate microsoft new measures. All in all, i have learnt to think that people ain't idiots when it comes to money, so the most likely explanation for me is what Cliffy is saying.

As for the comparison with nintendo, it's really forced isn't it? They have different markets, different objectives and VERY different game libraries; I am sure that if nintendo had a yearly CoD or several big budget series and the likes the behaviour of their consumers would change. I would contest that they see less trading because they have way less games and the average nintendo consumer has more time to save for each one while liking to have a somewhat varied game library.

Based on E3 info, Sony will be keeping the same policies as with the PS3: the publisher is allowed only to use online passes but you can still trade in games and still lend them. In addition, Sony may also be getting rid of their own online passes as they move to having PS+ be their online component (one that still has all the benefits and with actually good reasoning behind it's implementation: there are going to be more cloud based services and there is actual pressure to recover costs)

sources:
Reason for PS+ being required for online
Policy with publishers

In other words, Sony may turn their backs but given their statements and the hatred towards Microsoft now, I don't think that will happen.

I would also argue that the difference between the Japanese (Nintendo, Sony) and American (Microsoft) markets are large enough that used games becomes a deal breaker. In Japan, used games are a lot more prevalent for some reason. I think there was some study that showed that if you completely get rid of used games but reduce the price by a third, profits go up by 19% but I doubt that publishers will reduce prices so used games will be around for a while.

Too add to Sony requiring PS+, it seems if one account has a PS+ subscription, all other accounts on the console can play online.

https://twitter.com/yosp/status/344369977438126080

Which is awesome for households with multiple people who play games.

In other words, Sony is now starting to bash Microsoft into a bloody pulp

 

[Vivi22]

Sony did come out against used games early.

When? Because I don't remember this ever happening.

Then, after the XBone announcement, they changed their tune.

Again, when? Because they never said anything about used games in their initial PS4 reveal, nor in the interim time leading up to E3. How could they change their tune when they weren't whistling anything to begin with?

As for the article, the headline might as well read: "Cliffy B opens mouth, words come out ass. Again."

Seriously, for a guy who's created some pretty popular games, he's a complete and utter moron when it comes to what consumers want and the actual business behind the industry.

If your business model can't survive used games and rentals then there's a problem with your business model. Not the used games and rentals. Learn to effectively manage your costs to deal with the fact they exist or feel free to go out of business. But arguing in favour of subverting consumer rights for the sake of maintaining an utterly broken and, frankly, moronic, business model is just plain stupid.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

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?

Yeah, about that

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124958-Molyneux-Microsofts-E3-Conference-Was-Unprofessional

It's actually somewhat reasonable

 

[Lightknight]

Sony is playing us? Who does he mean by "us". Surely this is him talking to a board of directors in a publishing company that wants to get all our monies and not talking to the general public.

It's the equivalent of saying that competition isn't good for customers and neither are options for them to choose from. That it doesn't benefit us to be able to own what we purchase.

Think of this in the terms of other media like movies and music. I guess apple is taking us down that road but in a much more user-friendly method. Same with Steam. But we appreciate what they do because they provide a service that actually benefits us. Sony isn't playing us, Microsoft is. And by us I mean gamers.

 

[Colt47]

Anyone else think Cliffy B is trolling?

 

[Assassin Xaero]

My favorite memory of Cliffy B was when he said "We're not making Gears of War 2/3 on PC because of all the pirates", then Gears 3 was leaked and being pirated months before it was out shortly after that.

OT: I see his point here, though. With all the babies complaining all the time about how graphics/animations are bad, I can't imagine how much they spend making the game look "nice", just to have the same people complain that it doesn't have graphics from 20 years from now. I miss the days when people played games for fun and didn't care about what they looked like.

 

[Norix596]

You're right - the numbers don't add up. So lower your own budget expenditures -- that's totally within a publisher and developer's own power. Don't expect customers to silently solve the problem for you at your own expense. I'm not just going to pay $60 for every single game rather than say $40 or $30 just because some developers don't want to make any decisions about how to balance the books on their business operations. It's totally within the power of Microsoft to create to tools to obstruct and mark up prices on the used game market and to developers to use those tools on the Xbox One and within their legal rights to do so. Just don't try to think that potential customers have to buy your products.

I could make out great by selling these glasses of lemonade for $100 each because I$70 a cup. It's totally within my rights to aim for the profit margin of $30 but people aren't going to buy at that price just because I scream at them that's the only price I can make the money I want at. They're all going to tell me to stop being so stupid and find a way to make lemonade for cheaper.

Fix problems on your own end, don't expect people to put up with restrictions and controls to force them to your solve problems for you on their end.

 

[JakobBloch]

Used games is a thing.

I don't understand why companies like Sony and Microsoft don't just accept that and instead of trying to clap down on it, embrace it. With the digital market growing at the moment why not make it possible for players to trade games over an online auction. Sony and microsoft will handle it and take a small cut of every transaction (5%-15%) and the rest is then shared between the original owner and the publiher/developer. Here is how I think it should work:

- Give the power to set this sharing percentage to the pubblishers/developers.
- Give the power to set the starting price to the seller.
- Give the Publisher the power to set a minimum listing time (within reason)
- Give the Publisher the power to set a "buyout" price.
- Make sure the seller can see all these factors.

Retailers won't be happy though.

 

[Not Lord Atkin]

Except Cliffy, no one cares about the visuals and feature sets. A bloated budget is NOT a good thing. All we want are good games in an industry that can support its own weight. But apparently, that's too much to ask for.

 

[Azwrath]

OK...

No, dev's are not innocent. Like I said, a lot of developers are overspending and that NEEDS to change.

But contrary to what you are saying, I do believe that there is some pressure from the outside to deliver high end graphics, animations and more. Someone earlier mentioned game Journalists focusing on graphics quite often. Reviews DO take graphics into account and if your game doesn't get a certain score, your game won't sell and then you have problems. I am, however, not saying that the consumer alone is to blame. All I tried to communicate is that there is more to this situation than the simple "it's the developers fault" that has been said here.

Yes, a lot of developers need to start planning better. But they will still need hundreds of millions to make certain games work. And that's where the debate about used games comes into play. Like I said, I do not know what would be a good solution. I hope we find one soon.

Well the expectations of the customers for a certain product are usually set over time by the supplier of said product. Developers and publishers are the ones that started sticking "SUPER REALISTIC VISUALS" on the box to try and turn it into a selling point. People didn't just woke up one day and started demanding realistic visuals.

But this does not matter all that much in the topic at hand. Visuals do cost alot but that is not where the majority of money goes into. The problem is developers have certain unrealistic expectations from their sales so they go on and spend acording to those expectations. When faliure becomes obvious they look for someone else to blame insted of admiting that they might have went a bit over the top with the budget.

So maybe a solution would be to lower these expectations from both developers and consumers, because in the end creating that perfect game with half a bilion dollar budget is pointless if no matter how many people buy it, you are still losing money. And if the industry keeps losing money then they will stop making games which in turn will affect us. But in order to lower expectations those that set them so high in the first place would have to make the first step.

Used games are just a temporary scapegoat and once they have dealt with them they will just move on to blaming something else. Maybe the "small" prices of games, so they will raise those and it will become normal to pay 100$ for a game or maybe the fact that you only have to buy the game once, so they will put a yearly "tax" on games if you still want to play them.

 

[Lightknight]

Maybe someone once told CliffyB that budgeting is for suckers and he now bases all financial decisions on that.

These are the people who believe that they should be able to make a profit if they only spend enough on the development without doing any real market research. Their forecasting department is filled with all n00bs who genuinely think that any game is capable of making COD money if you throw enough money at it.

At least when those companies fall, their IPs will be up for sale to more capable publishers who actually understand how to make money.

 

[NKRevan]

OK...

No, dev's are not innocent. Like I said, a lot of developers are overspending and that NEEDS to change.

But contrary to what you are saying, I do believe that there is some pressure from the outside to deliver high end graphics, animations and more. Someone earlier mentioned game Journalists focusing on graphics quite often. Reviews DO take graphics into account and if your game doesn't get a certain score, your game won't sell and then you have problems. I am, however, not saying that the consumer alone is to blame. All I tried to communicate is that there is more to this situation than the simple "it's the developers fault" that has been said here.

Yes, a lot of developers need to start planning better. But they will still need hundreds of millions to make certain games work. And that's where the debate about used games comes into play. Like I said, I do not know what would be a good solution. I hope we find one soon.

Well the expectations of the customers for a certain product are usually set over time by the supplier of said product. Developers and publishers are the ones that started sticking "SUPER REALISTIC VISUALS" on the box to try and turn it into a selling point. People didn't just woke up one day and started demanding realistic visuals.

But this does not matter all that much in the topic at hand. Visuals do cost alot but that is not where the majority of money goes into. The problem is developers have certain unrealistic expectations from their sales so they go on and spend acording to those expectations. When faliure becomes obvious they look for someone else to blame insted of admiting that they might have went a bit over the top with the budget.

So maybe a solution would be to lower these expectations from both developers and consumers, because in the end creating that perfect game with half a bilion dollar budget is pointless if no matter how many people buy it, you are still losing money. And if the industry keeps losing money then they will stop making games which in turn will affect us. But in order to lower expectations those that set them so high in the first place would have to make the first step.

Used games are just a temporary scapegoat and once they have dealt with them they will just move on to blaming something else. Maybe the "small" prices of games, so they will raise those and it will become normal to pay 100$ for a game or maybe the fact that you only have to buy the game once, so they will put a yearly "tax" on games if you still want to play them.

If both dev's and consumers would lower their expectations, then maybe we could get somewhere. But I don't see that happening on both ends sadly. All these comments on here that "no one cares about visuals and sound" are ridiculous. If that were true, everyone would be happy playing Pong-style games. And no, that's not the case.

There are many reasons why used games are being discussed. The single purchase model for games is unlike other entertainment media and it gives customers, currently a usually unparalleled amount of bang for their buck. Consider the 200 hours people spend in skyrim. The 100s of hours in Mass Effect. The hundreds in RDR or other games. And for those hundreds of hours, they ONLY pay 60 bucks. That's unique (and sometimes, it's not the same value, but this is why I think the single price model is bad).

And people demand more entertainment, more "value" from their games. People are telling me that they wouldn't buy a game that delivers 20 hours of content for 60 bucks, because that's just way too little. That's just unrealistic. Producing 50+ hours of content takes a lot of time and effort, yet the payout is the same as if you produce 20+ hours of content.

So maybe we need a different approach there. Different prices for different entertainment. I don't know the solution, all I know is that it can't work this way much longer and that the problem lies in expectations and behavior on both ends.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

Cliff Blizzizzard is an executive. He makes money if a project FAILS. Not just "didn't meet our unrealistic expectations of 50 million copies sold in the first week," but outright fails. This is America, where we pay executives money after they tank the company (or even the economy).

I take your point, but it remains entirely within the realm of possibility that a game isn't making money because of the enormous up-front costs associated with it.

By way of example and also using your movie analogy, take the Last Airbender. This is a movie that grossed over 300,000,000 USD worldwide? Why did that sequel never get made?

Well, it cost 150 million to make. Then there was the forced upconversion to 3-D. Then there was a promotional campaign which is said to run in excess of 100 Million USD. If we assume the bare minimum of 100 Million, that's 250 million, leaving about 50 million to go around. But the LA Times gave the total number of 280 million, which leaves about 20 to go around. They had banked on a big market and got spanked because of it. The possibility that the movie sucked, BTW, is completely irrelevant; it is merely about over-estimating your audience's size.

And not knowing your audience brings me to....

It's amazing just how little these companies understand the people they're selling their products to. Sometimes it seems that the business majors are calling the shots in terms of game play--and the game developers are pretending to be finance majors.

Meant no offense about Gears by the way. Six million customers for Gears 1 is pretty impressive.

What amazes me is how many of the industries that are in trouble are the ones that have basically thrown away fairly straight-up notions about the consumer. Instead, they seem to think that they can just throw more money at something an expect a bigger return. This works in Game Dev Story, but not so much in the real world. Customers are a finite resource with finite resources, and even the ostensibly recession-proof entertainment industry can get hit. It's about knowing your limits and having reasonable expectations for one.

Most hardware still operates on the loss-leader ideal, where you take a hit with the hardware to sell the software and accessories and whatever else. This may not be true of the current gen, but it's hard to tell at this point. If gamign companies applied the same mentality to hardware as they do to software, they'd probably close up shop. I mean, each Xbox takes money out of our pockets! NEGATIVE SALES! THIEVERY! PIRACY! (somehow).

The fact is, gaming has tried to increase the burden on us to sustain their own business model, so it's hard to believe they don't KNOW it's unsustainable.

 

[Mr. Q]

Nonetheless, you can't argue with the success of man's games...

You may be right, but then, comic book writer/artist/no talent hack Rob Liefeld was successful during that lovely period of comics called the 90s. Look back, the majority of us regret that we willingly gave this dipshit our money and attention. And I'm pretty sure, as time passes, we'll feel the same way about you Cliffy... ya shit-spewing ****!

 

[-Dragmire-]

So... he sees that there is there is a problem. He also sees that there are two sides to it(problem X exsists because element A cannot coexist with element B therefore problem X has 2 sides).

Industry cannot sustain under current model

ELEMENT A

High Budget Games

A practice of investing obscene large sums of money into a game as well as advertising so enough (key) demographic(s) are hit to ensure the investment is as safe as possible. Safe being not only an immediate recoup of investment + profit 2 weeks-1 month after launch, but also safe in that they can launch immediately into production of the sequel knowing their current userbase is the minimum to expect for the next release.

This practice has produced games products that have grossed so high that it seems pointless to make a product that doesn't in some way aim at the demographics the product leader has attracted.

It seems to have lead to misguided assumptions of the way competing product should be made. That a product that covers the same ground, has more features and functions better will either succeed above the leader on the merits they have over it, be as successful as the leader or at least fracture the leaders userbase.

These competing products all have a similar times where their target audience has been known to spend money on products like theirs and if they miss it, profit forecasts fall dramatically. This leads to an expensive advertising competition that raises the budget even more and every time you increase the budget, you increase your projected sales so investors don't get nervous.

Now you're in a situation where every lost sale hurts you.

So you compete over the people who already have what they wanted hoping they all collectively decide to move to your product for the same/similar fix.

But whatever, those are your cards to play. Just realize this is the active side. Choosing to go lower budget with a particular, under served niche in mind is also an option. Not company shatteringly risky however profits are lower.

ELEMENT B

Used Games

A practice where the consumer decides to sell their product when the value of keeping the product is lower the value of money amounting to a fraction of what they purchased it for.

There are many reasons for doing this from reasons like quitting the hobby and trying to recoup investment to getting enough cash for a new release to "I finished it" to many other things. The timeframe from release varies as wildly as the amount of reasons for selling.


Retailers, seeing this trend, set themselves up as a hub for first sale and resale. The amount of profit made on resales had investors pushing for rapid expansion that can no longer sustain itself without pushing item resale(reminds me of another business grasping beyond their reach...). This business doesn't just rely on the people who make the product, this relies heavily on the consumer who decides the product is not worth keeping, the consumer who didn't rent the game but bought it and resold it after a weekend.

While this product can be sold repeatedly without loss of quality, it still needs every owner of said product to trade it in, and trade ins matter most in the short term...


If resold products are such a problem in the space of 2 weeks where it cripples profits... there might just be something wrong or missing with your product.

Element B is passive, it's the natural result of a consumer weighing what they paid against what they got and coming to the decision that half or even less than half the money back from the initial purchase is worth not having that experience with that product in the foreseeable future.


__________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, I agree, these two things cannot coexist.

Element A needs Element B gone so they can get larger investments by ensuring investors that consumers won't be able to resell the product. Whether that will actually help them or make people buy less new games a year, no idea.

If the reliance on blockbuster tentpole go big or go home was at least lessened, then used games would remain one of the key things that keeps our player base large. A player base that includes people who buy used because that's their financial level but then trade them in so they can get into a new release's multiplayer with their friends so they won't enter it when their friends outlevel them greatly, or worse, have stopped playing.


He just took that side because he was an active part of element A, a lower budget would be a nightmare for him. The successful franchises he's been a part of has isolated his perspective in a strange way.