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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Kamille Bidan:

NKRevan:

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.

Developers have dug their own hole. From the NES days they have ingrained in the consumers that they want continually better graphics and better looking games. Just look at Nintendo's 80s Zelda commercial or the infamous Atari Jaguar commercial, which stressed to consumers that a high bit number meant better looking games (it doesn't). Granted, it's easier to market good graphics over good game design or engaging and immersive gameplay but the side effect is that this has set consumer expectations to the point where Developers have either priced themselves out of the market or cannot attain their ridiculous standards. The kicker is the average gamer honestly doesn't care. If a game doesn't look like shit, they will probably buy it, there is no need to spend massive amounts of money on tiny, unperceivable, minute details.

As for small teams, the vast majority of Nintendo's pre-Wii output was made with teams of no bigger than 30 people (given how much of New Super Mario Bros is basically cut-and-paste, I'd say a fair amount of their Wii/Post-Wii output as well). Team Ico have never had any more than 30 people working for them at a time (The Last Guardian aside, that has worked pretty well for them.) Treasure always work in small teams. Rare, even in their Microsoft days, always managed to make a game with about twenty people. There are probably plenty of others. Team size has nothing to do with lack of success in the Independent sector. Independent games usually lack promotional budgets, due to being independent. The biggest obstacle with anything independent is ignorance, people either love your stuff or they don't know/care about it.

The problem with AAA titles is that they are vastly over-produced and the publishers vastly over-estimate the market. They're willing to throw money around on more man-power than they need, perhaps in the erroneous belief that more people means the game will get made faster (the new Metal Gear has been in production for about three years and has a large multinational team. Meanwhile games made with teams of twenty get made almost just as quickly) or the game will be better (in actuality having so many people pushing and pulling on a project means game quality tends to be lower). Frequently you hear about how games need to sell five million to turn a profit or else they're considered a failure and now we're hearing how companies like Microsoft are assaulting consumer rights because they aren't making enough money to line the money pool any more.

I'm sorry. I just don't even know how to begin explaining why the assumption that it is all the developers fault is wrong.

Of course success in the independent game sector has nothing to do with team size, but you won't see a AAA game coming out of the independent sector. And I don't care how much people here claim otherwise, there ARE good AAA games and fans WANT good AAA games, not because publishers have conditioned them to want them, but because people like different things and some people like 120 minutes of motion captured video sequences and professional VO and hundreds of thousands of animations and detailed worlds and all the whistles and bangs that you will NOT see from an independent title and cost a huge amount of money to make.

I'm not even arguing that publishers and developers aren't at all to blame for these things. Of course they have some part in the problem of out of control budgets. But to assume that we can just go ahead and only make games on the scale of independent projects is ridiculous.

Phhh, all this coming from.a guy who is rich enough to afford everything brand new. The real world is a tough place right now, used games are often the only way that most people would even be able to play the tripe he used to create.

Then again, if he was so rich, he wouldn't have to keep stealing his sisters t-shirts to make himself look bigger.

Godamnit! And here I was thinking I was being original by thinking "You're right, massive budgets and used games can't mix. Better get rid of the massive budgets!" Oh well. At least I'm not the only one who can smell the bullshit on this guy's breath.

Just as everyone also remembers, Nintendo told us clearly "We 'combat' used games by making games that people aren't going to want to sell". And it's as simple as that. Even if you can convince us that used games really hurt the industry so much (and this is remembering you barely give anything to the retailers when they sell a NEW game for you), that fact is that used games are your problem, not our problem. We think they're great, and frankly, we don't give a shit about your whining.

In fact, ever so slightly off topic, do you know what's REALLY incompatible? Bitching about how used games are killing you, then not giving people backwards compatibility. Either let people trade in their old games for the new gear, or let people play old games on the new gear

V8 Ninja:
I have two words to for Mr. Bleszinski;

Dark Souls

This discussion is over, Cliffy.

Couldn't have put it better myself. You win Jim's bowler hat (you don't really).

A corporate shill doing what he does best? Color me surprised.

What a bloody ponce.

Don't think I want to say anything more. Yay discussion value!

Technology isn't cheap.

I buy games full price.

I remember spending $100 of my Junior Graduation money on Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and Socom. And it was worth every freakin' penny! because I wanted those titles.

We all want quality, cinematic experiences -- elaborate environments, life-like character animations, complex dialogue trees -- and that last 25+ hours.

But we never think about all of time and energy going into those realistic animations of Ezio's assassination jump. We love the care so many coders took in writing perfect sequences of dialogue w/ action, of illustrating a diverse number in CPU characters and their A.I. You realize that people are creating massive virtual worlds!

It's hypocritical to demand "low budget" games for
cheaper costs and then simultaneously rip developers for
being lazy with low textures and stiff animations.

If I saw cliffyb in person I'd want to smack him. He'd be the dude with glasses on blasting music from his convertible. Which he's posted

i wonder how much he got payed to say this.

maybe they could cut some money from all the marketing. or just cut down on the number of people working on a game and let it take a bit longer to make. if the only way to make money for these guys is to disable used games and sell millions of copys its your system that is not working not the other way round.

Lets face it: He has a point.

Many of us want games with high production values. We want shiny new graphics and big and open worlds filled with tons of professionally spoken dialogues, featuring super realistic physics and unbelievable lifelike animations all the while being very interactive.
All of this costs money. We heard it time and again that development costs have increased dramatically with each console generation. Sometimes the budget of a video game dwarfs even movie productions (SW:ToR, GTA IV).
Despite all this people want to stick to the currently established business model which is pretty old and if someone says it might be outdated he summons the shit storm.

This stance is pretty unreasonable tbh.
I'm not saying Microsoft is going about it the right way. But there must be room for discussion.

I personally have little problem with account bound video games. It has been for me this way since the introduction of Steam.
However if the industry wants to sell such a system it has to provide the customer some benefits as well.
In this regard Molyneux is right. Why should I, as a consumer, would want this system?
Microsoft did not demonstrate its system from this point of view. It therefore appears completely publisher centred which is not entirely true.

For example I read that you can add 10 people to your family on the XO. You can then share your games free of charge between these 10 people and still play the game yourself! This is actually a pretty awesome feature and leaves Steam in the dust. My brother living 350 km from me can borrow a game from me virtually and I can play in multiplayer with him. Imagine playing every coop game with your best buddy or family but only having to buy one copy.
This is only possible with account bound games. It is an advantage but Microsoft failed to demonstrate it or communicate the circumstances correctly. Therefore the customer is left unsure and reacts rather hostile.

I too am for the PS4. But tbh I think that is partly because I know that it will work the same as the PS3 which I already know. The XO won't and Microsoft did not a good job dismantling the fear that they or the publishers wouldn't abuse their power in such a system.
After all publisher are usually seen as greedy scumbags by gamers. Why should we trust these scumbags?

Wyvern65:
It's like Michael Bay saying we need to eliminate sales of used DVDs in order to have more explosions in film.

You are aware that movies (and music) have several income streams (1. theatrical release → 2. DVD/BR + rental release → TV release) and therefore don't need to collect the production costs in one big swoop like video games have to? You therefore are aware that your comparison is kinda worthless right?

Adon Cabre:

It's hypocritical to demand "low budget" games for
cheaper costs and then simultaneously rip developers for
being lazy with low textures and stiff animations.

Is that actually an issue these days?

I don't actually remember the last time a game was panned due to poor graphics/animations.

Besides it's not like you can't do aesthetically pleasing and well animated sub $100,000,000

NKRevan:

I'm sorry. I just don't even know how to begin explaining why the assumption that it is all the developers fault is wrong.

Of course success in the independent game sector has nothing to do with team size, but you won't see a AAA game coming out of the independent sector. And I don't care how much people here claim otherwise, there ARE good AAA games and fans WANT good AAA games, not because publishers have conditioned them to want them, but because people like different things and some people like 120 minutes of motion captured video sequences and professional VO and hundreds of thousands of animations and detailed worlds and all the whistles and bangs that you will NOT see from an independent title and cost a huge amount of money to make.

I'm not even arguing that publishers and developers aren't at all to blame for these things. Of course they have some part in the problem of out of control budgets. But to assume that we can just go ahead and only make games on the scale of independent projects is ridiculous.

Here's my hypothesis:

Developers tells consumers 'You want good graphics' - Consumers believe they want good graphics

Developers provide good graphics - Consumers want better graphics.

Eventually the developers get caught up in the impossibility of providing what they told consumers they wanted in the first place. I'm not saying it's completely their fault, consumer standards are usually unrealistic (see the elitist complaints of consoles' graphical capabilities from the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race). But the initial blame at least belongs to the developers. That's why I have no sympathy when they complain about consumer demands for good graphics.

While I certainly agree with you that people want different things, that Indie games aren't everyone's taste and some people do want big budget high quality AAA releases, that's not the issue here. The issue is that AAA developers are wasting their large budgets with pointless expenditure in the hope that they will sell enough copies to make a profit, and then when they don't they take it out on the consumer by assailing their basic consumer rights. It's not the consumer's fault that the developers waste tons of money, it is solely and squarely the developer's responsibility to moderate their costs.

For reference, it's the Heaven's Gate approach to game development. In many cases the kind of games developers make don't justify their huge budgets, of which they spend almost certainly every penny.

RatherDull:
So maybe the budgets are the problem.

You see, what you did there was use common sense, something that 'cliffe B' doesn't appear to have any of, as much as I wish he did.

OT: I've never been a fan of the guy, especially when his main fame has been from Unreal Tournament (an alright game in small doses) and Gears of War, the game that has men that look unnaturally large apes running around cutting aliens up with chainsaws disguised as guns. I don't get the smartest or mature vibe from the guy who makes games like that then demands that the economics surrounding gaming be destroyed for his greed.

Kamille Bidan:

NKRevan:

I'm sorry. I just don't even know how to begin explaining why the assumption that it is all the developers fault is wrong.

Of course success in the independent game sector has nothing to do with team size, but you won't see a AAA game coming out of the independent sector. And I don't care how much people here claim otherwise, there ARE good AAA games and fans WANT good AAA games, not because publishers have conditioned them to want them, but because people like different things and some people like 120 minutes of motion captured video sequences and professional VO and hundreds of thousands of animations and detailed worlds and all the whistles and bangs that you will NOT see from an independent title and cost a huge amount of money to make.

I'm not even arguing that publishers and developers aren't at all to blame for these things. Of course they have some part in the problem of out of control budgets. But to assume that we can just go ahead and only make games on the scale of independent projects is ridiculous.

Here's my hypothesis:

Developers tells consumers 'You want good graphics' - Consumers believe they want good graphics

Developers provide good graphics - Consumers want better graphics.

Eventually the developers get caught up in the impossibility of providing what they told consumers they wanted in the first place. I'm not saying it's completely their fault, consumer standards are usually unrealistic (see the elitist complaints of consoles' graphical capabilities from the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race). But the initial blame at least belongs to the developers. That's why I have no sympathy when they complain about consumer demands for good graphics.

While I certainly agree with you that people want different things, that Indie games aren't everyone's taste and some people do want big budget high quality AAA releases, that's not the issue here. The issue is that AAA developers are wasting their large budgets with pointless expenditure in the hope that they will sell enough copies to make a profit, and then when they don't they take it out on the consumer by assailing their basic consumer rights. It's not the consumer's fault that the developers waste tons of money, it is solely and squarely the developer's responsibility to moderate their costs.

For reference, it's the Heaven's Gate approach to game development. In many cases the kind of games developers make don't justify their huge budgets, of which they spend almost certainly every penny.

Oh I agree with that. Quite a few developers are falling into the trap.

However I do disagree that there was no desire from fans for better graphics without developer influence. I remember playing X-Wing back in the day and wishing it would look just a little better. I remember playing on my Atari 2600 and wishing I could see just a bit more of the environment.

Like I said, I'm not going to go about and say it is the customers own fault alone. It's a two-sided story.

And even for a developer that moderates their budget, games are more expensive to make. And AAA titles will still cost millions because you need the people to make them. Even in a perfectly budgeted project that will be the case for those titles and the titles remain in demand and not only because developers are pushing it on consumers.

That's my only point. People here try to say that it is all the dev's fault. And I very strongly disagree with that.

GodzillaGuy92:
Did anyone else picture Cliffy typing those tweets by repeatedly slamming his face against his keyboard? Because there's no other way I'm able to reconcile the blind stupidity of the comments with the fact that they were expressed by a living, thinking person.

I saw him typing his Tweets while lounging around in his gigantic house with multiple cars, talking about how he's barely able to scrape by because of used games.

There's a surefire way of making a profit for a game (Provided it doesn't suck) and can be accomplished in a few easy steps:

- Control your budgeting properly, set your budget for the sales you think you'll be able to achieve, don't set your sales target for how much money you blew on the budget.
- Keep your prices competitive, after a period of time (Say, 3 months) drop your prices, it doesn't have to be as low as used games since given the choice most people will choose a new game over a used one if the prices are similar.
- Offer incentives for people to keep their games.
- Pay people to return games directly to you. (And perhaps offer a resale option yourself)

Punishing the player for not being willing (or possibly able) to pay a certain amount is a surefire way to lose goodwill and ensure people will try to screw you over any way they can just to get back at you.

Can we stop giving this addlepate a platform to spout his self-righteous claptrap?

NKRevan:

Oh I agree with that. Quite a few developers are falling into the trap.

However I do disagree that there was no desire from fans for better graphics without developer influence. I remember playing X-Wing back in the day and wishing it would look just a little better. I remember playing on my Atari 2600 and wishing I could see just a bit more of the environment.

Like I said, I'm not going to go about and say it is the customers own fault alone. It's a two-sided story.

And even for a developer that moderates their budget, games are more expensive to make. And AAA titles will still cost millions because you need the people to make them. Even in a perfectly budgeted project that will be the case for those titles and the titles remain in demand and not only because developers are pushing it on consumers.

That's my only point. People here try to say that it is all the dev's fault. And I very strongly disagree with that.

Well, it's human nature to desire pretty things. My point is that developers have emphasised that to the expense of anything else. Like I said, developers think that graphics and sound take precedence over game design, which means that they will always fall back on them. As a result, you get a lot of pretty but disposable titles. Style over substance.

As for assigning blame, while money problems may not necessarily always be the developers' fault (the publishers set the budget and the deadlines), it certainly isn't the consumers'. The consumer cannot be blamed for not wanting to buy a title. Piracy is another matter, but consumers rights don't deserve constant assault simply because the consumer base isn't interested in the product being sold. The problem is a vague assumption that the developers know what people want and will go to great lengths to try to please everyone. It's a common phrase that the easiest way the fail is to try and please everyone.

Kamille Bidan:

NKRevan:

Oh I agree with that. Quite a few developers are falling into the trap.

However I do disagree that there was no desire from fans for better graphics without developer influence. I remember playing X-Wing back in the day and wishing it would look just a little better. I remember playing on my Atari 2600 and wishing I could see just a bit more of the environment.

Like I said, I'm not going to go about and say it is the customers own fault alone. It's a two-sided story.

And even for a developer that moderates their budget, games are more expensive to make. And AAA titles will still cost millions because you need the people to make them. Even in a perfectly budgeted project that will be the case for those titles and the titles remain in demand and not only because developers are pushing it on consumers.

That's my only point. People here try to say that it is all the dev's fault. And I very strongly disagree with that.

Well, it's human nature to desire pretty things. My point is that developers have emphasised that to the expense of anything else. Like I said, developers think that graphics and sound take precedence over game design, which means that they will always fall back on them. As a result, you get a lot of pretty but disposable titles. Style over substance.

As for assigning blame, while money problems may not necessarily always be the developers' fault (the publishers set the budget and the deadlines), it certainly isn't the consumers'. The consumer cannot be blamed for not wanting to buy a title. Piracy is another matter, but consumers rights don't deserve constant assault simply because the consumer base isn't interested in the product being sold. The problem is a vague assumption that the developers know what people want and will go to great lengths to try to please everyone. It's a common phrase that the easiest way the fail is to try and please everyone.

Assigning blame is being played here, right now. And people assign blame solely on the side of dev's/publishers. As if everyone would be happy if we just stopped advancing graphics, animations, AI, writing, and so much more. There is the assumption on the side of the consumer that they can't be blamed for exploding costs because supposedly no one asked for "more".

I do not agree. And certainly don't agree on lumping every AAA developer (or any team larger than 20 people for that matter) into the one category of "dev's who waste money". And that's what these people are saying. GOOD AAA titles also require large amounts of money and according to people here, apparently, those are not required anymore.

Yes, there are devs and publishers who overspend and focus too much on gfx over substance, but that doesn't automatically mean that we no longer need budgets of $100M plus to make good games.

Ishigami:
Lets face it: He has a point.

Many of us want games with high production values. We want shiny new graphics and big and open worlds filled with tons of professionally spoken dialogues, featuring super realistic physics and unbelievable lifelike animations all the while being very interactive.
All of this costs money. We heard it time and again that development costs have increased dramatically with each console generation. Sometimes the budget of a video game dwarfs even movie productions (SW:ToR, GTA IV).
Despite all this people want to stick to the currently established business model which is pretty old and if someone says it might be outdated he summons the shit storm.

This stance is pretty unreasonable tbh.
I'm not saying Microsoft is going about it the right way. But there must be room for discussion.

I personally have little problem with account bound video games. It has been for me this way since the introduction of Steam.
However if the industry wants to sell such a system it has to provide the customer some benefits as well.
In this regard Molyneux is right. Why should I, as a consumer, would want this system?
Microsoft did not demonstrate its system from this point of view. It therefore appears completely publisher centred which is not entirely true.

For example I read that you can add 10 people to your family on the XO. You can then share your games free of charge between these 10 people and still play the game yourself! This is actually a pretty awesome feature and leaves Steam in the dust. My brother living 350 km from me can borrow a game from me virtually and I can play in multiplayer with him. Imagine playing every coop game with your best buddy or family but only having to buy one copy.
This is only possible with account bound games. It is an advantage but Microsoft failed to demonstrate it or communicate the circumstances correctly. Therefore the customer is left unsure and reacts rather hostile.

I too am for the PS4. But tbh I think that is partly because I know that it will work the same as the PS3 which I already know. The XO won't and Microsoft did not a good job dismantling the fear that they or the publishers wouldn't abuse their power in such a system.
After all publisher are usually seen as greedy scumbags by gamers. Why should we trust these scumbags?

Wyvern65:
It's like Michael Bay saying we need to eliminate sales of used DVDs in order to have more explosions in film.

You are aware that movies (and music) have several income streams (1. theatrical release → 2. DVD/BR + rental release → TV release) and therefore don't need to collect the production costs in one big swoop like video games have to? You therefore are aware that your comparison is kinda worthless right?

Please, dont bring sense and logic to a Microsoft/Sony thread, if you dont hate Microsoft with all your heart then you are bad and you should feel bad.

Ishigami:

For example I read that you can add 10 people to your family on the XO. You can then share your games free of charge between these 10 people and still play the game yourself! This is actually a pretty awesome feature and leaves Steam in the dust. My brother living 350 km from me can borrow a game from me virtually and I can play in multiplayer with him. Imagine playing every coop game with your best buddy or family but only having to buy one copy.
This is only possible with account bound games. It is an advantage but Microsoft failed to demonstrate it or communicate the circumstances correctly. Therefore the customer is left unsure and reacts rather hostile.

Incorrect. The game can ONLY be active on ONE console at a time.

"Xbox One will also allow you to give up to 10 family members access to "log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One."

You can always play your games, but only one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time."

http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/Used_Games_and_Rentals

Stop spreading lies.

Overblown budgets are a symptom of poor developer and publisher culture. Games are made haphazardly, slapdash, not planned out. Publishers have unrealistic expectations, unreasonable demands, and bloated and inefficient marketing. This is a recipe for COST that must be surmounted by raw sales.

Work SMARTER not HARDER. Plan your games to be lean, mean, and well designed FROM THE START. Don't make changes halfway through. Yes, I am well aware this goes against the practices of industry darlings like Valve and Blizzard who will shitcan a project 9/10ths completed because they don't like how it turned out - both of those studio's have unique financial situations to support them (WoW, Steam/TF2). And frankly, Blizzards quality has dropped noticeably recently(I blame Metzen), whereas Valve hasn't actually 'made' anything since Left 4 Dead 2.

PS: Cliff Blizinksi worked for Microsoft for a long time and being unemployed, probably would want to again. His games are the protoplasmic goop from which the bloated, big budget brainless slugfest AAA game template grew. He caught lightning in a bottle with Gears of War, but hasn't done anything notable since. He is correct that Electronic Media budgets are inflated, but he is INCORRECT that used games are a problem.

Hey Cliffy, I bought a used copy of Gears 3, finished it, loaned it to two friends... and when they were done...
I traded it in!!!
I am your worst nightmare!!

Sejborg:
Incorrect. The game can ONLY be active on ONE console at a time.

"Xbox One will also allow you to give up to 10 family members access to "log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One."

You can always play your games, but only one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time."

http://www.ign.com/wikis/xbox-one/Used_Games_and_Rentals

Stop spreading lies.

Where was I lying?
I can always play my games on my XBox One and one family member can play from my shared library. Hence two people can use one copy at the same time. Therefore I can play coop with my brother even if only one of us bought the game.
It is right there in what you have quoted.

This is exactly what is wrong with Microsofts presentation. There are two ways to interpret what has been shown. You claim that this means only one XBox can use said games and I say that since I can always play my games and only the family members are restricted to one active copy that actually two people could use the game at the same time.

Demonstrating the system live would clear this up but Microsoft didn't do that. So the first reaction of people is like yours: Refusal.

So a Dane Cook look-a-like dudebro asshat who specializes in games featuring large, vaguely coherent slabs of pork roast and their love affair with chest high walls, idiotically helmet-free armor, and the color grey has opinions about used games and blah blah blah flarrrppplop! Christ I seriously hope that when the Xbox One sinks, "Cliffy B" and his cancerous frat boy ilk get their legs caught up in the line, and are dragged down to Davey Jones shithouse to rot beside it. And for good measure, someone could dick brick the knob that invented QTE's, and send his ass on a 1.4 league trip to the depths of the Dreamcasto sea as well.

To be fair, he did also say this

So how much he actually believes what he's saying, who knows.

And he did say as well that most money goes into marketing nowadays. Maybe you could start cutting back a bit there, perhaps, eh Cliffy?

Continue playing the good corporate stooge Cliffy.

Something went wrong with the post. I will post again.

Is this not a much more agreeable option?>
Games are being released digitally alongside psychical this generation right?
Why don't the pubs and devs just put there games on sale after a time so people will buy the 'new copy' one digitally, rather than a used copy, thus more money direct to the pubs and devs. I mean you could even throw in free dlc or something to you know make it desirable to customers!
If you can get it 'new', cheap, with extras, right from your chair, rather than Gamestop you would right?

The customers don't owe these companies anything but they seem to think we do?!

What people fail to realize is the majority of AAA video game budgets don't actually go into making the game it self, it goes into the marketing and promotion. Heck EA spent 100 million just on BF3's advertising alone.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/04/06/ea-spending-100-million-to-beat-call-of-duty-with-battlefield-3.aspx

Pushing technology is not the problem here, Advertising and promotion budgets already stretch profits to the breaking point, so if there is any problems or frivolous spending in the actual dev cycle it makes it next to impossible to run a profit.

But there is frivolous spending in development too. To use a recent example Call of Duty: Ghosts When they talked about how they mo-capped and scanned an actual freaken dog, I nearly lost my god damn mind.

You don't need to mo-cap a dog it's absolutely insane that anyone agreed to pay for that. Any animator fresh out of college can animate a dog from references, it's quite literally the first thing you learn in a college animation course. Heck Disney and laid out how to perfectly animate a dog.

Mo-capping humans makes sense because humans are super aware of how other humans act and it comes off fake if the slightest thing is wrong. People can't do that with other animals, so mo-capping a dog is needlessly expensive and entirely pointless.

I've seen stuff like this happen in other games too, like one time while watching a dev dairy of Age of Conan they actually brought in horses so they could mo-cap them for the animations of the mounts in game.

Ishigami:

Wyvern65:
It's like Michael Bay saying we need to eliminate sales of used DVDs in order to have more explosions in film.

You are aware that movies (and music) have several income streams (1. theatrical release → 2. DVD/BR + rental release → TV release) and therefore don't need to collect the production costs in one big swoop like video games have to? You therefore are aware that your comparison is kinda worthless right?

You are aware humor exists, right? No? Oh, my bad. :P

I honestly do not understand corporate apologists.

Do you know how many revenue streams movies had throughout most of their history? One - the theater. Yet they still somehow managed to make Cleopatra.

Do you know who fought tooth and nail against the VCR, claiming it would destroy their 'revenue streams?' If you guessed the movie industry you're correct!

You are claiming it is /reasonable/ for me to give up a right I enjoy with every other product in existence (the right of resale) because it might make the life of developers a bit easier and because the poor publishers don't have aftermarket revenue like DVDs, and games are too expensive.

Online passes, DLC (dirt cheap to produce usually and quite profitable,) loss of printed manuals, transition to digital distribution where they charge the same amount of money even though they have literally almost ZERO production costs, more and more restrictive DRM where the consumer is presumed guilty until proven innocent and the only people hurt are the honest consumers not the pirates, on disc DLC, day one DLC, near elimination of demos so you can't try before you buy all combined with the inability to return software if you opened it. Trying to make every game have an online component. Telemetry recording in-game decisions so the publishers don't have to pay for market research.

Yeah, you know what. I think I've made enough concessions for the poor struggling developers and publishers. The compromise you so rationally call for has all been one-sided to date.

Get back to me when Cliffy B is the least concerned with my revenue streams or whether I can put food on my table.

NKRevan:
Consumers ALWAYS wanted more realistic graphics (not every one, but a lot of them). So dev's delivered.

Right, we all remember the consumer strike in 2000. When everyone stoped buying games because they had too few pixels. Man those were dark times for all of us. Wait... that never happened did it? And it would never happen because ultra-realistic graphics and hollywood voice acting constitute a very small and almost insignificant part of what makes a game good.

Also, you are basicaly throwing blame on consumers for wanting more out of developers? That is like a guy that was arrested for robbing and killing several persons throwing blame on his kid saying he did it because the kid wanted more toys. It is a crap of an excuse and it only proves the developer's incompetence at managing their own budget and dealing with consumer expectetions.

You see, in the sentance "You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing", there are 2 ways developers can deal with this. First they can dictate what someone does with a product they buy and hope that solves anything, i might be off here but i don't think it will, or they could... i don't know, make better use of their budget? Not throw money on flashy CGI, motion capture, hollywood actors, ridiculous marketing schemes while expecting the entire population of the earth to buy their game because the chart says so.

I don't need to feel the wind blow in my ass while i ride around on a motocycle backwards in GTA IX to have fun playing it, but that is what the current gaming industry seems to think.

In conclusion, a company that spends, on creating a product, more then they should ever hope to sell, and still expect to make a profit is a bad company and taking used games is not going to solve any of that.

tmande2nd:
Dude....

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

Ugh never liked this dude.

Even though he helped create Jazz JackRabbit?

Evil Smurf:

tmande2nd:
Dude....

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

Ugh never liked this dude.

Even though he helped create Jazz JackRabbit?

Whenever this guy's name comes up, people always say this. Hell, it's all over the Facebook comments at the bottom of the article.

My response is always, 'So what?'. Firstly it's not like the game was especially ground-breaking or game changing (it's a cult game). It's not like it was Mario or Bleszinski is Shigeru Miyamoto and even if it were and he were, does that excuse him from all responsibility when he says something completely and utterly stupid (which he seems to do whenever he speaks)? Fuck no.

Adon Cabre:

Technology isn't cheap.

I buy games full price.

I remember spending $100 of my Junior Graduation money on Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and Socom. And it was worth every freakin' penny! because I wanted those titles.

We all want quality, cinematic experiences -- elaborate environments, life-like character animations, complex dialogue trees -- and that last 25+ hours.

But we never think about all of time and energy going into those realistic animations of Ezio's assassination jump. We love the care so many coders took in writing perfect sequences of dialogue w/ action, of illustrating a diverse number in CPU characters and their A.I. You realize that people are creating massive virtual worlds!

It's hypocritical to demand "low budget" games for
cheaper costs and then simultaneously rip developers for
being lazy with low textures and stiff animations.

Yeah, no. You say "we all want". Who is this we? It is certainly not me, and no matter how small a percentage, that by definition means that not all of us want for "elaborate environments, life-like character animations". I do however feel I would want complex dialogue trees and for that I am ready to sacrifice considerable amount on those other aspects you mentioned. However I dare guess that creating complex dialogue trees requires a smaller budget team, than one that feels the need to render every single tree and blade of grass from environment I have about 1 second to look at before dashing on.

I feel the technology long since passed the point of minimum requirement for me to buy a game, in terms of graphical and animation quality. Now it is merely a nice extra, but certainly not worth paying fricken 60% of the games price, or a main reason to buy a game. I would much rather pay for more complex story or dialogue choices or so forth. And I am not egotistic enough to think I am the only gamer on the planet that thinks so.

Azwrath:

NKRevan:
Consumers ALWAYS wanted more realistic graphics (not every one, but a lot of them). So dev's delivered.

Right, we all remember the consumer strike in 2000. When everyone stoped buying games because they had too few pixels. Man those were dark times for all of us. Wait... that never happened did it? And it would never happen because ultra-realistic graphics and hollywood voice acting consitute a very small and almost insignificat part of what makes a game good.

Also, you are basicaly throwing blame on consumers for wanting more out of developers? That is like a guy that was arrested for robbing and killing several persons throwing blame on his kid saying he did it because the kid wanted more toys. It is a crap of an excuse and it only proves the developer's incompetence at managing their own budget and dealing with consumer expectetions.

You see, in the sentance "You cannot have game and marketing budgets this high while also having used and rental games existing", there are 2 ways developers can deal with this. First they can dictate what someone does with a product they buy and hope that solves anything, i might be off here but i don't think it will, or they could... i don't know, make better use of their budget? Not throw money on flashy CGI, motion capture, hollywood actors, ridiculous marketing schemes while expecting the entire population of the earth to buy their game because the chart says so.

I don't need to feel the wind blow in my ass while i ride around on a motocycle backwards in GTA IX to have fun playing it, but that is what the current gaming industry seems to think.

In conclusion, a company that spends, on creating a product, more then they should ever hope to sell, and still expect to make a profit is a bad company and taking used games is not going to solve any of that.

I give up. -.-

What is so difficult about accepting that we expect more, therefor developers need to put more money into their products?

I never said only consumers are to "blame" for this situation. I also never said it is not "right" to expect more from developers.

All I am saying is that you can't have better things for less or the same money. Modern Games take more to make and yes, they sometimes take hundreds of millions. Even when developers budget and plan correctly. And yes, there are a LOT of people who WANT that type of game with that type of budget.

And people here act as though nobody wants AAA Blockbuster titles with enhanced graphics, better and more animations, better acting, better writing and whatnot. That's ALL I am saying. Stop acting like nobody wants those games and we all would be happy if all we had was indie titles.

AND I never agreed with Cliffy in the first place. The guy is silly and his point is simply over-generalized and in this case wrong. But again...people here give off the impression that everyone would be quite happy if we only ever got games from small independent developers with a small budget...as long as the game plays well.

Incidentally, I don't think I can say it more clearly anymore. So I'll leave it at this:

I don't think used game sales are impossible. I think a good way to deal with it has to be found. I also don't think consumers will be happy if developers no longer push the edge of graphics/animations/writing/storytelling AND gameplay. And for that we still need BIG budgets.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here