Publishers and their used games gripes.

[Para]

Its basic math. If a game sells for 60 dollars and it sells a million copies (as many games do) it makes roughly 60 million dollars. You can't tell me that games like Call of Duty had a 60 million dollar budget.

Obviously this is a very simplified way to look at it but the same basic principal stands.

[Hobie-wan]

Its basic math. If a game sells for 60 dollars and it sells a million copies (as many games do) it makes roughly 60 million dollars. You can't tell me that games like Call of Duty had a 60 million dollar budget.

Except that a $60 retail priced game is sold to stores at maybe $40 wholesale. Minus reproduction costs, development costs, advertisement, etc.

[MrPopo]

Its basic math. If a game sells for 60 dollars and it sells a million copies (as many games do) it makes roughly 60 million dollars. You can't tell me that games like Call of Duty had a 60 million dollar budget.

Except that a $60 retail priced game is sold to stores at maybe $40 wholesale. Minus reproduction costs, development costs, advertisement, etc.

And let's not forget they actually want to make a profit on the game development.

[Hobie-wan]

And let's not forget they actually want to make a profit on the game development.

That's crazy talk.

[Para]

Its basic math. If a game sells for 60 dollars and it sells a million copies (as many games do) it makes roughly 60 million dollars. You can't tell me that games like Call of Duty had a 60 million dollar budget.

Except that a $60 retail priced game is sold to stores at maybe $40 wholesale. Minus reproduction costs, development costs, advertisement, etc.

You didn't quote the part about how its just an example for the sake of an argument and its just to show that companies make a hell of a lot more money on their games than they spend. A lot more.

I guess I should of just said that.

[ZeroAX]

You didn't quote the part about how its just an example for the sake of an argument and its just to show that companies make a hell of a lot more money on their games than they spend. A lot more.

I guess I should of just said that.

No they do not. That's why many studios are closing down. The only company that comes to mind, that really REALLY makes a lot more money than it spends making them is Nintendo. And kudos to them. They've found a way to sell to a market that doesn't care for HD graphics but only for fun gameplay.

But hardcore gamers can't be pleased with the best gameplay in the world if it doesn't have realistic graphics. Obviously, this being a retro forum, almost all of us will disagree with that way of thinking, but then again we are the exception not the rule.


So the industry is trapped. On one side they just don't know how to make excellent and fun gameplay games like Nintendo does (at least on the Wii, the DS thankfully is a totally other story). On the other side, hardcore gamers are idiots who don't buy Psychonauts, Beyond Good and Evil, Prince of Persia SoT, Valkyria Chronicles and many other original and great 3rd party games, and they buy lots and lots of copies of Modern Warfare 2, even though their Modern Warfare 1 was perfectly good, and according to many people better than number 2.


What do you do? I don't know. Personally I'd scale back and focus on handhelds, or in making a few games with a small team to keep the budget in order, even if it takes a 1 or 2 more to develop it.

But they can't do that, when investors are involved. So they jack up the price. They see that hardcore gamers don't have a problem paying a premium for the games they want (looks at MW2, plus its freaking 15€ map pack, even on the damn PC) and the rest of the industry, that doesn't have a sure seller, gets fucked.

[Ack]

You didn't quote the part about how its just an example for the sake of an argument and its just to show that companies make a hell of a lot more money on their games than they spend. A lot more.

I guess I should of just said that.

But that's just it, they really don't make as much as you think. Most games aren't considered hugely successful, and many of the blockbuster titles that sell so well don't actually pull in that much money because money must be given out every step of the way. And the money that is earned is usually put right back into development costs for the next game.

Let me take an example with the game Natural Selection 2. Flayra, the game creator, was having trouble funding the development team. To make money he programmed a cheap game called The Zen of Sudoku. While the game didn't sell very well, it made up for its development costs and all of the excess money was then used to help fund Natural Selection 2.

Consider the belief that only 1 in 4 games is considered successful nowadays, and its success is used to pay off the debt incurred by making the others. After all, think about it: you've got to finance a corporation's day-to-day operations, pay your employees and provide some level of benefits, pay for software licensing, pay for necessary training. If you need something like motion-capture or audio recording and you don't have your own equipment, you then have to rent it, likely pay the cost for their employees to use it, and pay the cost of travel. Hire a voice actor and you'll have to rent the equipment, the booth, the employee able to run said equipment and booth, and pay the actor(as well as putting them up in a nice hotel, feeding, and transporting them), and you must do this for every single one you hire.

Heck, consider the sound work. Say you want realistic gunfire? Find an outdoor shooting range, buy the necessary audio equipment, the necessary guns, and the targets (watermelons work quite well). If you can't afford the guns or they're illegal for you to purchase, you'll then have to hire someone else to provide their guns or contract with the military to get access to their gear and personnel.

And if you want some kind of accuracy in representation, you'll then be forced to hire outside consultants, then pay for their food, housing, and transportation if they don't already live in the same place you do.

And you've got to be able to pay for all of this over a period of a couple of years, longer if the development time goes on. Sure, not everybody is going to be working on the game at the same time, but you'll have continued costs for each game as time goes by. And you have to pay all the employees that don't make the games, such as secretaries, janitorial staff, marketing and PR, legal staff, so on and so forth. And there's the hidden stuff, like mail costs. Want to deliver a demo copy to a review site? Either mail it or do what many development teams do: send a couple members of the development team to the press offices to show off the game, paying for their trip and paying their salaries while they don't work on the game. And in certain situations you get to pay the press to up your review (I'm looking at you, Microsoft). It's a lot more money than you think.

[jp1]

Ok, so if the game companies don't make a ton of money why do they continue to stay in business? I mean it isn't because they are charitable and they just love putting out products to break even. There are of course small developers that do it for the love of it but there wouldn't be so many of these Modern Warfare type games if they didn't turn a nice profit.

Don't you think that these companies reuse sound bites, textures, and research about accuracy when they make the multiple sequels? Those costs aren't all incorporated in just one title. The staffing and costs of their building is applied to multiple titles as well since there is generally more than 1 game being developed at any one time.

Really it is a moot point because as long as people are willing to pay $60 that is what the game will cost. You can be certain that if that price point failed they would find a way to deliver the game at a cheaper price point.

On a side note doesn't it bother any of you that digital downloads aren't usually any cheaper than the hard copy? Or that if you purchase directly from a publishers website they will still charge the same premium? What about the retail cut and all the other costs associated with brick and mortar if the companies hands are really tied because of those factors why don't they pass on a single cent worth of savings when they sell you the game directly?

[ZeroAX]

Really it is a moot point because as long as people are willing to pay $60 that is what the game will cost. You can be certain that if that price point failed they would find a way to deliver the game at a cheaper price point.

On a side note doesn't it bother any of you that digital downloads aren't usually any cheaper than the hard copy? Or that if you purchase directly from a publishers website they will still charge the same premium? What about the retail cut and all the other costs associated with brick and mortar if the companies hands are really tied because of those factors why don't they pass on a single cent worth of savings when they sell you the game directly?

If they sold it for less, retailers would be angry at them and stop selling/promoting their game.

And digital distribution and online sales are nowhere near being equal with retail sales, let alone surpass them.


Oh and btw a car that is being sold for 35.000€ has a factory price of 15.000€. You think car companies would stay in business if they sold them for 15.500€ ?

[Regginmad]

Oh and btw a car that is being sold for 35.000€ has a factory price of 15.000€. You think car companies would stay in business if they sold them for 15.500€ ?

I wouldn't expect the car companies to stay in business at that price, but I would expect them to berate the used car salesman for undercutting them at the same price.

Much the same way if a used game will perform the same way in my console as a new one, i'd be a fool to spend a cent more on a new copy