|
|
Post by zzz on Mar 15, 2009 4:04:14 GMT -5
Quite simply, games cost a Hell of a lot more money to make these days. HD textures, animation, online components, etc. etc. etc.... Which is most of the reason that all these companies are in trouble. They're in trouble because they think they can get away with ignoring customers and doing things the way they want instead of how the customers want. |
|
|
|
Post by derboo on Mar 15, 2009 4:12:18 GMT -5
Take 2 sold 13 million copies of GTA 4 and posted a 50 million dollar loss. EA took some risks on new IP, and suffered for it. Square Enix continued to pay Tose to crap out yet more remakes and ports for DS, and posted losses too. Hmm, Take 2 is in ups and downs now for so many years now, I cannot help but think that they're just not capable to build a decent management. Square hasn't have released a more-than-mediocre new game for quite a while now, I guess surviving solely on milking your age-old games and half-assed attempts at new IPs only works when you're a tiny company like SNKP... |
|
|
|
Post by dai jou bu on Mar 15, 2009 6:48:24 GMT -5
They're in trouble because they think they can get away with ignoring customers and doing things the way they want instead of how the customers want. That's only a part of the big picture, though (although this is a significant part of the problem), since even if these companies wise up and give what their clients want, it's eventually not going to be enough for them to maintain their current size, let alone allow them to continue further growth, AND they run the risk of losing their existing ones as well since they're not doing anything to replace them. Let's use me as an example of what I just said above. I used to be a customer for Square, except they stopped doing interesting stuff after their Final Fantasy movie failed hard and merged with Enix. The main reason why I stopped caring for them is because their biggest titles were still JRPGs that stuck to the same standard formula, and the other is partially because of this: Square Enix continued to pay Tose to crap out yet more remakes and ports for DS... So yeah, the only option I have from these guys is to play either their current games using JRPG systems I've experienced before, or play their re-releases of GOOD games which I already played before when I was younger except I'm going to pay more than my lunch money for that day to have that same experience all over again. That sure sounds fun. Of course, there's a bit more to this to the story, except I'm kinda tired right now and it's going to take me another hour to write that down, so I'll leave that up to you guys to complete it. But let me close up with staying back on topic: DLC is both a blessing and a curse, since if done right, it'll generate extra revenue (hello Senko no Ronde Rev. X Costumes That You Can Only Get at The Japanese Marketplace Because Ubisoft is Retarded and THE iDOLM@STER Who Has a Pseudo-MMO Business Model in the Form of Overwhelming the Store with its DLC Almost Weekly) and will really please the fans of the game. |
|
metazoa
Full Member
Vulgar Argot!
Posts: 222
|
Post by metazoa on Mar 15, 2009 7:20:34 GMT -5
I strongly disagree. Lemme lay some actual reality on you real quick. Capcom, like all PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES, is in the business to make MONEY. Which somehow means that we're not entitled to voice our dissatisfaction as customers? You are perfectly entitled to voice your dissatisfaction. However, if you want companies(or other people) to pay attention to you, going the 'you suxxorz' route is probably not the way to go about it. I'm honestly not 100% certain if this is smarky sarcasm or not. It's 100 percent snark. Pachter!? Are you fucking shitting me? That quack!? If your arguement is based on any of his "analysis" then, well... you've been misinformed. Janko partners has also chimed in on that score if you don't want to listen to Pachter(who is a douche, I admit). Google it. The industry is generating record levels of revenue. What the hell are you talking about? I'll tell you what the Hell I'm talking about: REVENUE is not PROFIT. Profit is what happens when you make more money than you spend. Revenue is gross cash flow, before expenses. It's a word that companies bring out when they want press releases to look less doom and gloom. I reiterate: the only major publisher that MADE A PROFIT for 2008 was Activision Blizzard, on the strength of Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, and of course, World of Warcraft. Google any major publisher you want, or hit up some aggregate sites. Have you ever thought that ignoring what customers want is the reason for this? How can they expect to turn a profit when they treat customers like they do? And then they just assume that people will tolerate this kind of treatment? If they're going to act like what the customer wants doesn't matter then people are simply not going to do business with them. So, ignoring customers = loss of customers = loss of profit. You're out of your mind. You've already stated that REVENUE is up, which leads to the obvious conclusion that SALES are up. If SALES are up, then they're selling MORE GAMES. If game companies were suffering because they were ignoring their customers, it follows logically that sales would be DOWN. They are NOT(excepting Madden, and thats another can of worms entirely). Thirteen million copies of GTA 4. Nine million copies of Halo 3(which might I add is absolutely rife with paid DLC). Two and a half million copies of Street Fighter IV (again with the DLC). Twelve million copies of Call of Duty 4 (yet more DLC). Four million copies of Dawn of War II. Six million copies of Fallout 3, plus however many PC copies were sold. Untold millions of Guitar Hero SKU's across, what, five platforms? There's some DLC for you by the way. I think I've isolated the problem. They're not listening to YOU, and you're forgetting that you don't represent the gaming world at large. Then again, none of us on HG 101 do. We're as niche as you get, for the most part. As to the actual reasons why profits are down, see below. All of the companies that you mentioned earlier use a lot of DLC. And they're all losing money. So, obviously DLC ain't that great a business model. The losses that the gaming industry took in the last year have absolutely NOTHING to do with DLC. They have to do with: A) The smaller than expected install bases to date of the PS3 and 360, especially compared to the Wii and DS. B) The rising cost of developing assets for next gen systems, and C) The entire fucking economy died. Paid DLC is an attempt to generate more revenue, as I've stated. Whether or not it's successful is irrelevant. And, in this case, you shouldn't have to. Ever. Period. There is no demand for this kind of DLC. Again, I disagree. A lot of people buy this DLC. YOU might not, but again, your tastes and habits are not reflective of the gaming population at large. The customer determines the value of a product. Not the company. And with profits going down for all of the companies that follow this kind of business model, that just shows that DLC is not what people want. Companies that continue to ignore their own customers will continue to lose money. Many, many people buy DLC of all kinds. Map packs are hugely popular with the online FPS crowd, there's an appreciation thread for the Street Fighter IV costume packs on SRK with quite a number of hits, and Konami has been pretty happy with the number of people who've downloaded the MGO expansion. Warhawk has done well by Sony, Crackdown DLC did well by Microsoft, and Namco has sold huge numbers of Soul Calibur 4 costume packs and Ace Combat skins. Hell, even Nippon Ichi got in on the action with Disgaea 3. Obviously, the people have already determined the value of the product, as you so eloquently put it. You might not agree with the market, which is your right, but don't be so arrogant as to assume that you speak for the market. We're the ones paying the money. We decide whether these practices are acceptible or not. Not Capcom. If they're going to ignore their customers like that then it's no surprise they're losing money. See above. "Aristotle is a cat", and so on. Come on, man. Do some research. Read up. Many people in the hardcore gaming scene aren't much for DLC on general principles, which is totally fine. Just don't assume that you speak for all of them. Capcom doesn't 'suck' because they're offering paid DLC for a game. EA doesn't 'suck' because they offer to unlock shit for real earth money that you can unlock in the game by playing it. Some people are lazy, or stupid, or both. Namco sucks. I think we can agree there. Maybe. So. Here we are again. You want it? Buy it. You don't want it? Don't buy it. It doesn't affect the game you've bought unless you allow it to. Whether or not a company offers paid DLC for their games doesn't at all reflect on the quality of the company. Street Fighter IV and Resident Evil 5 are pretty fucking good. Dead Space was worth my time. Metal Gear Solid 4 was excellent. These are good games from where I'm sitting, and I'd like the companies to continue to produce them. If splurging on a pith helmet for Blanka every once in a while contributes to that end, so be it. You might want to reign in your blanket statements from here on out. SOME DLC is exploitative crap. SOME DLC is totally worth the cost, and only the CUSTOMERS, as individuals, can decide for themselves whether or not any given piece is worth their money. |
|
|
|
Post by caoslayer on Mar 15, 2009 7:41:42 GMT -5
Thirteen million copies of GTA 4. Nine million copies of Halo 3(which might I add is absolutely rife with paid DLC). Two and a half million copies of Street Fighter IV (again with the DLC). Twelve million copies of Call of Duty 4 (yet more DLC). Four million copies of Dawn of War II. Six million copies of Fallout 3, plus however many PC copies were sold. Untold millions of Guitar Hero SKU's across, what, five platforms? There's some DLC for you by the way. Those are some bad examples because they are famous IPs, most people buys those games just by the name without a glance. It is more accurate to look how many copies ends in a second hand bin a month latter... Actually you can see how popular was really a game by seeing how performs the next one, the most likeable is a game, the most hyped and blind bought will be the next. It just requires a series of flops for ruining an IP, just like it happened with Megaman X series by example. So, DLC is not going to stop people buying a game now but the next time they are going to remember how they were milked. |
|
metazoa
Full Member
Vulgar Argot!
Posts: 222
|
Post by metazoa on Mar 15, 2009 7:50:59 GMT -5
Thirteen million copies of GTA 4. Nine million copies of Halo 3(which might I add is absolutely rife with paid DLC). Two and a half million copies of Street Fighter IV (again with the DLC). Twelve million copies of Call of Duty 4 (yet more DLC). Four million copies of Dawn of War II. Six million copies of Fallout 3, plus however many PC copies were sold. Untold millions of Guitar Hero SKU's across, what, five platforms? There's some DLC for you by the way. Those are some bad examples because they are famous IPs, most people buys those games just by the name without a glance. It is more accurate to look how many copies ends in a second hand bin a month latter... Actually you can see how popular was really a game by seeing how performs the next one, the most likeable is a game, the most hyped and blind bought will be the next. It just requires a series of flops for ruining an IP, just like it happened with Megaman X series by example. So, DLC is not going to stop people buying a game now but the next time they are going to remember how they were milked. I'm not sure I follow your logic. Of course known quantities sell, and new IP is risky. I don't get what that has to do with DLC. If you're inferring that people won't buy Resident Evil 6 or Call of Duty 6 because they bought DLC for the previous games, I have to disagree. Halo 2 was a pioneer for paid DLC with it's map packs: in fact, in order to be competitive at Halo 2, you were left with no other option than to buy the map packs, in order to learn them. No one cared. The same people who bought Halo 2 bought Halo 3, AND many of those same people bought DLC for Halo 3. We, as long time gamers, remember a time, just a generation ago, when a game was absolutely done when it arrived. You got what was on the disc, and that was it. Those times are over, regardless of how you might personally feel. DLC is here to stay, for better or for worse, and there isn't a thing you can do about it except refuse to purchase it. And that's totally fine. Even the DS and Wii aren't exempt from this, and it's only going to get worse(if that's the word you want to use). I, myself, have found that while most DLC is crap, there exists some genuinely fun and worthwhile paid content out there. It's all perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by caoslayer on Mar 15, 2009 8:30:32 GMT -5
I'm not sure I follow your logic. Of course known quantities sell, and new IP is risky. I don't get what that has to do with DLC. If you're inferring that people won't buy Resident Evil 6 or Call of Duty 6 because they bought DLC for the previous games, I have to disagree. Halo 2 was a pioneer for paid DLC with it's map packs: in fact, in order to be competitive at Halo 2, you were left with no other option than to buy the map packs, in order to learn them. No one cared. The same people who bought Halo 2 bought Halo 3, AND many of those same people bought DLC for Halo 3. We, as long time gamers, remember a time, just a generation ago, when a game was absolutely done when it arrived. You got what was on the disc, and that was it. Those times are over, regardless of how you might personally feel. DLC is here to stay, for better or for worse, and there isn't a thing you can do about it except refuse to purchase it. And that's totally fine. Even the DS and Wii aren't exempt from this, and it's only going to get worse(if that's the word you want to use). I, myself, have found that while most DLC is crap, there exists some genuinely fun and worthwhile paid content out there. It's all perspective. I mean that now people are going to be aware of this kind of things, taking away game modes or selling unlock codes and they are going to take it into account in the next game of the IP. I remember ages before when Doom ruled the earth, in PC Gaming nothing was set into stone, developers published tools that allowed users to create their content and mods and most was free and still publishers sold their official expansions. I become a little bitter when I hear that little big planet is the next step in the videogames because allows people to share their creations when is a thing that have done two decades ago but is also good if more developers allows the free sharing of content instead of developers begging a couple more of coins, videogames are already too expensible here compared with US. Instead of that, they should put their efforts in selling their games online at a reasonable price, that would solve the problem of used games by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by kitten on Mar 15, 2009 10:13:42 GMT -5
Metazoa, I've really gotta give you a hand for eloquently stating your points.
|
|
|
|
Post by pkt on Mar 15, 2009 10:37:44 GMT -5
At the same time production costs rised, the market for games grew exponentially compared to the old days. You sure about that? It certainly does not seem to manifest in sales numbers, anyway. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2009 10:55:48 GMT -5
I can't be bothered to read over all the details of this thread, but I've seen enough to wave a warning flag. Let's not get too over our heads here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Justinzero on Mar 15, 2009 11:46:56 GMT -5
metazoa - I think your points are valid, but I think the big issue here is the "quality" of the DLC available for certain games. Stuff like the Fallout 3 expansions are awesome, as they offer new worlds, items, enemies, story ect ect ect. People are griping over the RE5 stuff because its just an extra game mode, which is something that has been consistently boxed and included in every other game package to date. While its not the intention of Capcom to rip off the consumer, it is a different way to distribute all the content. RE 4 cost $50, and you got all of the modes included, while RE5 costs more, and you have to pay extra to get the extra. Not saying its wrong, but people are going to complain, as its change, and its change that costs more.
Its the same thing for the apparent "True" ending for the new Prince of Persia. It just doesn't seem like a kosher sale to most people.
Hey, I am down for extra content, and PC games have been doing it for years. The Expansion sets have made games like Star Craft, or FEAR, a much better experience. You had to pay a bit extra, got the same "Game", but were able to flesh out the experience further. But those were very nice packages, as they offered hours more game time, had much more effort put in, and were definitely an after thought. Would you pay for a physical RE5 expansion? The RE5 DLC looks like it was planned from the get go, which begs the question: Why not include it in the game then? Because money is hard to come by, so its a better way to generate revenue?
No one is safe from the Economic Downturn, and cheap cash ins are expected. The RE5 DLC just comes off like a cheap cash in, even though it may not be. Its to be expected, and ultimately you are right, "You have the option to buy it".
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord of Joshelplex on Mar 15, 2009 12:15:41 GMT -5
Everyone just shut your bitch asses up and calm down.
DLC is a perfectly fine thing. Selling extra map packs (ala Resistance, or Halo) or bonus costumes (Little Big Planet) or even new episodes, like Lost and the Damned is a great way to keep people playing, HOWEVER, when the company locks on-disk content away (SF4s costumes) or expects you to pay for essential parts of the game (Fallout 3's Broken Steel, which is the real ending) is when it starts to get bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ganelon on Mar 15, 2009 12:31:35 GMT -5
The problem is that for at least a decade already, expansion packs have been planned from the get-go. Do you really think that Blizzard spent just 4 months after the release of Warcraft II to start and complete an expansion set (and yes, that's like 1 month of just waiting for sales results there)? It's really just an illusion that's recently become evident because of how quickly they're announced nowadays.
As for the reasoning, companies put out expansions so quickly because consumer interest in a game rapidly wears out post-release. Sure, they could wait to release it (as their previous distribution channels forced them to) and give you the false sense of waiting and consideration but then it's just a lose-lose situation for both parties (the company gets less money, gamers get content when they're not as interested).
The only reason people are so against DLC and not expansion packs is that former provide a more a la carte experience where you pick and choose what new features you want and what you don't. Some games have a full plate and others only a minor feature or two that they've priced out for you. So technically, you could think of buying all the DLC for a certain game with a full set of DLC substituting a normal expansion pack at a similar cost.
And as the companies explain, you don't miss anything in the core game itself so if you were happy when you bought the original game and don't want the DLC, nobody's forcing you to buy it. Just because they've been giving freebies in the past doesn't entitle you to free bonus content now; it's simply indicative of how generous certain companies have been with extra content in the past (this true ending for the new Prince of Persia is somewhat awkward but it does at least fit the often-used concept of having expansions serve as epilogues).
I suspect that the raised prices on games in the current generation may also play a part in certain gamers vilifying companies for adding content on top of that. So I do empathize with people not really being willing to pay for DLC. Then again, the only reason companies have to charge so much is because they spend so much of their budget on the latest graphics; if consumers didn't care as much about that, we ought to easily be able to get much cheaper games (as Wii games indicate).
And on behalf of everyone else, none of us are pro-DLC; some of us just see it as a natural, logical sales platform with the advent of internet connections. It's fine and equally sensible for consumers to complain about the added cost but when someone injects pure malice into his post, it comes off a bit ridiculous. It's easy to write a clean, fact-comprehensive post to more effectively share your point (unless you're looking to be sardonically humorous, which I think is another good take on rants).
All said, remember that it's ultimately just a game. As I say with emulation, having or not having DLC won't hamper your ability to live a full life. There's no need to take everything so vehemently, esp. in a community like this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by zzz on Mar 15, 2009 13:00:30 GMT -5
Janko partners has also chimed in on that score if you don't want to listen to Pachter(who is a douche, I admit). I really don't care what any analyst says. They're all quacks. If a game has to sell 2,500,000 to make money then the companies have to start keeping the budgets down. If they can't then it's no one's fault but their own. And there's the key phrase there. The smaller companies are keeping their budgets in check, and... get this... they're making a profit. Surprise, surprise. Sales are up because of two things: Population growth, and Nintendo's successful expansion of the market. The companies that are posting losses are seeing decreased sales. If they gave customers what they want then they would be making money, too. No one is ever to blame for these video game companies' failures except for the companies themselves. Isolated examples that ignore the fact that if this business model worked then the companies following it would be turning a profit. The video game companies' "problem" is that they're out of touch with their own customers and are stubbornly sticking with business models that are losing them money. If they don't make a change then there's going to be a lot of companies that go bankrupt. And when that happens it will be no one's fault but their own. It's their own fault for stubbornly choosing to make their games for those systems. Yet, VIDEO GAME SALES WENT UP. So, that's not an excuse. Profits have gone down because they ignore the customer in favor of doing things the way they want. Whether or not it's successful is the only thing that matters. This is what I was just talking about. They're sticking with a losing strategy because they want to do things their way instead of the customers' way. Of course there's a market for it. But that really doesn't matter when it's not getting your company back in the black. Concentrating your efforts on generating incremental profits like that when your company is losing tons of money basically amounts to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I do agree with the market. Those companies mentioned above are losing lots and lots of money. Sony is losing 100's of millions of dollars, and Microsoft is losing billions. The business models that these companies have don't work, and that includes the practice of relying on DLC to recuperate expenses. Which they won't be able to do if they continue to lose money. Let me ask you something: Why the passionate defense of DLC and the companies that misuse it? Do you work in the industry or something? |
|
|
|
Post by Malroth on Mar 15, 2009 13:46:20 GMT -5
The "if you don't want it, don't buy it" argument doesn't work on this one. This was a feature that could have easily been included in the original game. Instead, they release it only days after the game was released and expect people to pay for it.
I refuse.
|
|
