My issue is that even when they have a valid reason to do something, they feel that they need to be duplicitous about it. I mean, the company that makes Plants vs. Zombies, Peggle, and The Sims just said they don't develop family friendly IPs.
It's like they're physically incapable of telling the truth. Even when the truth is pretty mundane.
No they didn't. "Some guy" who "works at EA" said that.
Does KFC serve crow? Because I need to find some on my way home.
I wasn't even aware that the "nintendo is dead" stuff was coming from an unnamed source. That makes the article, and more importantly the reactions to it, pretty hilarious to me.
That said, I never really doubted it, I just assumed it was coming from a developer not someone in management.
It's funny, Nintendo seems to get that a lot. "Anonymous" sources talking shit that people treat like gospel.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I can't imagine why anyone would act otherwise with how quickly games drop in price these days.
Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty Ghost Doge making a billion dollars in a day, almost entirely on the backs of their console releases (or entirely in the case of GTA5 since there is no PC port currently) shows that lots of people do in fact buy their stuff right when it comes out.
Actually, the Top 20 sales charts almost always being completely populated with full priced, recently released titles as well... in the console space at least, very few Non-Nintendo, Non-Halo games have legs beyond a handful of weeks or months. Steam gives games a much longer tail... but anecdotal evidence aside, I do wonder how much the knowledge of those sales impacts people's day one purchasing habits, and if something like that will continue to keep Steam/SteamOS/PC Gaming as the platform that gets a port weeks or months after the console version.
There is also the hidden problem within this question of over pricing. $60 isn't an optimal price for a PC game. They attempt price parity with console releases I'm guessing so they don't get people asking why a game is, say, $30 cheaper on another platform, but the breakdown of who gets what doesn't make sense for a $60 release on a PC. Console development is bloated and expensive - $60 is absolutely a necessary price point for new games because if you go much less than that, the average game developer would literally start losing money on each sale. That isn't true in the PC world. New games sold at $20 can still turn just as much profit as a new console game sold at $60 in stores.
I think any discrepancy you're seeing is the beginnings of a market readjusting the perceived value of a consumable commodity. Really, the console game development environment is pretty toxic, as you noted it's front heavy and last generation saw the death of the mid-budget game. At a $20-$30 price, I suspect a lot more people would be willing to consume media day 1, which I base on the numbers at which steam sales bring in, and also on the day 1 numbers consoles bring in at double that price point.
That might be true for things like Angry Birds: Star Wars, gone home... even stuff as rich as A Machine For Pigs... but the major cost of current high-end AAA titles on console and PC is Man-Hours. The Credits for Assassin's Creed 4 and GTA5 take over 30 minutes to scroll by, and a games target market is much smaller than a summer blockbuster like, say, The Avengers.
So they need to have a retail price appropriate for funding the effort that went into the development of the title. I would be surprised if a major player like EA or Ubisoft sunk more than 10 bucks into the additional costs of retail console sales (manufacture vs. bandwidth, licensing fees, retail space) total per-unit, considering the strength of their negotiations with those partners and the volume of units they move.
It's not just man-hours that cost, development fees for consoles are whopping. And I'm not talking indie games. I spoke to a capcom developer at Steam Dev Days who said that licensing fees and the SDK for an Xbox one cost his team over $30 million which they needed to recoup before they started to earn a profit on game sales. That's just from the microsoft side of things, that's ignoring the engine they licensed, gamestop's cut, distribution fees, etc.
Man hours isn't really that much of a game's price. This is like the third time I'm telling this story today, but there is quantifiable proof of what I'm talking about that you bolded. I've spoken with devs who broke down the cost. Eliminating a third of a $100 million budget isn't insignificant, and it directly affects game pricing.
The other half of this equation is simply how monetization occurs in the console sphere. Consoles monetize the practice of developing for the console in question. It's a pre-tax passed onto the customer. PC development monetizes the distribution of a game. A developer I spoke to at SDD said something to the effect of "$1 sold on a console is a drop in the bucket towards recouping pre-development costs. $1 sold on a PC is $0.70 profit."
Because Unreal Engine, TressFX, and all the other middlewares are free on PC?
Also, is Capcom's $30mil spend counting however many dev units / licenses / seats etc they needed to fulfill to run their office, or is that some flat "welcome to xbox one" fee?
I just find that number astronomical unless they were equipping thousands of developers... especially since Lococycle and Crimson Dragon came out and I have serious doubts they paid 30 million to be on the xbox one.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I can't imagine why anyone would act otherwise with how quickly games drop in price these days.
Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty Ghost Doge making a billion dollars in a day, almost entirely on the backs of their console releases (or entirely in the case of GTA5 since there is no PC port currently) shows that lots of people do in fact buy their stuff right when it comes out.
Actually, the Top 20 sales charts almost always being completely populated with full priced, recently released titles as well... in the console space at least, very few Non-Nintendo, Non-Halo games have legs beyond a handful of weeks or months. Steam gives games a much longer tail... but anecdotal evidence aside, I do wonder how much the knowledge of those sales impacts people's day one purchasing habits, and if something like that will continue to keep Steam/SteamOS/PC Gaming as the platform that gets a port weeks or months after the console version.
There is also the hidden problem within this question of over pricing. $60 isn't an optimal price for a PC game. They attempt price parity with console releases I'm guessing so they don't get people asking why a game is, say, $30 cheaper on another platform, but the breakdown of who gets what doesn't make sense for a $60 release on a PC. Console development is bloated and expensive - $60 is absolutely a necessary price point for new games because if you go much less than that, the average game developer would literally start losing money on each sale. That isn't true in the PC world. New games sold at $20 can still turn just as much profit as a new console game sold at $60 in stores.
I think any discrepancy you're seeing is the beginnings of a market readjusting the perceived value of a consumable commodity. Really, the console game development environment is pretty toxic, as you noted it's front heavy and last generation saw the death of the mid-budget game. At a $20-$30 price, I suspect a lot more people would be willing to consume media day 1, which I base on the numbers at which steam sales bring in, and also on the day 1 numbers consoles bring in at double that price point.
That might be true for things like Angry Birds: Star Wars, gone home... even stuff as rich as A Machine For Pigs... but the major cost of current high-end AAA titles on console and PC is Man-Hours. The Credits for Assassin's Creed 4 and GTA5 take over 30 minutes to scroll by, and a games target market is much smaller than a summer blockbuster like, say, The Avengers.
So they need to have a retail price appropriate for funding the effort that went into the development of the title. I would be surprised if a major player like EA or Ubisoft sunk more than 10 bucks into the additional costs of retail console sales (manufacture vs. bandwidth, licensing fees, retail space) total per-unit, considering the strength of their negotiations with those partners and the volume of units they move.
It's not just man-hours that cost, development fees for consoles are whopping. And I'm not talking indie games. I spoke to a capcom developer at Steam Dev Days who said that licensing fees and the SDK for an Xbox one cost his team over $30 million which they needed to recoup before they started to earn a profit on game sales. That's just from the microsoft side of things, that's ignoring the engine they licensed, gamestop's cut, distribution fees, etc.
Man hours isn't really that much of a game's price. This is like the third time I'm telling this story today, but there is quantifiable proof of what I'm talking about that you bolded. I've spoken with devs who broke down the cost. Eliminating a third of a $100 million budget isn't insignificant, and it directly affects game pricing.
The other half of this equation is simply how monetization occurs in the console sphere. Consoles monetize the practice of developing for the console in question. It's a pre-tax passed onto the customer. PC development monetizes the distribution of a game. A developer I spoke to at SDD said something to the effect of "$1 sold on a console is a drop in the bucket towards recouping pre-development costs. $1 sold on a PC is $0.70 profit."
Because Unreal Engine, TressFX, and all the other middlewares are free on PC?
Because there aren't free middleware engines available on PC?
Also, is Capcom's $30mil spend counting however many dev units / licenses / seats etc they needed to fulfill to run their office, or is that some flat "welcome to xbox one" fee?
No clue, This was born out of a conversation between us about the affordability of developing for PC. The guy was evangelical about how Steam dramatically cuts development costs. And he wasn't an indie developer.
I just find that number astronomical unless they were equipping thousands of developers... especially since Lococycle and Crimson Dragon came out and I have serious doubts they paid 30 million to be on the xbox one.
For one, such a number is entirely in-line with every quote I've ever heard about console development. For two, downloadable titles like Lococycle and Crimson Dragon are not going to be subject to the same sort of development fees and licensing costs associated with, say, Resident Evil 6. Console manufacturers don't set flat fees like that. It costs, what, $1200 for an indie developer to begin development on the PS4. The devs who made NBA 2k14 did not pay the same price, nor did they get the same tools.
You've heard of "money hatting" processes? Where people mistakenly envision microsoft offering money to developers to get them on board? That's not how it works. "Money hatting" is actually the process of slashing these incredibly steep development costs. As in, "bring GTAIV to our console, and we'll waive this $15 million development fee."
Jesus fucking Christ, I have never read a single thing that Pachter has written until now. What the fuck...
On whether connectivity with PlayStation 4 could boost Vita sales:
I don't quite get it. First they were selling it as a controller, which was lame. I would rather just spend $50 on a controller. They were selling it as a controller because...I have to turn off the game on my TV because American Idol is on and I have to continue my session on my Vita? That's what a DVR is for, you can watch American Idol later. I think most people who have competing concerns about use of the console versus watching TV have their console on a different TV from where their wife is. I agree those are cool features, but it's limited.
Yes, because clearly his experience is identical to everyone else's. His situation represents the majority of people out there. Got kids? Tell them they can't watch Disney Show X because daddy's too busy playing pirate; "that's what the DVR is for, little Jenny!"
What a fucking tool. No wonder people can't stand the guy.
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
I wasn't even aware that the "nintendo is dead" stuff was coming from an unnamed source. That makes the article, and more importantly the reactions to it, pretty hilarious to me.
That said, I never really doubted it, I just assumed it was coming from a developer not someone in management.
Yeah, an actual marketing person would really know better how to say 'nintendo are teh kiddez' than than that without being so blatant
Jesus fucking Christ, I have never read a single thing that Pachter has written until now. What the fuck...
On whether connectivity with PlayStation 4 could boost Vita sales:
I don't quite get it. First they were selling it as a controller, which was lame. I would rather just spend $50 on a controller. They were selling it as a controller because...I have to turn off the game on my TV because American Idol is on and I have to continue my session on my Vita? That's what a DVR is for, you can watch American Idol later. I think most people who have competing concerns about use of the console versus watching TV have their console on a different TV from where their wife is. I agree those are cool features, but it's limited.
Yes, because clearly his experience is identical to everyone else's. His situation represents the majority of people out there. Got kids? Tell them they can't watch Disney Show X because daddy's too busy playing pirate; "that's what the DVR is for, little Jenny!"
What a fucking tool. No wonder people can't stand the guy.
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
I wish I could be wrong about literally everything I've ever said and be told I'm very successful.
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
So yeah, TSR, I agree that Assassin's Creed 4 could be developed for far less if they only used free middleware and engines, used their personal computers and worked from home instead of the company buying devkits and computers and setting them up in an office, and acted like an indy dev team. The game would also suffer in quality, and would take a decade to come out instead of 2 years.
It's just wildly disingenuous to say that they get 70 cents of every dollar from PC development (ignoring the very real costs of salary, hardware, office space, management, marketing, software licenses, etc), and yet a dollar earned on a console is "poof" gone because these expenses are more relevant over there for some reason?
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
You can disagree all you want. I've spoken to enough people to realize that just the console development fees and publishing and distribution costs, ignoring the engine fees, is enough to drive the price down enough to a lower, more acceptable level.
Jesus fucking Christ, I have never read a single thing that Pachter has written until now. What the fuck...
On whether connectivity with PlayStation 4 could boost Vita sales:
I don't quite get it. First they were selling it as a controller, which was lame. I would rather just spend $50 on a controller. They were selling it as a controller because...I have to turn off the game on my TV because American Idol is on and I have to continue my session on my Vita? That's what a DVR is for, you can watch American Idol later. I think most people who have competing concerns about use of the console versus watching TV have their console on a different TV from where their wife is. I agree those are cool features, but it's limited.
Yes, because clearly his experience is identical to everyone else's. His situation represents the majority of people out there. Got kids? Tell them they can't watch Disney Show X because daddy's too busy playing pirate; "that's what the DVR is for, little Jenny!"
What a fucking tool. No wonder people can't stand the guy.
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
I wish I could be wrong about literally everything I've ever said and be told I'm very successful.
Right, because you're a fly on the wall in his office? He wouldn't have a job if this were even partly true.
Jesus fucking Christ, I have never read a single thing that Pachter has written until now. What the fuck...
On whether connectivity with PlayStation 4 could boost Vita sales:
I don't quite get it. First they were selling it as a controller, which was lame. I would rather just spend $50 on a controller. They were selling it as a controller because...I have to turn off the game on my TV because American Idol is on and I have to continue my session on my Vita? That's what a DVR is for, you can watch American Idol later. I think most people who have competing concerns about use of the console versus watching TV have their console on a different TV from where their wife is. I agree those are cool features, but it's limited.
Yes, because clearly his experience is identical to everyone else's. His situation represents the majority of people out there. Got kids? Tell them they can't watch Disney Show X because daddy's too busy playing pirate; "that's what the DVR is for, little Jenny!"
What a fucking tool. No wonder people can't stand the guy.
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
I wish I could be wrong about literally everything I've ever said and be told I'm very successful.
And get paid more money than most of us will ever see, to boot.
I wasn't even aware that the "nintendo is dead" stuff was coming from an unnamed source. That makes the article, and more importantly the reactions to it, pretty hilarious to me.
That said, I never really doubted it, I just assumed it was coming from a developer not someone in management.
It's funny, Nintendo seems to get that a lot. "Anonymous" sources talking shit that people treat like gospel.
This is the second time this month, right? Clickbait.
Jesus fucking Christ, I have never read a single thing that Pachter has written until now. What the fuck...
On whether connectivity with PlayStation 4 could boost Vita sales:
I don't quite get it. First they were selling it as a controller, which was lame. I would rather just spend $50 on a controller. They were selling it as a controller because...I have to turn off the game on my TV because American Idol is on and I have to continue my session on my Vita? That's what a DVR is for, you can watch American Idol later. I think most people who have competing concerns about use of the console versus watching TV have their console on a different TV from where their wife is. I agree those are cool features, but it's limited.
Yes, because clearly his experience is identical to everyone else's. His situation represents the majority of people out there. Got kids? Tell them they can't watch Disney Show X because daddy's too busy playing pirate; "that's what the DVR is for, little Jenny!"
What a fucking tool. No wonder people can't stand the guy.
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
I wish I could be wrong about literally everything I've ever said and be told I'm very successful.
Right, because you're a fly on the wall in his office? He wouldn't have a job if this were even partly true.
We don't live in a meritocracy. People have been constantly wrong about much more important things without so much as a slap on the wrist.
Jesus fucking Christ, I have never read a single thing that Pachter has written until now. What the fuck...
On whether connectivity with PlayStation 4 could boost Vita sales:
I don't quite get it. First they were selling it as a controller, which was lame. I would rather just spend $50 on a controller. They were selling it as a controller because...I have to turn off the game on my TV because American Idol is on and I have to continue my session on my Vita? That's what a DVR is for, you can watch American Idol later. I think most people who have competing concerns about use of the console versus watching TV have their console on a different TV from where their wife is. I agree those are cool features, but it's limited.
Yes, because clearly his experience is identical to everyone else's. His situation represents the majority of people out there. Got kids? Tell them they can't watch Disney Show X because daddy's too busy playing pirate; "that's what the DVR is for, little Jenny!"
What a fucking tool. No wonder people can't stand the guy.
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
I wish I could be wrong about literally everything I've ever said and be told I'm very successful.
Right, because you're a fly on the wall in his office? He wouldn't have a job if this were even partly true.
To add to this a bit further - the information we get from patcher isn't the analysis he's being paid for by these big firms. Apparently, for what he does, he's one of the best at his job. Someone might be badass at reading market fluctuation but dogshit at explaining why they happen on a technological level.
Jesus fucking Christ, I have never read a single thing that Pachter has written until now. What the fuck...
On whether connectivity with PlayStation 4 could boost Vita sales:
I don't quite get it. First they were selling it as a controller, which was lame. I would rather just spend $50 on a controller. They were selling it as a controller because...I have to turn off the game on my TV because American Idol is on and I have to continue my session on my Vita? That's what a DVR is for, you can watch American Idol later. I think most people who have competing concerns about use of the console versus watching TV have their console on a different TV from where their wife is. I agree those are cool features, but it's limited.
Yes, because clearly his experience is identical to everyone else's. His situation represents the majority of people out there. Got kids? Tell them they can't watch Disney Show X because daddy's too busy playing pirate; "that's what the DVR is for, little Jenny!"
What a fucking tool. No wonder people can't stand the guy.
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
I wish I could be wrong about literally everything I've ever said and be told I'm very successful.
Right, because you're a fly on the wall in his office? He wouldn't have a job if this were even partly true.
To add to this a bit further - the information we get from patcher isn't the analysis he's being paid for by these big firms. Apparently, for what he does, he's one of the best at his job. Someone might be badass at reading market fluctuation but dogshit at explaining why they happen on a technological level.
Then if he's dogshit at explaining it on a tech level he should stop trying to be that guy and shut his mouth. If he's good behind his desk then great for him because he sure as shit sucks at talking about this stuff to the general masses.
Jesus fucking Christ, I have never read a single thing that Pachter has written until now. What the fuck...
On whether connectivity with PlayStation 4 could boost Vita sales:
I don't quite get it. First they were selling it as a controller, which was lame. I would rather just spend $50 on a controller. They were selling it as a controller because...I have to turn off the game on my TV because American Idol is on and I have to continue my session on my Vita? That's what a DVR is for, you can watch American Idol later. I think most people who have competing concerns about use of the console versus watching TV have their console on a different TV from where their wife is. I agree those are cool features, but it's limited.
Yes, because clearly his experience is identical to everyone else's. His situation represents the majority of people out there. Got kids? Tell them they can't watch Disney Show X because daddy's too busy playing pirate; "that's what the DVR is for, little Jenny!"
What a fucking tool. No wonder people can't stand the guy.
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
I wish I could be wrong about literally everything I've ever said and be told I'm very successful.
Right, because you're a fly on the wall in his office? He wouldn't have a job if this were even partly true.
To add to this a bit further - the information we get from patcher isn't the analysis he's being paid for by these big firms. Apparently, for what he does, he's one of the best at his job. Someone might be badass at reading market fluctuation but dogshit at explaining why they happen on a technological level.
Jesus fucking Christ, I have never read a single thing that Pachter has written until now. What the fuck...
On whether connectivity with PlayStation 4 could boost Vita sales:
I don't quite get it. First they were selling it as a controller, which was lame. I would rather just spend $50 on a controller. They were selling it as a controller because...I have to turn off the game on my TV because American Idol is on and I have to continue my session on my Vita? That's what a DVR is for, you can watch American Idol later. I think most people who have competing concerns about use of the console versus watching TV have their console on a different TV from where their wife is. I agree those are cool features, but it's limited.
Yes, because clearly his experience is identical to everyone else's. His situation represents the majority of people out there. Got kids? Tell them they can't watch Disney Show X because daddy's too busy playing pirate; "that's what the DVR is for, little Jenny!"
What a fucking tool. No wonder people can't stand the guy.
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
I wish I could be wrong about literally everything I've ever said and be told I'm very successful.
Right, because you're a fly on the wall in his office? He wouldn't have a job if this were even partly true.
To add to this a bit further - the information we get from patcher isn't the analysis he's being paid for by these big firms. Apparently, for what he does, he's one of the best at his job. Someone might be badass at reading market fluctuation but dogshit at explaining why they happen on a technological level.
Then if he's dogshit at explaining it on a tech level he should stop trying to be that guy and shut his mouth. If he's good behind his desk then great for him because he sure as shit sucks at talking about this stuff to the general masses.
I don't think he says these things out of the blue. He says them because he has places like gametrailers sticking cameras in his face asking him these questions. That, and a little availability can embiggen the smallest man into saying the dumbest crap.
It's awful that he speaks about things he isn't an expert on, but it's perfectly cromulent to understand why he does.
I just love that he has this weird ability to get people so, so angry.
He is obviously great at his job, and his job is not talking to the masses. I think he's fun to have around. He seems like a really great human being, video game opinions aside.
PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
Am I the only one noticing a glut of medieval fantasy games coming down the pike? Dark Souls 2, The Witcher 3, Dragon Age Inquisition, Bound By Flame, Elder Scrolls Online, Kingdom Come: Deliverance, Lords of the Fallen, Deep Down and now Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. I wish sci-fi would get so much love.
I got a PSVita along with my PS4 and I'm absolutely in love with it. The design is sleek and sexy, it feels great in my hands, it's solid enough that it can fall a couple of feet onto a carpet without taking damage and the OLED screen is gorgeous. Even without discussing power, the Vita is just an all around higher quality piece of hardware than the 3DS. The UI is more subjective, but I think it also comes out ahead of the 3DS if only for the superior multitasking capabilities. The PSN store is much easier to navigate than the eShop and it's only failing is that it doesn't also let you create a wishlist of games. Between Playstation Plus, the Playstation Mobile games that were given away for free over the holidays, the deep discounts (Tearaway and Killzone for $9.99? Yes please) and yet still a few PSP games I need to play (Dracula X Chronicles) I'm drowning in games on the thing.
It's just too bad that none of that matters. The kids have 3DS, the casuals have mobile and the dudebros' games are on consoles. Even for enthusiasts, it's hard to justify a Vita over 3DS when most of it's games can be acquired elsewhere, whether it's the exact same game with better graphics or a different installment which is by default higher quality because it's the console version. It's really the same problem that the PSP faced: a lack of unique software that you can only play on that particular system. I really wouldn't have mine if not for remote play and the idea of catching up on PSP games I missed (No Crisis Core? come on, man).
Is Sony making money off of the Vita overall? Because otherwise, I'd be surprised if this isn't their last handheld. Maybe they could continue on by stripping the hardware out of the Vita and leaving it as a dumb handheld for streaming Playstation Now.
Jesus fucking Christ, I have never read a single thing that Pachter has written until now. What the fuck...
On whether connectivity with PlayStation 4 could boost Vita sales:
I don't quite get it. First they were selling it as a controller, which was lame. I would rather just spend $50 on a controller. They were selling it as a controller because...I have to turn off the game on my TV because American Idol is on and I have to continue my session on my Vita? That's what a DVR is for, you can watch American Idol later. I think most people who have competing concerns about use of the console versus watching TV have their console on a different TV from where their wife is. I agree those are cool features, but it's limited.
Yes, because clearly his experience is identical to everyone else's. His situation represents the majority of people out there. Got kids? Tell them they can't watch Disney Show X because daddy's too busy playing pirate; "that's what the DVR is for, little Jenny!"
What a fucking tool. No wonder people can't stand the guy.
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
I wish I could be wrong about literally everything I've ever said and be told I'm very successful.
Right, because you're a fly on the wall in his office? He wouldn't have a job if this were even partly true.
To add to this a bit further - the information we get from patcher isn't the analysis he's being paid for by these big firms. Apparently, for what he does, he's one of the best at his job. Someone might be badass at reading market fluctuation but dogshit at explaining why they happen on a technological level.
Then if he's dogshit at explaining it on a tech level he should stop trying to be that guy and shut his mouth. If he's good behind his desk then great for him because he sure as shit sucks at talking about this stuff to the general masses.
He has a following of people who love him or hate him and keep talking about him, just like this thread. Why would he stop? He just doesn't cater to the hardcore crowd and talks pretty casually about stuff he thinks might happen. When he's wrong, he admits it usually. The truth is that it doesn't matter and he laughs at the hate, as he should.
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
You can disagree all you want. I've spoken to enough people to realize that just the console development fees and publishing and distribution costs, ignoring the engine fees, is enough to drive the price down enough to a lower, more acceptable level.
The people you are speaking to and the events you are going to have been very pro-PC and kind of neckbeardy lately, though. Not knocking it - you have been an absolute font of incredibly cool information as a result and I read every oculus / omni post you make with fascination, but you have to consider the venue and the source of your info.
Over 1000 people were involved in the making of GTA5. The development and marketing of the game exceeded 265 million dollars.
Over 900 people worked on Assassin's Creed 4. It had a shorter development cycle, but it is safe to assume that the 2.5 years they spent on this title probably cost them over a hundred million dollars. Easily 50 million if not more went into staff, even including that half of these people were probably only on the project for a limited time.
In these cases, both of which happened to be stellar games, how much do you think licensing fees played into the cost of selling the title? If the console licensing fees were the only expense of worth in the calculations, everyone would be exclusively writing their stuff for PC. But clearly companies are finding rich veins of profitability in the console space for the big budget games (which need massive revenue way above and beyond the license fee to put it on the box), and I cannot help but feel like it comes down to the culture of new release game buying on consoles versus PC.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Jesus fucking Christ, I have never read a single thing that Pachter has written until now. What the fuck...
On whether connectivity with PlayStation 4 could boost Vita sales:
I don't quite get it. First they were selling it as a controller, which was lame. I would rather just spend $50 on a controller. They were selling it as a controller because...I have to turn off the game on my TV because American Idol is on and I have to continue my session on my Vita? That's what a DVR is for, you can watch American Idol later. I think most people who have competing concerns about use of the console versus watching TV have their console on a different TV from where their wife is. I agree those are cool features, but it's limited.
Yes, because clearly his experience is identical to everyone else's. His situation represents the majority of people out there. Got kids? Tell them they can't watch Disney Show X because daddy's too busy playing pirate; "that's what the DVR is for, little Jenny!"
What a fucking tool. No wonder people can't stand the guy.
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
I wish I could be wrong about literally everything I've ever said and be told I'm very successful.
Right, because you're a fly on the wall in his office? He wouldn't have a job if this were even partly true.
To add to this a bit further - the information we get from patcher isn't the analysis he's being paid for by these big firms. Apparently, for what he does, he's one of the best at his job. Someone might be badass at reading market fluctuation but dogshit at explaining why they happen on a technological level.
Then if he's dogshit at explaining it on a tech level he should stop trying to be that guy and shut his mouth. If he's good behind his desk then great for him because he sure as shit sucks at talking about this stuff to the general masses.
So? The general masses don't pay him money. He makes public comments because of some mix of enjoyment/advertising. That it annoys the people who were never going to do anything for him isn't really a negative to him.
It does raise the question of why the hell we endlessly talk about him if he's not talking to us.
You can disagree all you want. I've spoken to enough people to realize that just the console development fees and publishing and distribution costs, ignoring the engine fees, is enough to drive the price down enough to a lower, more acceptable level.
The people you are speaking to and the events you are going to have been very pro-PC and kind of neckbeardy lately, though. Not knocking it - you have been an absolute font of incredibly cool information as a result and I read every oculus / omni post you make with fascination, but you have to consider the venue and the source of your info.
Over 1000 people were involved in the making of GTA5. The development and marketing of the game exceeded 265 million dollars.
Over 900 people worked on Assassin's Creed 4. It had a shorter development cycle, but it is safe to assume that the 2.5 years they spent on this title probably cost them over a hundred million dollars. Easily 50 million if not more went into staff, even including that half of these people were probably only on the project for a limited time.
In these cases, both of which happened to be stellar games, how much do you think licensing fees played into the cost of selling the title? If the console licensing fees were the only expense of worth in the calculations, everyone would be exclusively writing their stuff for PC. But clearly companies are finding rich veins of profitability in the console space for the big budget games (which need massive revenue way above and beyond the license fee to put it on the box), and I cannot help but feel like it comes down to the culture of new release game buying on consoles versus PC.
Using your own math, a $50m budget for the 900 person team would equate to $55k a project per person, and likely higher given that the 900 person team includes all hangers on. You are NUTS if you think a person pulls that much on a single project. Video game programmers, for their expertise, are paid laughably small sums. That's what happens when you work in a competitive field where there are nations of people willing to undercut your work.
Man hours just aren't that expensive. In any given development, man hours are actually usually the cheapest part of the eqution. Marketing and distribution (since they are so closely tied) is almost ubiquitously the most expensive part of the process. Followed by licensing fees from the console manufacturer. Followed by engine licensing fees. Followed by development itself.
Is Sony making money off of the Vita overall? Because otherwise, I'd be surprised if this isn't their last handheld. Maybe they could continue on by stripping the hardware out of the Vita and leaving it as a dumb handheld for streaming Playstation Now.
I think it's hard to tell about the Vita yet. The PSP wasn't exactly doing great at first, and it ended up not doing bad at all. I think Sony's assuming that unless Nintendo makes consistent awful mistakes about their portables, they'll always sell more. I have little doubt they consider the Vita a success in several ways, including curbing piracy and promoting digital distribution. There's very few people who don't adore the Vita once they have it, so I think much like the PSP it'll be a slow burn as a portable to catch on, and of course it still needs a few must-have games that're completely exclusive.
I believe Sony's mentality right now is that the sale of the PS4 will indirectly help with the sale of the Vita, and they may not be wrong about that. I also think they're more concerned about the success of the PS4 short term, and will concentrate much more on the Vita once the PS4 is anchored in the market. Vita is already gaining momentum on the market, and while it's not even close to the 3DS, it never will be. And to be honest, I think any equipment that doesn't have a direct competitor will suffer for it. It's doubtful Nintendo would've changed their 3DS marketing at all if the Vita wasn't there as an alternative.
You can disagree all you want. I've spoken to enough people to realize that just the console development fees and publishing and distribution costs, ignoring the engine fees, is enough to drive the price down enough to a lower, more acceptable level.
The people you are speaking to and the events you are going to have been very pro-PC and kind of neckbeardy lately, though. Not knocking it - you have been an absolute font of incredibly cool information as a result and I read every oculus / omni post you make with fascination, but you have to consider the venue and the source of your info.
Over 1000 people were involved in the making of GTA5. The development and marketing of the game exceeded 265 million dollars.
Over 900 people worked on Assassin's Creed 4. It had a shorter development cycle, but it is safe to assume that the 2.5 years they spent on this title probably cost them over a hundred million dollars. Easily 50 million if not more went into staff, even including that half of these people were probably only on the project for a limited time.
In these cases, both of which happened to be stellar games, how much do you think licensing fees played into the cost of selling the title? If the console licensing fees were the only expense of worth in the calculations, everyone would be exclusively writing their stuff for PC. But clearly companies are finding rich veins of profitability in the console space for the big budget games (which need massive revenue way above and beyond the license fee to put it on the box), and I cannot help but feel like it comes down to the culture of new release game buying on consoles versus PC.
Using your own math, a $50m budget for the 900 person team would equate to $55k a project per person, and likely higher given that the 900 person team includes all hangers on. You are NUTS if you think a person pulls that much on a single project. Video game programmers, for their expertise, are paid laughably small sums. That's what happens when you work in a competitive field where there are nations of people willing to undercut your work.
Man hours just aren't that expensive. In any given development, man hours are actually usually the cheapest part of the eqution. Marketing and distribution (since they are so closely tied) is almost ubiquitously the most expensive part of the process. Followed by licensing fees from the console manufacturer. Followed by engine licensing fees. Followed by development itself.
Also, describing something as neckbeardly is awful. To quote jon stewart, "the term you are looking for isn't nerds. It's experts."
55k per person for 2.5 years. So, a little over 22k a year. And even that is wrong, since I assume there are people on the team full-time making 120k a year, and people making less than 15 an hour who are QA who only worked "seasonally" on the title.
Hence why I just aimed for 50 million being an appropriate sum for 2.5 years of work.
Manpower is the least expensive part of game development when you are a small studio making a tight, focused game... and undoubtably a black hole of expense when you are EA/Ubisoft. You cannot employ thousands of people, with nearly a thousand working on one project over years, and not consider that damn-near expense number one.
edit: Man, I actually HAD a neckbeard for years. Nexuscrawler described an older picture of me as "linux admin" - I do not say it with vitriol, just as shorthand for an event built around VR and bringing gaming to linux... if you took offense, I apologize, but it was not my intent to cut with the word.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
You can disagree all you want. I've spoken to enough people to realize that just the console development fees and publishing and distribution costs, ignoring the engine fees, is enough to drive the price down enough to a lower, more acceptable level.
The people you are speaking to and the events you are going to have been very pro-PC and kind of neckbeardy lately, though. Not knocking it - you have been an absolute font of incredibly cool information as a result and I read every oculus / omni post you make with fascination, but you have to consider the venue and the source of your info.
Over 1000 people were involved in the making of GTA5. The development and marketing of the game exceeded 265 million dollars.
Over 900 people worked on Assassin's Creed 4. It had a shorter development cycle, but it is safe to assume that the 2.5 years they spent on this title probably cost them over a hundred million dollars. Easily 50 million if not more went into staff, even including that half of these people were probably only on the project for a limited time.
In these cases, both of which happened to be stellar games, how much do you think licensing fees played into the cost of selling the title? If the console licensing fees were the only expense of worth in the calculations, everyone would be exclusively writing their stuff for PC. But clearly companies are finding rich veins of profitability in the console space for the big budget games (which need massive revenue way above and beyond the license fee to put it on the box), and I cannot help but feel like it comes down to the culture of new release game buying on consoles versus PC.
Using your own math, a $50m budget for the 900 person team would equate to $55k a project per person, and likely higher given that the 900 person team includes all hangers on. You are NUTS if you think a person pulls that much on a single project. Video game programmers, for their expertise, are paid laughably small sums. That's what happens when you work in a competitive field where there are nations of people willing to undercut your work.
Man hours just aren't that expensive. In any given development, man hours are actually usually the cheapest part of the eqution. Marketing and distribution (since they are so closely tied) is almost ubiquitously the most expensive part of the process. Followed by licensing fees from the console manufacturer. Followed by engine licensing fees. Followed by development itself.
Also, describing something as neckbeardly is awful. To quote jon stewart, "the term you are looking for isn't nerds. It's experts."
55k per person for 2.5 years. So, a little over 22k a year. And even that is wrong, since I assume there are people on the team full-time making 120k a year, and people making less than 15 an hour who are QA who only worked "seasonally" on the title.
Hence why I just aimed for 50 million being an appropriate sum for 2.5 years of work.
Manpower is the least expensive part of game development when you are a small studio making a tight, focused game... and undoubtably a black hole of expense when you are EA/Ubisoft. You cannot employ thousands of people, with nearly a thousand working on one project over years, and not consider that damn-near expense number one.
edit: Man, I actually HAD a neckbeard for years. Nexuscrawler described an older picture of me as "linux admin" - I do not say it with vitriol, just as shorthand for an event built around VR and bringing gaming to linux... if you took offense, I apologize, but it was not my intent to cut with the word.
People don't work on projects for 2.5 years. not en-mass. You'll have a core team of developers who stay on for the entire duration of a project, but the team doesn't work that way. You'll hire a small group to create technology X for 3 months, then they'll leave to go work somewhere else. The team at Bungie who created the multiplayer portions of Halo 2, for example, had a revolving door of developers. They also finished several months after (or maybe before, I get the two teams mixes up) the single player team. That's precisely why these games balloon up to 900 person teams.
I know a friend who got started at EA and his starting pay for one project was $40k. As someone who works in programming, that is incredibly depressing overall.
EDIT: Also, I just despise the word neckbeard. For one, I'm clean shaven. But beyond that, it's such a poor deflection of someone's opinion based off of external attributes. I mean, we're discussing video game development, what someone looks like shouldn't factor in at all.
I know it's not literally a reference to a neckbeard, and it's meant to imply a philosophy, but it's a negative connotation. It's just... insulting over all. I hate it as much as I hate "dudebro." It's a convenient way for people to thumb their noses at people they feel are inferior to them because their tastes don't align. Again, I know you're not like that considering our past interactions as a whole, but it rustled my feathers seeing that word thrown around, especially here.
I do think that while with something like GTA the console costs are minor compared to the gains of being out on all the systems, there are some games that probably should consider those costs, for example Rayman. Rayman ended up getting cross-platform release but realistically the cost benefits of paying to develop the game for the PS3/360/Vita and print discs for each version and distribute those discs probably didn't justify the cost.
Rayman might have been much wiser to focus on being a $30 digital release on Wii U and Steam and then if the demand was there maybe re-releasing on PSN after the fact. Even doing a limited printing a month later, once you see what the demand looks like might have helped. In the case of a non-AAA title without kajillions of pre-orders, maybe those console costs/risks simply aren't worth the risk.
Yeah, in non-games industry software development land I was offered what would have shook out to $40k/year just to intern at a place.
Video game development as a whole is incredible depressing. The average gamer doesn't even understand the amount of work and, more importantly, the years of honing the craft that goes into a product. "Lazy devs" is another term that pisses me right off. Nobody intends to make a poor product! Management can sometimes straight fuck up a project with impossible milestone deadlines or poor budgeting. You shouldn't judge a developer's talent (or even work ethic) off of a product that took a whole team to make.
It's a thankless job, really. That said, I love video games earnestly and, to quote Coolio, "If hip hop didn't pay I'd rap for free." Which is fortunate, because I don't think Rap is paying coolio anymore.
Yeah, in non-games industry software development land I was offered what would have shook out to $40k/year just to intern at a place.
Video game development as a whole is incredible depressing. The average gamer doesn't even understand the amount of work and, more importantly, the years of honing the craft that goes into a product. "Lazy devs" is another term that pisses me right off. Nobody intends to make a poor product! Management can sometimes straight fuck up a project with impossible milestone deadlines or poor budgeting. You shouldn't judge a developer's talent (or even work ethic) off of a product that took a whole team to make.
It's a thankless job, really. That said, I love video games earnestly and, to quote Coolio, "If hip hop didn't pay I'd rap for free." Which is fortunate, because I don't think Rap is paying coolio anymore.
Yeah, the field is full of very talented and dedicated people who work their ass off and get paid shit just so that poorly adjusted community members can hurl death threats at them for trivial stuff. I decided to stick with sane hours and good pay.
it looks like MS may have sold more Xbox Ones than initially reported. they're now claiming to have sold a staggering 3.9 million next gen console during the financial quarter which ended on December 31st. while that's still a few hundred thousand short of Sony's 4.2 million PS4s it does drastically shorten the gap between the two and is further proof of the industries health.
they are also reporting sales of 3.5 million Xbox 360s. all in all, a very merry Christmas for MS i'd say.
Microsoft reported record revenue earnings today for the company's second quarter, with $24.52 billion in net revenue and $6.56 billion in net income.
During the quarter, which ended Dec. 31, Microsoft sold 3.9 million Xbox One consoles and 3.5 million Xbox 360 consoles, the company said.
i wonder if we'll see a similar bump in the PS4s numbers. with it still selling out just as fast as it reaches store shelves it must be racing towards the 5 million sold mark.
Those numbers are not being reported by the Xbox division, so it's likely sold to retailers (the important number for determining Microsoft's revenue) instead of sold through to consumers (the important number for determining the status of the console warz).
I wasn't even aware that the "nintendo is dead" stuff was coming from an unnamed source. That makes the article, and more importantly the reactions to it, pretty hilarious to me.
That said, I never really doubted it, I just assumed it was coming from a developer not someone in management.
It's funny, Nintendo seems to get that a lot. "Anonymous" sources talking shit that people treat like gospel.
This is the second time this month, right? Clickbait.
Folks love talkin' shit 'bout Nintendo I guess. It's good for business. (Well, not Nintendo's business anyway.)
Yeah, in non-games industry software development land I was offered what would have shook out to $40k/year just to intern at a place.
Video game development as a whole is incredible depressing. The average gamer doesn't even understand the amount of work and, more importantly, the years of honing the craft that goes into a product. "Lazy devs" is another term that pisses me right off. Nobody intends to make a poor product! Management can sometimes straight fuck up a project with impossible milestone deadlines or poor budgeting. You shouldn't judge a developer's talent (or even work ethic) off of a product that took a whole team to make.
It's a thankless job, really. That said, I love video games earnestly and, to quote Coolio, "If hip hop didn't pay I'd rap for free." Which is fortunate, because I don't think Rap is paying coolio anymore.
Lazy devs is a legitimate complaint...sometimes, just as in all jobs there are people who slack off.
Those numbers are not being reported by the Xbox division, so it's likely sold to retailers (the important number for determining Microsoft's revenue) instead of sold through to consumers (the important number for determining the status of the console warz).
the numbers also don't cover the last few weeks, so it gives a reasonable indication of LTD sales. Xbox Ones were becoming easier to find closer to Christmas and the end of the year, but by all means it still seems to be selling. even a conservative estimate would add a couple of hundred thousand onto the 3 million units previously reported.
Those numbers are not being reported by the Xbox division, so it's likely sold to retailers (the important number for determining Microsoft's revenue) instead of sold through to consumers (the important number for determining the status of the console warz).
the numbers also don't cover the last few weeks, so it gives a reasonable indication of LTD sales. Xbox Ones were becoming easier to find closer to Christmas and the end of the year, but by all means it still seems to be selling. even a conservative estimate would add a couple of hundred thousand onto the 3 million units previously reported.
Yeah. However, the two numbers we do know are pretty interesting. We know that Xbox 1 sold somewhere over 3M units to consumers through December, and we know that 3.9M units made it to store shelves. So, somewhere around 30% of Microsoft's stock through that date didn't sell out. Furthermore, we also know that Sony sold 4.2M PS4s in that period, so even if Microsoft had managed to sell all of their stock we know that Sony still would have outsold them.
As far as what is happening now in January, we'll just need to wait until new NPDs.
Almost a million consoles sitting on store shelves, good lord.
Doesn't take an insider to know the strategy here: Make it as simple as possible to snatch up a Xbox One and Titanfall in 6 short weeks at every major retailer in the country.
Almost a million consoles sitting on store shelves, good lord.
Doesn't take an insider to know the strategy here: Make it as simple as possible to snatch up a Xbox One and Titanfall in 6 short weeks at every major retailer in the country.
well those figures are worldwide, but yeah i do imagine they're expecting/hoping for a bump in sales when Titanfall hits and will want it to be as easy as possible for people to get their hands on the console for that.
Posts
Does KFC serve crow? Because I need to find some on my way home.
Steam: pazython
It's funny, Nintendo seems to get that a lot. "Anonymous" sources talking shit that people treat like gospel.
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
Because Unreal Engine, TressFX, and all the other middlewares are free on PC?
Also, is Capcom's $30mil spend counting however many dev units / licenses / seats etc they needed to fulfill to run their office, or is that some flat "welcome to xbox one" fee?
I just find that number astronomical unless they were equipping thousands of developers... especially since Lococycle and Crimson Dragon came out and I have serious doubts they paid 30 million to be on the xbox one.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Because there aren't free middleware engines available on PC?
No clue, This was born out of a conversation between us about the affordability of developing for PC. The guy was evangelical about how Steam dramatically cuts development costs. And he wasn't an indie developer.
For one, such a number is entirely in-line with every quote I've ever heard about console development. For two, downloadable titles like Lococycle and Crimson Dragon are not going to be subject to the same sort of development fees and licensing costs associated with, say, Resident Evil 6. Console manufacturers don't set flat fees like that. It costs, what, $1200 for an indie developer to begin development on the PS4. The devs who made NBA 2k14 did not pay the same price, nor did they get the same tools.
You've heard of "money hatting" processes? Where people mistakenly envision microsoft offering money to developers to get them on board? That's not how it works. "Money hatting" is actually the process of slashing these incredibly steep development costs. As in, "bring GTAIV to our console, and we'll waive this $15 million development fee."
Yes, that's how he views the product, because it's his experience with it. He's very successful at what he does so he has no reason to change his approach, does he? I personally love the guy and find him very entertaining, especially when he brushes off the countless online posters who get unreasonably vitriolic at anything he says.
Yeah, an actual marketing person would really know better how to say 'nintendo are teh kiddez' than than that without being so blatant
I wish I could be wrong about literally everything I've ever said and be told I'm very successful.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
It's just wildly disingenuous to say that they get 70 cents of every dollar from PC development (ignoring the very real costs of salary, hardware, office space, management, marketing, software licenses, etc), and yet a dollar earned on a console is "poof" gone because these expenses are more relevant over there for some reason?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Right, because you're a fly on the wall in his office? He wouldn't have a job if this were even partly true.
And get paid more money than most of us will ever see, to boot.
Steam: pazython
This is the second time this month, right? Clickbait.
We don't live in a meritocracy. People have been constantly wrong about much more important things without so much as a slap on the wrist.
Steam: pazython
To add to this a bit further - the information we get from patcher isn't the analysis he's being paid for by these big firms. Apparently, for what he does, he's one of the best at his job. Someone might be badass at reading market fluctuation but dogshit at explaining why they happen on a technological level.
Then if he's dogshit at explaining it on a tech level he should stop trying to be that guy and shut his mouth. If he's good behind his desk then great for him because he sure as shit sucks at talking about this stuff to the general masses.
Exactly.
I don't think he says these things out of the blue. He says them because he has places like gametrailers sticking cameras in his face asking him these questions. That, and a little availability can embiggen the smallest man into saying the dumbest crap.
It's awful that he speaks about things he isn't an expert on, but it's perfectly cromulent to understand why he does.
He is obviously great at his job, and his job is not talking to the masses. I think he's fun to have around. He seems like a really great human being, video game opinions aside.
I got a PSVita along with my PS4 and I'm absolutely in love with it. The design is sleek and sexy, it feels great in my hands, it's solid enough that it can fall a couple of feet onto a carpet without taking damage and the OLED screen is gorgeous. Even without discussing power, the Vita is just an all around higher quality piece of hardware than the 3DS. The UI is more subjective, but I think it also comes out ahead of the 3DS if only for the superior multitasking capabilities. The PSN store is much easier to navigate than the eShop and it's only failing is that it doesn't also let you create a wishlist of games. Between Playstation Plus, the Playstation Mobile games that were given away for free over the holidays, the deep discounts (Tearaway and Killzone for $9.99? Yes please) and yet still a few PSP games I need to play (Dracula X Chronicles) I'm drowning in games on the thing.
It's just too bad that none of that matters. The kids have 3DS, the casuals have mobile and the dudebros' games are on consoles. Even for enthusiasts, it's hard to justify a Vita over 3DS when most of it's games can be acquired elsewhere, whether it's the exact same game with better graphics or a different installment which is by default higher quality because it's the console version. It's really the same problem that the PSP faced: a lack of unique software that you can only play on that particular system. I really wouldn't have mine if not for remote play and the idea of catching up on PSP games I missed (No Crisis Core? come on, man).
Is Sony making money off of the Vita overall? Because otherwise, I'd be surprised if this isn't their last handheld. Maybe they could continue on by stripping the hardware out of the Vita and leaving it as a dumb handheld for streaming Playstation Now.
He has a following of people who love him or hate him and keep talking about him, just like this thread. Why would he stop? He just doesn't cater to the hardcore crowd and talks pretty casually about stuff he thinks might happen. When he's wrong, he admits it usually. The truth is that it doesn't matter and he laughs at the hate, as he should.
I mean, doing some simple math...
http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/10/04/rockstar-probably-more-much-more-than-1000-people-worked-on-grand-theft-auto-v/
Over 1000 people were involved in the making of GTA5. The development and marketing of the game exceeded 265 million dollars.
Over 900 people worked on Assassin's Creed 4. It had a shorter development cycle, but it is safe to assume that the 2.5 years they spent on this title probably cost them over a hundred million dollars. Easily 50 million if not more went into staff, even including that half of these people were probably only on the project for a limited time.
In these cases, both of which happened to be stellar games, how much do you think licensing fees played into the cost of selling the title? If the console licensing fees were the only expense of worth in the calculations, everyone would be exclusively writing their stuff for PC. But clearly companies are finding rich veins of profitability in the console space for the big budget games (which need massive revenue way above and beyond the license fee to put it on the box), and I cannot help but feel like it comes down to the culture of new release game buying on consoles versus PC.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
So? The general masses don't pay him money. He makes public comments because of some mix of enjoyment/advertising. That it annoys the people who were never going to do anything for him isn't really a negative to him.
It does raise the question of why the hell we endlessly talk about him if he's not talking to us.
Using your own math, a $50m budget for the 900 person team would equate to $55k a project per person, and likely higher given that the 900 person team includes all hangers on. You are NUTS if you think a person pulls that much on a single project. Video game programmers, for their expertise, are paid laughably small sums. That's what happens when you work in a competitive field where there are nations of people willing to undercut your work.
Man hours just aren't that expensive. In any given development, man hours are actually usually the cheapest part of the eqution. Marketing and distribution (since they are so closely tied) is almost ubiquitously the most expensive part of the process. Followed by licensing fees from the console manufacturer. Followed by engine licensing fees. Followed by development itself.
Newsflash: making games is incredibly expensive. We're talking about an industry where recording a handful of lines for DLC to a fighting game costs $150k. This is a multi-billion dollar industry. These console manufacturers eat in excess of a billion dollars getting these machines into peoples homes. $30mill as a development fee is chump change in comparison.
Also, describing something as neckbeardly is awful. To quote jon stewart, "the term you are looking for isn't nerds. It's experts."
I think it's hard to tell about the Vita yet. The PSP wasn't exactly doing great at first, and it ended up not doing bad at all. I think Sony's assuming that unless Nintendo makes consistent awful mistakes about their portables, they'll always sell more. I have little doubt they consider the Vita a success in several ways, including curbing piracy and promoting digital distribution. There's very few people who don't adore the Vita once they have it, so I think much like the PSP it'll be a slow burn as a portable to catch on, and of course it still needs a few must-have games that're completely exclusive.
I believe Sony's mentality right now is that the sale of the PS4 will indirectly help with the sale of the Vita, and they may not be wrong about that. I also think they're more concerned about the success of the PS4 short term, and will concentrate much more on the Vita once the PS4 is anchored in the market. Vita is already gaining momentum on the market, and while it's not even close to the 3DS, it never will be. And to be honest, I think any equipment that doesn't have a direct competitor will suffer for it. It's doubtful Nintendo would've changed their 3DS marketing at all if the Vita wasn't there as an alternative.
Devices and Consumer Hardware section had its revenue almost double for the quarter and first half of the fiscal year.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
55k per person for 2.5 years. So, a little over 22k a year. And even that is wrong, since I assume there are people on the team full-time making 120k a year, and people making less than 15 an hour who are QA who only worked "seasonally" on the title.
Hence why I just aimed for 50 million being an appropriate sum for 2.5 years of work.
Manpower is the least expensive part of game development when you are a small studio making a tight, focused game... and undoubtably a black hole of expense when you are EA/Ubisoft. You cannot employ thousands of people, with nearly a thousand working on one project over years, and not consider that damn-near expense number one.
edit: Man, I actually HAD a neckbeard for years. Nexuscrawler described an older picture of me as "linux admin" - I do not say it with vitriol, just as shorthand for an event built around VR and bringing gaming to linux... if you took offense, I apologize, but it was not my intent to cut with the word.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
People don't work on projects for 2.5 years. not en-mass. You'll have a core team of developers who stay on for the entire duration of a project, but the team doesn't work that way. You'll hire a small group to create technology X for 3 months, then they'll leave to go work somewhere else. The team at Bungie who created the multiplayer portions of Halo 2, for example, had a revolving door of developers. They also finished several months after (or maybe before, I get the two teams mixes up) the single player team. That's precisely why these games balloon up to 900 person teams.
I know a friend who got started at EA and his starting pay for one project was $40k. As someone who works in programming, that is incredibly depressing overall.
EDIT: Also, I just despise the word neckbeard. For one, I'm clean shaven. But beyond that, it's such a poor deflection of someone's opinion based off of external attributes. I mean, we're discussing video game development, what someone looks like shouldn't factor in at all.
I know it's not literally a reference to a neckbeard, and it's meant to imply a philosophy, but it's a negative connotation. It's just... insulting over all. I hate it as much as I hate "dudebro." It's a convenient way for people to thumb their noses at people they feel are inferior to them because their tastes don't align. Again, I know you're not like that considering our past interactions as a whole, but it rustled my feathers seeing that word thrown around, especially here.
Rayman might have been much wiser to focus on being a $30 digital release on Wii U and Steam and then if the demand was there maybe re-releasing on PSN after the fact. Even doing a limited printing a month later, once you see what the demand looks like might have helped. In the case of a non-AAA title without kajillions of pre-orders, maybe those console costs/risks simply aren't worth the risk.
Video game development as a whole is incredible depressing. The average gamer doesn't even understand the amount of work and, more importantly, the years of honing the craft that goes into a product. "Lazy devs" is another term that pisses me right off. Nobody intends to make a poor product! Management can sometimes straight fuck up a project with impossible milestone deadlines or poor budgeting. You shouldn't judge a developer's talent (or even work ethic) off of a product that took a whole team to make.
It's a thankless job, really. That said, I love video games earnestly and, to quote Coolio, "If hip hop didn't pay I'd rap for free." Which is fortunate, because I don't think Rap is paying coolio anymore.
Yeah, the field is full of very talented and dedicated people who work their ass off and get paid shit just so that poorly adjusted community members can hurl death threats at them for trivial stuff. I decided to stick with sane hours and good pay.
they are also reporting sales of 3.5 million Xbox 360s. all in all, a very merry Christmas for MS i'd say.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/23/5339080/microsoft-reports-24-billion-revenue-q2-7-million-xbox-consoles-sold
i wonder if we'll see a similar bump in the PS4s numbers. with it still selling out just as fast as it reaches store shelves it must be racing towards the 5 million sold mark.
EDIT: wrong tags.
Folks love talkin' shit 'bout Nintendo I guess. It's good for business. (Well, not Nintendo's business anyway.)
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Lazy devs is a legitimate complaint...sometimes, just as in all jobs there are people who slack off.
the numbers also don't cover the last few weeks, so it gives a reasonable indication of LTD sales. Xbox Ones were becoming easier to find closer to Christmas and the end of the year, but by all means it still seems to be selling. even a conservative estimate would add a couple of hundred thousand onto the 3 million units previously reported.
Yeah. However, the two numbers we do know are pretty interesting. We know that Xbox 1 sold somewhere over 3M units to consumers through December, and we know that 3.9M units made it to store shelves. So, somewhere around 30% of Microsoft's stock through that date didn't sell out. Furthermore, we also know that Sony sold 4.2M PS4s in that period, so even if Microsoft had managed to sell all of their stock we know that Sony still would have outsold them.
As far as what is happening now in January, we'll just need to wait until new NPDs.
Doesn't take an insider to know the strategy here: Make it as simple as possible to snatch up a Xbox One and Titanfall in 6 short weeks at every major retailer in the country.
well those figures are worldwide, but yeah i do imagine they're expecting/hoping for a bump in sales when Titanfall hits and will want it to be as easy as possible for people to get their hands on the console for that.