I can't fathom why anyone ever gets rid of consoles unless you aren't going to be able to make payments on your house. Unless the gen is over there will be more games that you wish you could've played on it.
This isn't just to Sleep, in a number of threads I keep seeing people say "man too bad I got rid of X system."
I learned this early when I watched my idiot friend win a Playstation, trade it for an N64, trade back for a Playstation, buy a Gamecube, trade it for a PS2, trade the Playstation and PS2 for an XBox...
I traded a 250$ console I never played for a 750$ Fender jazz bass.
I can't fathom why anyone ever gets rid of consoles unless you aren't going to be able to make payments on your house. Unless the gen is over there will be more games that you wish you could've played on it.
This isn't just to Sleep, in a number of threads I keep seeing people say "man too bad I got rid of X system."
I learned this early when I watched my idiot friend win a Playstation, trade it for an N64, trade back for a Playstation, buy a Gamecube, trade it for a PS2, trade the Playstation and PS2 for an XBox...
I traded a 250$ console I never played for a 750$ Fender jazz bass.
In that case I'd immediately buy another one and still come out on top. Unless you'd put a lot into VC and Wiiware.
Yup. Never ever ever EVER sell a console you own, ANY console, while games are still being made for it; the thing you've pidgeonholed as "not for you" could surprise you.
Interesting items of note:
Wii software sales are flat, PS3 / 360 software sales are increasing compared to last year
Top 5 PS3 / 360 software sales for 1st half 2009: all released in 2009, Top 5 Wii software sales: 1 released in 2009
The DSi has had the best hardware launch in terms of sales for any system in recent history
Still the 'UK Chart presented by EA' and the power of Beyonce
Sales of ‘Harry Potter’ only rise by 5%, but it is enough to see it pass both Tiger Woods and Activision-Blizzard’s film tie-in ‘Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen’ which rises from No3 to No2 despite a 4% dip in sales. It has been a very successful couple of months for the US publisher with 4 separate EA titles reaching No1 in the All Formats Chart for a total of 6 out of the past 7 weeks. They also now have a total of five games in the All Formats Top 10. ‘Wii Fit’ (-3%) continues its consistent good form, back up 2 places to No4, having remained in the All Formats Top 10 since the first week of the year. ‘Fight Night Round 4’ (-30%) is on the ropes, down from No2 to No5, while sales of Ubisoft’s ‘Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood’ (-27%) are down by a similar margin, however it only drops one place to No6.
Interesting items of note:
Wii software sales are flat, PS3 / 360 software sales are increasing compared to last year
Top 5 PS3 / 360 software sales for 1st half 2009: all released in 2009, Top 5 Wii software sales: 1 released in 2009
The DSi has had the best hardware launch in terms of sales for any system in recent history
More from the article:
average software price is down 5% to $38
total software unit sales are down 8m from first half 2008
LTD software: 360 and Wii at 133m, PS3 at 54m
1H 2008: 50-50 split between console and handheld software. 1H 2009: 60-40 split in favor of consoles
The middle point is interesting. If Wii is flat and 360 and PS3 are up 3m each over first half of last year, that means PSP+DS(+PC?) are down 14m software units.
10 (06) PS3 Call Of Juarez: Bound In Blood (Ubisoft)
11 (07) 360 Call Of Juarez: Bound In Blood (Ubisoft)
People in the UK apparently like western games more than in the US.
As the diagram shows, Wii software sales were flat from the first half of 2008 to the first half of 2009. Even though unit sales were up on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, platforms with more expensive software, the average price of software across the industry dropped. This suggests that consumers were seeking out less expensive software on those platforms, contributing to the overall decline in average software prices.
The data in the figure above also reveals the increasing importance of the current generation of consoles to the software market. Roughly speaking, the three consoles accounted for 50% of all software units sold in the first half of 2008. By our figures, the same three consoles had a 60% share of all software units during the first half of 2009.
Given that software on the Wii, Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3 is priced significantly higher than the software on the other platforms (Nintendo DS and DSi, PlayStation Portable, and PS2), the current generation consoles command an even larger share of all software dollars.
As of the end of June 2009, the Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii were essentially tied in life-to-date software sales, each in the neighborhood of 132-133 million units. Note that the Xbox 360 has achieved those sales after 44 months on the market, compared to 32 for the Wii. PlayStation 3 software sales currently stand at 54 million units after 32 months on the market.
When the Xbox 360 was at the same point in its lifespan that the PlayStation 3 and Nintendo Wii are now (32 months on sale), American consumers had purchased around 82 million units of software for the system.
132-88=44
So according to NPD, about 44 million units of 360 software were sold in the last 12 months.
It was expected that EA Sports Active would rank fourth on the Wii, given its robust sales of 630,000 units since its release two months ago. However, we were surprised to see LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga take the #5 spot on the Wii list.
This game ranked at the bottom of the top 20 list for the first three months of 2009, but then dropped out of view. According to the NPD Group, LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga for the Wii has sold over 400,000 units so far in 2009.
This means that the fifth best-selling game on the Wii in 2009 has sales on par with the fifth best-selling game on the PlayStation 3 during the same period. The difference, of course, is that MLB '09: The Show just came out in March 2009 while LEGO Star Wars: The Complete Saga has been available for 20 months as of the middle of this year.
In fact, only one game out of the five best-sellers in 2009 on the Wii, EA Sports Active, is actually from 2009. Two are from 2008 and another two from 2007.
The revenue, however, is not scaling up with the number of releases. Much of the initial revenue for both of these music games was generated through higher priced hardware and software bundles, including guitars, drums, and microphones. Fewer such bundles are being sold today, and consequently the average price of a piece of music software has declined.
According to data reported by Mr. Pachter of Wedbush Morgan, combined revenue from these two franchises during February – June 2009 has declined 49% from the same period in 2008. Revenue for the Guitar Hero franchise is down a more modest 34%, while revenue for the Rock Band series is down a more striking 67%.
For the year (including January) we estimate that significantly more than 3 million Guitar Hero software units have been sold for consoles and handhelds. During the same six-month period, just over a million Rock Band products have been sold (again, on consoles and handhelds).
Sales in the back half of 2009 will determine the future of the music game business. As consumers increasingly opt for software over expensive hardware bundles, the companies behind these games will see a commensurate drop in revenue.
While the publishers will probably still work with retailers to distribute music game controllers (albeit in lower volume), look for these games to shift to in-game storefronts to attract consumer dollars. The recent announcement of Rock Band Network, for example, is but one way that these games can expand their market without relying on retail sales of hardware and software.
Ireland:
Week 29, 2009 - Entertainment Software (All Prices)
01 (01) Harry Potter & The Half-blood Prince (Electronic Arts)
02 (02) Tiger Woods Pga Tour 10 (Electronic Arts)
03 (03) Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (Activision Blizzard) 04 (04) Call Of Juarez: Bound In Blood (Ubisoft)
05 (05) Fight Night Round 4 (Electronic Arts)
06 (08) Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Activision Blizzard)
07 (06) Wii Fit (Nintendo)
08 (07) Fifa 09 (Electronic Arts)
09 (10) Ufc 2009: Undisputed (Thq)
10 (14) The Sims 3 (Electronic Arts)
11 (17) Buzz! Master Quiz (Sony Computer Ent.)
12 (13) [prototype] (Activision Blizzard)
13 (11) Professor Layton And The Curious Village (Nintendo)
14 (__) Ea Sports Active (Electronic Arts)
15 (12) Virtua Tennis 2009 (Sega)
16 (16) Call Of Duty: World At War (Activision Blizzard)
17 (__) Guitar Hero: World Tour (Activision Blizzard)
18 (15) Grand Slam Tennis (Electronic Arts)
19 (__) Mario & Sonic At The Olympic Games (Sega)
20 (09) Fallout 3: Game Add-on Pack (Bethesda Softworks)
Is there some reason why they would like it more than the US would?
Doesn't Europe already have a kind of odd fascination with the American Old West anyway? I doubt consumers in the States care as much simply because they're so used to the myths and legends. Despite how unique the settings would be for video games, Americans probably aren't very comfortable with anachronisms.
It was Dorian Bloch who provided the majority of the latter in an opening ten minutes where Chart Track voluminous selection of sexy graphs were thrown in all direction. Getting the Chart Track numbers is a real joy. People inside the industry get them, and pay for them. Even a non-statistician’s glance down their end of year numbers gives enough information to add real weight to a half-dozen articles.
We started by looking at European sales figures, between 2005 and 2008, where the total videogame software market moved from 5.5 to 8.6 billion euros. And – Christ – seeing the rise and fall fascinates
(PS2 going from 2.522 to 0.885 billion, for example. As is how actual rise of new consoles. Later on, we see the rise and fall of new consoles arriving and old ones leaving – and from the 90s onwards, there’s always a year in the UK sales where PC is comfortably higher than either the departing system or the new comers… which makes the actual tactical decision of when to launch a next gen console game – or abandon an older one – all the more interesting. Also, apply that to making a PC-version alongside it to mitigate the chance that new console market hasn’t developed enough yet… but I’m really wandering)
The PC market across the years went from 1.262 to 1.265 to 1.326 to 1.125 – which is a fifteen percent decline from its 2006. That’s enormously held up by the German market, which now makes up 41.3% of all PC sales, and has declined by 5%. While UK is second and France is third, it’s actually clear that in terms of retail, Germany is singlehandedly holding up the PC market. It’s the last year which has seen the biggest decline, which is where Bloch argues Digital Distribution really kicked off.
We take a step to the world stage. 13 Billion dollars is the entire PC games market in 2008. In terms of the split, Chart Track believes 24% is retail, 46% online revenue services (i.e. Subscriptions, micro-transactins), 22% is digital distribution and 8% is ad-revenue. Of course, this is world-wide, and individual territories tell a different story. Asia, for example, where only 4% of the revenue is from boxed sales. All this compares to 32 billion dollars from all console sales.
I can't fathom why anyone ever gets rid of consoles unless you aren't going to be able to make payments on your house. Unless the gen is over there will be more games that you wish you could've played on it.
This isn't just to Sleep, in a number of threads I keep seeing people say "man too bad I got rid of X system."
I learned this early when I watched my idiot friend win a Playstation, trade it for an N64, trade back for a Playstation, buy a Gamecube, trade it for a PS2, trade the Playstation and PS2 for an XBox...
It's really a case of whether or not you think a system is worth keeping around; even if it'll have a great game or two later on. My personal space is pretty limited, and so I'd rather have just one console to do everything on. When this generation's over and I find myself with a huge backlog of games I never got to play on other systems, I can later on pick up those systems on the cheap and play through those games if I feel the need, but chances are I won't.
I reached a point last spring where I had a 360, PS3, Wii and DS. The DS, fine, you know, that's a portable, so I can keep that. But the consoles near my television space were getting cluttered as hell, so I had to make some choices. I hadn't played the Wii since Super Mario Galaxy and most of the 360 games I played were multi-platform, and I feel Sony had the better exclusives, so I sold the Wii for more than I bought it for to a coworker and I gave the 360 and my 360 Rock Band set-up to my little cousin. Most of the games I had for 360 were not suitable for someone his age, so I sold those for a tidy sum as well.
There's been a couple games to hit since then that have piqued my interest, and more to come. The Telltale games, Metroid: Other M, SMG2, Shadow Complex and Alan Wake all come to mind. But I don't think there's been enough to justify keeping either of those systems around.
Also, I did recently sell the DS for a PSP, only did this about a month ago, but again, so far haven't really regretted it yet.
Breaking news: Gabe Newell is a greedy, greedy bastard.
The trend of community driven, user-generated content continues to grow each and every year. Developers and publishers have identified the tool as a great way for customers to hang onto their copy of the game longer instead of selling or trading it in.
But what about community financed games? In a video interview with Good Game (via Kotaku), Valve Co-Founder Gabe Newell posed this very idea, and says it would be "better" if the community could chip in some money to help finance projects.
"One of the areas that I am super interested in right now is how we can do financing from the community. So right now, what typically happens is you have this budget - it needs to be huge, it has to be $10m - $30m, and it has to be all available at the beginning of the project. There's a huge amount of risk associated with those dollars and decisions have to be incredibly conservative," Newell said.
"What I think would be much better would be if the community could finance the games. In other words, 'Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game."
Newell would continue on to say this would help get rid of the middleman (i.e. the publisher) in video game sales.
"So move financing from something that occurs between a publisher and a developer… Instead have it be something where funding is coming out of community for games and game concepts they really like."
Okay, first off: Gabe. You make Half-Life and the Team Fortress series, both insanely popular. You run the Steam service. Your moneybin should be the size of Scrooge McDuck's by now. You do not get to ask random people for money like a Mad Dog-soaked panhandler.
Secondly, while this could be a nice dream to help developers who aren't as fat as Gabe (by "fat" I mean "endowed with money")(also waist size I suppose, because goddamn the dude's getting huge), it will never, ever work. There aren't enough people who feel strongly enough about developers to fork over money for a game concept, sight unseen, and fund a game of the size he's talking about. People just aren't that philonthropically passionate about video games. And then, after funding the game, somehow give money AGAIN so the developer can, y'know, actually make a profit after the game is released?
Thirdly, the fact that this idea is being proposed by the proprietor of a very, very successful DLC service just goes to show how much the industry is tied to the publisher model. There's just no other way to fund large games. And if Porkins McWhalen is so concerned about the welfare of video game developers, then why doesn't he reach into his titanic pants and get the money to fund them himself?
"One of the areas that I am super interested in right now is how we can do financing from the community. So right now, what typically happens is you have this budget - it needs to be huge, it has to be $10m - $30m, and it has to be all available at the beginning of the project. There's a huge amount of risk associated with those dollars and decisions have to be incredibly conservative," Newell said.
I can understand why companies like Valve and Epic might believe this to be so, but it's hilarious that Gabe's solution is A) Have consumers invest themselves directly into the $30 million budget, when the infinitely more natural solution should be Don't fucking spend $30 million on your game.
'Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game."
Basically it sounds more like a hefty pre-order. To see the games you want get made, you pay a large sum of money to buy your copy, and maybe get some of that money back if it's a success.
edit: holy crap, all this hostility? He's probably seen a tonne of comments on different games from people saying "Man this sucks, why don't they make better games" and proposing some kind of vague solution whereby these whiny bitches might actually be in a place to have their say about it.
But instead it's being treated like "Episode 3 to be canned unless funded by users"
'Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game."
Basically it sounds more like a hefty pre-order. To see the games you want get made, you pay a large sum of money to buy your copy, and maybe get some of that money back if it's a success.
Still, it's a hefty pre-order. Few people pay the full amount rather than the minimum Gamestop asks for.
In a way, it would be fascinating if companies started doing this, because you would suddenly see a lot of people change their stances on gaming sales patterns. It would be a literal "Put your money where your mouth is" when it comes to people complaining about publishers leaving money on the table by their decisions.
It would be absolutely terrible for gamers overall, but still fascinating.
I'm probably the only person that feels this way, but Gabe Newell's pan-handling seems somewhat less effective since a lot of those potential products will be purchased digitally. At least, the way Valve is going, it looks that way to me.
'Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game."
Basically it sounds more like a hefty pre-order. To see the games you want get made, you pay a large sum of money to buy your copy, and maybe get some of that money back if it's a success.
Still, it's a hefty pre-order. Few people pay the full amount rather than the minimum Gamestop asks for.
True, but again, it's not just about buying the game you like, but backing it to succeed. It's more like an investment in a title you're wanting to sell well.
Would certainly make this thread a lot more heated, I guarantee. NPD Thursday would be.. interesting.
'Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game."
Basically it sounds more like a hefty pre-order. To see the games you want get made, you pay a large sum of money to buy your copy, and maybe get some of that money back if it's a success.
Still, it's a hefty pre-order. Few people pay the full amount rather than the minimum Gamestop asks for.
True, but again, it's not just about buying the game you like, but backing it to succeed. It's more like an investment in a title you're wanting to sell well.
Would certainly make this thread a lot more heated, I guarantee. NPD Thursday would be.. interesting.
Despite the few proclamations of game nerds wanting to vote with their dollars (and I'm one of them), I really don't see people doing that in great numbers. And even then, there are very few companies that are big and well known enough to even warrant such devotion and risk-taking.
Besides, there would also be absolutely nuclear nerd rage from people who did invest in the game and bitched that it sucked. Or, worse, that it didn't include Obscure Feature X they demand to be put in, because after all, they own part of the game itself, right? After a few rounds of that everyone would be burnt out and the game nerds wouldn't give money to, I dunno, video game Jesus or something.
Yeah, the solution is to keep your budget reasonable, not beg consumers for more money. And really, the only way I could see Gabe Newell's idea working was if it was for sequels to already established properties that had fallen by the wayside; no gamer is going to invest $100 or whatever on a brand new property, but you could probably find a fair number of devoted fans who might invest that money if it meant getting say Phantasy Star 5 or a US version of some great game that never came out here like Mother 3 or Siren 2.
Oh and on a completely unrelated note, thanks to everyone who offered help with my NIS America editor application. I've got an interview next week.
'Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game."
Basically it sounds more like a hefty pre-order. To see the games you want get made, you pay a large sum of money to buy your copy, and maybe get some of that money back if it's a success.
Still, it's a hefty pre-order. Few people pay the full amount rather than the minimum Gamestop asks for.
I see it far more like the TF2 beta.
You preorder the game, for full price, and you get into the beta a week or so before release.
Except in this scenario, replace a week with a year.
I'd imagine a lot of people on Steam would pay $60 up front for Team Fortress 3 if you got access to multiple betas throughout a year leading to release, each lasting a few weeks, and then when the game came out it is already pre-loaded on your PC ready for free unlock.
Despite the few proclamations of game nerds wanting to vote with their dollars (and I'm one of them), I really don't see people doing that in great numbers. And even then, there are very few companies that are big and well known enough to even warrant such devotion and risk-taking.
Besides, there would also be absolutely nuclear nerd rage from people who did invest in the game and bitched that it sucked. Or, worse, that it didn't include Obscure Feature X they demand to be put in, because after all, they own part of the game itself, right? After a few rounds of that everyone would be burnt out.
Man, if we thought gamers had terrible senses of entitlement now, I can only imagine how it would be magnified if they were literally invested in the project.
Again, I think he's basically seeing it as a preorder style system. As it stands, nobody preorders until there's actual details about a game out there, a year or two's work has gone into it already and you're waiting for it to come out. By that point, the publishers have already spent the money, and are trying to recoup it. It sounds like this is more of an exercise in faith, where they actually propose game ideas to try and get some financial preorder backing from interested parties (so chip in your $60 or whatever at the start of development, rather than towards the end) and make the games with a bit more freedom. Yes it's more of a liability, you might not get the game you wanted at the end, or any game at all, but that's the risk you run. If it pays off, you get a return on it for being one of the early investors.
People pay ridiculous amounts of money for special editions of games packaged with some 5 dollar plastic bullshit, I don't see why paying some extra to fund a game and getting a monetary return on it is seen as some kind of ripoff.
People pay ridiculous amounts of money for special editions of games packaged with some 5 dollar plastic bullshit, I don't see why paying some extra to fund a game and getting a monetary return on it is seen as some kind of ripoff.
Who says anything about monetary return? Gabe sure didn't.
Meanwhile, Gamespot's rumor du jour is that Microsoft is creating their own Halo label for Halo games.
Source: See below.
What we heard: The intermittent efforts of the proprietor of Superannutation to sift through the slurry of often-unreliable information on the Internet has yielded another data diamond. The blog has posted a link to a July 17 US Patent and Trademark Office filing by Microsoft for the term "343 Industries" for use with "computer programs, namely, game software for use on computers and video." Other than Microsoft's address and attorney of record, no other information was given.
Though the number "343" might mean nothing to many gamers, it has major significance to fans of the Halo series. First and foremost, it is the name of 343 Guilty Spark, one of the series' most humorous, enigmatic, and--ultimately--lethal foes. An artificial intelligence housed inside a diminutive-but-powerful metal shell (pictured) built by the Forerunner race which constructed the game's titular ringworlds, 343 was worshipped as "The Oracle" by the multiracial interstellar theocracy known as the Covenant--the game's primary antagonist race. Unfortunately, for much of the Master Chief story arc, the machine is focused on activating the Halo arrays and destroying all life in the galaxy.
The name "343 Industries" also sounds less like a game and more like a label--a label that would be perfectly apt for the internal division of Microsoft Game Studios dedicated to the Halo franchise. The group, which currently has no distinct title, has drawn some notable names to its ranks, including former Kojima Productions producer Ryan Payton and Bungie alum Frank O'Connor. The Halo series' creator, the now-independent Bungie Studios, is still developing new installments, such as this fall's Halo 3: ODST and next year's Halo: Reach.
The official story: "We have nothing to announce at this time." --Microsoft rep.
Bogus or not bogus?: While thin, it's looking not bogus. Unless Microsoft is planning some sort of Railroad Tycoon-type manufacturing simulator, 343 Industries is almost certainly not a game. And if it's an internal studio--which many publishers give distinct identities to foster talent--the number points squarely at the Halo franchise.
Well, may as well, considering all the Halo they're doing.
Also, this reminds me of what I recently figured out: part of the reason Halo rubs me the wrong way is that it's so damn pretentious for what's really a somewhat generic shooty game. "Guilty Spark?" Oooh, how layered and meaningful! Except it's not. "Annoying Git With Mood Swings That Advance the Plot" would be a better name. And don't get me started on the Pillar of Autumn. Or all those stupid labels for bits of the alien society.
People pay ridiculous amounts of money for special editions of games packaged with some 5 dollar plastic bullshit, I don't see why paying some extra to fund a game and getting a monetary return on it is seen as some kind of ripoff.
Who says anything about monetary return? Gabe sure didn't.
.
"What I think would be much better would be if the community could finance the games. In other words, 'Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game."
Actually he does say that you would get a return which I'm assuming would be money. Unless they plan on handing out baseball cards or something as the return.
Personally for Valve I wouldn't have any problems investing a few thousand dollars into one of their games. Unlike a lot of companies they are pretty damn good at making their money back.
It would be like Activision saying, "Give us a thousand dollars for the next COD and we'll give you the game and some of the profits." Yes Thank you.
It is the Web 2.0 of Venture Capital. Just as Obama was able to raise huge amounts of money by asking people to donate a little at a time, Valve would be able to raise money to make more games without having to give chunks of their company to others.
I don't really see how that is greedy. If anything it would jump start a younger generation on investing their money into companies.
Good god, you guys are bolding the wrong part of that statement:
"What I think would be much better would be if the community could finance the games. In other words, 'Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game."
Has there ever been a game that you've been really excited about and just know that, if done right, it'll be a big hit? Ever wish you could your money where your mouth is, and perhaps be financially rewarded for it? Imagine putting down a thousand dollars on the development of Bioshock, and then seeing it suddenly become the big hit that it's become, and getting your money back and then some. That would be nice.
Now, is investing like this in video games a good idea? Probably not. You can probably get a much better return on investment via other means, not to mention being much safer. Then again, people do this all the time with stocks. So, why not in games too?
Personally, I think it's an interesting idea. I'm all for folks trying out new business models. If I think it's a bad idea/investment, then what's it to me? I just won't participate. But there are certainly times where I feel particularly passionate about certain titles and I'd be willing to spend some money on a risky investment for a potential big gain. Also, I don't think this is really meant to be just a large pre-order program. I'm guessing this would best be aimed at those upper-middle-class gamers with some excess cash that would otherwise be spent on stocks, or gambling (Vegas, etc.), or on vacations, etc.
People pay ridiculous amounts of money for special editions of games packaged with some 5 dollar plastic bullshit, I don't see why paying some extra to fund a game and getting a monetary return on it is seen as some kind of ripoff.
Who says anything about monetary return? Gabe sure didn't.
.
"What I think would be much better would be if the community could finance the games. In other words, 'Hey, I really like this idea you have. I'll be an early investor in that and, as a result, at a later point I may make a return on that product, but I'll also get a copy of that game."
Actually he does say that you would get a return which I'm assuming would be money. Unless they plan on handing out baseball cards or something as the return.
Personally for Valve I wouldn't have any problems investing a few thousand dollars into one of their games. Unlike a lot of companies they are pretty damn good at making their money back.
It would be like Activision saying, "Give us a thousand dollars for the next COD and we'll give you the game and some of the profits." Yes Thank you.
Let's see... giving $60 for a $30 million game is a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of the game's budget, and may net you a buck fifty down the road after expenses. Not exactly a good deal.
Edit: Ye gods, I'm grumpy today. Also bad at reading.
People pay ridiculous amounts of money for special editions of games packaged with some 5 dollar plastic bullshit, I don't see why paying some extra to fund a game and getting a monetary return on it is seen as some kind of ripoff.
Who says anything about monetary return? Gabe sure didn't.
Meanwhile, Gamespot's rumor du jour is that Microsoft is creating their own Halo label for Halo games.
Source: See below.
What we heard: The intermittent efforts of the proprietor of Superannutation to sift through the slurry of often-unreliable information on the Internet has yielded another data diamond. The blog has posted a link to a July 17 US Patent and Trademark Office filing by Microsoft for the term "343 Industries" for use with "computer programs, namely, game software for use on computers and video." Other than Microsoft's address and attorney of record, no other information was given.
Though the number "343" might mean nothing to many gamers, it has major significance to fans of the Halo series. First and foremost, it is the name of 343 Guilty Spark, one of the series' most humorous, enigmatic, and--ultimately--lethal foes. An artificial intelligence housed inside a diminutive-but-powerful metal shell (pictured) built by the Forerunner race which constructed the game's titular ringworlds, 343 was worshipped as "The Oracle" by the multiracial interstellar theocracy known as the Covenant--the game's primary antagonist race. Unfortunately, for much of the Master Chief story arc, the machine is focused on activating the Halo arrays and destroying all life in the galaxy.
The name "343 Industries" also sounds less like a game and more like a label--a label that would be perfectly apt for the internal division of Microsoft Game Studios dedicated to the Halo franchise. The group, which currently has no distinct title, has drawn some notable names to its ranks, including former Kojima Productions producer Ryan Payton and Bungie alum Frank O'Connor. The Halo series' creator, the now-independent Bungie Studios, is still developing new installments, such as this fall's Halo 3: ODST and next year's Halo: Reach.
The official story: "We have nothing to announce at this time." --Microsoft rep.
Bogus or not bogus?: While thin, it's looking not bogus. Unless Microsoft is planning some sort of Railroad Tycoon-type manufacturing simulator, 343 Industries is almost certainly not a game. And if it's an internal studio--which many publishers give distinct identities to foster talent--the number points squarely at the Halo franchise.
Well, may as well, considering all the Halo they're doing.
Also, this reminds me of what I recently figured out: part of the reason Halo rubs me the wrong way is that it's so damn pretentious for what's really a somewhat generic shooty game. "Guilty Spark?" Oooh, how layered and meaningful! Except it's not. "Annoying Git With Mood Swings That Advance the Plot" would be a better name. And don't get me started on the Pillar of Autumn. Or all those stupid labels for bits of the alien society.
Not a fan of the Culture novels, I take it?
darleysam on
0
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
Posts
I traded a 250$ console I never played for a 750$ Fender jazz bass.
In that case I'd immediately buy another one and still come out on top. Unless you'd put a lot into VC and Wiiware.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/4083/npd_behind_the_numbers_june_2009.php
Interesting items of note:
Wii software sales are flat, PS3 / 360 software sales are increasing compared to last year
Top 5 PS3 / 360 software sales for 1st half 2009: all released in 2009, Top 5 Wii software sales: 1 released in 2009
The DSi has had the best hardware launch in terms of sales for any system in recent history
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
01 (01) WII Wii Fit (Nintendo)
02 (02) PC The Sims 3 (Electronic Arts)
03 (03) 360 Fight Night Round 4 (Electronic Arts)
04 (08) WII Ea Sports Active (Electronic Arts)
05 (11) WII Mario Kart Wii (Nintendo)
06 (12) 360 Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (Activision Blizzard)
07 (04) PS3 Fight Night Round 4 (Electronic Arts)
08 (09) WII Tiger Woods Pga Tour 10 (Electronic Arts)
09 (14) NDS Professor Layton And The Curious Village (Nintendo)
10 (06) PS3 Call Of Juarez: Bound In Blood (Ubisoft)
11 (07) 360 Call Of Juarez: Bound In Blood (Ubisoft)
12 (10) 360 Tiger Woods Pga Tour 10 (Electronic Arts)
13 (21) WII Harry Potter & The Half-blood Prince (Electronic Arts)
14 (15) 360 Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Activision Blizzard)
15 (23) NDS Harry Potter & The Half-blood Prince (Electronic Arts)
16 (13) PS3 Tiger Woods Pga Tour 10 (Electronic Arts)
17 (05) WII Grand Slam Tennis (Electronic Arts)
18 (16) PS3 Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (Activision Blizzard)
19 (19) WII Wii Play (Nintendo)
20 (17) NDS Pokemon Platinum (Nintendo)
21 (__) NDS Rhythm Paradise (Nintendo)
22 (20) PS3 Virtua Tennis 2009 (Sega)
23 (31) 360 Sega Superstars Tennis (Sega)
24 (18) 360 [prototype] (Activision Blizzard)
25 (26) PS3 Infamous (Sony Computer Ent.)
26 (24) 360 Virtua Tennis 2009 (Sega)
27 (30) PS3 Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Activision Blizzard)
28 (29) PSP Buzz! Master Quiz (Sony Computer Ent.)
29 (28) PS3 Ghostbusters: The Video Game (Sony Computer Ent.)
30 (36) NDS Mario Kart Ds (Nintendo)
31 (27) WII Virtua Tennis 2009 (Sega)
32 (37) NDS Transformers: Revenge - Autobots (Activision Blizzard)
33 (__) PS2 Singstar Singalong With Disney (Sony Computer Ent.)
34 (22) 360 Ufc 2009: Undisputed (Thq)
35 (38) WII My Fitness Coach: Get In Shape (Ubisoft)
36 (__) NDS Dr Kawashima's Brain Training (Nintendo)
37 (__) NDS Club Penguin: Elite Penguin Force (Disney Interactive Studios)
38 (25) PS3 Ufc 2009: Undisputed (Thq)
39 (__) NDS Lego Battles (Warner Bros. Interactive)
40 (33) PS3 [prototype] (Activision Blizzard)
average software price is down 5% to $38
total software unit sales are down 8m from first half 2008
LTD software: 360 and Wii at 133m, PS3 at 54m
1H 2008: 50-50 split between console and handheld software. 1H 2009: 60-40 split in favor of consoles
The middle point is interesting. If Wii is flat and 360 and PS3 are up 3m each over first half of last year, that means PSP+DS(+PC?) are down 14m software units.
So according to NPD, about 44 million units of 360 software were sold in the last 12 months.
The Italian film Django is awesome. It's where the Japanese get the whole dark gunslinger who carries a coffin thing.
I wonder how WiiSports Resort is going to do for its first month here.
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Develop 09: Is Digital Distribution the PC Saviour?
Interesting read.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
It's really a case of whether or not you think a system is worth keeping around; even if it'll have a great game or two later on. My personal space is pretty limited, and so I'd rather have just one console to do everything on. When this generation's over and I find myself with a huge backlog of games I never got to play on other systems, I can later on pick up those systems on the cheap and play through those games if I feel the need, but chances are I won't.
I reached a point last spring where I had a 360, PS3, Wii and DS. The DS, fine, you know, that's a portable, so I can keep that. But the consoles near my television space were getting cluttered as hell, so I had to make some choices. I hadn't played the Wii since Super Mario Galaxy and most of the 360 games I played were multi-platform, and I feel Sony had the better exclusives, so I sold the Wii for more than I bought it for to a coworker and I gave the 360 and my 360 Rock Band set-up to my little cousin. Most of the games I had for 360 were not suitable for someone his age, so I sold those for a tidy sum as well.
There's been a couple games to hit since then that have piqued my interest, and more to come. The Telltale games, Metroid: Other M, SMG2, Shadow Complex and Alan Wake all come to mind. But I don't think there's been enough to justify keeping either of those systems around.
Also, I did recently sell the DS for a PSP, only did this about a month ago, but again, so far haven't really regretted it yet.
I thought that was where all those jokes came from in the first place.
http://pc.ign.com/articles/100/1005619p1.html
Okay, first off: Gabe. You make Half-Life and the Team Fortress series, both insanely popular. You run the Steam service. Your moneybin should be the size of Scrooge McDuck's by now. You do not get to ask random people for money like a Mad Dog-soaked panhandler.
Secondly, while this could be a nice dream to help developers who aren't as fat as Gabe (by "fat" I mean "endowed with money")(also waist size I suppose, because goddamn the dude's getting huge), it will never, ever work. There aren't enough people who feel strongly enough about developers to fork over money for a game concept, sight unseen, and fund a game of the size he's talking about. People just aren't that philonthropically passionate about video games. And then, after funding the game, somehow give money AGAIN so the developer can, y'know, actually make a profit after the game is released?
Thirdly, the fact that this idea is being proposed by the proprietor of a very, very successful DLC service just goes to show how much the industry is tied to the publisher model. There's just no other way to fund large games. And if Porkins McWhalen is so concerned about the welfare of video game developers, then why doesn't he reach into his titanic pants and get the money to fund them himself?
I can understand why companies like Valve and Epic might believe this to be so, but it's hilarious that Gabe's solution is A) Have consumers invest themselves directly into the $30 million budget, when the infinitely more natural solution should be
Basically it sounds more like a hefty pre-order. To see the games you want get made, you pay a large sum of money to buy your copy, and maybe get some of that money back if it's a success.
edit: holy crap, all this hostility? He's probably seen a tonne of comments on different games from people saying "Man this sucks, why don't they make better games" and proposing some kind of vague solution whereby these whiny bitches might actually be in a place to have their say about it.
But instead it's being treated like "Episode 3 to be canned unless funded by users"
Fixed
Still, it's a hefty pre-order. Few people pay the full amount rather than the minimum Gamestop asks for.
It would be absolutely terrible for gamers overall, but still fascinating.
True, but again, it's not just about buying the game you like, but backing it to succeed. It's more like an investment in a title you're wanting to sell well.
Would certainly make this thread a lot more heated, I guarantee. NPD Thursday would be.. interesting.
Despite the few proclamations of game nerds wanting to vote with their dollars (and I'm one of them), I really don't see people doing that in great numbers. And even then, there are very few companies that are big and well known enough to even warrant such devotion and risk-taking.
Besides, there would also be absolutely nuclear nerd rage from people who did invest in the game and bitched that it sucked. Or, worse, that it didn't include Obscure Feature X they demand to be put in, because after all, they own part of the game itself, right? After a few rounds of that everyone would be burnt out and the game nerds wouldn't give money to, I dunno, video game Jesus or something.
Oh and on a completely unrelated note, thanks to everyone who offered help with my NIS America editor application. I've got an interview next week.
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
I see it far more like the TF2 beta.
You preorder the game, for full price, and you get into the beta a week or so before release.
Except in this scenario, replace a week with a year.
I'd imagine a lot of people on Steam would pay $60 up front for Team Fortress 3 if you got access to multiple betas throughout a year leading to release, each lasting a few weeks, and then when the game came out it is already pre-loaded on your PC ready for free unlock.
Man, if we thought gamers had terrible senses of entitlement now, I can only imagine how it would be magnified if they were literally invested in the project.
Hell, I'd take a punt on that with some studios.
Who says anything about monetary return? Gabe sure didn't.
Meanwhile, Gamespot's rumor du jour is that Microsoft is creating their own Halo label for Halo games.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/blogs/rumor-control/909119209/26966705/microsoft-names-internal-halo-label.html
Well, may as well, considering all the Halo they're doing.
Also, this reminds me of what I recently figured out: part of the reason Halo rubs me the wrong way is that it's so damn pretentious for what's really a somewhat generic shooty game. "Guilty Spark?" Oooh, how layered and meaningful! Except it's not. "Annoying Git With Mood Swings That Advance the Plot" would be a better name. And don't get me started on the Pillar of Autumn. Or all those stupid labels for bits of the alien society.
Eh, I honestly thought the label news was interesting and worth passing along, but then I started rambling.
Actually he does say that you would get a return which I'm assuming would be money. Unless they plan on handing out baseball cards or something as the return.
Personally for Valve I wouldn't have any problems investing a few thousand dollars into one of their games. Unlike a lot of companies they are pretty damn good at making their money back.
It would be like Activision saying, "Give us a thousand dollars for the next COD and we'll give you the game and some of the profits." Yes Thank you.
It is the Web 2.0 of Venture Capital. Just as Obama was able to raise huge amounts of money by asking people to donate a little at a time, Valve would be able to raise money to make more games without having to give chunks of their company to others.
I don't really see how that is greedy. If anything it would jump start a younger generation on investing their money into companies.
Has there ever been a game that you've been really excited about and just know that, if done right, it'll be a big hit? Ever wish you could your money where your mouth is, and perhaps be financially rewarded for it? Imagine putting down a thousand dollars on the development of Bioshock, and then seeing it suddenly become the big hit that it's become, and getting your money back and then some. That would be nice.
Now, is investing like this in video games a good idea? Probably not. You can probably get a much better return on investment via other means, not to mention being much safer. Then again, people do this all the time with stocks. So, why not in games too?
Personally, I think it's an interesting idea. I'm all for folks trying out new business models. If I think it's a bad idea/investment, then what's it to me? I just won't participate. But there are certainly times where I feel particularly passionate about certain titles and I'd be willing to spend some money on a risky investment for a potential big gain. Also, I don't think this is really meant to be just a large pre-order program. I'm guessing this would best be aimed at those upper-middle-class gamers with some excess cash that would otherwise be spent on stocks, or gambling (Vegas, etc.), or on vacations, etc.
- Don't add me, I'm at/near the friend limit
Steam: JC_Rooks
Twitter: http://twitter.com/JiunweiC
I work on this: http://www.xbox.com
Let's see... giving $60 for a $30 million game is a tiny, tiny, TINY fraction of the game's budget, and may net you a buck fifty down the road after expenses. Not exactly a good deal.
Edit: Ye gods, I'm grumpy today. Also bad at reading.
Not a fan of the Culture novels, I take it?
For what, so they could continue their quest to be Neversoft 2.0?
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!