MS can easily fix all those problems for developers making digital games cheaper by leaving out of the price all that doesn't go back to them in retail

but they're not doing that, aren't they?

@dcbronco (below)

if MS is charging the same for digital games than what they cost at retail then they are making a lot more money with one digital sale than with one retail sale

if all the money that goes to shipping cost and retail stores would be remove from digital prices leaving thus the same profit fro MS then digital versions of full price games would cost around 40 and people would go for them everytime

they're not doing that out of greed

People only care about themselves. 100 studios could close and they wouldn't care as long as they don't infringe on their consumers rights (which don't even exist in the first place when it comes to disc based games).

It is Microsoft's fault, they did a very poor job explaining how it works and why it's beneficial. What really hurt them is there was no signs that the consumer was going to get any compensation like Steam does with it's pricing and sales.

It's a hard sell to expect gamers to pay to play online, pay to access media services (Gold Live need for a lot of things) and then pay $60 for games with less freedom.

Cliffy...is...is that you? Oh my I didn't know you had an N4G account...

Most developers get paid salary, it goes to the publishers pocket. The problem w/ the gaming industry is most publishers consist of zero gamers, they see trends and repeat. The industry has became saturated in the same type of experiences from game to game and are gamers are becoming exhausted of them (and this long generation) and not buying them. It's the publishers faults, not ours.

Studios will close, pff Cliffy B is exaggerating heavily. The game industry is 70 billion dollar industry. Used games don't affect companies as much the big suits want you to think it does.

We all know tons of studios got closed down because of used games /Sarcasm.

DRM is expenive, pointless & neeedlessly restrictive. It kills game sales. If DRM was so great for profits, all developers would only sell games on PC.

You mean to publishers pocket not developers,must hard worke devs live in one room apartments and get less than 30-40 percent of there work,and that's why a duch like Bobby Kotic earn 50 million per year.

OR studios and publishers can stop bloating out their budgets with ridiculous ad spending and stupid long development times and make money. The movie industry is having the same problem of spending too much and not receiving their money back but well directed movies with smaller budgets make a killing. Spend money wisely and money will always come back to you.

BS

Used games lead to higher new game sales.

If people cannot sell used games.......they won't buy as many new games.

The people who sell, generally take that money, and either add 10-20 to it, or trade in multiple games...and then they buy a new game they would not of otherwise bought.

So let me put it to you this way.

If I was to sell Bioshock Infinite and some other games, and bought a new game that Cliffy made, does Cliffy gain money or lose money?

If they take that option away, and thus I couldn't buy Cliffy's game, does he gain money or lose money?

The reason games aren't selling as well are the following....

1. Derivative games on older tech
2. We are living in the greatest depression of mankind ever.

The economy isn't getting better, it's still falling apart.

So if studio's go under, it's because of those factors, plus their inability to put out a hit game in a more difficult environment.

A lot of studios are poorly managed as well and they have only themselves to blame for that. SE is notoriously bad at developing FF games in a decent time frame. Maybe its because they are RPG games that require just more development, but I believe those projects have been poorly mishandled as well. Also the whole HD games require more money to make I believe is overblown. The tools are out there the engines are out there its not like every game has its own engine these publishers own and use very great gaming engines across their games that dont require much resources being spent on them after the start of every generation. EA uses frostbite for the most part across their games and maybe 1-2 other engines max. SE have their own engine they use, so does activision and ubi. For those developers that cant afford to develop their own they have the Unreal Engine which is still very good and doesnt cost millions to buy.

Developers need to learn to be more effecient and Publishers need better management in place. Also fact is not every game made is good whether hard work was put into it or not so closing and opening of studios is life.

@Mika

they can release a download only title, if there that concerned about used games

At least without drm you have a option to buy microtransactions or not.

I've worked for a publisher for 4 years; followed by my current spot as a developer for the last 3 years. I can 100% guarantee that the used game market has absolutely no relationship with the amount of money a developer gets paid.

Here is the blunt truth:
Publisher: 60%
Everyone else: 40% (up front)

If the game does better than expected; the Publisher (investors) see that money. The developer does not even see half of the original budget.

Developers are also typically paid by milestone delivery. Every month you deliver your product; the Publisher confirms you hit their targets for the milestone; you get paid for the month. If you miss your milestones; you have a hell of a lot of explaining to do; as the Publisher is not going to gladly pay for additional work outside the estimate. In this case; you get developers working for extended periods; getting paid the same amount of money for a single milestone.

I hope at this point; you start to see why unpaid overtime is a huge problem.

Finally the developer delivers their final milestone; get their last payment. The game is then complete. Some publishers at this time will give you additional work for DLC; which is developed after the product has hit gold (sometimes there is overlap). When you see "Day 1 DLC" it isn't because they want to milk you; it is because it was worked on after the build was finalized and sent for manufacturing and distribution. You NEVER want a team to switch projects and return for DLC later; you want them working on it immediately; as the tools are still fresh to them. Unless a game gets a sequel; it's rare to see continued DLC (for this reason). Make no mistake; most DLC is ready at day 1; the publisher may delay release for other reasons (user retention; to get returning players). If you have "Day 1 DLC"; it just means that you don't have to wait for the content that would otherwise be sitting there.

Aside from a free copy of the game; the success of the product does not pay a developer anything additional. They were paid for their work; not for the result of their work. The result of the work is risk dependent; which is the reward for investing in the product as a publisher.

It's a two-sided sword. If your project fails; you were paid and the Publisher does not get the 60% investment minimum figure that is always expected. It's not all gravy for Publishers; I've learned that lesson first hand.

I know I'm a bit of a dick on this site; but it's because I use it to relax and just screw around. My credentials are 100% legitimate.

Continuing onward; you are left with the self-publishers (indie devs). These guys are their own investors and make all the profit; suffer all the consequences.

On a very rare occasion; developers may get a percentage of sales (very minor amount; but these tend to be top flight studios; so the userbase makes a small percentage very significant). I can't even stress how rare this case would be; it only really happens with ties to restrictions (like exclusivity).

I have a possible solution. When you register your console you can choose the always online model or play from disc model of doing things. When you select always online you can family share with other always online devices.

If they do that they will make everyone happy. I would be willing to be that 2/3 of the consoles will choose always online.

@NegativeKreepa im guessing microsoft is humble and honorable? lol stfu

@Negative

And strutting around saying "DRM is the future suckers", and "We have an offline product: get an Xbox 360" and #dealwithit are completely humble and honest.

Publishers and developers are making rods for their own backs due to their own incompetence. Used games and piracy have always been there, this is nothing new.
Publishers are losing money despite selling almost 3.5 million copies of a game (Tomb Raider) because they are budgeting poorly, marketing poorly, and using Metacritic as some sort of barometer for their sales projections. They want every game to sell like Call of Duty, and they think copying that formula and throwing money at that problem is the way to do it.
They're wrong.
Dark Souls sold 2 million copies and turned a healthy profit by doing something different and targeting a relatively niche audience. Some publishers and developers - like Cliffy "I'm going to whine about my latest Gears of War sequel only getting an 8 out of 10" B - are short sighted and, frankly, greedy.
If they can't compete creatively, that's their problem. If they can't create a game that people want to keep, or create additional content that people want to pay for, then that's their problem...not ours. If they haven't the basic business sense to not spend so much on a sub-standard product, again, that's their fault.
Rail-roading and restricting customers is never a good thing. Games developers aren't special, they make a product and then sell it...they have no right to dictate to us what we do with that product after we buy it.
Gamers need only look at things from their own perspective, we owe publishers nothing, they need to EARN our loyalty and business. They have sponsorship deals with retail stores, junk food companies and countless other sources. The industry makes more money now than it ever has...they are far from poverty stricken. The ones that go down will do so because of shoddy management and creative bankruptcy....not because some gamers trade in their old games to fund the purchase of new ones.
Publishers are partly to blame for the Gamestop's of the world focusing on used titles so much....if they weren't quite so greedy in terms of the cut of the sales of games they receive (stores make as little as $2 on each game sold) then those stores would not have to try to increase their profit margins by dealing in used games. Publishers and developers may want to look in the mirror when looking for someone to blame for their "plight".

What about the IDEA of buying a product - legally - and knowing it will work with no doubt?

What about knowing that many years from now, when microsoft will shut down there servers i'll be able to play my old games on the xbox one and not having to threw it away since noting will work on it anymore?

I wanted to order the xbox one but i'm afraid eventually it will not work! I know i don't have support for microsoft DRM in my country and i'm afraid that - even now when microsoft remove it - the console will not work since it need this "one time" connection to make it work.

I'm paying a lot of money on the console, more then a US citizen and yet i'm not sure if it will work for me eventually!

Most things in this country are sold used. The same thing exists in gaming, rather the geeedy companies and/or nerds like it or not. Only an idiot will accept charging twice for a game.

If developers don't like it....make a good game! People need to get off cliffy B's nutz, this geeedy smuck made made millions off the gears franchise. (He just wanrs more....and stoping someone from trading in used games is whack.

Publishers when they make a good game make money the way it is. People say MS is the greedy one and I think the Publishers are the most greedy! IF they make a good enough game they will make there money from those of us who will buy it day one! But to try to manage what we the gamers, we the ones who make there paycheck possible try to tell us that they deserve money on games they have already been paid for then they are out of the freaking minds!

The people spoke with there wallets and thankfully Microsoft listened!

Cliffy B ST_U and becoming a quiet memory!

^

i agree with some of things he is saying.but what MS tried to pull was BS.i buy all my games new but i'm not going to buy some that's just horrible.like nintendo said,make better games if you want to sell more.and stop wasting money on AAA.learn how to develope games without wasting 100 million.i hated when zipper closed it's doors.my socom dreams was crushed but they brought on themselves by changing the gameplay and the hardcore socom fans abandon them. gta is going to sell millions of copies because rockstar won't release it until it's up to par.but most developers just rush games out the door,bugs,glitches and wonder why they are closing their studios.this was smart thing for MS to do.why can't nobody see that.

Tough to profit from. Hmmm.... last time I checked Cliff got Lambo. Tough profit indeed.

Yes I am sure the game companies that are making hundreds of millions of dollars add so hurting that they will just decide to close and make no money. No one should listen to cliffy b he is a greedy egomaniac that would much rather see you the consumer pay way more for games then you do now. That why he pushes free to play which really stands for pay to win and get the full game experience.

The cream rises to the top. Take Demons Souls. It cost a fraction of what you said devs spend and it was a hit. I'm glad a lot of the flashy games will go away. You don't need to spend 10 million to make a hit, you simply need to make a game that's fun to play.

Sure, the uncharteds and bio shocks are nice to have but l would take 3 demons souls and a dishonored over 1 dead space any way.

Dragons dogma is arguably more fun to play than Skyrim.

Devs...Make fun games and they will sell. We don't need Michael bay inspired cut scenes every 10 minutes.

The used game model will cannibalize the industry.

I do what I can by not trading in or buying used games.

Take a step back and think about who gets your money when you trade in a game and it gets resold.

I agree, in a way.

Some developers has said that they feel they are underpaid. This DRM thing for used games could have helped these devs a little bit.

Tomb Raider sold millions and I think it only broke even. If it had used games DRM on tomb raider then maybe it could have made a profit.

David jaffe would probably be inerested in this used games DRM aswell. I think he complained alot about not earning enough money when compared to hollywood/film industry? Which is why he tried releasing smaller digital games and hoping to sell a buttload.

***The used game DRM was better for the gaming industry as a whole since it would have been putting more money into the developers pocket.***

Wrong. Only Fat Cat Managers would see that money, not developers.

We're in a time now where we actually need to see studios close if all they put out are cheap rehashes of the same game. Those people don't deserve our money if they put out crap.

You're feeling sympathy for a group of people who make billions of dollars a year off this business. Feel sorry for the gamers who get lazy arse ports, cheap knock offs, and bug ridden games with practically no support.

lol. coming from a guy who bought 2x lamborghini. yeah, i think developers are fine.

Game developers make a lot of money of games if they sell well. Why should they get paid twice after they've already been paid.

Cliffy b is a a$$.

i dont think the money would go to developers, it would go to the large publishers. Don't you think that if MS is backtracking out of this mess, that means there is another way? One that doesn't include raping the consumer? I think so.

Alright, well answer this then. If used games were so detrimental to developer sales, wouldn't Sony also have those numbers available to them? If it truly was the devastating ordeal that Cliff is making it out to be, wouldn't Nintendo also be looking into solving the problem? Wouldn't all the major publishers also be looking at ways to solve the problem, and working with console makers on a solution, instead of back-peddling on their own DRM policies which were ineffective?

Why is it, out of all 3 of the big console makers, that only MS feels the need to do something about it? Why is it that the solution for MS, at least initially seemed to benefit them the most? Why did the solution come out as something that was truly and completely unbeneficial to the honest customer?

More hyperbole from Cliff. I've been saying for the longest time that his statements need to be backed up with cold hard facts. Saying he's seen the numbers means nothing to me if I can't see them myself. Publishers may actually be able to sway the general opinion on favor of themselves if they actually gave us details. Hell if I could find a report of a single studio closing down because of the 2nd hand market I might be more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt...yet such a report doesn't exist...only the same hyperbole and scare tactics from Cliff and his ilk.

If they are that bothered about the DRM they would make there titles digital only. Oh wait they wont because of loss of sales.. Exactly the same problem the Xbox one would have had because not everybody wants digital versions.

For crying out loud! NO. Cliffy B (stupid nickname) don't know jack shit. There's already been studies about this which came to the conclusion that blocking used games would lead to lessen income not increased UNLESS the price of games was lowered by 33%.

And honestly, if developers can't live cause of this then good, let them die. They don't deserve to exists if they don't created content which people are willing to pay full price for. That is how a market economy works. Cliff should shut up.

Used games SELL new games. Without used games there would be less new games. Devs need to worry about making good epic games that people cherish and wanna keep, not a level with microtransactions and DLC to unlock the rest of the game

Used games give more indirect profit to publishers than DRM does with direct profit.

One of the biggest cost of the games industry today is marketing. This was pointed out by square-enix's extreme over-use of marketing with the new Tomb-Raider game. For a dead franchise tomb-raider sold surprisingly well but the outstanding marketing cost kept them from turning a profit.

Used games are a form of marketing, infact one of the biggest forms of marketing either with new ips or sequels Used games act as both a reference and advertisement factor for gamers. I garuntee that if the multiplayer was stripped from tomb raider and the marketing budget cut to a third of what it was at, tomb raider would have turned a massive profit. because in part of used games.

Another example is the last of us. uncharted acts as a great market for gamers to get excited for the last of us. While it had a decently sized marketing budget. in each commercial the words "From the creators of Uncharted" were on the screen. If i'm your average gamer living in these economic times I see that this is from the makers of uncharted. If I have or have not played uncharted before I will likely go to the store to buy a used copy of uncharted. When the last of us comes out the copy of uncharted is turned back in and the money received goes to the last of us and viola a profit is made where that gamer may have otherwise may not have wanted to play or get the last of us.

Indirect profit is the key term here.

While DRM provides an instant boost profit in the long run gamers will buy fewer games due to DRM on consoles (There is a whole different story on PCs with DRM) forcing them to buy full price each time.

Used games allow more game purchases through the return of used games gamestop alone says that used games are responsible for 1.8 billion dollars of profit for the games industry in 2012. that is just one game retailer.

You can't assume that getting rid of second hand games will drastically increase the sales new games, people buying second hand do so for 2 reasons, they either cannot afford the game new, or they cannot find the game new because it is no longer in print and can only be obtained by means of second hand trade.

So for what you propose to actually happen, new games would have to be made cheaper, but with no direct competition toward the distribution of said games their would be no reason to do so beyond "just making games affordable" and that's not how those greedy publishers fly.

Think about this for a second, if games didn't cost such ludicrous amount to make, the cost at retail would go down right? So why not pull back production costs to something that would make sense in this reality and that way consumers could purchase every game new and publishers and developers wouldn't be loosing out much at all.

But nope, they are apparently too stupid (and/or greedy) to realise something you could easily explain to a child.

In the 20+ years of video gaming has used games have that much of an impact?

Looks like companies still make games and we play them, so I'd say the impact is minimal at best.

I think you and the douche who this article is based on are completely wrong. You really believe that if people were not able to trade in games that the industry would stop selling DLC? ARE YOU HIGH? seriously, are you stoned out of your mind right now? Am I the only one who doesn't believe any of this trash? Where is the evidence that shows when companies sell a game digitally they pass the value onto the consumer? There isn't any. AAA games are STILL 60$ on Steam when they launch. Do they have all of the DLC and micro transactions included? F#*% NO. Why would a company do that? I swear some of you people need to spend less time gaming and more time in school. Damn it.

In order for use games to really work you have to have people buy the game new. Also the number of used games cannot exceed the number of new games sold. The number of used games are also always in smaller supply because the percentage of gamers who trade in their games is small. Making money off of something you had already sold for the price you asked for from the get go is a bold face lie. Its just a way for developers to make more money they don't even deserve. You don't see car dealers asking for a cut when a customer sells a car they bought and paid for. You also don't see Nike and other clothing and shoe companies asking for a cut in second hand sales. And wasn't it the devs that said it was cheaper to produce quality games on next gen consoles for having easy PC architecture? Seriously they are just mad MS jumped ships. If your the publisher who makes COD, BF, Mario, and games like that then your always going to be making big bucks. Everyone else is just going to have to work harder to make their games appealing like that. But in all honesty there are more Major game studios then the movie industry. And with every game costing $59+ you can't expect even half the industry to be as successful.

it would have been putting more money in the publishers pockets do you really think the dev's are going to get a stiff of it... they may see a salary increase of 2% and the rest will go to the investors pockets and the fatcats like Bobby K.

there are lots of different business models they could look into to make more money, it's just funny that dev's like him and publishers seem to think the only way to make money is to screw the customers over. NEWS FLASH, If you feel you are not getting paid enough go find another profession, be a banker or something!

At least I know one dev who's games I will not be supporting.

@mika

What a pile of CRAP. Every industry has to deal with a USED market. Car manufacturers don't make money on second hand sales, neither do toaster companies, clothing companies etc. WHY should game developers get SPECIAL TREATMENT?

I agree, studios WILL close, and that's because many studios make CRAP games that no one wants to buy new, and sure as hell don't want to invest in micro transactions for.You want to make more money? Make better games. Period.

Publishers need to get a handle on their obscene and unnecessary budgets they utilize to make games, and while they are doing that they need to pay close attention to consumer feedback, and that's how they can stay afloat and very likely even increase profits.

This used market control scheme, double dipping on sales, and micro transaction nonsense is what's going to kill studios. I put the blame on those studios and their publishers, NOT the consumer. Such BS.

I've been saying the same thing. I've stopped shipping at game stop for almost 5 years. Anyone that doesn't see the greedy harm behind gamestops tactics is fooling themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

sleeping dogs sold 1.75m copies...

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wi...

"... He asserts PS3 and X360 games need much more resources, from $20 million up to a staggering $50 million with sales of 1.3 to 1.5 million units to make money on them.[8]"

i realize what happened with the studio, but sleeping dogs was in the realm of profitibility... just not high enough... nobody wants a resonable 1.75m, they want the next cod, and if they think that team wont give it to them, they're a liability not a resource...

I work at a food production plant, and every package we make turns a profit... that hasn't stopped corporate from shutting down our sister plant for 6 months out of every year... Corporations dont want profit every year, they want MORE profit every year. eventually somethings gotta give. (those on the bottom...)

@Mika Why is it then that EA reassured they won't be using an ONLINE PASS even AFTER the 180 turn of MS. Your getting played by The spindoctors and selffulfilling prophecy attempters. Cliffy knows he full of shit and he is trying to confuse and brainwash gamers in favor of him and misguided greedy. He has been in a wrong crowd for too long and forgot were he was in it in the 1st place. The greedy breed more greed...Yes that includes the über-projector & King of the DRM & Micro-Transactions MS Drone Clifford Blezinski (which already ruined his own Gears of War & most games). All pathetic attemps to justify their own greedy policies. Instead making a heartfelt & honest excuse to the gamer community...they act like we are guilty of something? The well known fingerpointing instead of acknowledging their own wrong. So dissapointing. It's quite simple, we refuse to buy in to this...they all should be thinking about a fair balance between customer & company. They just provide an entertainmentservice not a lifesaving heart surgery operation service. Why in the hell are they so arrogant & demanding of customers? We all should see through their sleezy slick talk & con attempts

You don't NEED to spend $30 million on a game.

Half that money is being paid to the wrong people and another 10-20% is being misused or inefficiently spent.

They waste so much money on awful horrible ideas.

If only people in these companies weren't afraid of being fired and had some balls to tell the higher ups that "this idea sucks" or " this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of" maybe they might get the message and stop making all this crapware.

This is such bullshit. What makes you think the person buying something used and or pirating the game would buy it new? Tell me that, otherwise gtfo.
And really? Who the F give a crap what Cliffy B*** thinks?
Somebody hire this moron already so we don't have to listen to his crap.

Cliffy, one of the talented developers around, I think when he speaks you should listen.... You people are sick... He is from , get this, the Fvckin industry! What do you fanboy whores know?

I dont agree with mika, this is how I see it. If two games are coming out around the same time and i am torn between what one to get. I buy the first one released, sell it on ebay for almost £30 and buy the second game i wanted new thus supporting the gaming market. All DRM would do would limit me to buying only the top rated game that i could afford at the time. I would in no way buy a game lower than a 9 score because after the two days it takes to finish I am stuck with it. Only big companies would survive and small starting out companies would fail.

On your 10+ million to make argument only 250'000 would need to be sold to make £10 million. The problem with alot of tripple a studios is they get too big and stick themselves on the stock market. This invites investers that expect a year on year profit. If targets are not met shares are sold and the company decreases in vallue. Major shareholder streamlines to make more profit. People actually lose jobs even though they made a profit, just not as big as the year before

How would MS DRM policy have put more money into developers pockets when they were planning on allowing a family sharing plan that would have allowed everyone to share their games library with ten people? I know I would buy less games if I could log into 10 of my friends accounts and play the games for free. Also, if MS gives bonuses and makes digital distribution attractive than the whole DRM policy on used games is pointless. It's what MS should have done from the beginning instead of making physical copies function as digital installs. Everything MS wanted to do they can still do with digital downloads.

The people disagreeing with you are ignorant, selfish children. Used game industry destroys AAA games and jacks up prices, but the kiddies are too dumb to understand basic consumer economics.

So the kiddies whined and got their bottle back, got to be pushed around in a stroller despite being like seven years old. So now the kiddies get the games industry they deserve - moron franchises like CoD, sh*tware smartphone games, boring games that cannot afford to take risks, and single player AAA becoming extinct.

All so you get to save a few dollars at gaystop.

The fact that this jackwagon supports the idea should be enough to turn people against it.

Cliffy B doesn't seem to understand the system(the way some game companies operate) is flawed.

AAA games tend to fail not because of used games but because its own budget. When you give a game a high budget this now means they have to sell a larger amount of units in order to be profitable.

Not only that but when you ship out 10-20 hour games with no replayability factor, more than likely the customer is going to trade the game back in or sell it to someone else.

Then there's bastardizing, by that I mean companies screwing over a popular series just because they think it make them a quick buck. Including heavy fps elements or MP in some games isn't necessary but for some reason some games companies think by doing this it will result in more sales. When the results come back and they find out the game isn't selling like they thought it would used games and piracy gets the blame.

Guy has two successful games in his career thinks he is the be all end all on everything gaming.

He is sounding really butthurt right now. Developers will find money and to be honest if they make quality games they will make money he bangs on about games and tacked on multiplayer.. Yeah because Activision are struggling right Cliff? Every COD they make only just makes a profit right? That companys made BILLIONS in a trading market thanks to great management. The real reason companys close is bad management. He may know about making great games but knows FA about running a company.