Ce sujet est fermé
Modifié par TokkanRAM, 20 janvier 2010 - 02:57 .
HF100 wrote...
Movies do however gain revenue from Cinema and DVD sales, and thats not counting the amount of money that can be made on new editions and platforms (Blueray for example) look how many versions of Starwars that actually exists. Games need a new way to ensure sales and i don't see how this is a bad strategy.
and also Right Stick?!?!
Guaritor wrote...
If BW is continuing support and putting more effort into the game then
was origionally sold... yes. You don't buy a used honda and then take
it back to the honda dealer demanding it be serviced just because its a
honda.
The origional owner had its service agreement, and it doesn't extend to you just because its the same car.
TokkanRAM wrote...
I never got the whole polarising issue people have with DLC. It's like people think that the DLC is necessary for a fulfilling gameplay experience, when it isn't. Or that they feel that they have no right to charge us for what should already be in the game, even though that's not necessarily correct.
And I wouldn't go comparing used games to used DVDs/Blu-rays or used cars. They entirely different businesses with products that depreciate and/or appreciate in value at different rates. Besides, games are nowhere near comparable to movies since movies make most of their worthwhile profit from ticket sales and the DVDs/Blu-rays are only made for an extra buck, meanwhile games make all of their profit off of copies that are sold.
Modifié par Palathas, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:07 .
TokkanRAM wrote...
I never got the whole polarising issue people have with DLC. It's like people think that the DLC is necessary for a fulfilling gameplay experience, when it isn't. Or that they feel that they have no right to charge us for what should already be in the game, even though that's not necessarily correct.
And I wouldn't go comparing used games to used DVDs/Blu-rays or used cars. They entirely different businesses with products that depreciate and/or appreciate in value at different rates. Besides, games are nowhere near comparable to movies since movies make most of their worthwhile profit from ticket sales and the DVDs/Blu-rays are only made for an extra buck, meanwhile games make all of their profit off of copies that are sold.
Guest_KorPhaeron11_*
KorPhaeron11 wrote...
My god, to all whiners I have a question:
Are you going to buy the game or not?
If you ARE then you're whining servers no purpose, since the game is gold, meaning (nothing can be changed). So the only conclusion I can come up with is that you're a troll, trying to keep the flames burning, because nothing you say will change the game being DONE.
Guest_KorPhaeron11_*
-Zorph- wrote...
Wait, so if I pre-ordered a Regular Edition ME2 for xbox 360, it comes with the Network Card? And any other new copy does as well, but you have to purchase the Network Card if you buy used?
I like the idea of patches and tiny updates like adding weapons for free, but I am sure huge DLC will cost money of course.
Intersesting move by BioWare. But if somebody could answer the above question that would be great.
adam_grif wrote...
You're right that new game editions won't sell as well, primarily because games are so damn expensive. The funny thing is, a summer blockbuster costs upwards of 50 million dollars to produce, and a video game costs far far less, but they charge far, far more per copy of the game.
They already get increased sales during the game's shelflife with price drops and so on.
Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:40 .
izmirtheastarach wrote...
adam_grif wrote...
You're right that new game editions won't sell as well, primarily because games are so damn expensive. The funny thing is, a summer blockbuster costs upwards of 50 million dollars to produce, and a video game costs far far less, but they charge far, far more per copy of the game.
They already get increased sales during the game's shelflife with price drops and so on.
First of all, summer blockbusters often cost quite a bit more then 50 million. 100 to 150 is more common.
And video games cost a lot more to make then you think. GTA 4 is estimated to have cost 100 million to produce.
And either way, they are two completely different businesses. Tens of millions of people have seen Avatar, but a game is a success if it sells a couple of million copies. Of course game cost more then movies. On top of which, movies are a couple of hours long, and games can be 20 times that, and take a much longer time to produce.
izmirtheastarach wrote...
adam_grif wrote...
You're right that new game editions won't sell as well, primarily because games are so damn expensive. The funny thing is, a summer blockbuster costs upwards of 50 million dollars to produce, and a video game costs far far less, but they charge far, far more per copy of the game.
They already get increased sales during the game's shelflife with price drops and so on.
First of all, summer blockbusters often cost quite a bit more then 50 million. 100 to 150 is more common.
And video games cost a lot more to make then you think. GTA 4 is estimated to have cost 100 million to produce.
And either way, they are two completely different businesses. Tens of millions of people have seen Avatar, but a game is a success if it sells a couple of million copies. Of course game cost more then movies. On top of which, movies are a couple of hours long, and games can be 20 times that, and take a much longer time to produce.
Modifié par HF100, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:51 .
Phoenixblight wrote...
Yes GTA 4 did cost that but do you know why because they were using all that money for the engine so they could use the same engine for all the episodes and future GTA. Usually games cost 30-50 million to produce and that is excluding making a new engine.
HF100 wrote...
izmirtheastarach wrote...
adam_grif wrote...
You're right that new game editions won't sell as well, primarily because games are so damn expensive. The funny thing is, a summer blockbuster costs upwards of 50 million dollars to produce, and a video game costs far far less, but they charge far, far more per copy of the game.
They already get increased sales during the game's shelflife with price drops and so on.
First of all, summer blockbusters often cost quite a bit more then 50 million. 100 to 150 is more common.
And video games cost a lot more to make then you think. GTA 4 is estimated to have cost 100 million to produce.
And either way, they are two completely different businesses. Tens of millions of people have seen Avatar, but a game is a success if it sells a couple of million copies. Of course game cost more then movies. On top of which, movies are a couple of hours long, and games can be 20 times that, and take a much longer time to produce.
Obviously Games to Films can’t be a literal translation but we were both talking about mode of sale opposed to the creation of them. For instancesome people are saying that paying for first day DLC isn’t fair as they believe Bioware will release Mass Effect 2 as product that isn’t complete without it. But it seems to me that Bioware have simply used DLC as a way to generate more new sales which is using the gaming medium to its own advantage. For instance if you were one of the tens of millions of people that saw Avatar would you then expect the DVD for free also?
izmirtheastarach wrote...
adam_grif wrote...
You're right that new game editions won't sell as well, primarily because games are so damn expensive. The funny thing is, a summer blockbuster costs upwards of 50 million dollars to produce, and a video game costs far far less, but they charge far, far more per copy of the game.
They already get increased sales during the game's shelflife with price drops and so on.
First of all, summer blockbusters often cost quite a bit more then 50 million. 100 to 150 is more common.
And video games cost a lot more to make then you think. GTA 4 is estimated to have cost 100 million to produce.
And either way, they are two completely different businesses. Tens of millions of people have seen Avatar, but a game is a success if it sells a couple of million copies. Of course game cost more then movies. On top of which, movies are a couple of hours long, and games can be 20 times that, and take a much longer time to produce.
HF100 wrote...
Obviously Games to Films can’t be a literal translation butwe were both talking about mode of sale apposed to the creation of them. For instancesome people are saying that paying for first day DLC isn’t fair as they believe Bioware will release Mass Effect 2 as product that isn’t complete without it. But it seems to me that Bioware have simply used DLC as a way to generate more new sales which is using the gaming medium to its own advantage. For instance if you were one of the tens of millions of people that saw Avatar would you then expect the DVD for free also?
fivefingerfredy wrote...
Does anyone know for sure whether or not we get ALL DLC from cerberus network for free or or if we have to pay for DLC
Modifié par Malastare-, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:56 .
HF100 wrote...
Obviously Games to Films can’t be a literal translation butwe were both talking about mode of sale apposed to the creation of them. For instancesome people are saying that paying for first day DLC isn’t fair as they believe Bioware will release Mass Effect 2 as product that isn’t complete without it. But it seems to me that Bioware have simply used DLC as a way to generate more new sales which is using the gaming medium to its own advantage. For instance if you were one of the tens of millions of people that saw Avatar would you then expect the DVD for free also?
adam_grif wrote...
I was triyng to get more of an "average cost" feel going. Avatar cost upwards of 230 million dollars to produce, but not every movie is like that . The problem is that videogame budgets are very rarely revealed to the public.
http://news.bbc.co.u...ogy/4442346.stm
According to that, a modern videogame costs as little as 1 million dollars to produce, or up to 20 million for the most expensive games.
But average joe videogame? Not approaching 20 million dollars. Movies do have a shorter development span, but are more costly generally. It's possible to produce an art fiml with a crew of 5 that goes for 70 minutes for 50,000 dollars, but we're discussing big name films with widespread distribution channels to be more fair (otherwise we'd have to include free flash games made by 1 man in the comparison).
Regardless, Games cost far more. It's not just "they go longer". MW2 campaign is approximately 30 seconds long, but they still charge full price. Compared to Mass Effect, the difference is staggering. And MW2 was a game that had it's multiplayer suite and game engine completely paid for 100x over by Modern Warfare 1. The game's campaign was it's biggest monetary investment, then some minor improvements in graphics and multiplayer tweaks from the ballence team.
A movie that is 3 hours long costs as much as one that is 80 minutes long, all other things being equal. But the business models of the two are hugely divorced - videogames are all about day 1 sales to the home console market, not release in arcades for 3 months before you can buy it. Cinemas make a lot of money for the movie industry.
Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 20 janvier 2010 - 03:58 .
adam_grif wrote...
HF100 wrote...
Obviously Games to Films can’t be a literal translation butwe were both talking about mode of sale apposed to the creation of them. For instancesome people are saying that paying for first day DLC isn’t fair as they believe Bioware will release Mass Effect 2 as product that isn’t complete without it. But it seems to me that Bioware have simply used DLC as a way to generate more new sales which is using the gaming medium to its own advantage. For instance if you were one of the tens of millions of people that saw Avatar would you then expect the DVD for free also?
No, but that's a horrible analogy. It would be like purchasing the Avatar DVD, but you only get the commentary tracks if you bought it new, and if you bought it second hand or borrowed it from a friend you can't access them.
Retour en haut