388 réponses à ce sujet

[Br3admax]

Boo.

[TheProtheans]

David is right,if the graphics isn't there then the game isn't all that it could be.
Obviously there can be exceptions of a fun game without good graphics, I can't think of any but there probably is some.
Not going to use old games to support the argument that graphics makes a good game as they were probably the best looking games from their time, GTA San Andreas and such.
While GTA SA is playable and can be fun the graphics don't help it if it was released this day and age.


It is mainly why I don't play games like borderlands or some stupid budget game based on a movie or TV show.
If the graphics isn't there then a good level of immersion isn't there.
It's why I play Halo CEA with the updated graphics instead of the original graphics which you can switch between.
I tried it on the original graphics, it's just not as fun and enjoyable to play with.
It belongs to a day long pasted.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 04 octobre 2013 - 09:06 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

StreetMagic wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Concluding that the made all of their money back from $1 billion in sales is an error in reasoning, yes. Which is what I was disputing in the first place.

Wait... weren't you disputing their profit as a whole, not if they made all their money back.  

David likes to materialize points against arguments no one made all the time. It's part of his shtick.

I can't believe the last two pages were about this.

The Messiah can and will derail anything he touches.

It is his gift, and his curse.

[Ravensword]

stylistic choice≠bad graphics

[shodiswe]

It's like comparing McDonals which is a huge multinational to a sucessful national fastfood chain.

One is all over the place, advertisements and what not. might have existed longer, The other might have a smaller group that it's catering to. It doesn't mean it's less quality, it merely sugests there might be room for growth. It's also possible it's doing good as it is. They might already be reaching their demographic group, the people who wants their product.

Modifié par shodiswe, 04 octobre 2013 - 10:28 .

[Bleachrude]

You know the people arguing with David, you are completely wrong..

You do realize that right?


Rockstar doesn't sell the game directly to places like Best buy and/or Gamestop.
http://www.notenough...fall-of-gaming/


Take-2 is probably looking AT BEST, $33 per game sold on the consoles. Then from that , you still have to factor in fixed costs (higher sales does mean less fixed cost per disc)

[TheProtheans]

Bleachrude wrote...

You know the people arguing with David, you are completely wrong..

You do realize that right?


Rockstar doesn't sell the game directly to places like Best buy and/or Gamestop.
http://www.notenough...fall-of-gaming/


Take-2 is probably looking AT BEST, $33 per game sold on the consoles. Then from that , you still have to factor in fixed costs (higher sales does mean less fixed cost per disc)

Wrong about what? you can't judge them making their money back from the amount the game got in sales.
If they didn't get their money back from this billion in sales and possibly at least the next billion to come then there ain't no way in hell Mass effect  3 got it's money back with it's medicore sales.
Especially considering the price drops because of it being bad.

But yeah if you got a billion in sales then unless your production costed 500 million then you probably made your money back, as far as I can tell so far the sales made are 5 times higher than the production cost.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 04 octobre 2013 - 11:51 .

[Clips7]

Rockstar easily made back their expenses from making the game...most big budget games don't see their profit until a few years or months after release..GTAV made it back in less than a week...and lets not forget we have the holidays comin' up and those folks who are still buying ps3/360's....maybe the sales have peaked for GTAV, but it will still continue to sell at a steady flow for quite some time...which will equal even more profits...

[Br3admax]

Bleachrude wrote...

You know the people arguing with David, you are completely wrong..

You do realize that right?


Rockstar doesn't sell the game directly to places like Best buy and/or Gamestop.
http://www.notenough...fall-of-gaming/


Take-2 is probably looking AT BEST, $33 per game sold on the consoles. Then from that , you still have to factor in fixed costs (higher sales does mean less fixed cost per disc)

A third of one billion has already made a profit. You do know this, right? 

[AlanC9]

Br3ad wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

You know the people arguing with David, you are completely wrong..

You do realize that right?


Rockstar doesn't sell the game directly to places like Best buy and/or Gamestop.
http://www.notenough...fall-of-gaming/


Take-2 is probably looking AT BEST, $33 per game sold on the consoles. Then from that , you still have to factor in fixed costs (higher sales does mean less fixed cost per disc)

A third of one billion has already made a profit. You do know this, right? 

Sure. But nobody ever argued the GTA V wasn't making a lot of profit.. Not Belachrude, not David.

[TheProtheans]

AlanC9 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

You know the people arguing with David, you are completely wrong..

You do realize that right?


Rockstar doesn't sell the game directly to places like Best buy and/or Gamestop.
http://www.notenough...fall-of-gaming/


Take-2 is probably looking AT BEST, $33 per game sold on the consoles. Then from that , you still have to factor in fixed costs (higher sales does mean less fixed cost per disc)

A third of one billion has already made a profit. You do know this, right? 

Sure. But nobody ever argued the GTA V wasn't making a lot of profit.. Not Belachrude, not David.

I thought it was being argued that you can not say they made their money back just because GTA V got one billion in sales, production cost would have to be included in the premise.
Which means either David is wrong or David is silly for making a useless statement.

[Xamufam]

Clips7 wrote...

Rockstar easily made back their expenses from making the game...most big budget games don't see their profit until a few years or months after release..GTAV made it back in less than a week...and lets not forget we have the holidays comin' up and those folks who are still buying ps3/360's....maybe the sales have peaked for GTAV, but it will still continue to sell at a steady flow for quite some time...which will equal even more profits...

you mean less than a day it cost 227 million dollar to make

[Br3admax]

AlanC9 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

You know the people arguing with David, you are completely wrong..

You do realize that right?


Rockstar doesn't sell the game directly to places like Best buy and/or Gamestop.
http://www.notenough...fall-of-gaming/


Take-2 is probably looking AT BEST, $33 per game sold on the consoles. Then from that , you still have to factor in fixed costs (higher sales does mean less fixed cost per disc)

A third of one billion has already made a profit. You do know this, right? 

Sure. But nobody ever argued the GTA V wasn't making a lot of profit.. Not Belachrude, not David.

David7204 wrote...

Concluding that the made all of their money back from $1 billion in sales is an error in reasoning, yes. Which is what I was disputing in the first place.

David7204 wrote...

I know that simple logic is not the BSN's strong suite, but this is really not that difficult.

The developers had over $250 million in expenses and the game had $1 billion in sales on the first day or whatever. 

If the developers receive less than 25% of the income from the sale (which is very likely), they don't make their money back from the first billion.

Is that simple enough for everyone here?

[BioWareAre****s]

My attempt to explain this:

Sales = $1 billion
Part of that which goes to R* = ~$300 million
Taxes = ~$30 million (at least)
Cost of production = $225 million
Potential profit made from that first billion = ~$50 million

Except that $50 million could easily have been spent elsewhere on top of production costs (i.e. on marketing, etc. - GTA have been known to hire marketing gurus to feed stories to the press to increase the level of controversy surrounding the games, thus increasing sales. That kinda stuff ain't cheap). And because these figures aren't exact, that $50 million may not even exist.

Basically, as stated above, GTA didn't make much if any profit from that first billion.
Although I'd hazard a guess that it's pretty hard to figure out how much profit it's gonna make anyway, because R* North is registered as a British company, and chances are that Take-Two keep most of the sales money for themselves rather that pass it on to R* North, as it means they can avoid paying as many British taxes.

[TheProtheans]

I assume you're taking the taxes and the cost of production away from the "Part of that which goes to R* = ~$300 million" which you then use to give a potential profit.

Tell me, where did you put the 700 million?

[Eterna]

Well this was long winded and stupid.

[The Night Mammoth]

FluffyCannibal wrote...

My attempt to explain this:

Sales = $1 billion
Part of that which goes to R* = ~$300 million
Taxes = ~$30 million (at least)
Cost of production = $225 million
Potential profit made from that first billion = ~$50 million

Except that $50 million could easily have been spent elsewhere on top of production costs (i.e. on marketing, etc. - GTA have been known to hire marketing gurus to feed stories to the press to increase the level of controversy surrounding the games, thus increasing sales. That kinda stuff ain't cheap). And because these figures aren't exact, that $50 million may not even exist.

Basically, as stated above, GTA didn't make much if any profit from that first billion.
Although I'd hazard a guess that it's pretty hard to figure out how much profit it's gonna make anyway, because R* North is registered as a British company, and chances are that Take-Two keep most of the sales money for themselves rather that pass it on to R* North, as it means they can avoid paying as many British taxes.

What happened to the other 400 million after you add up Rockstar's take, taxes and development costs?

[Arcian]

StreetMagic wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Concluding that the made all of their money back from $1 billion in sales is an error in reasoning, yes. Which is what I was disputing in the first place.

Wait... weren't you disputing their profit as a whole, not if they made all their money back.  

David likes to materialize points against arguments no one made all the time. It's part of his shtick.

I can't believe the last two pages were about this.

Congratulations, you've just seen a professional troll in his natural environment.

[Eterna]

Arcian wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Concluding that the made all of their money back from $1 billion in sales is an error in reasoning, yes. Which is what I was disputing in the first place.

Wait... weren't you disputing their profit as a whole, not if they made all their money back.  

David likes to materialize points against arguments no one made all the time. It's part of his shtick.

I can't believe the last two pages were about this.

Congratulations, you've just seen a professional troll in his natural environment.

David did not troll. He made a comment and then as per usual "The Clique" descended upon him like a pack of ravenous Wolves because they have a strange unhealthy love hate relationship with him. 

[RustyLH]

JamesFaith wrote...

Different genres = different size of target group.

It's simply more probable that player of RPGs will try GTA5 then that player of GTA series will try RPG.

Exactly...once they worked out the bugs, World War II Online was an incredible game.  It was expected to be one of the best games ever.  PC Gamer called it the Brass Ring that all shooters want to be...a persistant online battlefield.  But the bad release, coupled with the fact that it is not a twitch game, meant that it has a much smaller following than COD, BF, etc...  It has no single player, so you lose people there.  It rewards actual research into the real life weapons since the planes fly within 2% of wartime testing, and all historical strengths/weaknesses of tanks are there, etc...  So now you lose the lazy gamers.  In short...though it is a phenominal game now, it's sales numbers will never compete with eye candy sand box shooters like COD or BF, etc...  Now, add in that it IS a war game, and you lose the "concerned parent" even though GTA5 isn't exactly child friendly either.

I think Mass Effect as a franchise was very successful, and I am here to tell ya that Bioware should be working very closely with the movie makers.  When the movie is released, Bioware/EA should have an updated ME1 ready to go.  All new game engine, etc..and storyline changes to fit the movie.  Corrections to game weakpoints could be made.  A much more expansive multiplayer including the ability for PVP and ability to pay as Reaper, Cerberus, Geth and Collectors would be great as this "new" game series progresses.

They wouldn't even have to offer much if any incentive to buy for those of us who already have it.

In fact, if they take the movie series to 5 or 6 movies, the new game series could follow right along with it.  They wouldn't have to release it just as a trilogy.  But they could really flesh out some of the side missions more, and also add in a very elaborate multiplayer.

It would sell like hotcakes.  personally, I think it would dwarf the previous sales, even adjusted for inflation.

Modifié par RustyLH, 05 octobre 2013 - 12:28 .

[Mcfly616]

Why would there be problems? Mass Effect 3 sold very well. Especially for an RPG (sort of?), set in a sci fi universe. Two genres that don't particularly appeal to a wide spectrum of people. Mass Effect is 6-7 years old. GTA has been an established series since the mid to late 90's. Somewhere around 10 games now, I believe....

GTA 5 made an insane amount of money. But that doesn't mean ME3 didnt do well. In fact, they're not even comparable games. Just because the masses purchase a game, doesn't mean other games are having problems. Hell, CoD has been on top for years. I'd say that series is one huge problem.


GTA5 is a blast and easily the best game I've played this year. My favorite since ME3, actually. There's always going to be a new game that breaks all the records. Doesn't mean games that aren't completely mainstream and "only" sell $200 million arent having there own good deal of success.

[Ravensword]

Eterna5 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Concluding that the made all of their money back from $1 billion in sales is an error in reasoning, yes. Which is what I was disputing in the first place.

Wait... weren't you disputing their profit as a whole, not if they made all their money back.  

David likes to materialize points against arguments no one made all the time. It's part of his shtick.

I can't believe the last two pages were about this.

Congratulations, you've just seen a professional troll in his natural environment.

David did not troll. He made a comment and then as per usual "The Clique" descended upon him like a pack of ravenous Wolves because they have a strange unhealthy love hate relationship with him. 

How dare you besmirch "The Clique!" Our order was created by David the Messiah of Heroic Characterization.

[Eterna]

Ravensword wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

spirosz wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Concluding that the made all of their money back from $1 billion in sales is an error in reasoning, yes. Which is what I was disputing in the first place.

Wait... weren't you disputing their profit as a whole, not if they made all their money back.  

David likes to materialize points against arguments no one made all the time. It's part of his shtick.

I can't believe the last two pages were about this.

Congratulations, you've just seen a professional troll in his natural environment.

David did not troll. He made a comment and then as per usual "The Clique" descended upon him like a pack of ravenous Wolves because they have a strange unhealthy love hate relationship with him. 

How dare you besmirch "The Clique!" Our order was created by David the Messiah of Heroic Characterization.

The best part about the Clique is that David Doesn't even need to say anything. Inevitably you guys will mention him in a thread and end up trolling yourselves.

Modifié par Eterna5, 05 octobre 2013 - 04:44 .