Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:A classic example... (Score 0) 419 419

They might be as popular as a thing you use to "enhance" your game controller could possibly be. However there is still quite a gap between the number of things you could sell in "early December" and any later date. The delay in shipment appears to be the production/delivery delay, at least judging from the e-mails.

GoDaddy "lost" 0.04% of their business according to slashdot (20K domains out of 50M), let's see if it goes bankrupt any time soon, shall we?

Comment: Re:A classic example... (Score -1) 419 419

Yes, lots of (bad) PR, and is probably going to bankrupt his clients.

I doubt. Ocean Marketing looks like this one guy shop. Whoever is selling the overpriced plastic controller strap-on will just sack the guy, raging nerds will pat themselves on the back and congratulate the plastic thingie sellers on being wise, the strap-on will be sold out for months.

Instead of having to find a way to liquidate a whole order of plastic strapons that has not made it in time for Christmas the clients are now taking backorders.

Comment: Re:Simple "will I buy it" test. (Score 0) 134 134

What. Learn to read, really. I say "People who won't spend $60, but are willing to spend $30 won't buy it for $60, so there's no profit in stopping resales", you say "Oh, so you say nobody wants to spend $60 on this". Yes, I know that people who are willing to spend their $60 exist, but they don't enter this equation at all - we're talking about "does stopping resell increase profits", remember?

So where exactly does re-seller profit come from? From what I know your numbers are completely off base. GameStop does not re-sell game with 0 margin. They will buy a game for $30 only if they can turn it around and sell for $50. So we have somebody who wants a game for $30 and somebody who is fine with $50. A developer would have discounted to $50 first, got $50 sale, then discounted to $30 - got $30 sale, total $80 vs $60 he is getting now. The actual profit is even more because somebody who buys a $60 game on the release date with intention to re-sell it for $30 might not be comfortable with waiting several months till discounts will reach $30 and is likely to spend $60 or wait much less for a smaller discount, say $50.

Nope, the point you countered is "everyone, no matter how shitty or skilled, is doing fine". There are failures in every business, especially when trading in such volatile market as VG, just pointing at them doesn't prove that the industry is doomed unless they squeeze the customer for every cent available.

There are failures in every business but when the failures increase the business has to adapt or perish.

Comment: Re:Simple "will I buy it" test. (Score 0) 134 134

Discounting? Now you make even less sense. Consider two scenarios: a) person #1 buys a game for $60 when it's released, sells it to person #2 for $30 two weeks later. Result: company's profit $60, #1 and #2's spending $30 each. b) person #1 and #2 buys a game half a year later, when it's discounted to $30. Result: company's profit $60, #1 and #2's spending $30 each, the only difference being "buy now" vs "buy later".

These are obviously only two possible scenarios, right? People don't ever buy games if they cannot sell them later, right? Valve's Steam, Microsoft's Live, Sony's PSN and Apple iTunes are just fake businesses to launder drug money, correct?

And what exactly should that link prove? "Video games always were a flimsy market and it takes a master to steer"? "If you produce shitty games, you're out"? "Those who fail at business, go bankrupt"?

Why, here's an excellent (non-)counter to your (non-)argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_developers - see how much there are active companies who started before 2000?

I fail to see how this proves sudden necessity to try and take a bite out of reseller's profits.

The point I countered was "the industry is doing fine". I don't count bankrupcies and studio closures as "doing fine". Glad to see you finally realized that developers can take a bite of resellers profits though.

Comment: Re:Simple "will I buy it" test. (Score 0) 134 134

This logic hinges on the assumption that used game resellers make some nice profit

Eh? What does reseller's profit have to do with game dev's profit?

Stopping reselling only _ensures_ drop in resales, not a spike in first sales.

So you believe there is a market of people who only wish to buy used games for the sole reason of them being used similarly to the used underwear market alleged to exist in Japan? You might be right but the current theory in the industry is that people buy used games to save money. If secondary market did not exist then publishers could offer games at the same price points through gradual discounting.

BS. First, most titles selling over 1M copies are in post-"1-5M to develop" era. Second, "10-100M to develop" era is long here and companies survived just fine with resellers. Trying to double-dip is just pure greed. Third, if you spend tens of millions dollars and can't even break even on your product - it means you failed in managing money and judging the market for your product. Scraping the bottom of the barrell for extra dollar won't help you in this case.

BS. Most of the companies that existed before 2000 have not survived or barely exist now (like Interplay with a dozen people left), both publishers and developers. Here is a fine read for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Defunct_video_game_companies

Comment: Re:Simple "will I buy it" test. (Score 0) 134 134

This logic hinges on 2 assumptions: a) used games buyer will cash out $60 bucks for new game if he can't buy it used for $30, b) used games reseller will still buy the game for $60 if he knows he can't resell it for $30 after playing.

Looks far-fetched to me.

Not really. This logic hinges on the assumption that used game resellers make some nice profit. I'll direct you to the GameStop (GME) balance sheet for the actual data that back up this assumption pretty well.

And no, good games still bring in the cash just fine - look no further than Skyrim for proof. It did cost something about $100M to develop, but it already sold over >$600M. Really doesn't look like "We all just have to scrape for every dollar from you reselling cheapshots"

Skyrim has not sold 10M units. They shipped 10M units and sold about 3M from what I read. They are never going to sell 10M at $60 (for once it's already discounted so even if they manage to move 7M more units it's not going to be at $60). But this is besides the point - nobody said that good games do not bring cash. They just don't bring as much as they used to and they need to bring more because the "bad" games now make more losses than they used to.

Comment: Re:Simple "will I buy it" test. (Score 0) 134 134

It always has been a problem but, say, 10 years ago a game would cost only 1-5M to develop and had to sell 20-100K copies to break even. A publisher would see many games selling close to break even point from either side and quite a few turning in some 100-1000% ROI. Wanting more than this would be pure greed. Nowadays (the last gen really) a game costs 10-100M and has to sell 300K-3M to break even. A publisher sees many games do not ever reach this point and incurring some heavy losses, the total profitability is nowhere near what it used to be the previous generation. So today publishers and developers are paying attention to the income sources other than "the first sale".

Comment: Re:Lawyers failed (Score 0) 403 403

The original complaint had dozens of points including bluray, games and even "I've lost my data" among others. Sony moved to dismiss and the judge tossed all of them out except for this, PSN-based one, as the only semi-reasonable. Plaintiffs filed a new complaint based just on the PSN entitlement, Sony moved to dismiss again again and the judge agreed again. This is all based on what I read in the groklaw's reports http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110218181557455

Comment: Re:Car analogy (Score 0) 403 403

PS3 games I have do not say anything like this anywhere on the packaging except of 3D games that state the required firmware version. Now, it's not an issue with PS3 in particular but many other game consoles have region locks and every particular game disk won't run on millions of consoles from other regions. If somebody had been able to make a case that games are advertised to work on every hardware unit under a generic name like "Dreamcast","Wii", "PlayStation 2", "Xbox 360" etc then not only Sony but Nintendo, Sega and Microsoft would be liable for every one of them has made region-locked console systems.

Comment: Re:The big difference (Score 0) 821 821

Subsistence farmers in third world countries probably won't be affected by any first world legislation that attempts to protect the environment.

You might be right here, but there are other people in third world countries who are already affected: http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=food+prices+rise+riots

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening

Working...