How many titles actually sell a million plus units in a given year?

#131shadestreetPosted 12/13/2012 11:26:15 PM
No I don't think rentals are bad
No I don't think used games are bad
No I don't think GS should go out of business ( though you won't find me there)
And I don't know how trustworthy NeoGaf is, but here is a list from 2006-today of studios that have closed :

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=459131

Some I know, most I don't...but the ones I know made damn good games.


On that note, I think the fact that Gamestop has made buy/resell so streamlined and hassle free only lead to people to stop renting game - I think the same demographic of people that liked to "try out" games back in the 80's-90's at Blockbuster merely shifted to "trying out games" at Gamestop - and the net effect is the same, only in the case of the latter, should you really enjoy the game you liked you an easier time keeping it.

Also, regarding the list of studios closing, I wonder how many studos opened during that time?

I am bummed about a few names on that list, but then again, people make games, not publishers - if Nintendo shut down it's not like we would never see another Shigeru Miyamoto game, or a legend of Zelda again.

I think overall (it is too late to cite detailed stats...) we know that for the past decade game revenue has dramatically increased, more games are coming out each year, more people are getting into gaming, so it isn't like the sky is falling and GS will ruin us all.

Goodnight.

side note, despite my entire diatribe, I only buy from GS if their preorder bonus beats Amazons (rarely), I never resell games (I am a collector), I only buy new (see: I am a collector)... my example of reselling RE6 was used because that is the closest I have ever gotten to reselling a game.
#132banjo kazooiePosted 12/14/2012 12:01:07 AM
I've stopped reading the topic, but the difference is a very significant portion of the cost of a car, house, whatever, is materials and manufacturing. As programs, games have an incredibly low materials and manufacturing cost, the massive and expensive part is development. Oh, sure, there are design costs in making a house or car, but they pale in comparison. You don't have vast teams spending years of development on a single model of car or house, with a crapton of salaries to go with them. A game, as a physical product, is a relatively thin sheet of stamped metal coated in some form of synthetic resin with a label. A house has the entire design and building process paid for by the person or organisation having it built. The salaries are paid for in full by the first customer. The first customer may then sell it on, after all, the entire production process has been paid for, in full, by the customer (probably through a loan, though). Assassin's Creed 3, the game I beat most recently, had a credits sequence of roughly 15 minutes, bit of a guess, but not far off. Do you think the measly $50 or so price tag for the first customer pays for well over a year of well over 100 employee's salaries? How about classics? Do you think $40 for Metroid pays the 10 or so employees several months of salaries? Games, books, computer programs, movies, plays, a business model where the first customer pays for the entire development would be utterly unworkable, and would destroy whatever company decided to take it up. You also can't sell one house to 250000 people. The comparison is invalid.

tl;dr: Houses and cars could not be any less relevant to this conversation than they presently are. Trying to act clever by bringing it up means that you clearly do not understand at least one of the industries you're talking about.
---
*(int *)nullptr = 0;
http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
#133shadestreetPosted 12/14/2012 12:57:51 AM
I've stopped reading the topic, but the difference is a very significant portion of the cost of a car, house, whatever, is materials and manufacturing. As programs, games have an incredibly low materials and manufacturing cost, the massive and expensive part is development. Oh, sure, there are design costs in making a house or car, but they pale in comparison. You don't have vast teams spending years of development on a single model of car or house, with a crapton of salaries to go with them. A game, as a physical product, is a relatively thin sheet of stamped metal coated in some form of synthetic resin with a label. A house has the entire design and building process paid for by the person or organisation having it built. The salaries are paid for in full by the first customer. The first customer may then sell it on, after all, the entire production process has been paid for, in full, by the customer (probably through a loan, though). Assassin's Creed 3, the game I beat most recently, had a credits sequence of roughly 15 minutes, bit of a guess, but not far off. Do you think the measly $50 or so price tag for the first customer pays for well over a year of well over 100 employee's salaries? How about classics? Do you think $40 for Metroid pays the 10 or so employees several months of salaries? Games, books, computer programs, movies, plays, a business model where the first customer pays for the entire development would be utterly unworkable, and would destroy whatever company decided to take it up. You also can't sell one house to 250000 people. The comparison is invalid.

tl;dr: Houses and cars could not be any less relevant to this conversation than they presently are. Trying to act clever by bringing it up means that you clearly do not understand at least one of the industries you're talking about.


Completely wrong... a car doesn't just cost the materials and labor as you infer - a single car sales doesn't put GM in the black, and pay for the salaries of engineers, designers, researchers, marketing, union pensions, etc. It takes a significant volume of cars to break even for a model. How is that different than games? A house is similar - unless you buy a custom home (which costs significantly higher), you buy a model home, which is mass produced (though you may not know it) and even this example is poor to refute against.

You are having trouble swallowing notion of blocking resale of house, car - so tell me if we should block resale of DVDs, iPads, TVs, clothes, appliances, jewelry - where exactly do you place the limit on blocking resale and what are the parameters? I can't think of a single non-consumable, physical item, which is outlawed for resale - yet all those other things exist and thrive. Educate me. Please. What makes games different.
#134banjo kazooiePosted 12/14/2012 3:06:32 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#135banjo kazooiePosted 12/14/2012 3:07:43 AM
shadestreet posted...
Completely wrong... a car doesn't just cost the materials and labor as you infer


You serious? In one word, you have coloured my entire viewpoint on your response. I'm going to let you figure out why that word is disgustingly out of place in that sentence. And, no, I didn't say they only cost that. I'm saying that a single car model likely does not anywhere near the astronomical design and development cost of a single game. Hell, all the stuff that would be the most expensive to design can be used as-is in several different models of car. And I'm not just saying that, the price per unit for manufacturing a game disc is incredibly small, while the cost for making the game itself is really really big, and the price of a game is really low compared to a car. I don't think any individual model of car would need to push 500k sales to break even. The break even point would be a number of cars sold across a range of cars for all the components that would be expensive to design. You don't need to reinvent the engine for each model of car, hell, you don't really need to change the technology much at all between cars of the same make and year. Secondly, allow me to reiterate: Gone are the days where a AAA game was made by around ten people over six months to a year. These days, a single game would take a year, or two, or three, with a team well in excess of 50 people. And yet, for things that take such a sheer volume of man-hours to make individually, they can't be sold at an expensive price. Nobody would pay for it. The break even point cannot be brought closer by raising prices.

- a single car sales doesn't put GM in the black, and pay for the salaries of engineers, designers, researchers, marketing, union pensions, etc. It takes a significant volume of cars to break even for a model. How is that different than games? A house is similar - unless you buy a custom home (which costs significantly higher), you buy a model home, which is mass produced (though you may not know it) and even this example is poor to refute against.


Here's the thing. A single model of car doesn't have much work go into the design, relatively. Which is to say, most of the design work goes into making parts that can be used in several models of car, often over the course of a few years. Hell, the design work is often incremental on existing designs, unless the figurative wheel is reinvented sometime soon, advances in engine design made this year will continue to have positive benefits on the sales of the company that pioneered those advances for years to come. The same can generally not be said for games. Generally speaking, people will not accept assets being reused game after game after game (Except for sound effects, but that's an entirely different kettle of fish...) without work being done to change them. All those levels you made for the last game? Can't be reused. Game AI isn't real AI, and usually can't be reused. You'll have to make new enemies. New items. Need I go on? There is no analogue to that for cars or homes. You don't need to entirely redesign the air conditioning for the next car model you make. You don't need to come up with a new way of keeping the next house from collapsing.
---
*(int *)nullptr = 0;
http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/
#136banjo kazooiePosted 12/14/2012 3:08:04 AM
You are having trouble swallowing notion of blocking resale of house, car - so tell me if we should block resale of DVDs, iPads, TVs, clothes, appliances, jewelry - where exactly do you place the limit on blocking resale and what are the parameters? I can't think of a single non-consumable, physical item, which is outlawed for resale - yet all those other things exist and thrive. Educate me. Please. What makes games different.


I like how you put DVDs on that list when I specifically mentioned how I oppose the resale of TV shows and movies in my previous post. One thing I'd like to mention, is that everything on my list, in my post, which you probably didn't read the entirety of anyway, falls under copyright law. The only thing on your list that does is DVDs. The cutoff should be creative works: that which falls under copyright law shouldn't be able to be sold second hand. Patented devices, trademarked designs, things that fall under no IP laws? Resell as you please. Copyrighted materials? No dice. Should be simple enough for anyone who actually has any understanding of IP law to follow, and it's a very specific cutoff point.
---
*(int *)nullptr = 0;
http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/