Support NeoGAF

[ultron87]

If they had made 5 skins and charged a couple bucks for them no one would've cared. Only by making 100+ skins does it become an issue with the attention grabbing "$45" headline.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

don't blame them. It's essentially free money and they will make buckets of cash off collector whores who have no brains.

 

[MMaRsu]

don't blame them. It's essentially free money and they will make buckets of cash off collector whores who have no brains.

Yea..most of this type of content used to be free unlockables if you did good.

 

[mclem]

Yea..most of this type of content used to be free unlockables if you did good.

Except it's *also* free unlockables if you did good. This is just more on top of that.

 

[OMG Aero]

Hi
[gow3 marketplace pics]

Man it's like the Rock Band and Guitar Hero DLC all over again.

 

[mbmonk]

He's already said he can't. NDA's are fairly common in this sort of thing, otherwise other publishers could go "Hey, they're getting favourable treatment!" and kick up a fuss.

I'm *not* tied by any confidentiality agreements regarding PS Plus, but I also don't know anything! However, I can guess based on having a little first-hand experience in the machinations of the games industry:

I suspect that Sony offered to play Sidhe a lump sum of money or other benefits for the right to distribute the game for free to Plus members for a given period. It's not a per-copy sale, which is why it doesn't work out as a normal customer/developer relationship. However, the money would effectively have originated from the memberships.

Other benefits could - hypothetically - include favourable advertising on future products, less of a cut for the manufacturer on future products, or possibly even stuff lower down the chain (discounted devkits, cheaper licenses, cheaper submissions for TRC checks).

I would estimate that you're looking at that sort of thing.

Thank you. I was not aware of the many different angles you can skin the 'free' cat from.

Regarding the overarching subject here: I'm generally in agreement with Mario for this sort of thing. Something which I think would be enlightening - if any such data is available - would be to compare the man-hours spent on development for UT versus Gears 3. You may think UT has a comparable amount of content, and I suspect you're right - but I also suspect said content took significantly less money and manhours to develop.

Possibly, but shouldn't we be including revenue and profit as a part of this equation. It costing more money to develop in itself doesn't paint the full picture. Sometimes it is worth the money upfront to reap a bigger reward on the back end.

But as you stated I don't know if that data is available to the public anywhere.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Yea..most of this type of content used to be free unlockables if you did good.

It should be both, that way people that play the crap out of it for hours on end, helping your on line base and probably advertising your product by talking about it loads etc get rewarded. These kinds of people tend to care about that stuff and idiots can elevate themselves with cold hard cash.

It does make the unlockables worthless as a way to show your skill in game though. I guess rankings can do that for you.

 

[10dollas]

My initial reaction to Epic's decision along with many Geow fans, is that this is absurd, abuse of the consumer, slippery slope, setting precedence, and rabble rabble yada yada. But the spiteful side of me laughs at all the misguided self-entitlement in this thread. I'm glad this drives people into a rage I'm happy this act was done , which is going to hurt goodwill towards EPIC indirectly down the line,because I just wanted to see the Waaaaahhmbulance come.

Fact of the matter is, most overly spoiled gamers don't understand the massive undertaking on the business side involved in producing one of these AAA games. The risk is staggering, especially for developers, who aren't under the corporate umbrella of EA, activision, Ubisoft, the console manufacturers. Costs are rising and employees need to be paid their wages to just survive. Geow3 was probably a product that costed 10s of millions of dollars not including marketing costs, that's not completely guaranteed to make a sizable profit to cover sunken costs in other costly ventures. Then you have random joe schmo, who is gravely insulted that they can't have everything produced from this colossal tens of millions risky financial endeavor for a measly $60. entitlement is a motherfucka...

But on a side note: props to PXG for leveraging reason and carefully explaining the nuances of this and the ramifications...

 

[Vire]

My initial reaction to Epic's decision along with many Geow fans, is that this is absurd, abuse of the consumer, slippery slope, setting precedence, and rabble rabble yada yada. But the spiteful side of me laughs at all the misguided self-entitlement in this thread. I'm glad this drives people into a rage I'm happy this act was done , which is going to hurt goodwill towards EPIC indirectly down the line,because I just wanted to see the Waaaaahhmbulance come.

Fact of the matter is, most overly spoiled gamers don't understand the massive undertaking on the business side involved in producing one of these AAA games. The risk is staggering, especially for developers, who aren't under the corporate umbrella of EA, activision, Ubisoft, the console manufacturers. Costs are rising and employees need to be paid their wages to just survive. Geow3 was probably a product that costed 10s of millions of dollars not including marketing costs, that's not completely guaranteed to make a sizable profit to cover sunken costs in other costly ventures. Then you have random joe schmo, who is gravely insulted that they can't have everything produced from this colossal tens of millions risky financial endeavor for a measly $60. entitlement is a motherfucka...

But on a side note: props to PXG for leveraging reason and carefully explaining the nuances of this and the ramifications...

Risk? You are kidding right?

Gears doing well financially is as likely as the sun rising in the morning.

That statement may be applicable for new franchises, but for something like Gears, Halo or Call of Duty - it's laughable.

 

[10dollas]

Risk? You are kidding right?

Gears doing well financially is as likely as the sun rising in the morning.

All franchises decline eventually. And I have no doubt Geow itself will make a profit. However, when you include marketing prices upfront, things tend to get murkier. Also Geow isn't its own island indepedent of all other products of EPIC. Geow's profitablity covers for less successful products by epic, such as the new engine, bulletstorm, UT3, just to name a few. So Geow being profitable might not be enough for it to be a financial success (instead super profitability might be the required goal post). Granted, I know another large source of revenue for EPIC is licensing the unreal engine. Point is, people get so opinionated over stuff without even knowing hardly anything...

 

[Vire]

All franchises decline eventually. And I have no doubt Geow itself will make a profit. However, when you include marketing prices upfront, things tend to get murkier. Also Geow isn't its own island indepedent of all other products of EPIC. Geow's profitablity covers for less successful products by epic, such as the new engine, bulletstorm, UT3, just to name a few. So Geow being profitable might not be enough for it to be a financial success (instead super profitability might be the required goal post). Granted, I know another large source of revenue for EPIC is licensing the unreal engine. Point is, people get so opinionated over stuff without even knowing hardly anything...

Marketing is covered by Microsoft, not Epic, that's where the publishing deal comes in to place. Maybe you should research how things work first before criticizing others.

 

[-PXG-]

All franchises decline eventually. And I have no doubt Geow itself will make a profit. However, when you include marketing prices upfront, things tend to get murkier. Also Geow isn't its own island indepedent of all other products of EPIC. Geow's profitablity covers for less successful products by epic, such as the new engine, bulletstorm, UT3, just to name a few. So Geow being profitable might not be enough for it to be a financial success (instead super profitability might be the goal post). Granted, I know another large source of revenue for EPIC is licensing the unreal engine. Point is, people get so opinionated over stuff without even knowing hardly anything...

Do you have any idea as to how much money Epic makes from UE3 licensing, or the relatively low cost of it's development and support?

Epic isn't going anywhere, any time soon. Gears 3 could be a total flop, but their engine licensing would still make major bank.

 

[Massa]

I always thought if there was anything they should charge for in multiplayer games it's skins and other completely useless stuff like that, while keeping maps and game modes available for everyone.

Of course, they're going to charge for both.

 

[10dollas]

Marketing is covered by Microsoft, not Epic, that's where the publishing deal comes in to place. Maybe you should research how things work first before criticizing others.

I know marketing was covered by microsoft for the first 2 installments, but do u have a source that says marketing is microsoft covered for number 3? (remember that servers are being used, that could have changed the bargaining variables for keeping geow exclusive) Regardless of this fact spare me ur throwaway wisdom. You have demonstrated you at least know enough to have a reasonable opinion, but for many others its not the case. The ones that simply stated that, "its not like it was before" and letting that be the reason to froth at the mouth, are the target of my post. Not you...

PXG, i wasn't arguing that EPIC would be on the brink of solvency if Geow3 was only relatively profitable. I was just showing that there is so much more to consider than just the face-level factors...

 

[Mammoth Jones]

At the end of the day the market will set the value for things like this. I bet even a few of you here complaining about it are going to play enough multiplayer to buy a few skins.

And that's ok, don't be ashamed. I know I'm going to play this enough to buy a few skins for shits and giggles. It is what it is.

Don't like it = Don't buy it.

 

[mbmonk]

The risk is staggering, especially for developers, who aren't under the corporate umbrella of EA, activision, Ubisoft, the console manufacturers.

But isn't Gears 3 falling under the MS corporate umbrella? Surely they are paying a hefty fee for exclusivity and picking up a large chunk of the marketing. So wouldn't that transfer some of the risk away from Epic and onto MS? I am not sure if your logic holds true for this specific case.

Costs are rising and employees need to be paid their wages to just survive.

So Epic is only paying what is classified as a "surviving" wage? If that is true, that is pretty scarey considering what the revenues are for Gears.

Geow3 was probably a product that costed 10s of millions of dollars not including marketing costs

Gears of War 2 sold over 5 million world wide, ASSUMING a $60 price tag per copy is roughly $300 million in revenue. So even if Gears 3 generates half the revenue it probably would still turn millions in profit. (Source: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15739158&postcount=1)

that's not completely guaranteed to make a sizable profit to cover sunken costs in other costly ventures.

I assume there aren't many things that are actually guaranteed to make a sizable profit in the free market so I am not sure why you are mentioning that. Management determines the level of risk a company is exposed to anyway.

Also, you normally as a company wouldn't fund "other costly ventures" unless you thought that the ventures would pay a profit at some future point and time.

Then you have random joe schmo, who is gravely insulted that they can't have everything produced from this colossal tens of millions risky financial endeavor for a measly $60. entitlement is a motherfucka..

Unreal Engine improvements are part of the tens of millions investment and gamers aren't asking for royalties from the licensing of that engine. So they aren't asking for everything that comes "from" that investment.

 

[MisterHero]

Animated sets and Static sets?

Are they tearing down the DLC into individual micro-DLCs now?!?

 

[10dollas]

But isn't Gears 3 falling under the MS corperate umbrella? Surely they are paying a hefty fee for exclusivity and picking up a large chunk of the marketing. So wouldn't that transfer some of the risk away from Epic and onto MS? I am not sure if your logic holds true for this specific case.

Epic the maker of Gears 3 do not fall under that umbrella. From a theoretic perspective, if Epic goes under, so does any future gears sequels, unless if Epic were to sell full rights to microsoft. But that's from a purely theoretic perspective, this perspective is useful for setting a model used for comparison with other companies. That's why I mentioned these details specifically, not to claim epic is seriously currently at risk. But I really don't know the true nature of EPICs and microsoft's relation, so I can only speculate in a reasoned fashion.

So Epic is only paying what is classified as a "surviving" wage? If that is true, that is pretty scarey considering what the revenues are for Gears.

don't take that lazily worded sentence so literally

Gears of War 2 sold over 5 million world wide, ASSUMING a $60 price tag per copy is roughly $300 million in revenue. So even if Gears 3 generates half the revenue it probably would still turn millions in profit. (Source: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15739158&postcount=1)

In this scenario assuming doesn't benefit you. We have no idea how much of the $60 per copy went back to EPIC. Publishers usually operate in a way that they will pay the wages and fund the costs of development in exchange for rights to the IP being developed and for a larger chunk of the sales revenues. Microsoft's relationship with EPIC is different from the norm in many ways (I think EPIC owns the IP gears of war). Lets also not forget that, the console manufacturers take in a small portion of sales of software for rights to develop games on their system. Also the distribution chain will claim a portion of the revenue. I can almost guarantee you that EPIC didn't receive any where near all $300 million of that revenue.

All that is ignoring the fact, that EPIC is a big studio with large costs. It's developing an next-gen engine that won't recoup costs till much later. In the process it's (i'm assuming that no one is funding this engine directly) taking the burden of the costs on itself for the moment. Its also developing other games simultaneously, its waiting for the expenditures on bulletstorm to recoup all costs (if it hasn't already) and so on. Accounting, you'll find, isn't that simple
Also relevant: cash flow problems can sometimes cause a profitable company to sink, but thats really besides the point.

I assume there aren't many things that are actually guaranteed to make a sizable profit in the free market so I am not sure why you are mentioning that.

I'm using EPIC as a case study to demonstrate the variables at play for ur typical game developer that makes pushing a game to the store shelves a true challenge. The fact that epic is one of the few stand alone developers to have such a successful franchise, makes cases not involving Geow that much more significant (their yearly operations will be much closer to the break-even point. Thus envisioning them(not epic) going under is much more foreseeable. furthermore, it makes it more justifiable for a company to charge for frivolous DLC)

Management determines the level of risk a company is exposed to anyway.

Also, you normally as a company wouldn't fund "other costly ventures" unless you thought that the ventures would pay a profit at some future point and time.

Yes, they believe it would succeed. That doesn't change the fact that literally 99% of firms undertake projects that don't succeed. The nature of business is to have a staple product that keeps the business currently afloat and that also simultaneously covers more risky ventures done to secure a future in the changing volatile consumer markets. (look at nintendo) The risk portfolio of course differs by field and by company.

Simply put, one of the price of business is inescapable risk.

Unreal Engine improvements are part of the tens of millions investment and gamers aren't asking for royalties from the incensing of that engine. So they aren't asking for everything that comes "from" that investment.

As PXG wisely stated earlier, peoples's decisions affect those that don't have any wish to partake in it. Unreal Engine improvements from earlier in the generation are largely what allowed EPIC to produce such a stunning series as Geow. Without it, geow would be a shadow of itself graphically and fanbase wise, since its graphics played a part in its hype. Also without the Unreal Engine and its improvements and the profits taken in, perhaps EPIC may never had the financial leeway to have startups such as bulletstorm or Shadow complex and so on. They may not directly want it, but they definitely indirectly want the benefits that cropped up from it. As well, they in the future will want the benefits from the improvements going on now.

 

[Diablos1125]

Oblivion Horse Armor - $2.50

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary Edition: $40.00

Forty Double Cheese Burgers from McDonalds: $40.00

Gears of War 3 Weapon Skins Total- $45.00

 

[Nealand Liquor]

Crapcom charges $3 for colors: MAKE NEW THREAD CAPCOM ARE SCUM
Epic charges $45 for skins: no new thread plz

lol it is funny how often epic (and valve) get a free pass around these parts. Hell I seem to remember EA getting crucified for allowing people to unlock attributes (NHL, PGA) right away if they pay, even though they could still unlock it via playing.

 

[Dirtbag]

Who really gives a shit about weapon skins? Holding back maps I understand the bitching.
But this doesn't affect gameplay or split a community... boo fucking hoo.
I wish I could turn them off entirely, so I wouldn't have to look at some idiot running around with a rainbow chainsaw breaking up the art direction.
No one is forcing you to buy this garbage. Focus on bitching at over priced "collector" editions.
I don't know why any of you are suckered into buying helmets and cheaply produced toy molds and crap tiny sized art books.

I'm sure people will discover game-crushing glitches within a couple months again like every other gears game and ruin the experience for everyone else anyway.

 

[Vire]

By the way guys:

Free weapon skin available now on the marketplace for download.

Haze Animated Weapon Skin

Not sure if it's a mistake or not.

 

[mbmonk]

Epic the maker of Gears 3 do not fall under that umbrella. From a theoretic perspective, if Epic goes under, so does any future gears sequels, unless if Epic were to sell full rights to microsoft. But that's from a purely theoretic perspective, this perspective is useful for setting a model used for comparison with other companies. That's why I mentioned these details specifically, not to claim epic is seriously currently at risk. But I really don't know the true nature of EPICs and microsoft's relation, so I can only speculate in a reasoned fashion.

Instead of repeating myself over and over if I didn't address a specific part of you post it is because I think it falls into this catagory: I think part of the miscommunication is you are posting a general argument for DLC pricing in a Gears 3 thread. I assumed you were making an argument that was more specific to Epic and Gears 3.

don't take that lazily worded sentence so literally

In my mind it seemed those words might have been chosen more for their rhetorical value than anything else.

In this scenario assuming doesn't benefit you. We have no idea how much of the $60 per copy went back to EPIC. Publishers usually operate in a way that they will pay the wages and fund the costs of development in exchange for rights to the IP being developed and for a larger chunk of the sales revenues. Microsoft's relationship with EPIC is different from the norm in many ways (I think EPIC owns the IP gears of war). Lets also not forget that, the console manufacturers take in a small portion of sales of software for rights to develop games on their system. Also the distribution chain will claim a portion of the revenue. I can almost guarantee you that EPIC didn't receive any where near all $300 million of that revenue.

I think we can get a ballpark number of how much of the guess-stimated $300 million goes to Epic if we had a bit more information. According to OnLives chart named "Anatomy of a $60 game" the publisher gets 45% of the revenue.

So MS receives an estimated $135 million of that total sales revenue. So now if we could just find a rough guess on what Epic's cut is, we could get a ballpark figure. Does anyone know what the typical percentage cut is in a non-exlusive dev+publisher deal?

We can ignore the platform licensing issue because they and the publisher are one in the same.

All that is ignoring the fact, that EPIC is a big studio with large costs. It's developing an next-gen engine that won't recoup costs till much later. In the process it's (i'm assuming that no one is funding this engine directly) taking the burden of the costs on itself for the moment. Its also developing other games simultaneously, its waiting for the expenditures on bulletstorm to recoup all costs (if it hasn't already) and so on. Accounting, you'll find, isn't that simple
Also relevant: cash flow problems can sometimes cause a profitable company to sink, but thats really besides the point.

It is true that Epic is a large company, but that large company also has multiple revenue streams from multiple products. Smaller companies don't have as large of teams to support and therefore don't have separate streams of revenue to help them in between releases. But I assume that is one of the reasons that Devs enter into agreements with Publishers.

Yes, they believe it would succeed. That doesn't change the fact that literally 99% of firms undertake projects that don't succeed. The nature of business is to have a staple product that keeps the business currently afloat and that also simultaneously covers more risky ventures done to secure a future in the changing volatile consumer markets. (look at nintendo) The risk portfolio of course differs by field and by company.

The very fact that the vast majority of of these side ventures fails means a responsible company would not put itself in a position where if that project failed it would require the business to close.

Again though, I thought we were talking about the risk of bringing Gears 3 to market.

Simply put, one of the price of business is inescapable risk.

You don't have to play the "AAA" ballgame if you don't want to. There are plenty of alternative platforms for developing games. Hand-helds, mobile, browser based, Free to play, XBL/PSN, PC, etc. It's only an inescapable cost of business if you decided to play in that specific area.

As PXG wisely stated earlier, peoples's decisions affect those that don't have any wish to partake in it. Unreal Engine improvements from earlier in the generation are largely what allowed EPIC to produce such a stunning series as Geow. Without it, geow would be a shadow of itself graphically and fanbase wise, since its graphics played a part in its hype. Also without the Unreal Engine and its improvements and the profits taken in, perhaps EPIC may never had the financial leeway to have startups such as bulletstorm or Shadow complex and so on. They may not directly want it, but they definitely indirectly want the benefits that cropped up from it. As well, they in the future will want the benefits from the improvements going on now.

But isn't that slightly twisting the argument. You said some gamers felt entitled to all things that came from the Gear 3 investment. Which isn't the case. I haven't seen gamers say they were entitled to a discount on a separate Epic product, like Bulletstorm, because they purchased Gears 3 and that money helped fund Bulletstorm. Claiming gamers feel entitled to something and saying they get benefits are two separate claims.

Regardless thanks for the thoughtful reply.

 

[Xamdou]

So $45 for the "Launch Collection" weapon skins, so there will be another collection soon after (Maybe November) with all new skins you can buy!

 

[Fredrik]

You all know what to do.

Vote with your wallet.

My 360 got RROD this spring so my vote has already been made by Microsoft for me. Thanks MS.

 

[10dollas]

In the name of not spending my whole morning at the computer, I'm going to cherry-pick. But thanks for being a cool-headed and reasonable forum-goer .

Instead of repeating myself over and over if I didn't address a specific part of you post it is because I think it falls into this catagory: I think part of the miscommunication is you are posting a general argument for DLC pricing in a Gears 3 thread. I assumed you were making an argument that was more specific to Epic and Gears 3.

yes you pegged me correctly. But I am being schizophrenic with ordering my argument. To suit my needs I have switched on a dime from general to specific and back, of course at the cost of clarity to potential readers.

The very fact that the vast majority of of these side ventures fails means a responsible company would not put itself in a position where if that project failed it would require the business to close.

Again though, I thought we were talking about the risk of bringing Gears 3 to market.


You don't have to play the "AAA" ballgame if you don't want to. There are plenty of alternative platforms for developing games. Hand-helds, mobile, browser based, Free to play, XBL/PSN, PC, etc. It's only an inescapable cost of business if you decided to play in that specific area.

There is risk no matter what league you play in. Risk is relative, but always there in different forms.

But isn't that slightly twisting the argument. You said some gamers felt entitled to all things that came from the Gear 3 investment. Which isn't the case. I haven't seen gamers say they were entitled to a discount on a separate Epic product, like Bulletstorm, because they purchased Gears 3 and that money helped fund Bulletstorm. Claiming gamers feel entitled to something and saying they get benefits are two separate claims.

Regardless thanks for the thoughtful reply.

To clear this up: The problem with segregating posts into quotable easy-to-respond-to pieces, is that a disconnect can arise from the main argument. In this case there clearly is a disconnect. The fact that you feel that these are two separate disparate claims is no coincidence. In fact I was making these two opposing claims and used them in two totally different situations.



And holy shit at $7 dollars as returns to the developer... That is surprisingly lower than I expected. Good find on that chart

 

[-PXG-]

So $45 for the "Launch Collection" weapon skins, so there will be another collection soon after (Maybe November) with all new skins you can buy!

Why are you saying this? You're just going to convince yourself it's true and ask me about it later.

This is how misinformation starts. People just assume stuff without anything concrete.

Spoiler

You're probably right, but your speculation is based merely on what you think may happen, just because it could.

 

[Sinthetic]

I like a couple of the skins, would've been nice to unlock them through skill and completing certain challenges instead of paying crazy amounts to get them.