@onesiphorus: It is a waste of taxpayer dollars because the 9th Circuit has established case-law indicating that they are extremely unlikely to overturn this ruling. They would have to find that the lower courts made an error, but the decision is based on the established interpretation of the law BY THE 9TH CIRCUIT. In order to find anything wrong with the decision, they would basically have to adopt a completely different interpretation of the law compared to previous cases that they have ruled on. The crux of the argument here regarding the appeal is the semantic application of "probably" vs "may" with regards to the standard of harm in this sort of Anti-Trust Case. Judge Corley used a "probably" standard of harm, which is what the 9th Circuit has historically used in these sorts of cases. The FTC is trying to argue that the correct interpretation is the "may" standard of harm, which has never been accepted by the 9th Circuit. Hence, this is a waste of time and money.

1-stop making games so linear and short. I put 200 hours into Skyrim but only 10-12 hours at most into every Gears game.

2-Games like The Witcher and Metro Last Light show huge budgets are not 100% needed.

3- If there is no profit why are you driving a lamborghini at 33 years old.CanYouDiglt

Regarding #2

Now I agree with the notion that maybe these guys need to consider dialing budgets back. How about they focus on the quality of the game itself and not the f*cking production value, but these same guys have also argued it's not that simple. I would actually like one of them to argue why it's not that simple, or maybe one of the many shitty game journalists to actually do some journalism and shine some light on this subject.

 jg4xchamp

It isn't that simple because if you aren't playing the game(rising production values) then you get absolutely crucified by gamers, the press, publishers, and generally everyone involved in the industry.  

Gamers demand higher and higher production values, otherwise they bitch and moan about how X game doesn't stack up to Y game in Z aspect.

The gaming press do the same thing that gamers do, because lets face it, the gaming press are just a bunch of glorified gamers with bigger megaphones than everyone else.

Publishers demand higher production values, because that is what gamers and the press are demanding, and because that is what their marketing departments are demanding...

I know it may seem silly, but marketing demands are probably the biggest influence on it.  Being able to say that they have X production value better than other games is a huge part of marketing.  Being able to point to even the smallest thing that you are doing better than your competitors is vital to most marketing campaigns.

Well then the obvious problem is between the Developer/Publisher relationship. If your publisher is rolling in dough, and you, the developer arent...then you made a real crappy contract. I know if I was an author and my publisher made mad money off of my book and I was broke, I would probably try to renegotiate that contract, rather than try to restrict what my fans can do with the book they paid for with their own money.II_Seraphim_II

Easier said than done.

Developers can't expect us to support them when they treat us like we are all criminals and shouldn't be allowed to control our own products that we paid full price for.

You've never truly had ownership of the product(you've never been able to dig through the source code and modify the games you've bought).  You've always just had ownership of the license to use the product.  They are simply changing the terms of that license.  I understand why you are upset about that, but PC Gamers have dealt with the same terms for years and been perfectly OK.

As for Box office sales, understand that a movie ticket is under $20. One game is $60. So us purchasing a game is the equivalent of us going to watch the same movie 3+ times. That's the price point they chose and so that's how it is. Everyone like everything new, but at $60 a game...hell no! If games were cheaper, perhaps more people would be willing to buy them new, but as they remain $60, used games are the only way that some people can keep up with their hobby

Movies = $20 for a one time view license.  

Games = $60 for an unlimited license.

Would you rather the gaming industry adopt a model similar to the film industry where they offer games for $20 for a single use license(Box Office) and then have a $40 license for unlimited use(Home Video).

But keep in mind, games (ever the shortest of which) are much longer than 1.5 - 2 hours.  Furthermore, the marketplace for gaming is such that playing such a game requires ownership of a secondary expensive product to facilitate play(a console).  So, perhaps to fix that we can string up a massive infrastructure of venues where the games can be played on the single use license(movie theater), and you can go visit those places to play your games.

Oh wait, this is all completely absurd.  Almost as absurd as trying to compare the film industry with the gaming industry.  They operate on two completely different business models and have vastly different market penetration.

I would rather the game giants like EA go bankrupt than to have them continue to rip-off consumers. That is how capitalism is supposed to work. I can not accept that a 18-billions of dollar per-year industry is suddenly incapable of supporting ownership. Movie budgets have never been bigger, yet I can still buy a DVD or Blu-ray, resell it, lend it to a friend, or keep it forever as part of my collection. I can do the same with a PS4 game. What makes Xbone different? Greed.waggs

The film industry makes its money from the Box Office.  DVD and Blu-ray sales are simply a secondary income source.

If the games industry had something as reliably profitable as Box Office receipts(not to mention impossible to replicate) with something as big as DVD/Blu-Ray for a secondary market, then it wouldn't even be close to being an issue.

However, gaming is in the rather precarious position of having a massive industry that finds even its biggest developers constantly on the verge of bankruptcy.  Publishers are the ones making money.  If costs keep ballooning like they have been, soon developers will find themselves out of a job if they have even one major flop.

When the big names fail some one else will take their place.  There's way to much money to be made in video games.

So stop caring about the idustry like it matters.  We should do what's best for the consumer and let the industry deal with it.

nutshell163

What you are proposing is a sort of market volatility where studios only last until their first failure and then dissolve, with the developers moving to form new studios which last until their first failure...  Basically, a risk laden industry with extremely high turnover rates and very low prospects for long term growth...  In business terms, a completely worthless industry.

What definition do you mean then?

Some people call a game AAA because of its budget.  So yes if the budget gets cut enough it would not technically be a 'AAA' title anymore.  I don't see how that makes it any worse of a game.

 

Budget != Good Games

Production Value != Games worth paying for.

 

If lowering the budget meant developers don't pump out the next 'Call of AssCreed 8' then all I have to say is GOOD.  Maybe if they want to make a profit they need to come up with some new ideas and different game play features to entice people to buy it from them. 

nutshell163

I'm saying AAA, as in on the bleeding edge of technology and graphics.  As in the latest, greatest, biggest and "best" that the industry can put forth.

Doesn't mean it is a good game, doesn't really mean anything, but it is the thing that is fueling the industry right now.  No AAA game market, no industry growth.  The industry relies on the AAA market to push innovation in tech and storytelling.  Not to say that the AAA games are even close to being the best at those things, but even indie developers are striving to eventually make it to the AAA level.  They are pushing forward and trying to match the cutting edge.

No AAA Blockbusters, then honestly... probably no games industry.  At least not in the same form it exists today.  Certain wouldn't be any need for sites like Gamespot or IGN to exist without the AAA game market.

Then the weaker games shall fall/ developers fall, Life goes on people get new jobs.fattycoles

The cycle is getting to the point where only a handful of developers can survive, and even those that survive will only survive as long as they don't make any mistakes.  We are talking about the industry getting stuck in a risk averse loop where no developers want to try anything new or innovative because a failure would literally mean the end of that studio.  It is a kind of collapse that could potentially cripple the industry for years.  The business model either needs to change or the industry will be living on borrowed time.

I'm not saying that killing used games is necessarily the answer, but as long as we stick with the day one $60 model, then used games aren't helping the industry in any way and kind of need to go.  

[QUOTE="KingsMessenger"]

I don't think people quite understand that the AAA game market dies when budgets stop ballooning.

nutshell163

You think there will be no more games that review higher than 9.0 if development budgets get lowered.

AHAHAHA

I'm not using the stupid System Wars definition of "AAA."

I thought that much was obvious.

You completely missed my point, which was Asscreed should have never have gotten as big as it is if it isn't self sustainable. Devs have to work with the market they are given instead to trying to bend the market to your will. Also I've played plenty of indie games that were just as much fun as Ass Creed. Bigger bugdet doesn't mean more fun. 

Jonwh18

Bigger budget doesn't mean more fun. I'm not arguing that.

Bigger budget does mean higher production values though.

And the AAA game market is about constantly escalating expectations.

The industry is not growing at the same rate that budgets are.  There is going to be a plateau, and it is going to come soon.   And this new generation of consoles that everyone kept pushing for, it is only going to exacerbate the impending crunch.