At 6/20/13 03:19 AM, Aci6 wrote:At 6/20/13 02:26 AM, kmau wrote: Is it weird that I'm somewhat dissapointed now? I would've loved to see the launch of this thing.I would have loved to see it to be honest. Literally amazing how fucking selfish gamers are. They want to play their fancy Assasin's Creed or Gears of War but can't shell the 60 bucks for the game. When the industry fails it'll be on them.
Normally I would agree, but developers more than make back their budgets. As an example, Final Fantasy XIII cost roughly 60m USD to make and market, but it sold roughly 10m units. At $60 per unit, and if the publishers kept $27/unit, it made back about four and a half times its budget. Red Steel cost roughly 12m USD and sold about 625 thousand copies meaning it caught up to 32m USD assuming $50/unit. The publisher (Ubisoft) would have kept roughly 17m. They spent 12m, and made 5m in profit.
If game development was truly such a risky business, then I would have no problem supporting the developers outside the normal means - only buying the game new and at full price as well as some DLC. As is, good games usually make their money back and then some, and games from popular franchises tend to make quite a bit back as well.
The direct-to-DVD/VHS market of the 80's, 90's, and even now is a fairly comparable market to gaming in terms of budgets and selling models. Relatively low merchandising, used sales, and the lower price of DVDs brings games closer to each other. Both are quite successful in their respective markets.
A content developer has full rights to decide if and how I can play their title; as a consumer, I have the right not to buy their product. If a content developer makes three times their budget then comes to my door asking for more money on DLC's including content cut from the original game or with a limitation on used games, I have no obligation to feel bad for them.