Where are you getting your copy from?

YES they are Dicks. In my case I bought the game new. I did not buy it on release day and I did not pay full price, but I bought it new none the less. My money went to support the game and the company. If the game is glitched they need to fix it. If the game has online achievements then they need to run servers. If there is very little activity they will hardly be pissing away the multi millions of dollars they made on the game to run ONE server. That is not entitlement, its called being fair. If they do not want to run servers after x amount of time, then don't make any online achievements. Lets see how well the game sells that way.

Quake 4 was a 360 launch title almost 10 years ago now and their servers are still up and running. Forza 2/Microsoft has no excuse. I get that you don't care about game completion (That is your gaming style), but I want to complete my games fully on my time table (whatever that is). Not at the discretion of the company so that they can squeeze the most money out of me with the same game (Plus a season pass that cost almost as much as the game) every year. It is the reason why I stopped playing EA sports games.

So yeah, they are Dicks and I can support better games that I can complete with my money.

Originally Posted by MarvzMitts

Except Forza 2 has a better completion percentage (98% still available) than Marvzmitts (87%). You are 10 years in, you have 87% completion. You will never be 90%. You will never be 95%. And you will certainly, never, ever, ever be >98%. So, your argument is flawed. You could play that game to its fullest at this point, get 980/1000, and IMPROVE your current percentage.

And, no, if you bought it new, far after the launch window, at a closeout price, you did not support the game company. You most likely supported only the store that you purchased it from. Stores do chargebacks on long idle merchandise, and then clear it out for enough to recoup the cost of clearing it out.

Except Forza 2 has a better completion percentage (98% still available) than Marvzmitts (87%). You are 10 years in, you have 87% completion. You will never be 90%. You will never be 95%. And you will certainly, never, ever, ever be >98%. So, your argument is flawed. You could play that game to its fullest at this point, get 980/1000, and IMPROVE your current percentage.

And, no, if you bought it new, far after the launch window, at a closeout price, you did not support the game company. You most likely supported only the store that you purchased it from. Stores do chargebacks on long idle merchandise, and then clear it out for enough to recoup the cost of clearing it out.

Originally Posted by futiles

Not flawed at all. Forza 2 is on my To Do List with the other 80 retail games that I have yet to complete. So I will get to it and that 980 GS. Getting to 90% will happen, getting to 95% will be harder (and is my own personal challenge). Getting to 98% while not impossible will be very harder considering the games I already have on my card that I am not able to complete. I'll contemplate 98% when I cross the 95% mark.

Whether I supported the the store or the company I could not tell you off hand, so it's a fair enough statement. If you can tell me when that window exactly closed then I can where I landed as I have the purchase date on a spreadsheet somewhere.

Not flawed at all. Forza 2 is on my To Do List with the other 80 retail games that I have yet to complete. So I will get to it and that 980 GS. Getting to 90% will happen, getting to 95% will be harder (and is my own personal challenge). Getting to 98% while not impossible will be very harder considering the games I already have on my card that I am not able to complete. I'll contemplate 98% when I cross the 95% mark.

Whether I supported the the store or the company I could not tell you off hand, so it's a fair enough statement. If you can tell me when that window exactly closed then I can where I landed as I have the purchase date on a spreadsheet somewhere.

Originally Posted by MarvzMitts

As soon as they sold it for less than they purchased it for. Changes with every item for sale. Which is why places like Best Buy lost no money on those HP tablets a few years back. They bought them for $400-$500, sold them for <$100 on closeout, and got money back from HP.

For entertainment, once 6 months has passed, it is done. So, CoD is out in what Nov each year? By April, they are done with that. Anyone buying after that point is not supporting the game, the developer or the publisher. That isn't to say someone is wrong for looking for a deal, but, don't use the "I supported them" argument, because it is wrong.

For entertainment, once 6 months has passed, it is done. So, CoD is out in what Nov each year? By April, they are done with that. Anyone buying after that point is not supporting the game, the developer or the publisher. That isn't to say someone is wrong for looking for a deal, but, don't use the "I supported them" argument, because it is wrong.

Originally Posted by futiles

By that statement then the majority of my purchases have not supported any of the games I own, but really that game has been developed and the disc was sold, there is some money changing hands. Every penny above the cost to make and market the game is a profit.

Angry Birds Star was has an unobtainable achievement.

Angry Birds Star was has an unobtainable achievement.

Originally Posted by Hotdogmcgee

Which achievement would that be? There is non listed on TA as unobtainable.

By that statement then the majority of my purchases have not supported any of the games I own, but really that game has been developed and the disc was sold, there is some money changing hands. Every penny above the cost to make and market the game is a profit.

Originally Posted by MarvzMitts

Then you have no idea the costs to make games. When you buy a game at the full $60, about quarter goes to the store. $15.

Then the platform gets it fee - $7
Physically packing, printing, and shipping - $4
Returns (built in money to cover discs that got returned by retailers, and publisher refunded them) - $7
Publisher (all remaining money) - $27

Let's look at that a bit. Microsoft gets it cut, front end. So, the moment that game is made, $7 is theirs. so, that is already down to $53.

Returns. Basically, not every game is going to sell 100% of every game made. So, a percentage of all games from a publisher will be returned to the publisher, with the publisher paying the retailer back (some portion). So, basically, the entire industry is established to expect a nearly 16% return rate. (Store buys for $45 wholesale, so $7 / $45 is 15.555%) You know, retailers have a lot lower risk when it comes to games, and this is why Best Buy can do things like 20% off for a fee, or $10 with pre-order. And the larger the retailer, the better deal they can negotiate.

Distribution, even in bulk, this still ends up being substantial. $4 is big.

So, publisher get $27 for each disc SOLD at full price. Anything less than $60, THIS is the first spot affected (excluding some form of quantity promotion or membership bonus). Publisher uses this revenue (not profit, revenue) to pay the development cost. The support cost. Server development and upkeep. Marketing. So, for a game company to maintain the industry, $27 is the amount you need to pay DIRECTLY to them to "support" them. Any time it is less than that, you have not supported them.

Now, if they made crappy game, if it isn't fun to play, whatever, that is part of what they have built in to the costs, and people buy less. And that's great.

Also, every game you have ever bought either has a ToS in it, or online in the game's manual. All of them have a line like "Not all features will be available at all times" or similar language.

The example of the online shooter that is purely deathmatch vs a living, active auction house. There is nothing to do to Quake. It is fix it, and forget it. They coded multiplayer, as supported by the core services of Xbox Live (Quake runs no servers on that). Auction house goes beyond the initial framework of Xbox Live, and requires a third party service, that service costs resources, those resources have a life span.

Now, I don't care what anyone pays for anything. You can only buy games for $20, with full knowledge you are buying it at a loss to everyone. I am not trying to convince people that digital distribution is better because it transfers $26 from retailer, distribution, and returns back to the publisher, and allows for Games with Gold, Deals with Gold, Steam Sales, etc. I am just saying, there is a difference between buying "new" and "buying new" at retail. And just because it has never been played by anyone does not mean the publisher made any money.

Then you have no idea the costs to make games. When you buy a game at the full $60, about quarter goes to the store. $15.

Then the platform gets it fee - $7
Physically packing, printing, and shipping - $4
Returns (built in money to cover discs that got returned by retailers, and publisher refunded them) - $7
Publisher (all remaining money) - $27

Let's look at that a bit. Microsoft gets it cut, front end. So, the moment that game is made, $7 is theirs. so, that is already down to $53.

Returns. Basically, not every game is going to sell 100% of every game made. So, a percentage of all games from a publisher will be returned to the publisher, with the publisher paying the retailer back (some portion). So, basically, the entire industry is established to expect a nearly 16% return rate. (Store buys for $45 wholesale, so $7 / $45 is 15.555%) You know, retailers have a lot lower risk when it comes to games, and this is why Best Buy can do things like 20% off for a fee, or $10 with pre-order. And the larger the retailer, the better deal they can negotiate.

Distribution, even in bulk, this still ends up being substantial. $4 is big.

So, publisher get $27 for each disc SOLD at full price. Anything less than $60, THIS is the first spot affected (excluding some form of quantity promotion or membership bonus). Publisher uses this revenue (not profit, revenue) to pay the development cost. The support cost. Server development and upkeep. Marketing. So, for a game company to maintain the industry, $27 is the amount you need to pay DIRECTLY to them to "support" them. Any time it is less than that, you have not supported them.

Now, if they made crappy game, if it isn't fun to play, whatever, that is part of what they have built in to the costs, and people buy less. And that's great.

Also, every game you have ever bought either has a ToS in it, or online in the game's manual. All of them have a line like "Not all features will be available at all times" or similar language.

The example of the online shooter that is purely deathmatch vs a living, active auction house. There is nothing to do to Quake. It is fix it, and forget it. They coded multiplayer, as supported by the core services of Xbox Live (Quake runs no servers on that). Auction house goes beyond the initial framework of Xbox Live, and requires a third party service, that service costs resources, those resources have a life span.

Now, I don't care what anyone pays for anything. You can only buy games for $20, with full knowledge you are buying it at a loss to everyone. I am not trying to convince people that digital distribution is better because it transfers $26 from retailer, distribution, and returns back to the publisher, and allows for Games with Gold, Deals with Gold, Steam Sales, etc. I am just saying, there is a difference between buying "new" and "buying new" at retail. And just because it has never been played by anyone does not mean the publisher made any money.

Originally Posted by futiles

Interesting numbers, I never cared to look into it, so no I probably don't know the actual/full cost. What is your source of the information?

I bought a lot of 360 games and my sweet spot was mostly $30. If your numbers are correct then the Microsoft # is $34 not $27 they own the platform and Forza. In all the time I have been going to Best Buy I have never seen the Disc supply just vanish because Discs were returned to a publisher/company. If anything they end up in the $19.99 bin and I would go to a a store at least once a week. Sometimes 2 or 3 times if something popped up. The only time games would just vanish was if there was a sale to move the game. So that number can be pushed up to $41.

$4 per disc, to make and distribute a game? Seems high to me. Is Microsoft going to disclose their exact numbers, probably not. Can't argue that # much.

I could care less about the ToS (I'm not going to waste time to read over 880 ToS for all my games). I don't know many people who do. The legal department is going to put something there to cover there asses, be it a shutdown of the server or an act of god that makes the service go down for a week. It is a large safety blanket. So again, they don't need to put online achievements in games. If people want to play multiplayer solely for the fun of playing online they will if your game is made well enough. If there are no online achievements will people still care about the game?

A Quake server will cost less to run then having a server for someone to create a file, adding an in game cost to purchase it from a list? Ridiculous, we are talking about Microsoft here, the Aping Kings. They can't figure out how to reverse engineer file sharing? They have 100,000 servers running, they can't run one server on their own for this?

The only thing that has changed from all this is that I will be buying less games because of shutdowns, overpriced season passes and DLC. I went from buying almost a 100 game a year to buying 5 in 2 years for the Xbox One (The amount of games on the 360 is not much higher since they are making less games for that system now). Just give me more games like Alan Wake with no DLC.

Interesting numbers, I never cared to look into it, so no I probably don't know the actual/full cost. What is your source of the information?

I bought a lot of 360 games and my sweet spot was mostly $30. If your numbers are correct then the Microsoft # is $34 not $27 they own the platform and Forza. In all the time I have been going to Best Buy I have never seen the Disc supply just vanish because Discs were returned to a publisher/company. If anything they end up in the $19.99 bin and I would go to a a store at least once a week. Sometimes 2 or 3 times if something popped up. The only time games would just vanish was if there was a sale to move the game. So that number can be pushed up to $41.

$4 per disc, to make and distribute a game? Seems high to me. Is Microsoft going to disclose their exact numbers, probably not. Can't argue that # much.

I could care less about the ToS (I'm not going to waste time to read over 880 ToS for all my games). I don't know many people who do. The legal department is going to put something there to cover there asses, be it a shutdown of the server or an act of god that makes the service go down for a week. It is a large safety blanket. So again, they don't need to put online achievements in games. If people want to play multiplayer solely for the fun of playing online they will if your game is made well enough. If there are no online achievements will people still care about the game?

A Quake server will cost less to run then having a server for someone to create a file, adding an in game cost to purchase it from a list? Ridiculous, we are talking about Microsoft here, the Aping Kings. They can't figure out how to reverse engineer file sharing? They have 100,000 servers running, they can't run one server on their own for this?

The only thing that has changed from all this is that I will be buying less games because of shutdowns, overpriced season passes and DLC. I went from buying almost a 100 game a year to buying 5 in 2 years for the Xbox One (The amount of games on the 360 is not much higher since they are making less games for that system now). Just give me more games like Alan Wake with no DLC.

Originally Posted by MarvzMitts

Kotaku, IGN, few other sites. When digital distribution started to become the obvious future, multiple sites did articles on it, all quoting the same numbers (although, many referred to the Publisher's $27 as their "Profit" it is really their "Revenue" and the profit is calculated after their costs.) They all appear to be using Alex Pham's LA Times article after a presentation from OnLive's Steve Perlman.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...ideo-game.html

No, not everything is directly returned, there is just the category. Games could fall under general chargebacks. Hey, take this back, oh, you'll give us $10 back to keep it? OK, we'll sell it for whatever we can get... But, that still falls into the "Returns" category. Yes, games directly from a platform appear to make more money, and they kind of do, but, ass any big corporation works, the different departments have different budgets, so, MGS actually pays Xbox $7 per disc. The parent company is the same, but the divisions are separate, and allows for the parent company to decide which divisions need to improve or shutter.

So yes, if $30 is your sweet spot, then no, you really are not supporting the developers, publishers, or platform. You are supporting the retailer. But that is fine, because you are one out of about 100 million, so, you are the outlier, not the norm, so, you won't be the reason the entire industry collapses. You are factored into the $7.

Kotaku, IGN, few other sites. When digital distribution started to become the obvious future, multiple sites did articles on it, all quoting the same numbers (although, many referred to the Publisher's $27 as their "Profit" it is really their "Revenue" and the profit is calculated after their costs.) They all appear to be using Alex Pham's LA Times article after a presentation from OnLive's Steve Perlman.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...ideo-game.html

No, not everything is directly returned, there is just the category. Games could fall under general chargebacks. Hey, take this back, oh, you'll give us $10 back to keep it? OK, we'll sell it for whatever we can get... But, that still falls into the "Returns" category. Yes, games directly from a platform appear to make more money, and they kind of do, but, ass any big corporation works, the different departments have different budgets, so, MGS actually pays Xbox $7 per disc. The parent company is the same, but the divisions are separate, and allows for the parent company to decide which divisions need to improve or shutter.

So yes, if $30 is your sweet spot, then no, you really are not supporting the developers, publishers, or platform. You are supporting the retailer. But that is fine, because you are one out of about 100 million, so, you are the outlier, not the norm, so, you won't be the reason the entire industry collapses. You are factored into the $7.

Originally Posted by futiles

That article is pretty old (2010) and OnLive has shut it's doors. Did they even have any real games? Looks like they would of dabble in arcade type games and they would be web / PC based verse consoles. I never heard of this company before.

That article is pretty old (2010) and OnLive has shut it's doors. Did they even have any real games? Looks like they would of dabble in arcade type games and they would be web / PC based verse consoles. I never heard of this company before.

Originally Posted by MarvzMitts

Old does not affect the dollar amounts. I had an OnLive micro Console. It worked. I played Metro2033 on it. As well as a few of the LEGO games and tried their bundle service for a bit. Was a bit ahead of its time, but, the stream worked better than I expected. I never would have bought a micro console, but, my brother-in-law got it at PAX Prime as a freebie, and sent it to me. Sony pretty much bought it solely for the streaming patents and tech, since it has not been able to get that working yet. I actually hoped MS would buy it. OnLive on Xbox Live seemed like a good fit.

Old does not affect the dollar amounts. I had an OnLive micro Console. It worked. I played Metro2033 on it. As well as a few of the LEGO games and tried their bundle service for a bit. Was a bit ahead of its time, but, the stream worked better than I expected. I never would have bought a micro console, but, my brother-in-law got it at PAX Prime as a freebie, and sent it to me. Sony pretty much bought it solely for the streaming patents and tech, since it has not been able to get that working yet. I actually hoped MS would buy it. OnLive on Xbox Live seemed like a good fit.

Originally Posted by futiles

You played for the sake of playing or did you gain any GS to your Xbox tag?

You played for the sake of playing or did you gain any GS to your Xbox tag?

Originally Posted by MarvzMitts

OnLIve was not related to Xbox nor Xbox Live. There was no gamerscore to add to. I played for the sake of playing.

GWG is the only way I'm getting this.

A more recent update to the breakdown of what a game costs today

A more recent update to the breakdown of what a game costs today

Originally Posted by LordChabelo13

Yeah, I had intentionally avoided anything not dealing in US dollars when I posted before, but, I think he breaks it down well. (And, the percentages actually aren't that far off from the last one.)