411 Games Fact or Fiction 07.12.11: Resistance 3, Team Bondi, Vidrhythm and More
Posted by Adam Larck on 07.12.2011
Will we see a sequel to L.A. Noire from Team Bondi? Will Vidrhythm have something to do with Kinect? Will a video game based solely around Burnout's Crash will be successful? 411’s Armando Rodriguez and Dan Watson debate these topics and more in this week’s 411 Fact or Fiction: Games!
Welcome back to another week of 411 Games Fact or Fiction. I'm Adam Larck, and I went back to a Lego game. Lego Indy 2, to be exact. Bought it months ago, and want to 100 percent that while I have time. Other than that, I've been playing Dungeon Siege 3 with Dan Watson. Hit us up at Vengeful Rain if you want to play, still need two more for a full team.
This week, we have Dan Watson and Armando Rodriguez going head-to-head. Let's see how these two do. Time for banner!
1.) It sounds right that the games industry is set to make $74 billion this year.
Armando Rodriguez - Fact: With two new portables (The 3DS and apparently the Vita) and plenty of awesome games, yes, it sounds about right. Modern Warfare 3, Battlefield 3, Batman: Arkham City, L.A. Noire, Bioshock Infinite, Uncharted 3, Mortal Kombat, Duke Nukem (kidding!)....these games will sell millions of copies. Combine that with the two new portables, strong console sales and the Wii's last hurrah (Skyward Sword will sell a truckload!) and we have a pretty strong case for one of the best years in recent memory.
Dan Watson - Fact: I figure Call of Duty sells a million copies on Xbox 360. A million copies times the sixty dollars comes to sixty million dollars. That is one game on one console. Take that and look at all the major titles out there. Then look at all the money that other parts of the industry make. Controllers, conferences, all the little extra things in the world that are part of the video game world. I almost put fiction thinking that the industry may be making more than that a year but either way, I am going to assume that number is pretty close to accurate.
Score: 1 for 1 - I think it will make at least this much, if not more. The second half of the year is shaping up huge for the industry.
2.) Sony shouldn't use a one-time code with Resistance 3.
Armando Rodriguez - Fiction: Why not? Everyone else is doing it. I actually agree with this. When you buy something used, for example, a house or a car, you don't get all the extras the ones that buy something new do. Why would this apply to video games? Fact is, used sales, as good as they are for the consumer, are bad for the developer. A simple mathematical exercise. Let's say Game X sells 1 million copies at retail. Of those 1 million, 50% trade their games in. Of the 500,000 used copies, 50% get traded in a second time. Of those 250,000, 50% get traded in a THIRD time. Of those 125,000, 50% get traded in a FOURTH time. In total, the game has sold 2 million copies, but only 1 million went to the developer. Let's say that Game X is, for lack of a better example, a Call of Duty game and that the developer's target sales in order to finance a sequel were 2 million copies. Since they technically sold 1 million copies, they refuse to make a sequel because the last game wasn't profitable. Sure, it was played by 2 million people, but the developer/publisher only got 50% of that income. This is an extreme example, because something like Call of Duty is unlikely to be seriously affected by this. But take a lesser known game, one of those darlings like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts, etc. Selling "target number" is essential for those games to get sequels and if "target number" is not achieved, the publishers consider it a failure. Online Passes and other "New Buyers Only" goodies are ways for the developer to get something out of those used copy sales. They are an incentive for you to buy new, the same way car dealers use such things as warranties, a full gas tank, OnStar etc. to get you to buy a new car. So I don't think Sony (or any company) should be made out to be the bad guy because of this. Plus, it has it's benefits. Games that need online passes are usually sold cheaper used than those that don't because of the consumer's need to buy a pass after purchase. They also come with free trials for several days so that you can try the online mode and only buy the pass if you like it enough.
Dan Watson - Fact: I HATE ONE-TIME CODES. This is the worst idea that anyone has come up with. This relates directly to the above question in the sense that Sony is looking to make more money and get to that hundred billion dollar industry. I for one hope that if they do this, they fail miserably and learn from their mistake. We need to stop these onetime code deals because it kills the whole idea of used games. Let's say a game comes out that I am on the fence. I will probably wait until it is used and pick it up. Now, if I start losing out on content because of one time use codes, I will not be picking that game up.
Score: 1 for 2 - I don't mind the codes if they add something extra, like Dragon Age or Mass Effect 2, but don't take out key features like multiplayer just for the sake of it.
3.) We won't see a sequel of L.A. Noire from Team Bondi.
Armando Rodriguez - Fact: I do hope Rockstar and Bondi fix their stuff, but it seems the relationship is way too strained. The same thing happened after Red Dead Redemption, so it seems Rockstar really has issues. In the end, Rockstar retains the rights to the franchise and they will find another studio that wants to make a few million bucks and overwork them for a sequel. But I don't think Team Bondi will be back for the next entry in the franchise.
Dan Watson - Fact: After doing a bit more research on it, it does seem that this team is not going to be working together anymore. Look for Rockstar to just find another group to work with, probably someone under the Take-Two umbrella or even the Rockstar umbrella. No matter who is working on this game, we will see a L.A. Noire 2 in some fashion and maybe even a game that is competitive by Team Bondi and another company (EA possibly?).
Score: 2 for 3 - I think Bondi is done with the series already, and it will just end up in the hands of another Rockstar company.
4.) Harmonix's new Vidrhythm game will have something to do with Kinect.
Dan Watson - Fact: I think it is about time for another rhythm based game to be put out on Kinect and Harmonix has been pretty amazing with the whole genre of rhythm. I am looking for a final product before I pass my vote on whether the game is successful or not, however, if any company was going to put out a good game, Harmonix would be it.
Armando Rodriguez - Fact: It sounds like a combination of "Video" and "Rhythm". It will not be a dance game (they already have Dance Central). Then what? I have no clue, but I think it will use Kinect simply because Dance Central is probably the best Kinect game thus far and the one that better uses the device. Harmonix knows how to get the most out of Microsoft's new toy and they will continue to support it.
Score: 3 for 4 - Given the name, maybe this title will combine the video of Kinect and instrument playing. Bring out the air guitars!
5.) A game based solely around Burnout's Crash mode will be successful.
Dan Watson - Fiction: What made this so great in Burnout was that it was part of a bigger game. If you take out the other parts of the game, this part gets very redundant. I would much rather they keep the current Burnout formula. I stick to the mantra of if it isn't broken why fix it. I could play Burnout for hours as long as the game adds variety as I go through it and continues to progress in a manner that hides the redundancy of racing and crashing.
Armando Rodriguez - Fiction: I love Burnout. I do. The Crash Mode is great. But to me, it is a great EXTRA. Racing (extremely fast) and crashing (in spectacular fashion) are two key components that make a great game. Taking the chore (racing) out of the game will make it repetitive. Sure, chances are Burnout Crash is a $10 downloadable title. But I don't think it will offer the depth and replay value to warrant a serious look at it.
Score: 4 for 5 - If it had some extra features, this would be alright, but a game only around this mode probably won't work out as well as planned.
6.) Sony will release the PS4 next year.
Dan Watson - Fiction: I think Sony will announce PS4 next year in June at E3, however, I don't think the console will release next year. 2013, is the year that each Microsoft and Sony release their consoles for the next generation. It is a bit closer than originally thought (most had said 2014 was the year of the next generation) but I think Nintendo dropped out a bit earlier forcing the other companies to do the same.
Armando Rodriguez - Fiction: I believe we will see the PS4 around holiday 2013 at the earliest. I believe Sony when they say that they are looking for a very long console cycle. Plus, the Wii U is a stop-gap system. It is basically a PS3/360 with a new gimmick. It won't push the boundaries of graphics, sound or core processing power. In a way, Nintendo is basically arriving on THIS generation 5-6 years too late. So why the rush? I believe that the PS3 and 360 are just hitting their stride in terms of awesome games and developers finally figuring out how to get the most out of the system. There is no need to worry....for now. I guess that if the Wii U comes out and does spectacular numbers, then the pressure mounts and it might be time to take action. But they need to wait and see first.
Score: 5 for 6 - Unless Sony announces this later this year at a gameshow or private press event, don't look for the PS4 until at least 2013-14.
Bonus Question) Companies have learned a less about the save restrictions Capcom tried in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries.
Dan Watson - Fact: Whenever one game gets so much publicity for something so negative, everyone listens and learns. There was a mistake that was made and things need to be fixed in order for the overall console to work. I think that everyone will have learned from this and make sure that the save feature isn't such an issue.
Armando Rodriguez - Fact: The thing is....what will they do with this knowledge? Will they refuse to use the save system of The Mercenaries to avoid and outcry from gamers? Or will they see that "Gamestop" had issues with this and, in order to guarantee better sales of new copies, they will adopt the same save system even if the consumers riot? I mean, if EVERY company does it, what option to we have? I answered Fact because they learned.....what they do with that knowledge is what truly worries me.
Adam Larck - Fiction: I want to say they've learned a lesson, but I honestly think they haven't. Companies want to keep trying to combat used games, and this is a great method to quell those sells. I see no companies doing the restrictions for quite a while, maybe even a year or two, but then another company will subtly try this again, to the same kind of outcry.
The pair finish this week going 5-for-6. What do you think? Agree or disagree with their answers? Let us know. See you in seven!
" Plus, the Wii U is a stop-gap system. It is basically a PS3/360 with a new gimmick. It won't push the boundaries of graphics, sound or core processing power."
aww, people still think that's relevent to sales or being NEXT GEN HARDCORE BITCHES! That's so adorable.
Posted By: Detective Big Lantern Ghost (Guest) on July 11, 2011 at 11:46 PM
aww, people still think that's relevent to sales or being NEXT GEN HARDCORE BITCHES! That's so adorable.
Posted By: Detective Big Lantern Ghost (Guest) on July 11, 2011 at 11:46 PM
aww, people still trying to defend nintendo and their ass backwards systems that rely on useless gimmicks. THAT'S EVEN MORE ADORABLE!
Posted By: Woot Woot (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 12:24 AM
Detective you're being obtuse. The Wii U met an incredibly negative reaction because Nintendo is doing the same shit that is killing them now. Right now they are selling PS2 games in 2011, they will be selling PS3 games in 2016. It is just crazy and makes no sense.
Posted By: Jared B. (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 12:33 AM
aww, people still trying to defend nintendo and their ass backwards systems that rely on useless gimmicks. THAT'S EVEN MORE ADORABLE!
Posted By: Woot Woot (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 12:24 AM
awwww people who fail to realize that Nintendo sold the most units since the seventh gen consoles were released, and Sony and Microsoft felt it necessary to jump on the motion control bandwagon... Move is an abomination, Kinect has potential, but Nintendo will move into the next gen with a leg up and better developed technology...
This, coming from a 360 owner.
Posted By: The Phenom (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 01:37 AM
Your argument against used games makes no sense because how can the developer expect the profits from more copies than physically pressed? In that case its the publishers job to make sure there is enough stock.
If the retailers are forced to sell used copies to remain profitable, isn't there also an argument that the retailers are also being short changed in profits? Or is it ok because they are the evil retailers?
Posted By: Dynomite (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 01:52 AM
aww, people still trying to defend nintendo and their ass backwards systems that rely on useless gimmicks. THAT'S EVEN MORE ADORABLE!
Posted By: Woot Woot (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 12:24 AM
awwww people who fail to realize that Nintendo sold the most units since the seventh gen consoles were released, and Sony and Microsoft felt it necessary to jump on the motion control bandwagon... Move is an abomination, Kinect has potential, but Nintendo will move into the next gen with a leg up and better developed technology...
This, coming from a 360 owner.
Posted By: The Phenom (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 01:37 AM
They sold the most because it was the cheapest of the systems plus it's more geared towards kids.
There won't be a new xbox for at least 5 more years
Posted By: Iceberg (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 02:15 AM
aww, people still trying to defend nintendo and their ass backwards systems that rely on useless gimmicks. THAT'S EVEN MORE ADORABLE!
Posted By: Woot Woot (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 12:24 AM
awwww people who fail to realize that Nintendo sold the most units since the seventh gen consoles were released, and Sony and Microsoft felt it necessary to jump on the motion control bandwagon... Move is an abomination, Kinect has potential, but Nintendo will move into the next gen with a leg up and better developed technology...
This, coming from a 360 owner.
Posted By: The Phenom (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 01:37 AM
The reason the Wii outsold the other 2 systems was price and marketing to children. And the only reason it was so cheap was because it was such a sub-par system. As for your motion control comment, its funny how the best games for the Wii don't really use the motion controls, huh? It's was just made for all that shitty shovelware.
Oh and by the way. Is saying that you're a 360 owner supposed to mean something special? Like you've won the argument because of that? If that's the case then let me tell you that I currently own every system Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft, and Sony have released in the US. But that's clearly irrelevant to the point I was making. GOOD DAY SIR.
Posted By: Woot Woot (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 02:22 AM
1) The retailers can survive without an used games market. They did it in the 8-bit, 16-bit and parts of the 32-bit era.
2) Wii was geared towards kids and non-gamers. How many households have a Wii, even when they only have Wii Sports? In the end, this hurt developers, since their games didnt sell on the console. The Wii U is NOT next gen. It has similar specs to the current consoles, the same way the Wii was an enhanced Gamecube. I am NOT saying it will fail to sell well, I am just saying it is not next gen.
3) The sales of used games have nothing to do with the developer's failing to press enough copies. Used games are sold in large quantities because they are cheaper.
4) Now I have a question for all of you. If the $10 price for the Code is dropped from the retail price of the used game, would you complain? Gamestop has been doing this already, so in essence they are selling you the used game cheaper than they would simply because you need to buy a code to play online.
5) Even if Gamestop doesnt sell you the used game $10 cheaper, in what mathematical or economical equation the DEVELOPER/PUBLISHER benefit from the sale of the used game? Gamestop makes somewhere between 10%-75% profit (depending on the game) and the developer/publisher sees nothing. People argue that the developer made money for one copy already....but Gamestop has a chance of making $$$ an infinite number of times from that same copy, assuming it gets traded in more than once. In what world is that fair for the publisher? The publisher/developer make the games, if they don't meet their target sales, they can either, lose money or simply refuse to make a sequel to that game. That is NOT beneficial to gamers at all. I am NOT against the sale of used games, but I think the developer getting SOMETHING out of it (even if it's just $5-$10) is fair.
Posted By: Armando Rodriguez (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 09:56 AM
Your argument against used games makes no sense because how can the developer expect the profits from more copies than physically pressed? In that case its the publishers job to make sure there is enough stock.
If the retailers are forced to sell used copies to remain profitable, isn't there also an argument that the retailers are also being short changed in profits? Or is it ok because they are the evil retailers?
Posted By: Dynomite (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 01:52 AM
I dont think you understand his argument. Retailers are not selling used games and buying back trade-ins because of a lack of supply. They are buying them back and re-selling them because that way they earn much more profit.
If they buy back a previusly played game for say 10 bucks (which usually is high), and then re-sell it for 40-50 bucks, thats a profit hundreds of times more than they earn from a brand new game. They encourage people to trade in games, offering discounts off nee games and such. In his scenario, albeit extreme, the retailer sold 1 million copies new, and made marginal profits, then sold another million copies used, and made the vast majority of that in pure profit, while the developer earned none from that second million.
Also, in another note, I hope LA Noire does in fact get a sequel. I just finished it, with all achievements, and thoroughly enjoyed it. If Rockstar has to give it to another developer so be it, the unique locale and style set it apart from the usual Rockstar games. GTA and Red Dead were awesome, but this is a lateral move, not better than those games, just different. Its a nice change of pace from the "kill everything that moves" sandbox games that usually get made.
Posted By: Nathan (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 10:24 AM
"Oh and by the way. Is saying that you're a 360 owner supposed to mean something special? Like you've won the argument because of that? If that's the case then let me tell you that I currently own every system Nintendo, Sega, Microsoft, and Sony have released in the US. But that's clearly irrelevant to the point I was making. GOOD DAY SIR.
Posted By: Woot Woot (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 02:22 AM"
I have a Nintendo 64. I win.
Posted By: Todd Vote (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Damn the phenom just got served
Posted By: Guest#2838 (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 11:19 AM
@ Armando "When you buy something used, for example, a house or a car, you don't get all the extras the ones that buy something new do." Well, you don't get the extended guarantee but the experience you get from the house or car is the same, just a bit older.
If you bought a house and then were told that you couldn't use the back garden as the previous owners already used it that'd be the same.
Posted By: Rasher (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 11:54 AM
"Your argument against used games makes no sense because how can the developer expect the profits from more copies than physically pressed?"
They don't, but they expect revenue from people who buy their game. When 10 people want to buy the game and GameStop sells a copy to the first 5, then uses the pressure sell to get the next 5 to buy those copies used...
"If the retailers are forced to sell used copies to remain profitable, isn't there also an argument that the retailers are also being short changed in profits?"
They don't need that to remain profitable, they want that to be obscenely profitable. There's a huge difference.
Posted By: Rod Oracheski (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 02:23 PM
As a consumer, I'm looking for the most bang for my buck. Why pay $50-$60 game if you don't mind buying used for much cheaper? The economic relationship of the Used Retailer and the Video Game Companies is irrelevant to me. That is their problem to deal with.
Posted By: Guest (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 02:53 PM
5) Even if Gamestop doesnt sell you the used game $10 cheaper, in what mathematical or economical equation the DEVELOPER/PUBLISHER benefit from the sale of the used game? Gamestop makes somewhere between 10%-75% profit (depending on the game) and the developer/publisher sees nothing. People argue that the developer made money for one copy already....but Gamestop has a chance of making $$$ an infinite number of times from that same copy, assuming it gets traded in more than once. In what world is that fair for the publisher? The publisher/developer make the games, if they don't meet their target sales, they can either, lose money or simply refuse to make a sequel to that game. That is NOT beneficial to gamers at all. I am NOT against the sale of used games, but I think the developer getting SOMETHING out of it (even if it's just $5-$10) is fair.
Posted By: Armando Rodriguez (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 09:56 AM
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------
So when you buy a used car, how much does the manufacturer make on it?
When you buy a used house, how much do the original builders make?
Your house example is completely idiotic since a 'used' home owner is entitled to the same exact amenities as the original owner did. Not to mention, there's generally a good chance that they'll make MORE money from it's sale then the original builders.
Under your logic, we'd have to constantly buy new... or, if we were to buy used, we'd have to pay the original creators.... again, I wonder what that'd do to the thousands of used car dealerships in the world or the housing market in general.
As mentioned, it'd be like buying a house and being told that you can't use the back garden because the previous owners already had... or buying a used car and being told that it'll run great, but it can't leave the city.
Lastly, your logic is off in thinking that so many people are playing the same game. They're not. At any given time, only 1 person is the owner and playing it.
Whether it's sold among a hundred people or if the original purchaser keeps it, there's still just 1 copy of the game and only 1 person using it online at any given time.
The codes make it so you can't sell what you've purchased....unlike your car warranty example - which often remain intact and transfer until they were originally set to expire.
Posted By: Guest#2897 (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 04:15 PM
1) The retailers can survive without an used games market. They did it in the 8-bit, 16-bit and parts of the 32-bit era.
Posted By: Armando Rodriguez (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 09:56 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny, since I have been buying used games since the 2600 days. Sure, it may not have been as big of a market back then, but it has always been there.
The only time when I haven't bought used is the rare 'must have on launch day title' or back in the late 80's when places were much more forgiving with their return policy.
...but, just like everything else in the world, if there's a market for selling something new, chances are, there's an equal market for selling it used.
Posted By: Guest#9506 (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 04:37 PM
Funny, when I buy a used DVD, all the special features on the disc still play, just like a new copy.
When I buy a used car, I can do the same things with it that the person who bought the car before me did. Hell, you can fix an old house to have features it DIDN'T have when it was new. Your examples make no sense.
Posted By: Guest#1079 (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 04:39 PM
I have no idea what this 'save restrictions' stuff is they are talking about. I never play Capcom games.
What's this all about?
Posted By: wemedge (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 05:43 PM
I am not against used sales. I use this feature a lot. But the thing is this: Sometimes we, the gamers, complain about Y or X game (a good example would be Beyond Good & Evil) never got a sequel. Well, the used games market has something to do with that.
In the end, the games that get sequels are those that make money, even if the games are crappy. Dynasty Warriors is a good example. Compared to a Beyond Good & Evil, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, etc. that series sucks. But it sells! So a gazillion sequels get made.
By "it sells" I mean, the developer/publisher makes enough of a profit to justify the sequel. Since they make NO MONEY from the used copies, they don't count those. After all, if your best friend was making money, would you count it as YOUR money? I wish! ;)
Posted By: Armando Rodriguez (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 07:42 PM
I think used sales do a lot of good for the gaming industry. Die hards will always buy the game right out of the gate, as with LA Noire. But many people buy used to try something new.
When I first got my console I bought Mass Effect used and loved it. As such, I bought ME2 new and will do the same for ME3. I bought Saint's Row 2 used and will buy SR3 new. I think what EA and Rockstar are doing as far as the Cerberus Net and the Rockstar pass is a way to offset used game sales while allowing those of us who buy used to still take advantage of the game and buy into it's bonus features.
Posted By: wemedge (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 09:41 PM
So nobody ever bought a used copy of Dynasty Warriors? I've certainly seen them for sale...
Posted By: Guest#6705 (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 10:47 PM
Aside from that, what the hell does Beyond Good and Evil have to do with this argument. It didn't even HAVE multiplayer. In fact, that was a game the developers got to make money off TWICE, because Xbox 360 can't play the original Xbox version, so all the loyal customers who bought it back then get the great deal of having to buy the same game twice if they still want to play it.
Posted By: Guest#3754 (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 10:49 PM
I am not against used sales. I use this feature a lot. But the thing is this: Sometimes we, the gamers, complain about Y or X game (a good example would be Beyond Good & Evil) never got a sequel. Well, the used games market has something to do with that.
Posted By: Armando Rodriguez (Guest) on July 12, 2011 at 07:42 PM
_____________________________________________
If a game is good enough, people will be lining up opening day to buy it's sequel.
You're also ignoring the flip side of the coin...
Many people buy used games if they're not sure if they'll like it or are just looking to try something new.
If the game is good, those same people will be lining up for a sequel on launch day.
With most games being online, they can easily track exactly what games are being played and by how many people.
If they sell X number of games and see that 90% are still being played regularly months later, they'll know that interest is there to build a sequel.
Posted By: Guest#0054 (Guest) on July 13, 2011 at 12:57 AM
Rockstar shows that slave labor and overwork will lead to great games!
Posted By: Guest#6817 (Guest) on July 14, 2011 at 05:31 PM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
