I can guarantee-damn-tee you that if EA publishes a game and it flops, then it'll end up just being a massive tax write-off for them. The Devs might lose their jobs over it, but it's not really going to affect a major publisher financially.Yossarian wrote:If you want publishers to take a punt on new IPs, they need to know that they can weather the loss should they flop.
g.man wrote:I can guarantee-damn-tee you that if EA publishes a game and it flops, then it'll end up just being a massive tax write-off for them. The Devs might lose their jobs over it, but it's not really going to affect a major publisher financially.Yossarian wrote:If you want publishers to take a punt on new IPs, they need to know that they can weather the loss should they flop.
Yossarian wrote:Because the revenue isn’t necessarily enough to cover losses from other parts of the business. It’s a high risk industry, videogames, with most new franchises failing to gain a following and sinking without trace, potentially taking tens of millions of dollars with it. If you want publishers to take a punt on new IPs, they need to know that they can weather the loss should they flop.monkey wrote:If high production costs drive revuenue by making the game more marketable, why do the costs need to be covered by in-game slot machines?
I don't buy them really. I'd like to but they've been mostly rotten for some time now. And yes I play mostly smaller indie stuff that is more creative, less time-consuming and less oriented towards bullshit. I still get to object to gambling being in kids toys.Yossarian wrote:There’s a thriving indie games industry which offers everything you’re asking for. If you don’t want the shiny triple As with microtransactions, don’t buy them, simple. Some people do want them, some people are happy to buy lootboxes for them, some companies are happy to create them for that market, you can be as sniffy and dismissive of them as you like, none of this will change.
There's your smoking gun right there.afgavinstan wrote:Re: tax-avoidance
Yossarian wrote:It’s broken until it isn’t. The hits can be huge, and some companies are sustaining themselves very nicely from these. It would also be fixable were consumers willing to pay more for their games.
Yossarian wrote:I could maybe get behind that if it weren’t for the fact that parental controls can be put on consoles which will prevent kids from ever actually gambling in their toys.
monkey wrote:You should watch gav's vid before you go further down this road Yoss.
Yossarian wrote:Absolutely they can, but you’d expect them to be replaced by new businesses when they fold, something which doesn’t particularly seem to be happening in this case.
So if you're unlucky enough to have a neglectful, irresponsible or tech-illiterate parent then multinational companies are allowed to try and get you addicted to gambling?Yossarian wrote:I could maybe get behind that if it weren’t for the fact that parental controls can be put on consoles which will prevent kids from ever actually gambling in their toys.
Speedhaak wrote:@Yoss, fair enough. Personally I'd much rather pay 80E for a game than have the games I like to play plagued with Cash Shops, Loot Boxes and Season Passes.
monkey wrote:So if you're unlucky enough to have a neglectful, irresponsible or tech-illiterate parent then multinational companies are allowed to try and get you addicted to gambling?Yossarian wrote:I could maybe get behind that if it weren’t for the fact that parental controls can be put on consoles which will prevent kids from ever actually gambling in their toys.
Yossarian wrote:Well yeah, this is my point really, games should cost far more but consumers would be up in arms if they did, so this is what happens instead.Speedhaak wrote:@Yoss, fair enough. Personally I'd much rather pay 80E for a game than have the games I like to play plagued with Cash Shops, Loot Boxes and Season Passes.
Hey, maybe some devs/publishers have gone out of business because a handful of mega frnachises now dominates the industry, and have even increased their share since filling their games with microtransactions and additional paid-for content.Not the sterling one. The activision one. Activision's production costs have been going down for years.I probably won’t, TBH. As I say, I’d happily read a transcript.You should watch gav's vid before you go further down this road Yoss.
You wouldn't expect this at all. These companies have spent decades building up their business and use their power to entrench their positions and prevent new entrants.Yossarian wrote:Absolutely they can, but you’d expect them to be replaced by new businesses when they fold, something which doesn’t particularly seem to be happening in this case.
There's damage to be done there even if the controls are on. The kids can still see what they're missing because the game will be constantly reminding them. Not gambling = missing out. Your scenario of the parent finding out isn't great either. The kid gambles for a month, the credit card statement comes through, the kid gets in trouble, the parent gets in debt, the multinational corporation makes a load of money. Your apologism for corporate money-grubbing is surprising.Yossarian wrote:This comes back to Coch’s argument before. If you have neglectful or irresponsible parents then there’s tonnes of stuff that kids can do which we don’t ban. This is probably fairly low on the risk scale as the parents will put a stop to it as soon as they get the credit card bill.So if you're unlucky enough to have a neglectful, irresponsible or tech-illiterate parent then multinational companies are allowed to try and get you addicted to gambling?I could maybe get behind that if it weren’t for the fact that parental controls can be put on consoles which will prevent kids from ever actually gambling in their toys.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!