Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Germany 08/31
Chicago, IL USA, IL 10/19

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Chris

Real Name Chris   
Search for:
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request - Send Mail
ICQ None given.
Homepage http://
Signed On Nov 12, 2003, 22:41
Total Comments 74 (Suspect)
User ID 19374
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

News Comments > Consolidation
5. Re: Consoles Vs. PC Mar 26, 2004, 15:29 Chris
This cutting-edge system features the uber Geforce 4 MX card! Oh wait, that would be cutting edge circa 1999. This thing will be obsolete before it hits stores.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > More 3000AD vs DreamCatcher
48. Re: No subject Feb 1, 2004, 21:44 Chris
As I understand what dsmart is saying, Dream Catcher have no significant funds invested in the title. Therefore, given low production costs, they can sell it for a low price without losing anything, and in all probability recover their minimal investment. No losses for them. Where as 3000 AD has put in quite a bit and will not recover significant amounts of their investment at the $19.99 price given the probable sales.

Yes, that is what Smart seems to be saying, and that is wrong, as we've already been over several times in this thread. If DC could make more money by selling the game at a higher price, why wouldn't they? Derek's argument imples that DC is literally paying thousands of dollars to hurt his firm, which doesn't make any sense (Derek seems unable to understand this). YET AGAIN, development costs have NOTHING to do with optimal pricing once the game is done.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > More 3000AD vs DreamCatcher
45. Re: No subject Feb 1, 2004, 20:37 Chris
Derek's argument requires that Dreamcatcher is deliberately losing money because they want to hurt him,
Chris, stupidity like what you've shown, surely comes with a merit badge. Where'd you pin yours?

WHERE in the my missive, do you derive the idea that they [publishers no less] are willing to lose money in order to hurt me? Are you fucking mad? No, don't answer that.

Too funny. Try reading what I wrote again, "Dr." Smart.

When you posted that equation (which, btw, is rubbish and doesn't resolve. You uneducated ass), you clearly took the premise out of context.

ROFL. Derek Smart called me uneducated!

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > More 3000AD vs DreamCatcher
39. Re: No subject Feb 1, 2004, 14:23 Chris
Derek's rant includes the repeated claim he's not going discuss contractual details followed by a lengthy diatribe on contractual details, and repeated claims that the economics of the situation are irrelevant followed by lots of very, very incorrect economics.

The math of the situation is indeed very simple, Derek.
Since you are very highly educated, surely you can easily see that the solution to the optimization problem

max_p pQ(p) - c(Q(P)) - D

where p is price, Q is quantity, c() is the cost function, and D are development costs, doesn't depend on D. That is, optimal pricing is independent of development costs. You seem to think that firms which produce games that cost little to develop price them low BECAUSE they didn't cost much to devlop. They actually price them low BECAUSE that's the profit-maximizing pricing for a game with low/elastic demand. It's not as if they could make higher profits if they priced high and just don't do so out sheer altruism.

Similarly, a game with high development costs that turns out to be a stinker is best sold at a low price. It may not make much money, and it may even lose subtantial amounts of money, but the losses would be greater still if sold at a high price. Try to understand that "high price" DOES NOT imply "greater profits," nor is it the case that it follows that a game with high development costs ought to be sold at a high price. This is basic economics that everyone in this thread except "Dr." Smart seems to now grasp.

Read what I wrote about putting in $1 and selling it for $1.50 - even though the owner wants it sold at $11, and you'll get the picture.

Derek's argument requires that Dreamcatcher is deliberately losing money because they want to hurt him,
ie, they're paying thousands and thousands of dollars simply to get back at him. That seems highly implausible. The facts are also consistent with the hypothesis that Dreamcatcher believes profits will be higher (or losses lower) at a low price point whereas Derek Smart, as amply demonstrated above, doesn't understand elementary economics or elementary mathematics. The reader is invited to read Derek's message and conclude for themselves which explanation is more compelling.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > More 3000AD vs DreamCatcher
18. Re: John Nelson Jan 31, 2004, 18:33 Chris
John Nelson thanks for jumping in while I was away to counterpoint that propostorous economics claim.

Ummm, ok. Either very simple and tautologically correct microeconomic theory is correct, or you guys are correct. My money's on the former. What I said is correct. What John Nelson said is very much incorrect. What you started off saying was partially correct and partially incorrect. This bit:

This is obviously a niche product as I stated by saying I doubted very much they'd cover twice the amount of buyers just because of a price point.

is (sort of) correct. If demand for Derek's game is price inelastic, then it probably isn't a good idea to sell it as budgetware. Whether that is true or not is an empirical question. I would tend to guess DC's estimates are better than Derek's.

i also mentioned the budget of the product being a huge factor that would answer a lot of questions since it's the minus in the formula. going budget would make sense in this case only if it was dirt cheap to produce

And this is the incorrect bit. Again, development costs are "sunk" and have NOTHING to do with whether the game should be sold at a high or low price. Try a simple numerical example: Suppose demand for the game is

Quantity sold = 100,000 - 2000P.

Suppose further, to make things simple and illustrate John Nelson is wrong, that it costs nothing to make and sell another copy of the game. Profits are then

profits(P) = (100000-2000P)P - (development costs).

You can verify that the price which maximizes profits is
25. That is true regardless of what development costs were; they're sunk! The best the firm can do is

$1.25M - development costs.

If the game cost more than $1.25M to produce, then losses are minimized by selling at P=25, otherwise, gains are maximized at P=25. It is NOT true that it "would only make sense" to sell the game at a low price if "it was dirt cheap to produce." If you spend a fortune producing a game which turns out to be no good in the sense that demand for it is low, you're better off selling it a low price, which minimizes your losses -- you'd lose even more if you tried to sell the stinker at a high price. By the same token, if your cat walks over the keyboard one day and inadvertently types a short but somehow so spectacular game that it vies with Doom 3 in demand, then your better off selling it at a high price, even though you probably don't pay your cat very much....

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > More 3000AD vs DreamCatcher
11. Re: is it me... Jan 31, 2004, 14:52 Chris
(a) You're assuming there will be profits. That's a pretty naive attitude. 90% of the time it's about minimising the losses

I am assuming no such thing. Profits can be negative and what I said still holds.

(b) You're right in what you say but it's a 60 year old concept that isn't relevent today. We can look back at the Jaguar whose price was based on what it cost to manufacture - 70s thing - they could have sold it for 50% more than they did and still matched production targets. This is your argument. It's not valid. Games are ephemeral. If you want to make a profit you have to shift units. Putting 10 bucks on the selling price can quintuple your profit per unit sold. THAT MEANS you can sell five times less and make the same profit. Do I need to repeat that?

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the variable costs of game production low, and you for some reason think that overturns what I said. You are mistaken -- variable costs could be zero and everything I said still holds. You're "EDIT" compounds your errors --I never said "you can sever selling price from profit," in fact, my point was explitly that price affects profits, but in a manner which depends on demand conditions. You cannot "sever selling price from profit" whether or not variable costs are zero.

I would suggest you drop the attitude and re-read what I wrote, which is correct now, was correct 60 years ago, and was even correct over 200 years when this simple idea was actually first proposed.

This comment was edited on Jan 31, 15:00.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > More 3000AD vs DreamCatcher
9. Re: is it me... Jan 31, 2004, 13:57 Chris
Paranoid... i don't really see how dreamcatcher is going for the quick buck here. if what this doc says is true then the price change is made so that the game will purposely fail, so that 3000 AD goes under. you don't make money by selling this low unless the buget was extremely low

No. People, including Derek, seem to keep assuming that higher prices mean higher profits. If you'll excuse a little arithmetic, write profits as a function of price, P,

profits(P) = function(P) - (development costs)

where "function" gives the difference between revenues and the costs of actually producing and selling copies of the game. Notice that:

1. The price that maximizes profits doesn't depend at all on development costs. Given the final product, the profit maximizing price is the same for a game that cost $10 or $10,000,000 to develop.

2. Higher prices don't necessarily lead to higher profits.

The idea that DC is trying "screw" Derek by charging a price below the profit-maximizing price doesn't make the slightest bit of sense because DC is also trying to make money (or minimize losses) off the game. They only succeed in hurting Derek by hurting themselves to the same extent! If DC is publically traded, that's not only foolish, it's flat-out illegal.

The most likely explanation for all this is that DC thinks the game is too crappy to sell at a high price, and that $20 will maximize profits. Derek throws a temper tantrum because he thinks that that price is tantamount to insult and/or simply doesn't understand that he'd lose *even* *more* money by trying to sell the game at a higher price.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > On Universal Combat Pricing
49. Re: I'll throw old Derek a bone here Jan 31, 2004, 12:36 Chris
This is a very strange situation because Derek and the publisher have interests which coincide: They both want to make as much profits as possible off the game. Of course, that isn't the same as setting a very high price for the game because demand curves slope down!

Disagreement over pricing suggests only a few possible scenarios:

1. The contract is not sensibly written, leading to divergent interests over decisions such as pricing. This would be the case, for example, if Derek gets a fixed fee per unit sold rather than a fixed share of the profits, although in that case the publisher would prefer a higher, not lower, price than the Derek.

2. Derek and DC have have different expectations over demand for the game. Derek thinks that $40 will maximize profits while DC thinks that $20 will maximize profits.

3. Derek doesn't understand elementary economics and simply thinks that higher price --> greater profits.

4. Derek may recognize that price=$20 maximizes profits but also thinks a budgetware release will harm his repuation. His reputation is one aspect where his interests and DC's don't coincide. In other words, he's willing to lose profits in order to gain the prestige of a higher-priced game.

My guess is that the explanation is rests on points 2 and 3. Regardless of the explanation, Derek's public temper tantrum and promise not to support the title is impossible to interpret as anything other than yet another epic business blunder.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Far Cry SP Demo
100. Re: Catalyst 3.9 and up? Jan 21, 2004, 20:32 Chris

Development: I changed the settings in the ATI driver panel from "balanced" to "performance" and that solved the glitches. Note that neither AA nor AF was on at the initial setting.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Far Cry SP Demo
91. Re: Once I got into it... Jan 21, 2004, 19:17 Chris
Perhaps the MP beta code is different than the demo code, as it is NOT true that the demo works fine with Catalyst 3.9 or up, only with 3.9. Screenshots of the problem are in this thread

Does anyone have settings that overcome this problem with post-3.9 drivers?

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Far Cry SP Demo
65. Re: Very High quality. Jan 21, 2004, 16:24 Chris
"May be you should upgrade to the 4.1."

Apparently the same problem occurs with 4.1. The game REQUIRES 3.9, no more and no less.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Far Cry SP Demo
58. Re: Very High quality. Jan 21, 2004, 15:51 Chris
I get a lot of graphical corruption with Radeon 9800P and Cat 3.10. According to the official forums you MUST use Cat 3.9 to avoid this problem. There is no bloody way I'm downgrading drivers -- particularly ATI's wonky drivers -- to play a demo. Has anyone found a workaround with the graphics settings?

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > Gold - Deus Ex: Invisible War
115. Re: Negativity Nov 26, 2003, 21:41 Chris
Selling <100k in three months is not the same as selling <100k. Don't you think that maybe -- particularly after "winning FIFTY GOTY awards" -- it might have sold a few copies in the fourth, fifth, and maybe even last month too? (It topped the UK charts when released, for example).

Further, the assumption that the abysmal design choices IS has made will actually lead to greater console sales, much less aggregate sales, seems suspect. Wouldn't spending a little effort to recast the PC version have been prudent (as they did when porting that Star Wars RPG)? Even failing that, do XBox gamers really prefer all the stuff that PC gamers are (rightly) criticizing? Doubtful.

The demo is a disaster of Biblical proportions. Even if we optimistically assume that there's a great game amidst the mess and IO simply failed to tweak the code for the PC, what does is say about the corporate culture at IS? At the very least they could have had a junior programmer spend a few hours prepping the PC demo. Defending this rubbish ("we stand by our choices") is just obnoxious -- that comment sealed my decision not to fork over my money for this game.

At best, DX2 is a showcase for brutally incompetent and arrogant public relations. More likely, it's simply a crappy game.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
News Comments > DX: Invisible War Demo Plans
14. Re: Requirements Nov 12, 2003, 17:51 Chris

Since DX1 is possibly my all-time favorite game, I would've said getting DX2 was a no-brainer. But every preview/video looks depressingly awful. Garish, cartoony artwork, gameplay clearly aimed at the Xbox crowd... looks like a disaster.

Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
74 Comments. 4 pages. Viewing page 4.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


Blue's News logo