Labo is a huge ripoff and a waste of a great concept (so far)

[DonFerrari]

HoangNhatAnh said:

No it doesn't. And what about it? Keep reserving your right to have double standard, it's pretty obvious to everyone.

Yes, it is, vita is overpriced with the bait of vita's price when in fact, you need a memory card for it or ps2 game on ps4 is definitely cash grab. Double standard or not, i don't care about Wii U just like you don't care about ps2 games on ps4 so you are talking about yourself too. Heh

I don't care about Vita as well, but it seems like it's very important to you.

duduspace1 said:

DonFerrari said:

1- Yes it's true. And one of the reasons why digital games cost the same as physical, so they don't take out even more market from retail, because without the profit from the SW they wouldn't keep selling the HW (one store chain in Germany even stopped selling X1 after they put the Gamepass out). They may make more profit from Labo, can you prove it? Because we have several sources for the average retail margin on the retail priced AAA games. Just wanted to point the sophism on the "It uses more space so it must have higher margin".

2 - I do agree, I would see Labo as accessory and they usually are very overpriced (controllers as I said usually cost less than 15 and sell for 60). Which justs address the OP and goes against people saying Labo isn't overpriced or a rip-off.

3 - Yes it's a very different game from regular games that cost 60, but not overall best in all areas to justify the extra 20 (since they are cutting a lot on the SW side and the cardboard by itself is peanuts cost to make as well)

Sure the profit for chain and also the expectation of lower sell (which I don't think is the case since from what we have heard Labo was expected to do good, and the people saying it isn't overpriced don't say it sold bad or below expectations... so they can't have it both ways right?)

Most console games have 60 price point, and budgets vary but average AAA would cost you over 30M and need over 1M sales to recoup. Smaller games (no indie) from what we know need something from 100-250k to 1M to break even (seems like several of Japanese niche releases are very profitable under 100k sales). That is one of the main reasons I don't like Nintendo policy on prices. They hold the 60 for like 4 years on most of their games, on average sell more than most games and budget lower.

No it doesn't. And what about it? Keep reserving your right to have double standard, it's pretty obvious to everyone.

I didn't pick all Sony employees or year costs to make the estimative. I picked the studio, which only released one game in a 5 year period (and you can bet their external support have been with minimal crew, even more when those games were Indie... or do you think Indie games use 50 people to make?). Also gave you GoW3 declared cost (which had a much shorter cycle) and average AAA development budget. But we all know you had no idea about the costs when you decided to declare Labo costed similar to GoW because it does some things other games don't. Next we are going to see you saying a 3-wheeler car cost as much as a F1 car because both do things other cars don't.

You pick up the team that developed Labo, with the duration of the project and do similar math and it would at least makes more sense than "Pokemon marketing costed 50M so Labo probably also costed 50M to develop).

You keep on assuming things I did not say, what I pointed out to you is that GoW is not the only game that Studio works on, and I gave you evidence from their same web page from which you got their staff strength. You have not shown any ability to understand or apply what you have read about the cost of producing and marketing a product because you have a way of seeing only what you want to see hence why you suddenly believe marketing costs should not count despite agreeing yourself that a Game you gave as an example (of your own voilition) does not justify its price based on its development costs alone. There is a name for such people as are blind to contrary evidence to their notions when it comes to discussions on gaming consoles but I have been informed I cannot mention it because someone has reported me for doing so already (despite your crony who has not contributed anything meaningful to this debate  using the same term in reference to me).

I would certainly pick the studio that did Labo on its own, if it supplied its financials separately from Nintendo, but it doesn't, so I don't see why I cannot apply the same principle you applied to SSM (which works on multiple games) to Nintendo, which reports as a singular entity.

SSM doesn't "work" on multiple games. They give support (very small team inside SSM).

Gave you other metrics that can be used, like average budget of AAA games, previous GOW3 cost (which if you go read about GOW on PS4 they say multiple times it was their biggest game yet) and you could even pretend half the time/team of GOW worked on Indies Support (which everyone with a brain will tell you is moronic) to make the budget drop from 120M to 60M. Still all would sign to over 50M budget as you were first informed.

But you have failed to give any reasonable estimative (backed up) to Labo development cost, the single information you provided relating to it's budget is saying Pokemon costed 50M in marketing.

Even the one guy that came to your support can't agree with your premise that Labo cost about as much to make as GoW.

I don't know why I spend my time trying to show you how your premises are wrong in the hope you learn and show what you promised you would. But let's try once again.

You decided to consider that the Indies SSM supported somewhat drained significant effort from SSM (I don't know how can you just mix Flower with GoW, but since you think Labo cost to make the same as Pokemon to market because both released on Nintendo and marketing is the same as developing, perhaps you think Flower and GoW cost about the same). But let's put this myth to rest.

Games listed as supported by SSM on it's site:

flOw released on PS3 in 2006 so couldn't impact Gow developed between 2013-2018

Flower released on PS3 in 2009 so couldn't impact Gow developed between 2013-2018

Journey released on PS3 in 2012 so couldn't impact Gow developed between 2013-2018

Warhawk released on PS3 in 2007 so couldn't impact Gow developed between 2013-2018

Linger in Shadows released on PS3 in 2008 so couldn't impact Gow developed between 2013-2018

Everyday Shooter released on PS3 in 2007 so couldn't impact Gow developed between 2013-2018

Fat Princess released on PS3 in 2009 so couldn't impact Gow developed between 2013-2018

Escape Plan released on PSVita in 2012 so couldn't impact Gow developed between 2013-2018

Sound Shapes released on PS3 in 2012 so couldn't impact Gow developed between 2013-2018

The Unfinished Swan released on PS3 in 2012 so couldn't impact Gow developed between 2013-2018

the PixelJunk series games mostly released between 2007-2012. The games after this period didn't had the involvement of SSM.

Hohokum a game from a very small development team, that even though were in development for 6 years most of the time were on hold (and they released some games during the same period) and launched in August 2014. So I'll let you take let's say an excessive 5 people (which is probably more than the studio itself had) for 18 months from GoW to support it.

So with that we go from 200x60 to 200x60 - 5x18 = 12000-90 = 11910 . That certainly impacted a lot on the budget for GoW right?

I'll even be much more friendly to you and also put what isn't on their site.

From wiki, from 2013 to 2018 they also supported the release of 

Fat Princess: Piece of Cake. Made by One Loop Game, which themselves calling small team (4 are name, so I'll be exagerated to give the studio 10 people total and another 10 support from GoW because I want to help you discount as much as possible the budget). And launched November 14 so even if it started before 2013 that gives us another 18 months to discount. So 11910-10x18 = 11730.

The Order 1886. Made by Ready at Dawn. Which is an independent but structured studio that worked on several games for Sony. They have their team, but considering they were making new engines and stuff for PS4 I'll grant 20 SSM employees for the 24 months it took after 2013 to launch. so 11730-20*24 = 11250.

Everybody's gone to the rupture. Made by Chinese Room. They had about 8 employees, so I'll double that with SSM. The time between previous game and this from Chinese Room is roughly 24 months. That will give us 11250-8*24=11058 (we have discounted almost 1000 from the 12000, almost 10% yeahhhh).

Fat Princess Adventures. Developed by Fun Bits Interactive. They linkedin list 17 employees, so I'll give them another 15 from SSM. And another 24 months of development during the GoW development. That would make 11058-15*24 = 10698.

Bound, Made by Plastic Studios. 12 devs studio. Will give another 10 from SSM and 3 years of development. 10698-36*10=10338.

Here they Lie. Made by tangentleman. They don't have the size available to check, but from the open positions I'll give them a 30 size and additional 20 SSM employees. And they opened the studio in 2014. So will give 24 months of development. That shall bring 10338-20*24=9858 (we took almost 20% of the manpower, and I'll tell you that we can be sure that it actually costed SSM less than 20% of it's manpower to give support on its external developed games).

But ok 9858*10000 = 98.580.000 or roughly 100M. Are you also going to dismiss this amount? Perhaps you'll decided that those small indie games costed a lot to make? Shovel Knight, which is considered a very good, big and successful Indie game had a budget of about 300k. So we took 20M from GoW budget, which is enought to make 70 Indie games just to give support to 6 games that they didn't develop themselves.

Will wait for your unfulfilled promises.