Soon, NV will be spending $500 million on a game just to get a $510 million "R.O.I." ($10 million net profit)...
Eh? I bought Metro LL from the classifieds for 15 bucks before it was released. Same for crysis 3, Tomb Raider, any many others. The game bundles that AMD/NV offer make their way to ebay and classified FS/T sites here and everywhere, therefore all of these games, on average, have the potential to be far cheaper. The vast majority of the game codes bundled with AMD/NV cards are not used, and are generally sold at substantial discounts.
Metro: LL was 59$ new? I got it for 15 bucks before it was even launched. I'd say that was great for me, the consumer.
If I can get Watch Dogs for 15$, i'm all for it.
Soon, NV will be spending $500 million on a game just to get a $510 million "R.O.I." ($10 million net profit)...
Soon, NV will be spending $500 million on a game just to get a $510 million "R.O.I." ($10 million net profit)...
Yeah, it's all a conspiracy. No one will use Battlefield 4 in any of their benchmarks.
/sigh
Congratulations on scoring a new title for a discount. Would the original owner be better served receiving a cash discount on the card in lieu of the game? Yes. Does your purchase have any impact on the actual retail price of the game? No. Was the game actually $15? Of course not, the buyer of the card paid the premium so you could receive a discount.
Having an understanding of opportunity costs help
I'm well aware of the opportunity cost concept
I never made this assertion. However, it doesn't meant that a duopoly that engages in such practices results in any benefits to consumer. On the contrary, your choice are limited and roughly half of the hardware wouldn't provide optimal performance on any given title.If you think that the shift toward developers will end anytime soon
It's amazing how some people blindly spout consipiracy theories rather than facts. If you are reading reviews where only games that work well with Nvidia get benchmarked you are reading the wrong reviews.
Tomb Raider 2013
Hitman Absolution
Deus Ex HR
AVP
All of the above favoured AMD hardware and featured heavily in many reviews over the past few years.
ROI would actually be $10 million (2%) in your example. $510 is the revenue.
I don't expect AMD to optimize BF4 for Nvidia hardware as much as Nvidia did optimize borderlands for AMD hardware, if you know what I mean
I'm well aware of the opportunity cost concept, yet I remain unconvinced that not having these game deals would alter the prices of GPUs whatsoever. Keep in mind that part of having a viable product is getting the brand name out there with advertising and promotion - that promotion for GPUs in recent years has shifted towards developers. These are set costs that would happen in some form or fashion regardless - costs that have traditionally went towards advertising has shifted towards getting developers on board for GPU specific features and bundles, and i'm cool with that. In the end all of these bundled games end up being sold on the cheap on various classified forums - since active hardware buyers are active software buyers, that means those game players will be able to get cheaper games in the end.
If you think that the shift toward developers will end anytime soon and that GPU prices will lower because of that, well, I would disagree in the strongest terms. NV has proven this strategy works, kudos to them, and kudos to AMD for waking up and realizing that it works and following them in that route. The best hardware features in the world are useless if games do not use them, so it is critical for AMD/NV to get the wares and features in the hands of developers. It is all part of promoting and advertising their respective products, and getting brand specific features into actual games.
Aside from that fact, like I mentioned, active hardware buyers are also active software buyers - if AMD/NV fighting over developers has a net result of a GPU being 20$ more expensive BUT me being able to buy 60$ games for 10-15$ on ebay on DAY ONE LAUNCH titles? These are games that I would generally buy anyway. That's cool with me, whatever.
It just sounds better to use "ROI" than this utterly monotonous word "revenue" - Invest $500 million, then have $510 million return back to you on this investment.
Thy language might be written in stone, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed for the better. Only I have the power to do so! ()
What do you guys think would be the net ROI for Nvidia from spending $5 million on this deal? $40 million?
What about Ubisoft? Say, Ubisoft loses 30,000 potential "big-buck" retail sales of at least $50 each, due to GPU enthusiasts getting them for free instead.
30K times $40 = $1.5 million
Plus Ubisoft loses another 50,000 potential "discounted" sales at an average of $25 each over the years, due to less enthusiastic customers having already gotten them for free, or due to the original enthusiasts selling the keys second-hand..
50K times $25 = $1.25 million
plus an overall "dampening" effect to the retail "value" of the games shortly after launch, or even at launch if already offered for free with video cards - due to the second-hand market being flooded with cheap keys (pushing Ubisoft to cut the price to $40 per game far sooner than they would like)
~ 5 million "damage"
If I were Ubisoft, I probably wouldn't take this deal from NV.. unless NV paid at least $8 million (or the number of games offered for free were limited to a shorter period of time or quantity)..
Especially after an AAA blockbuster game like GTAV scoring in $1 billion in the first 3 days, Ubisoft might do well to make sure that their blockbuster games come out on the console first before being offered on the PC..
Strange to see nVidia getting as desperate as AMD now.
It just sounds better to use "ROI" than this utterly monotonous word "revenue" - Invest $500 million, then have $510 million return back to you on this investment.
Thy language might be written in stone, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed for the better. Only I have the power to do so! ()
You just know Activision is grinning at everybody and winking and gesturing, "Hey guys, c'mon, tell us what you think Call of Duty is worth."
If you invest $500 million and the returns are $510 million, the actual return on the investment is $510-500= $10 million. ROI actually means "return on investment" and a positive return is only realized once the initial investment is recuperated. If you don't recouperate the initial investment then you end up with a negative ROI.
If you invest $500 million into stock and then at the end of the year when you cash out you end up with $510 million, you can't say that your ROI was $510 million. If you are going to use business terminology, use it correctly or don't use it at all.
Yeah, makes sense - thanks. But if these were really going to be some serious blockbuster games, I'd be more careful with sacrificing two "near-guaranteed" birds in the bush for just one..It's the old "a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush". I have customers come in who buy multiple items and I give them a discount. I would have just as likely sold those products to someone else anyway and got a higher price, but it's worthwhile to take care of those bigger purchasers. Plus Ubisoft is selling directly to nVidia. You would buy you games through Steam or some other retailer. It's not like the dev gets the retail price of the game.
Strange to see nVidia getting as desperate as AMD now.
Its a worrying trend. 8 million for BF4. 5 million for this one.
And at the same time people complain about GPU prices, yet praises "free" games that follows and games being sponsored for a performance boost for the paying manufactor.
The games are not free, you simply pay via your GPU purchase. The same applies for these major deals. And its not pennies anymore. I wouldnt be surprised if we start to talk double digit % in cost of the graphics cards.
The best part is when these games come out and don't sell 10 million units in the first month, everyone blames piracy anyway.
10 million units in the first month, at $30 a pop (after trying to cut out all of the middle-man costs) = $300 million
Is there a list of games that made the most revenue?
1) GTA V (2 consoles so far), $1B in first 3 days
2) COD: Black Ops 2 - probably still the record-holder so far..
3) COD: MW3 - still $500+ million on Day 0, IIRC..
4) ?
5) ?
.. .
Assassin's Creed 3 = ?
I have no idea - most articles don't show the actual $$$ revenue made on sales (only the number of sales made). Anybody know an awesome article?
Or what? It was only my "fun twist" on language, so man-up and be a little nicer next time.
5 million confidence = guaranteed field goal fail for that type of game! If the game is really AAA-quality, without some prequel of the same AAA-caliber to back it up and propel it forward, Square Enix's own delusion was a disappointment in itself. One month is usually not enough for a new AAA game to sell that much - it would usually require another sequel of the same AAA quality.Tomb Raider 3 was expected to sell 5 million units the first month across 3 platforms, and when it didn't, Square Enix said it was a disappointment.
Sometimes people tell the truth, and sometimes people don't care to be strictly pedantic while having a bit of fun, bro!-snip-
Yeah, right on - BF4 is the killer game for the PC this year, by far (at least for enthusiasts). The fact that this kind of game is not exactly a favorable game for pirates (due to its MP nature) helps even more.AMD is fortunate to go with BF4; all of Ubisoft's games have the whiniest most pathetic protagonists imaginable which has prevented me from purchasing them