Goriginal Content

Cult County chat!

EoD - Missed chance?

EoD - Waluigi time?

EoD - Mario where?

EoD - Which to buy?

Smash Direct wrap-up
 

XSEED details the costs that go into localizing a game

A portion of an OperationRainfall interview with XSEED's Jessica Chavez...

OR: Does finance weigh heavily on translating and localizing Japanese games, versus independent development and publishing?

JC: I can’t really speak for what it would cost for independent development (as we’re but a humble publisher), but we have a vast array of costs on our side to consider first if we take on a project.

Helpful(?), and terribly blunt breakdown:

Licensing a game: $$$
Translation & Editing: $$$ + BLOOD & TEARS
Voice Recording: $$$
QA: $$$
Manufacturing: $$$
Shipping: $$$
Marketing: $$$
Mark Downs: $$$$$
Royalties: $$$
ESRB (US Rating): $$$
PEGI (EU Rating): $$$
UK Rating: $$$
USK (German Rating): $$$
Aus/NZ Rating: $$$
Office Snacks: $
Sympathy: –
Interns: …

Full interview here

Also check out:
Discussion Preview
29 total comments (View all)
No Avatar
02 Apr 2013 15:17

Hmm, I wonder how much an ESRB rating costs and how that may affect old games (that need to be rated) appearing on Virtual Console.
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 15:17

Aaronrules380 wrote:Honestly, I'm sure there are a ton of costs we aren't aware of in localization, but it'd be nice to see more transperency in this (and other aspects of the industry as well). Its all well and good to just show some $ signs, but actual numerical estimates and ranges would be far more helpful and enlightening, espeially if it was broken down. After all, some aspects might be cuttable to an extent (certainly without gamer complaint) and most of the target audience wouldn't mind. FOr example, I know large segments of the JRPG audience prefer japanese audio and subtitles to english voice overs, especially for companies like Xseed that seem to have trouble getting really quality ones in the first place. If that's costing large chunks of money, they could just cut out some of those aspects. Honestly, the fact that they complain about sympathy is kind of unfair when there's no transperency in this industry. Especially when it isn't the people working on the projects whose sweat and tears are going into it who people dislike, it's the corporate leaders who are just businessmen


I highly disagree. I don't see spelling out every single cost of making a game as a positive for the industry.
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 15:21

XSEED, I'll work for free!!
Please dear god just let me do some voice work in your games, I want to get into the VA industry SO BAD
No Avatar
02 Apr 2013 15:22

nGen wrote:
Aaronrules380 wrote:Honestly, I'm sure there are a ton of costs we aren't aware of in localization, but it'd be nice to see more transperency in this (and other aspects of the industry as well). Its all well and good to just show some $ signs, but actual numerical estimates and ranges would be far more helpful and enlightening, espeially if it was broken down. After all, some aspects might be cuttable to an extent (certainly without gamer complaint) and most of the target audience wouldn't mind. FOr example, I know large segments of the JRPG audience prefer japanese audio and subtitles to english voice overs, especially for companies like Xseed that seem to have trouble getting really quality ones in the first place. If that's costing large chunks of money, they could just cut out some of those aspects. Honestly, the fact that they complain about sympathy is kind of unfair when there's no transperency in this industry. Especially when it isn't the people working on the projects whose sweat and tears are going into it who people dislike, it's the corporate leaders who are just businessmen


I highly disagree. I don't see spelling out every single cost of making a game as a positive for the industry.
They don't need to spell out every cost exactly for every game (although I don't see how that would be a bad thing). I mean, I'm pretty sure the movie industry already has a lot of transperency, and I don't see how its a bad thing. Can you explain how transperency is a bad thing? Because I think it'd be very helpful in understanding the industry. I mean, if we knew how much an average rpg localization cost, and how many units would need to shift for a profit of x, and maybe some extreme values as well, I think it'd be able to serve as a really good base for fans to be able to understand when a company is being reasonable or not
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 15:30

Aaronrules380 wrote:
nGen wrote:
Aaronrules380 wrote:Honestly, I'm sure there are a ton of costs we aren't aware of in localization, but it'd be nice to see more transperency in this (and other aspects of the industry as well). Its all well and good to just show some $ signs, but actual numerical estimates and ranges would be far more helpful and enlightening, espeially if it was broken down. After all, some aspects might be cuttable to an extent (certainly without gamer complaint) and most of the target audience wouldn't mind. FOr example, I know large segments of the JRPG audience prefer japanese audio and subtitles to english voice overs, especially for companies like Xseed that seem to have trouble getting really quality ones in the first place. If that's costing large chunks of money, they could just cut out some of those aspects. Honestly, the fact that they complain about sympathy is kind of unfair when there's no transperency in this industry. Especially when it isn't the people working on the projects whose sweat and tears are going into it who people dislike, it's the corporate leaders who are just businessmen


I highly disagree. I don't see spelling out every single cost of making a game as a positive for the industry.
They don't need to spell out every cost exactly for every game (although I don't see how that would be a bad thing). I mean, I'm pretty sure the movie industry already has a lot of transperency, and I don't see how its a bad thing. Can you explain how transperency is a bad thing? Because I think it'd be very helpful in understanding the industry. I mean, if we knew how much an average rpg localization cost, and how many units would need to shift for a profit of x, and maybe some extreme values as well, I think it'd be able to serve as a really good base for fans to be able to understand when a company is being reasonable or not


First of all, the movie industry is not transparent. They cook the books. That's how Harry Potter 7 part 2 and Return of the Jedi were "unprofitable."

I only need to look at all the complaining that goes on into gaming budgets now when we don't know the final cost to imagine what it'll be like when we do. You'll have fans who will clog up message boards trying to dictate how these companies spend their money.
No Avatar
02 Apr 2013 15:40

I doubt it'll make it that much worse. People will do that with or without transperency, but at least we could make educated arguements if we had some numbers to work with. The only people who actually benefit from the nontransperent systems are the people in the industry who can use it to hide things that might get on customers bad sides. I'd be able to accept when things I don't like get called unprofitable when I have evidence that such would truly be the case, as opposed to it being profitable, just not enough. And I think it could be useful in helping us to understand when our expectations are too high or too low. And I certainly find it hard to show sympathy for a companies decisions when they refuse to give any concrete info to justify what they say. I just don't get why you think PR bullshit is prefferable to actual facts, unless you're actually directly benefitting from it or something

And again, it doesn't even have to be the exact costs for each game. THey could show average costs across a sample of games (while showing which games are in the sample). ANything to give a really concrete idea of what's really going on as opposed to pr bullshit that could be anything from a half truth to a total lie
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 15:49

Aaronrules380 wrote:I doubt it'll make it that much worse. People will do that with or without transperency, but at least we could make educated arguements if we had some numbers to work with. The only people who actually benefit from the nontransperent systems are the people in the industry who can use it to hide things that might get on customers bad sides. I'd be able to accept when things I don't like get called unprofitable when I have evidence that such would truly be the case, as opposed to it being profitable, just not enough. And I think it could be useful in helping us to understand when our expectations are too high or too low. And I certainly find it hard to show sympathy for a companies decisions when they refuse to give any concrete info to justify what they say. I just don't get why you think PR bullshit is prefferable to actual facts, unless you're actually directly benefitting from it or something

And again, it doesn't even have to be the exact costs for each game. THey could show average costs across a sample of games (while showing which games are in the sample). ANything to give a really concrete idea of what's really going on as opposed to pr bullshit that could be anything from a half truth to a total lie


I'm not against transparency, because I'm adult enough to handle it. I can't speak for the rest of the internet. That said, if you want a better look at these companies financials, try becoming a stock holder. For companies like XSEED, they're a private company and how they spend their money is their business.
No Avatar
02 Apr 2013 15:59

I doubt transperency would have as major effect on the immature portion of the internet as you're making it out. Hell, most of them probably wouldn't really look at those numbers all that much. And to me it seems wrong that I should have to have money invested in a company to get any idea of how their business is functioning (And even then, do you have nay evidence that the average shareholder is getting presented the whole truth of the matter anyways?). Consumers have a stake in industry just as businesses do, and I think its wrong that we're just supposed to swallow whatever the industry tells us with no evidence. How can we fight against bad practices when we as consumers aren't shown enough of how things work to have any good idea where those bad practices are? Businesses can keep some secrets on how things work, but consumers do have rights too. THe game industry as a whole has very little transparency, and I don't believe that's right. So if a few internet forums get a bit more whining over this stuff, then why is that such a high price? At the very least it'd be whining about things we know rather than whining about things based on sheer speculation
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 16:06

Aaronrules380 wrote:I doubt transperency would have as major effect on the immature portion of the internet as you're making it out. Hell, most of them probably wouldn't really look at those numbers all that much. And to me it seems wrong that I should have to have money invested in a company to get any idea of how their business is functioning (And even then, do you have nay evidence that the average shareholder is getting presented the whole truth of the matter anyways?). Consumers have a stake in industry just as businesses do, and I think its wrong that we're just supposed to swallow whatever the industry tells us with no evidence. How can we fight against bad practices when we as consumers aren't shown enough of how things work to have any good idea where those bad practices are? Businesses can keep some secrets on how things work, but consumers do have rights too. THe game industry as a whole has very little transparency, and I don't believe that's right. So if a few internet forums get a bit more whining over this stuff, then why is that such a high price? At the very least it'd be whining about things we know rather than whining about things based on sheer speculation


I think you underestimate the internet.
Sorry, but no matter what you say, this isn't something we're going to agree on and I don't give enough of a sh*t to spend anymore time trying to convince people why private companies shouldn't have to open their books to anyone who asks for it. When you open your finances to these companies as you explain why you won't buy their games, then you can demand openness from their books.
No Avatar
02 Apr 2013 16:16

I guess the difference in opinion here is that I believe consumer rights are far more important than corporate rights. And I'm not even arguing complete down to the penny transparency anways. Your analogy falls short because companies have far more avenues and resources to actually look into how consumers are spending there money. Companies have research departments devoted to that sort of stuff. But the average consumer does not have any ability to look into what companies are doing. ANd honestly, corporate rights SHOULD NOT be considered equal to consumer rights. because ultimately actual human beings are more important than some abstract entity, and because we should work so that we don't gt a small group of elite manipulating the system. I'm not saying corporations have no rights either. I'm saying we shouldn't hold corporate rights to the same level as consumer rights. And ultimately, the principles of capitalism DEMAND transparency to work properly. Consumers and corporations need to have an equal playing field, but corporations always tend to have more resources and more ability to manipulate things so that they come out over the individuals
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 16:17

Things cost money? Here I thought anyone who didn't port a game or localise a game was just being lazy!
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 16:21

Aaronrules380 wrote:I guess the difference in opinion here is that I believe consumer rights are far more important than corporate rights. And I'm not even arguing complete down to the penny transparency anways. Your analogy falls short because companies have far more avenues and resources to actually look into how consumers are spending there money. Companies have research departments devoted to that sort of stuff. But the average consumer does not have any ability to look into what companies are doing. ANd honestly, corporate rights SHOULD NOT be considered equal to consumer rights. because ultimately actual human beings are more important than some abstract entity, and because we should work so that we don't gt a small group of elite manipulating the system. I'm not saying corporations have no rights either. I'm saying we shouldn't hold corporate rights to the same level as consumer rights. And ultimately, the principles of capitalism DEMAND transparency to work properly. Consumers and corporations need to have an equal playing field, but corporations always tend to have more resources and more ability to manipulate things so that they come out over the individuals


It's funny. You say capitalism, but forcing companies to open their books to the public is decidedly socialist. Thankfully, we live in a capitalist society. And if these companies are hiding their bad business decisions from the public, eventually they'll go the route of THq and close down. That's capitalism.
No Avatar
02 Apr 2013 16:29

nGen wrote:
Aaronrules380 wrote:I guess the difference in opinion here is that I believe consumer rights are far more important than corporate rights. And I'm not even arguing complete down to the penny transparency anways. Your analogy falls short because companies have far more avenues and resources to actually look into how consumers are spending there money. Companies have research departments devoted to that sort of stuff. But the average consumer does not have any ability to look into what companies are doing. ANd honestly, corporate rights SHOULD NOT be considered equal to consumer rights. because ultimately actual human beings are more important than some abstract entity, and because we should work so that we don't gt a small group of elite manipulating the system. I'm not saying corporations have no rights either. I'm saying we shouldn't hold corporate rights to the same level as consumer rights. And ultimately, the principles of capitalism DEMAND transparency to work properly. Consumers and corporations need to have an equal playing field, but corporations always tend to have more resources and more ability to manipulate things so that they come out over the individuals


It's funny. You say capitalism, but forcing companies to open their books to the public is decidedly socialist. Thankfully, we live in a capitalist society. And if these companies are hiding their bad business decisions from the public, eventually they'll go the route of THq and close down. That's capitalism.

Except I'm not talking bad business decisions, I'm talking unethical business decisions. And no, that's not the least bit socialist. Socialism only implies the governments run businesses. Suggesting they open their books doesn't stop a corporation from running a business however they like. It doesn't give the government any sort of control over the business whatsoever. It just means that both sides have an understanding of what's going on, instead of one side having a far clearer picture than the other. My problem now is that what could be called a good business decision isn't neccesarily one that benefits the customers, and often times its quite the opposite. That's why it's a good business decision to make sure there's no transparency: It means the corporation can do whatever questionable processes it wants without. Capitalism is about private ownership. But economic systems should work to serve the people as a whole, and capitalism does that best when both sides understand the costs associated with their actions, which Businesses work to make sure that isn't the case
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 16:42

Aaronrules380 wrote:
nGen wrote:
Aaronrules380 wrote:I guess the difference in opinion here is that I believe consumer rights are far more important than corporate rights. And I'm not even arguing complete down to the penny transparency anways. Your analogy falls short because companies have far more avenues and resources to actually look into how consumers are spending there money. Companies have research departments devoted to that sort of stuff. But the average consumer does not have any ability to look into what companies are doing. ANd honestly, corporate rights SHOULD NOT be considered equal to consumer rights. because ultimately actual human beings are more important than some abstract entity, and because we should work so that we don't gt a small group of elite manipulating the system. I'm not saying corporations have no rights either. I'm saying we shouldn't hold corporate rights to the same level as consumer rights. And ultimately, the principles of capitalism DEMAND transparency to work properly. Consumers and corporations need to have an equal playing field, but corporations always tend to have more resources and more ability to manipulate things so that they come out over the individuals


It's funny. You say capitalism, but forcing companies to open their books to the public is decidedly socialist. Thankfully, we live in a capitalist society. And if these companies are hiding their bad business decisions from the public, eventually they'll go the route of THq and close down. That's capitalism.

Except I'm not talking bad business decisions, I'm talking unethical business decisions. And no, that's not the least bit socialist. Socialism only implies the governments run businesses. Suggesting they open their books doesn't stop a corporation from running a business however they like. It doesn't give the government any sort of control over the business whatsoever. It just means that both sides have an understanding of what's going on, instead of one side having a far clearer picture than the other. My problem now is that what could be called a good business decision isn't neccesarily one that benefits the customers, and often times its quite the opposite. That's why it's a good business decision to make sure there's no transparency: It means the corporation can do whatever questionable processes it wants without. Capitalism is about private ownership. But economic systems should work to serve the people as a whole, and capitalism does that best when both sides understand the costs associated with their actions, which Businesses work to make sure that isn't the case


Forcing companies to open their books to the public is a socialistic idea in nature. I'm sorry, but private companies have a constitutional right to keep their finances private. Unless they are doing illegal activities, it's their prerogative. You say unethical, I ask "What practices that video game companies do can be considered unethical?"
No Avatar
02 Apr 2013 16:53

That's up to the consumer, Because that's how capitalism actually functions. And I don't remember the part of the consititution that says corporations have the right to keep their finances private (Nor is the constitution some sacred, unchangeable document like people make it out to be anyways. Laws exist to serve the people, so if a law is flawed it should be changed.)? Individual privacy isn't the same as corporate privacy. The way I, or any other individual, personally spend my money doesn't have a huge effect on any corporation. Our actions only matter as a collective, and corporations do have access to a lot of info on how that collective is spending its money. But a single corporation has a far larger impact. Now I'll grant that there exists a very SPECIFIC school of capitalism that implies that the only economic rights the government should protect are property rights. It's called Laissez faire capitalism, it's never actually been implemented, and the closest we've got has led to horribly unethical situations that NOBODY should desire. For capitalism to best serve the people in the way an economic system it requires both sides to have an equal playing field, and transparency is necessary for this. You keep saying socialist, but Socialism at its core ONLY means government control of factors of production (land, labor, and capital). FOrcing transparency and honesty does not affect a corporation's ability to produce in any way they want. It does not prevent the control of the economy by the market forces of supply and demand (as I've pointed out, it does the opposite since it means that corporations have less tools to manipulate that supply to their advantage)
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 16:57

id be an intern for these guys but i dont know japanese so i guess not
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 16:58

Aaronrules380 wrote:That's up to the consumer, Because that's how capitalism actually functions. And I don't remember the part of the consititution that says corporations have the right to keep their finances private (Nor is the constitution some sacred, unchangeable document like people make it out to be anyways. Laws exist to serve the people, so if a law is flawed it should be changed.)? Individual privacy isn't the same as corporate privacy. The way I, or any other individual, personally spend my money doesn't have a huge effect on any corporation. Our actions only matter as a collective, and corporations do have access to a lot of info on how that collective is spending its money. But a single corporation has a far larger impact. Now I'll grant that there exists a very SPECIFIC school of capitalism that implies that the only economic rights the government should protect are property rights. It's called Laissez faire capitalism, it's never actually been implemented, and the closest we've got has led to horribly unethical situations that NOBODY should desire. For capitalism to best serve the people in the way an economic system it requires both sides to have an equal playing field, and transparency is necessary for this. You keep saying socialist, but Socialism at its core ONLY means government control of factors of production (land, labor, and capital). FOrcing transparency and honesty does not affect a corporation's ability to produce in any way they want. It does not prevent the control of the economy by the market forces of supply and demand (as I've pointed out, it does the opposite since it means that corporations have less tools to manipulate that supply to their advantage)


Private companies are owned by private individuals, who have a right to privacy. And you didn't answer my question: "What practices are there that video game companies do that can be considered unethical?"
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 17:08

Gosh darn it guys it's entertainment! You don't have to know anything about how it runs because YOU DON'T NEED IT! It would be different if it was the only supplier of clean water or electricty in your town but it's not. Whine some moar! but if you think it's unethical don't buy it! THAT'S how capitalism works.
No Avatar
02 Apr 2013 17:11

I did answer. That's up to the consumer to decide. Ethics are a very hazy thing and there are as many different ideas on it as there are people. And I'm pretty sure that most corporations don't give all of their stockholders access to all their books (because in a corporation, the executives are not the owners, the shareholders are). And if that's the case, than any shareholder should have the right to spill all of a companies corporate secrets because hey, they are an owner. The fact is with as many owners as there are in corporations its not really possible to call them the property of any individual. INdividuals have shares in them, but it's not the same as having control of your own finances. But obviously this presents problems, and as such, I don't see how we can call corporations equivalent to individuals in their rights. And technically, there isn't any part of the constitution that protects your right to keeping your finances secret anyways (There can't even be since having an understanding of individual finances is kind of necessary for tax collection), so your point is still moot. Tell me why it's a bad thing in actuality to do this stuff, not some theoretical, abstract stuff, but why it would hurt society as a whole if we forced transparency on businesses.
Also, how can I protest practices I find unethical if I have such a limited ability to know if those practices are going on?
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 17:22

Aaronrules380 wrote:I did answer. That's up to the consumer to decide. Ethics are a very hazy thing and there are as many different ideas on it as there are people. And I'm pretty sure that most corporations don't give all of their stockholders access to all their books (because in a corporation, the executives are not the owners, the shareholders are). And if that's the case, than any shareholder should have the right to spill all of a companies corporate secrets because hey, they are an owner. The fact is with as many owners as there are in corporations its not really possible to call them the property of any individual. INdividuals have shares in them, but it's not the same as having control of your own finances. But obviously this presents problems, and as such, I don't see how we can call corporations equivalent to individuals in their rights. And technically, there isn't any part of the constitution that protects your right to keeping your finances secret anyways (There can't even be since having an understanding of individual finances is kind of necessary for tax collection), so your point is still moot. Tell me why it's a bad thing in actuality to do this stuff, not some theoretical, abstract stuff, but why it would hurt society as a whole if we forced transparency on businesses.
Also, how can I protest practices I find unethical if I have such a limited ability to know if those practices are going on?


Anything I name would be theoretical because I don't have any hard facts on the consequences of doing so. And I'm not going to go searching Google to prove a point to a random person on the internet who thinks that because some businesses do unethical things that he cannot name, every company from the EA to the small mom and pop corner store must open their books for the public to scrutinize.
No Avatar
02 Apr 2013 17:35

nGen wrote:
Aaronrules380 wrote:I did answer. That's up to the consumer to decide. Ethics are a very hazy thing and there are as many different ideas on it as there are people. And I'm pretty sure that most corporations don't give all of their stockholders access to all their books (because in a corporation, the executives are not the owners, the shareholders are). And if that's the case, than any shareholder should have the right to spill all of a companies corporate secrets because hey, they are an owner. The fact is with as many owners as there are in corporations its not really possible to call them the property of any individual. INdividuals have shares in them, but it's not the same as having control of your own finances. But obviously this presents problems, and as such, I don't see how we can call corporations equivalent to individuals in their rights. And technically, there isn't any part of the constitution that protects your right to keeping your finances secret anyways (There can't even be since having an understanding of individual finances is kind of necessary for tax collection), so your point is still moot. Tell me why it's a bad thing in actuality to do this stuff, not some theoretical, abstract stuff, but why it would hurt society as a whole if we forced transparency on businesses.
Also, how can I protest practices I find unethical if I have such a limited ability to know if those practices are going on?


Anything I name would be theoretical because I don't have any hard facts on the consequences of doing so. And I'm not going to go searching Google to prove a point to a random person on the internet who thinks that because some businesses do unethical things that he cannot name, every company from the EA to the small mom and pop corner store must open their books for the public to scrutinize.

I'm saying that consumers have the rights to know how businesses are operating to an extent. It doesn't even need to be showing all their finances. All it needs to be is giving us a fair picture of how things operate. There might still be slant, but at least it'll be easier to seperate the slant from the bs with careful observation. And by unethical, I don't just mean really awful things, but even little things that might just be distasteful. And it's hard for me to understand how bad some practices are with the current level of transparency (the way dlc is abused takes on a very different connotation if companies are doing it because they literally can't turn a profit otherwise). Ultimately, transparency allows me to make an informed decision as a consumer (And consumers aren't the only ones who would benefit anyways, since from what I understand, even shareholders don't get a lot of transparency, and they technically own the companies) in line with my beliefs
User avatar
02 Apr 2013 17:43

Aaronrules380 wrote:
nGen wrote:
Aaronrules380 wrote:I did answer. That's up to the consumer to decide. Ethics are a very hazy thing and there are as many different ideas on it as there are people. And I'm pretty sure that most corporations don't give all of their stockholders access to all their books (because in a corporation, the executives are not the owners, the shareholders are). And if that's the case, than any shareholder should have the right to spill all of a companies corporate secrets because hey, they are an owner. The fact is with as many owners as there are in corporations its not really possible to call them the property of any individual. INdividuals have shares in them, but it's not the same as having control of your own finances. But obviously this presents problems, and as such, I don't see how we can call corporations equivalent to individuals in their rights. And technically, there isn't any part of the constitution that protects your right to keeping your finances secret anyways (There can't even be since having an understanding of individual finances is kind of necessary for tax collection), so your point is still moot. Tell me why it's a bad thing in actuality to do this stuff, not some theoretical, abstract stuff, but why it would hurt society as a whole if we forced transparency on businesses.
Also, how can I protest practices I find unethical if I have such a limited ability to know if those practices are going on?


Anything I name would be theoretical because I don't have any hard facts on the consequences of doing so. And I'm not going to go searching Google to prove a point to a random person on the internet who thinks that because some businesses do unethical things that he cannot name, every company from the EA to the small mom and pop corner store must open their books for the public to scrutinize.

I'm saying that consumers have the rights to know how businesses are operating to an extent. It doesn't even need to be showing all their finances. All it needs to be is giving us a fair picture of how things operate. There might still be slant, but at least it'll be easier to seperate the slant from the bs with careful observation. And by unethical, I don't just mean really awful things, but even little things that might just be distasteful. And it's hard for me to understand how bad some practices are with the current level of transparency (the way dlc is abused takes on a very different connotation if companies are doing it because they literally can't turn a profit otherwise). Ultimately, transparency allows me to make an informed decision as a consumer (And consumers aren't the only ones who would benefit anyways, since from what I understand, even shareholders don't get a lot of transparency, and they technically own the companies) in line with my beliefs


Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
User avatar
03 Apr 2013 08:02

XSeed is amazing! I'm very glad that the smaller publishers are doing so well right now!
User avatar
04 Apr 2013 00:37

kdognumba1 wrote:XSeed is amazing! I'm very glad that the smaller publishers are doing so well right now!

Thank you. You are like a jolt of fresh air in this troubled thread. Thank you. :P
Seriously, I'm not really surprised by these estimates... only a thing or two actually looks cheaper to do that I thought.

Also: @Aaronrules380:
They don't release these data, not of fear at what the customers would see, but what the competition would steal. There is a big phenomenon right now that is affecting EVERY industry: the Big Data.
The more you know, both about your own company and the other companies, the more powerful you become. It would be suicidal from a financial point to release that data, as the gathering of it is one of the biggest investments these companies does right now, and it would be giving it free to their competitors that could then use it to improve even more THEIR profits. Think about it.

View the full discussion!

Quickie Search

"Advanced" Search

Anti-social Tendencies

Advertisements

RSS feed trough

News Feed
Top Stories
Console News
Portables News
Podcast Feed
GoNintendo Radio Feed
Twitter Feed

Affiliates + Friends

Destructoid
Gamersyde
Modojo
TheBitBlock
Anime Your Way