A Dirge for the Sinking Ship

Ask certain people in the know, and they will tell you that the current gaming market is unsustainable. It’s pretty rare that I turn my Sauron eye to the forums for support, but this particular comment about Electronic Arts’ recent layoffs is the kind of science I like to see laid on people. It ties together with troubling research I’ve done on my own end, and while I’m not on board with the full conclusion, there does seem to be some strong evidence that the gaming industry is stuck in the Death Star trash compactor and can’t seem to get 3PO on the communicator.

I honestly have a genuine fear about what the next 3 or 4 years might bring in the gaming marketplace. Even if there is not dire writing on the wall some troubling graffiti has turned up portending dark days ahead. The industry has been in a struggle for nearly a decade to monetize their transactions outside of the initial purchase, and instead of making progress the rise of the used market, an unreliable consumer base and the omni-present piracy revenue suck have just made things worse.

So, when Bioware and EA put so many resources into developing a hardcore gamers-game like Dragon Age, and people light pitchforks on fire because of optional DLC, I can’t help but feel intensely frustrated at what I see as thin-skinned entitlement and monumental naivete.

I consider many in the angry mob to be friends, and it does not give me pleasure to stand against them. But, I firmly believe that if you want to keep getting games like Dragon Age, like Fallout 3, like Uncharted 2, like The Beatles: Rock Band then gamers are going to need to get on board with or at least stop openly revolting against things like Day-1 DLC.

I have been watching with trepidation and concern the past 2 years as a conflict of game publishing ideology has erupted between the once mighty Electronic Arts and the laser-focused, unrepentant capitalism of Activision. And, as EA sheds hundreds of jobs, and more importantly dozens of projects, my worst fears are come true. The focus on scatter-shot approaches to new IPs and emphasis on driving quality over quantity is great for warming cockles in hearts, but ejaculating dozens of crappy iterations of go-to franchises has tragically triumphed as the profitable way to go.

The only way to sustain that emphasis on gamer-friendly qualities is by making a profit on the releases that do well to off-set the costs of doing business. Warden’s Keep isn’t about greedily slurping up the ignorance of gamers. It’s about funding the next Mirror’s Edge. It’s about having the resources to take chances on games that gamers love.

Have cake or eat cake. Sorry, kids, you only get to choose one, and I fear now even that choice may have been taken from our hands.

While we were all squabbling in the corner over meaningless skirmishes about DLC and dedicated servers, the war was waged on another front and it’s starting to look like we lost.

I hate to be dire, but I’ve seen 3 years of the Bobby Kotick doctrine, and if that’s what the future for companies like EA and TakeTwo and THQ is going to be then we’re going to sit back in a few years and long for the day when we got to whine about Day-1 DLC in a game like Dragon Age. Let me describe the future I see. Subscription based services married with microtransactions. Hobbled initial releases where the DLC is not just an optional quest, but key game mechanics. One-time required online authentication that prevents multi-player for used games. A virtual death of games like Mirror’s Edge, Dead Space, Ghostbusters, Brutal Legend, Borderlands or Dragon Age.

You're standing on the Titanic, and you're complaining about the color of the deck chairs.

If I sound mad, it’s because I am. It is an unfocussed rage that simmers and burns, because many of the kinds of games I adore are destined for the dust bin. And, the reality is that no one is clean in this fight. Publishers have adopted a model that is proving unsustainable to match the rising cost of development. Retailers who struggle against thin new-release profit margins have compromised the industry as a whole for their own profit. Gamers have waged their own zealot war against a changing marketplace, irresponsibly made unreasonable decisions about their entitlements and bent the rules as they see fit to get what they think they’ve got coming. Nobody comes out of this smelling like a rose.

As our well-informed forum commenter mentions in his post, the acquisition of Playfish along with the cancellation of mid-range games might as well be EA’s white flag waved in the breeze. You recall when Activision let go of Ghostbusters, Brutal Legend and the Chronicles of Riddick remake. These are exactly the kind of games that major publishers can’t afford to make any more if they can’t find a meaningful way to continue profiting beyond initial sales. These are exactly the kind of games that EA just ejected.

Let me put it this way, if having Day-one DLC in a game like Dragon Age means that Bioware gets to make the sequel, and not having it means they don’t, I will happily take the opportunity to make my informed purchasing choice and I will fold my arms and look sternly at those who gripe and complain. Drawing the line in the sand has consequences, and I’m not nearly invested enough in the ideology of consumer activism in the gaming marketplace to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If you want an industry that can take chances. If you want an industry that can be agile and adaptable to niche demands. If you want publishers that are willing to explore new IPs and put resources behind projects like Dragon Age, then you, my stubborn and well-intentioned comrades, need to turn down the righteous fury.

Comments

Okay then... i used the wrong term. What is it i am describing here? - and no disingenuity was intended. The effect on being able to produce bigger or more expensive games without raising prices is the same in the end.... no?

If anything the fact that there are few economies of scale in the games industry is a bad thing. Every time a new games comes out it needs to be made from scratch, new or heavily modified engines and new assets for your world.

I think it was Warren Spector who had a good moan that compared to filming a movie, game developers keep reinventing the camera as often as they can, so that there's a ton of engineering before you can start making your game. No one cares if you use the same camera in 20 different movies. Wherever you site your game you have to make all the assets for it, doesn't matter if there have been 5 games lately set on an ice world, if yours is too you've got to make all the assets too. If you want to film a desert you travel to a desert, no one cares if it's the same desert used 2 years ago by a different studio.

This is one reason I'm kind of looking forwards to the Mass Effect sequel as they've done the groundwork for their world and the second should be refined, with hopefully more attention where it matters in the gameplay. Other stand out examples I can think of would be Relic with their DoW/DoW2/CoH series, and The Sims, and I don't recall any moaning about costs from either. Sequels and expansions it seems are the only areas in the games industry where it's 'acceptable' to have any economies of scale.

I think the games industry needs to get over being so competitive within the industry and start cooperating more. Get standardising and reusing more. License technology and assets to get the production rolling. Stop making platforms so vastly different from each other (or at all) that half the game has to be reengineered and a different set of assets for each, when the game itself is a generic multiplatform release.

There's no need for a game's budget to run up to $50 million... i mean, who pushes that? Certainly not the mass market gaming population.

It's really hard to have an intelligent conversation about this if that is your belief.

Trying to define the "mass market" gaming population doesnt really make sense.. since spending $50M or spending $5M isnt really the point.. a game can sell really well despite budget.. but certainly attempting to develop certain types of games simply cost more...certain genre's of games demand higher budgets..

Try releasing a low budget FPS in today's market.. no shot.

Torchlight MMO won't nearly cost as much as KOTOR MMO but I would bet $100 that KOTOR MMO in terms of certain aspects of gameplay shows the difference in budget...both though won't have budget as their primary driver for success.

Anyone who has done it on any scale approaching that of a large game will tell you that the *production* aspect is much the same as it was. A lot of manual labor, a lot of time, a lot of cost. Comparing this to the mass production of cars or consumer electronics is a bit disingenuous.

Exactly this.. which was the point of my response to your original post.

TheGameguru wrote:
There's no need for a game's budget to run up to $50 million... i mean, who pushes that? Certainly not the mass market gaming population.

It's really hard to have an intelligent conversation about this if that is your belief.

Really? Seriously? I mean come on.... we can't have a serious discussion because i believe that the majority of gamers would have been just as happy if we never pushed consoles past PS2/GC/Xbox/Wii levels? Clearly we can have an intelligent conversation but perhaps this means that you don't want to....

Trying to define the "mass market" gaming population doesnt really make sense.. since spending $50M or spending $5M isnt really the point..

But making a $50M game in a market that would (when taking a risk/reward assessment) only support at the most a $20M developed game then that does make sense. That whole gist of my post was in response to "the gaming market hasn't grown considerably in the last ten years and so we should count ourselves lucky that we haven't seen an increase in game cost to the consumer" - which is wrong.

a game can sell really well despite budget.. but certainly attempting to develop certain types of games simply cost more...certain genre's of games demand higher budgets..

I agree but i don't see how that impacts on the points i was making. There will always be an upper and lower end of the spectrum for development costs but pushing us into "HD" has arguably brought the most cost of increase to the large-scale (read: console) game production.

Try releasing a low budget FPS in today's market.. no shot.

So, Portal, Left 4 Dead et al. (which have low budgets when compared to CoD4 and Halo 3) didn't do well or didn't happen? In fact, look at the release schedule of the last 12 months. There are quite a few low budget FPS games released for bargain bin prices. If they didn't make a return on investment then we wouldn't keep seeing these releases year on year.... developers and publishers aren't that stupid. Are they?

Torchlight MMO won't nearly cost as much as KOTOR MMO but I would bet $100 that KOTOR MMO in terms of certain aspects of gameplay shows the difference in budget...both though won't have budget as their primary driver for success.

That's difficult to ascertain at the moment. I mean, one thing a larger budget will ensure is that you will see more features rather than the same features polished to a higher extent.... so i think it's often one of those cases where the more features you add in, the same amount of polish you get on each of those features when compared to a much lower amount of budget money spent on fewer features.

Anyone who has done it on any scale approaching that of a large game will tell you that the *production* aspect is much the same as it was. A lot of manual labor, a lot of time, a lot of cost. Comparing this to the mass production of cars or consumer electronics is a bit disingenuous.

Exactly this.. which was the point of my response to your original post.

Hopefully you can see that this point wasn't the one i was trying to make and that the last 10 posts or so that focus on the three words "economy of scale" is a complete side track from what i was trying to say.

Jayhawker wrote:
CptGlanton wrote:

I'm not sure that I understand the logic of the article, but it seems to be this: If I want Mirror's Edge (a game that I did not play, but that we are taking as a symbol of 'quality-over-quantity' here, which is fine), then I need to buy the DLC in Dragon Age purely for the sake of increasing my purchase price for Dragon's Age. Similarly, if I want more Brutal Legend (another symbol for quantity-over-quality), then I need to purchase whatever DLC they might develop for that title or for other EA titles, on the assumption it's all going into the same pot. If I'm misreading, someone please correct me,

You're misreading it. The claim is that DLC helps fund new IPs. The extra revenue that a publisher can generate wil be pushed into riskier projects. If less revenue is generated, publishers invest those dollars into less risky investments.

No, actually I didn't misread it. I just re-wrote from a different perspective.

Duoae wrote:

So, Portal, Left 4 Dead et al. (which have low budgets when compared to CoD4 and Halo 3) didn't do well or didn't happen?

You have some article on that, because what little I DO know about the budget behind left4dead is pretty monumental. The advertising budget ALONE was $10 million. L4D2's is purportedly $25 million. My guess is (just based on rumor and headcount) that the dedicated dev budget for L4D was around 10mm as well, but that doesn't take into account maintaining servers, maintaining the game, or releasing new content. For that, the only sales numbers we know are in the ~3mm range for retail, and some additional from direct steam sales (undisclosed).

Consider MW2 sold 5 million copies in its openning week, or Halo3's 10mm sold. Big budget, big-flash titles CAN sell tons more than even breakout successes like L4D (which, lets be clear, is a breakout success for Valve, beating orange box in every public metric.) But just like hollywood, you only get so many good-will-hunting's in one lifetime, and an Uberbudget sequel to a bestselling game is probably a safer bet than 20 million on a coop zombie shooter with a handful of maps.

rabbit wrote:
Duoae wrote:

So, Portal, Left 4 Dead et al. (which have low budgets when compared to CoD4 and Halo 3) didn't do well or didn't happen?

You have some article on that, because what little I DO know about the budget behind left4dead is pretty monumental. The advertising budget ALONE was $10 million.

I don't - but i wasn't considering marketing budget or ongoing costs as part of development costs. I know Halo 3 had development costs around $30 million*, GTA 4 cost around $100 million and I've seen CoD4 estimated at $20 million* but i can't find the link for that...... Killzone 2 - $20+ million (it reached that figure by June 2007)..... I made the assumption that because the game was primarily developed at Turtle Rock and only bought out by Valve late in the game (Jan 2008 - development supposedly started in 2006) that their costs would be comparatively less than most other AAA titles like CoD4 and Halo 3 since it was an unproven IP and a smaller game/development environment.

Maybe i'm wrong and Turtle Rock and Valve blew megabucks on the development of the game... however i still think it's unlikely that they reached as high as CoD4 or Halo 3 - which is all i said in that quote.

*Not including bonuses or marketing.

L4D2's is purportedly $25 million. My guess is (just based on rumor and headcount) that the dedicated dev budget for L4D was around 10mm as well, but that doesn't take into account maintaining servers, maintaining the game, or releasing new content. For that, the only sales numbers we know are in the ~3mm range for retail, and some additional from direct steam sales (undisclosed).

Consider MW2 sold 5 million copies in its openning week, or Halo3's 10mm sold. Big budget, big-flash titles CAN sell tons more than even breakout successes like L4D (which, lets be clear, is a breakout success for Valve, beating orange box in every public metric.) But just like hollywood, you only get so many good-will-hunting's in one lifetime, and an Uberbudget sequel to a bestselling game is probably a safer bet than 20 million on a coop zombie shooter with a handful of maps.

I'm not sure what your point is.... You agree with GameGuru that lower budget FPSes are not profitable and aren't likely to be produced or released? I already tried to point out that there is a huge spectrum for games to exist at different budget points and it seems to me that what you said agreed with that. I mean, we clearly see a range of titles in the FPS genre from super-low budget to $50 million plus budgets and the market can support them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem isn't that the biggest games are costing $50 million and up, but that the average game costs $10 to $15 million, and will never make that money back. So, we have a situation where the biggest game make boatloads of cash, and you can make a decent buck if you keep your budget tiny and get lucky, but if you're in that middle ground, you're screwed.

And ignoring the marketing budget is fallacy, as those huge games aren't huge without that money being spent. Halo 3 doesn't sell 10 million copies if Microsoft doesn't spend the money to make it an event. COD4 would have done well, but Modern Warfare 2 wouldn't have been the juggernaut it is without Activision ponying up the cash for all those commercials.

I think I've seen it somewhere that the advertising budget has a direct relationship with the amount a product will sell. Maybe EA need to make Activision-blizzard's advertising company an offer they can't refuse.

TheCounselor wrote:

And ignoring the marketing budget is fallacy, as those huge games aren't huge without that money being spent. Halo 3 doesn't sell 10 million copies if Microsoft doesn't spend the money to make it an event. COD4 would have done well, but Modern Warfare 2 wouldn't have been the juggernaut it is without Activision ponying up the cash for all those commercials.

Scratched wrote:

I think I've seen it somewhere that the advertising budget has a direct relationship with the amount a product will sell. Maybe EA need to make Activision-blizzard's advertising company an offer they can't refuse.

I agree. Counselor... you're focusing on the wrong part of what i was saying - possibly because Rabbit focused on it. The fact is, that either including marketing or excluding it, smaller, cheaper games are released and they are financially successful. There may not be many that are run-away successes like Left 4 Dead but their continued existence would point to there being profit made in most cases otherwise that investment and risk would never allow them.

The fact is, that either including marketing or excluding it, smaller, cheaper games are released and they are financially successful. There may not be many that are run-away successes like Left 4 Dead but their continued existence would point to there being profit made in most cases otherwise that investment and risk would never allow them.

I'm so confused what you are trying to say.. no one is arguing that niche and low budget games can't be financially successful.. but your original point that no one is pushing for $50M budget titles makes no sense.

If I as a producer want to make Car Wars Online and make it the way that will do justice to the IP its going to cost me $50M+

Not sure how it won't.

Believe me.. no publisher WANTS to spend $50M to make $20M if they can spend $10M to make $20M (profit..assuming you cover costs)

Which sorta circles ALL the way back to the original post and point.. Pubs/Dev's are going to desperately look for more ways to squeeze revenue past the old model of initial sales in the first couple weeks.

But Left 4 Dead isn't a small, cheap game. It's a big budget game similar to Halo or Call of Duty. Games like that are fine. Games like Torchlight are fine. The category of games that are in trouble are games like Wolfenstein and Section 8. Even with budgets of $5 million, those games are going to lose money. There are plenty of good games in that middle budget tier ghat are in trouble, like Mirror's Edge, Dead Space and the like.

Now that the Unreal 3 engine has been released for all to use (charging only for commercial use), and the fact that Naughty Dog shares its dev tools with other developers, perhaps there's a decent chance for game development costs to come down without sacrificing quality, limiting the overall need for DLC to make up for the costs that went into the game. That may not actually reduce the amount of DLC created, but whenever costs can be lowered it can only be good for the consumer in the end.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

Now that the Unreal 3 engine has been released for all to use (charging only for commercial use), and the fact that Naughty Dog shares its dev tools with other developers, perhaps there's a decent chance for game development costs to come down without sacrificing quality, limiting the overall need for DLC to make up for the costs that went into the game. That may not actually reduce the amount of DLC created, but whenever costs can be lowered it can only be good for the consumer in the end.

I'd imagine the engine licensing costs are negligible in the grand scheme of things. Besides, they are still charging for commercial use, so I don't see how that changes things. Plenty of Unreal 3 games have had large budgets, despite using the engine.

I think cost is a bit of a macguffin. You look at the Gamasutra breakdown of Gears of War for example, and you see the issue. Developers make maybe 20 percent of the revenue back if they strike a good deal(and arguably Epic got one of the better deals with Gears of War), often developers only make money while in the process of developing, and then need to jump to the next project. There are just too many people taking too much of a rather small pie. It is really tough to break even when you are only getting a fifth of the revenue back.

There was a GDC talk some years ago, 3 or 4 now I think. And it was about how game makers need to stop comparing themselves to movies, because hollywood is much smarter. A movie has the box office, and the merchandising, then there is the home sale(DVD, download, pay per view), then there is premium cable, then broadcast in syndication. That is not to mention super mega special editions, art books. With rare exceptions, game makers have no figured out a way to make money aside from selling the one product. Few companies have a secondary or tertiary revenue model.

"If you want publishers that are willing to explore new IPs and put resources behind projects like Dragon Age, then you, my stubborn and well-intentioned comrades, need to turn down the righteous fury."

There is just something that bugs me about the last line of the article.

I guess it is like saying if you want publishers to explore new IPs and put resources behind projects like Stephen King's new book then stop complaining about the option in the middle of his new book asking you to pay $2 if you want to read a side story describing the circumstances leading to the death of the (otherwise unimportant to the story) name on the tombstone in the town's graveyard.

TheGameguru wrote:

I'm so confused what you are trying to say..

I'm almost as confused as everyone else. That whole paragraph was a complete side to where i was coming from originally.

To recap:

TheCounselor said we should be happy that the price of games hasn't increased (relatively) over the last ten years.

I pointed out that the market is much larger now (incorrectly using the term economy of scale to describe this - though i don't know what it is called still) and so has the ability to support those larger games so, in fact, no we shouldn't be happy and blowing them kisses.

In a separate thread of discussion with Kuddles i said "who is pushing" for those more expensive (and though i didn't explicitly say it in that sentence but implied it in the next and in other posts) more graphically expensive games. Sure there were expensive games in the previous generation of gaming but they were the minority.

GameGuru responded to that point saying that the money invested isn't the point (though obviously it wouldn't be spent if the studio/publisher determined that the market was smaller and couldn't support those high costs - which was my original point to TheCouncelor) and then said, "Try releasing a low budget FPS in today's market.. no shot."

To which i replied that, in fact, yes there are many lower budget FPSes in todays market. Pointing out two smaller budget games - though there are many more if people disagree with L4D.

Rabbit then questioned whether L4D was a lower budget game than Halo 3 and CoD4 (which is what i had said).

TheCounselor made an excellent point about the middle ground probably being the area where the most money is lost and then questioned whether ignoring the marketing budget was a good measure for truly comparing a game's overall budget.

I replied that even if you include the marketing budget the smaller games are still costing less - still arguing that smaller games are released - still countering: "Try releasing a low budget FPS in today's market.. no shot."

So really the conversation shifted from why games are still cheap to whether L4D was a lower budget game to the impact of marketing budget on a game's success.

no one is arguing that niche and low budget games can't be financially successful.. but your original point that no one is pushing for $50M budget titles makes no sense.

What i meant was that console games moved forward too quickly - something i mentioned earlier in the thread. The size of the market isn't large enough yet to support so many "middle ground" games - as also pointed out by TheCounselor.

Obviously there are exceptions but in general the most expense for a game will be the graphics/art/animation which is where we've seen the largest jump in quality over the period from 1999 to 2009. My point there (in your quote) is, "Who pushed that increase in graphics quality?". I questioned that it is the gamers themselves (introducing the "mass market consumer" term) and that i believe that the games industry could have gotten away with Wii-level graphics this generation and basically shot themselves in the foot by jumping too far ahead and are now hurting because of it (not to mention the unfortunate coincidence of the recession). I guess Microsoft and Sony should take the majority of the blame....

If I as a producer want to make Car Wars Online and make it the way that will do justice to the IP its going to cost me $50M+

Not sure how it won't.

I agree, though i treat MMOs as a special case scenario since you have a different type of revenue model than the majority of games (i.e. subscription and microtransactions) and it can be easier to recoup that larger outlay than for a game which doesn't rely on those facets of money generation.

Believe me.. no publisher WANTS to spend $50M to make $20M if they can spend $10M to make $20M (profit..assuming you cover costs)

Which sorta circles ALL the way back to the original post and point.. Pubs/Dev's are going to desperately look for more ways to squeeze revenue past the old model of initial sales in the first couple weeks.

Yeah, i'm not disagreeing with that. One of my points is that we didn't need to be in this situation. People weren't cautious and now it's coming back to haunt them because there won't be any bail-out for the gaming companies from governments. I'm not sure there's a large enough portion of the market willing to support wide-scale adoption of DLC and microtransactions..... but pinning the blame on consumers (as was pointed out by several people early in the thread) is completely illogical.

Economies of Scale

From investorwords
Reduction in cost per unit resulting from increased production, realized through operational efficiencies. Economies of scale can be accomplished because as production increases, the cost of producing each additional unit falls.

From wikipedia
Economies of scale is a long run concept and refers to reductions in unit cost as the size of a facility, or scale, increases.

From businessdictionary
Reduction in long-run average and marginal costs, due to increase in size of an operating unit (a factory or plant, for example). Economics of scale can be internal to a firm (cost reduction due to technological and management factors) or external (cost reduction due to the effect of technology in an industry).

Just thought some definitions might help.

I hope I'm not treading old ground here, but making a software product (games aren't really that special) doesn't yet follow the same 'economies of scale' rules closely enough.

There's a ton of up front development before you can make your final product, this is the expensive bit. It doesn't matter if you're making one unit or a billion, this cost to get your product to the spec is pretty static. Compare this to most other (non electronic entertainment) goods where there may be a significant bill of parts plus manufacturing cost.

No experience, but given the overall scale of DVD+case+manual fabrication for all games/movies/etc I doubt there's a significant difference between the costs of manufacturing the packaged goods for a game between a game that sells a few tens of thousands and a few millions. For digital downloads it's even less if you've already got the infrastructure.

More fuel for the fire: Activision pursuing 'online monetization models' for Call of Duty franchise

Duoae wrote:

In a separate thread of discussion with Kuddles i said "who is pushing" for those more expensive (and though i didn't explicitly say it in that sentence but implied it in the next and in other posts) more graphically expensive games. Sure there were expensive games in the previous generation of gaming but they were the minority.

This is the the rationale that drive me nuts. Gamers have lapped up multitudes of these high budget games, spring for $400-$600 consoles and new video cards to play them, and produce countless threads of discussion about the eye candy of their favorite games. They complain abut tearing and jaggies, as well as NPC that don't move natural enough.

Oh sure, some spend time talking about how gameplay matters most. But then, some claim dedicated servers qare a non-starter.

IMAGE(http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6062/1258035395841.jpg)

We see how well that worked out. That fact is, we, as a market, push for these games because we buy them in droves. We may pitch a fit, but we still send them out money, and that is all that matters to them.

Jayhawker wrote:
Duoae wrote:

In a separate thread of discussion with Kuddles i said "who is pushing" for those more expensive (and though i didn't explicitly say it in that sentence but implied it in the next and in other posts) more graphically expensive games. Sure there were expensive games in the previous generation of gaming but they were the minority.

This is the the rationale that drive me nuts. Gamers have lapped up multitudes of these high budget games, spring for $400-$600 consoles and new video cards to play them, and produce countless threads of discussion about the eye candy of their favorite games. They complain abut tearing and jaggies, as well as NPC that don't move natural enough.

Oh sure, some spend time talking about how gameplay matters most. But then, some claim dedicated servers qare a non-starter.

Maybe you need to hang around fewer hardcore gamers - which is why i try and make the distinction between the hardcore and mass market (which also incorporates casual and semi-hardcore[usually someone who plays a lot of a very few games but doesn't read/write/discuss them or the medium]).

How many people who saw the Wolverine movie or Spiderman 3 thought that they really crapped on the character and then ran to the internet to write about it..... We nerds/geeks/whatever are a minority. Yes, hardcore gamers lap up the high budget games - they were always on PC.... but that didn't stop 70 bajillion* people buying and playing each version of GTA from the PS1 onwards.

Let's face it, the Wii wouldn't have been a success if people really all thought that graphics weren't good enough. The PS2 wouldn't still be on sale, nor would games be being developed for it. There's a distinction between people being satisfied with the graphical quality of current generation of gaming and buying higher graphical quality games. Everyone likes the new and shiny... but it doesn't mean that they would have demanded it if it wasn't offered to them.

*A rough estimate.

We see how well that worked out. That fact is, we, as a market, push for these games because we buy them in droves. We may pitch a fit, but we still send them out money, and that is all that matters to them.

Yeah... so what's the percentage of PC to console sales on CoD4 and why is CoD4:MW2 now mainly focused on console gamers? How many console gamers do you think "boycotted" the game but then bought it anyway? I'm betting that it's a low number in all three cases. (I actually know that PC percentage of CoD4 sales is fairly small compared to the console sales).

Is the argument about graphics really relevant? From what I've read Dragon Age's graphics are passable but not fantastic. It's the size of the world that's expensive, not how shiny it is.

Out of interest, how does the scale of Dragon Age's world compare to Baldur's Gate 2? That's scale as in (size x complexity), not just pure size.

Zelos wrote:

Is the argument about graphics really relevant? From what I've read Dragon Age's graphics are passable but not fantastic. It's the size of the world that's expensive, not how shiny it is.

Out of interest, how does the scale of Dragon Age's world compare to Baldur's Gate 2? That's scale as in (size x complexity), not just pure size.

Games that take a long time are expensive. Bioware has to pay their employees to work on the game. That's where the primary development cost comes in. Dragon Age is a large complex game, and the development cost reflects that.

TheCounselor wrote:
Zelos wrote:

Is the argument about graphics really relevant? From what I've read Dragon Age's graphics are passable but not fantastic. It's the size of the world that's expensive, not how shiny it is.

Out of interest, how does the scale of Dragon Age's world compare to Baldur's Gate 2? That's scale as in (size x complexity), not just pure size.

Games that take a long time are expensive. Bioware has to pay their employees to work on the game. That's where the primary development cost comes in. Dragon Age is a large complex game, and the development cost reflects that.

Yes, but there is no real demand for a game like Dragon Age.

Hmmm,
So does not buying the Dragon Age DLC put one in the same box as those who didn't buy it and are "teh pissed", since it has the same financial ramifications for Bioware? I don't think you're saying that, but if it's the same effect, what is the real difference between the two groups?

Should a system that produces games that, when paid for in full price, still can't support their own dev costs be allowed to crumble, and good riddance? I'll tell you what, the people making games today are the same people who were making games ten years ago. Studios will come and go, but alot of these characters will always be around (Torchlight rising from the ashes of Hellgate, for example). If all we lose out of the deal is the budget arms-race that is currently making games like Brutal legend unworkable, even after over 200,000 sales (remember when that was alot? Yeah...) a failure, then I don't see this as the end of the world.

We've been here already with music and movies. 90% of the crap is crap, and 10% is to die for. The fresh gaming experiences will be weeded out of the big, box-shipping publishers who need 7 figure sales numbers to survive, and will find a home on Steam, or what-have-you. We'll still get great games, with sufficient visual sparkle. They won't be on the end aisles at Best Buy, 10 copies deep though.

It's the end of the world, always has been, always will be.

The only way to sustain that emphasis on gamer-friendly qualities is by making a profit on the releases that do well to off-set the costs of doing business. Warden’s Keep isn’t about greedily slurping up the ignorance of gamers. It’s about funding the next Mirror’s Edge. It’s about having the resources to take chances on games that gamers love.

I'm almost speechless you'd make this sort of argument.

It seems exceptionally close to the argument that drug companies push forth in an attempt to fight health care legislation, actually. "Look, some day, you probably would like to see cancer cured. To do that, we need to get every dime from you we can for your allergy medicines."

That dog won't hunt, monsignor. Fear monger.

If gaming truly is on a march towards this, I am probably actually going to get out of the hobby. I don't like being bled dry, and I don't feel like the companies respect me, the consumer, any more.

Oreo_Speedwagon wrote:

If gaming truly is on a march towards this, I am probably actually going to get out of the hobby. I don't like being bled dry, and I don't feel like the companies respect me, the consumer, any more.

Bye!

Of course, I'm not sure what other hobby you are going to find in which the cost is not subject to the laws of supply and demand. The price of games is set by market. Companies invest in games with an understanding of what they can get back, and what they need to continue forward. It doesn't mean they always get it right, but you can be damn sure they are always trying to get the maximum amount of money a gamer is willing to spend on their product. Always.

If that means including some content that is only accessible with a code when you buy the game new, so that used sales don't bleed off their profits, then so be it. If that means offering up some DLC sooner than some want it, and in a manner some find intrusive, so be it.

Because we have the ultimate power. We can wait until a game drops in price. We can buy used, or not at all. We can look for sales. The companies have to appeal to us in order to get our money. I'd say videogames are one of the really pure examples of supply and demand. The market reacts to every move.

The disconnect that seems to be going on here is in regards to unreasonable expectations on the part of gamers. how much money a company makes, and how they choose to invest it later has no bearing on the value of the game you are considering purchasing. Do YOU want to spend $50-60 on Dragon Age, or not. Do you YOU want to wait until it goes on sale or drops in price? Do YOU want to buy the DLC they offer.

But some people here seem to be worried that Bioware and EA may make too much money. Or they spend too much money creating the games. It doesn't matter. I don't care how much they spent making a game, I will only pay what I think the game is worth to me. If they charge more, I will opt out or wait. No big deal.

I don't think a company is showing a lack of respect, I think they may simply have overvalued their product. If they can find enugh people that are willing to spend what they are asking, more power to them.

I declare this thread closed! (Someone give me the authority please)

I really do not see any sort of march toward this as the dominant model. The real trend is to free. EA, Activision, etc need to worry more about Free Realms and Facebook.

I have said this before. But you have 2 generations of people coming up who have no concept of paying 50 dollars for a disc, 15 dollars a month, to play a computer game. Free to play, ad supported and small transaction, games will be the ones propping up companies. In a way, this is an arcade model. I

This business of 60 dollar buy in, 10 dollars a month, will die out on its own.

The game styles we enjoy will become a very narrow niche competing for what our kids and grandkids expect. And it is not just games that need to make a major change for these consumers but not buyers of media. How will Hollywood market television to kids used to online streaming? How do you sell music to someone who only every knows it from Last FM, Myspace, and Pandora? The only glimmer of hope, kids like going to the theatre.

KingGorilla wrote:

The game styles we enjoy will become a very narrow niche competing for what our kids and grandkids expect. And it is not just games that need to make a major change for these consumers but not buyers of media. How will Hollywood market television to kids used to online streaming? How do you sell music to someone who only every knows it from Last FM, Myspace, and Pandora? The only glimmer of hope, kids like going to the theatre.

No, or yes with a but.

And that but is consoles (PCs I agree with you), consoles still have a big initial buy for the game, although how this works in the future is anyone's guess.

Counter-counter-argument: piracy on consoles. As long as they can stay a step ahead of the banwaves they can get a game that is as good as any other (no cd keys). DLC codes have been given as a way to counter this, and used sales, but only on an incentive level.