Tomb Raider reboot

detroit20 wrote:

Yes, I agree that the game sold well... but we have no visibility of is whether the game sold well enough to recoup all of its costs and - equally importantly - to tent-pole for other games that may have sold considerably less well.

I suspect the problem is that financing games today is sufficiently complex that budgets aren't computed on a per game basis. So even if the game sold well enough to cover development costs in some theoretical sense, the accounting is such that it actually lost money. It seems that the game industry really needs to revise the way is projects profits for a game, because the current approach clearly doesn't work.

At the end of the day, the AAA model is increasingly depending on consumers willingness to keep a game disc in the tray for several months. If you can do that then you can sell map packs, additional multiplayer modes, additions and expansions. If you can't do that then you need very big early sales. There is no 'long tail' for video games.

I suppose it depends on what qualifies a game as being AAA. Tomb Raider, for example, is really defined as a solo experience. And even more, it's an adventure game. For a multiplayer experience that works I think you'd have to completely change the format and do something like Guardians of Light.

Regarding map packs and DLC, I only buy that stuff if I'm still playing the game when they're released. I imagine that's why multiplayer games and games that support replay are more likely to sell DLC. With this in mind, I'm actually curious to see how the DLC for Bioshock: Infinite does. It's more single player content, but it will be released almost a year after the original game. How many people will want to return to the game at that point simply to expand on an already seemingly complete experience?

The problem I see with Eidos, notably Eidos Montreal and Crystal Dynamics is that they don't seem to be able to put out a game in a resonable timespan. What would take most studios 2-3 years is taking them 5+, and then there were the rumours of the Thief development having trouble and not previewing greatly. There's nothing wrong in long developments in themselves, but in a commercial setting they probably need to be balanced against shorter term projects and managed correctly so that you're not changing course midway through expensive production.

They put out some good stuff in the end, but it seems like they go through hell to do it, and then the revenue from those products has an greater hill to climb for it to be lucrative.

Agreed on the long tail, and reminded myself that another Activision affiliated company has been doing the same for years, Blizzard's titles retain their value and keep on selling.

This just in: Eidos Montreal GM resigns

Stephane D'Astous departs, citing irreconcilable differences with Square Enix management, lack of leadership, courage, and communication.

Eidos Montreal has lost the only general manager it's ever known. Stephane D'Astous resigned from the Thief studio last Friday, the developer told GamesIndustry International today.

"Since last year's financial short-coming performance of Square Enix Europe, we (HQ London and GM Eidos-Montreal) have had growing and divergent opinions on what needed to be done to correct the situation," D'Astous said. "The lack of leadership, lack of courage and the lack of communication were so evident, that I wasn't able to conduct my job correctly. I realised that our differences were irreconcilable, and that the best decision was unfortunately to part ways."

complexmath wrote:
detroit20 wrote:

Yes, I agree that the game sold well... but we have no visibility of is whether the game sold well enough to recoup all of its costs and - equally importantly - to tent-pole for other games that may have sold considerably less well.

I suspect the problem is that financing games today is sufficiently complex that budgets aren't computed on a per game basis. So even if the game sold well enough to cover development costs in some theoretical sense, the accounting is such that it actually lost money. It seems that the game industry really needs to revise the way is projects profits for a game, because the current approach clearly doesn't work.

Just as - if not more - important, is whether or not a game meets projected sales. A lot of these 'recent failures' (Tomb Raider, Dead Space 3) were failures more so because they didn't sell as much as the bean counters predicted they would based on market analysis.

nel e nel wrote:

A lot of these 'recent failures' (Tomb Raider, Dead Space 3) were failures more so because they didn't sell as much as the bean counters predicted they would based on market analysis.

Right. And I imagine they're spending this anticipated money before the sales have actually been realized. So if they don't meet projections they're suddenly millions of dollars in debt.

complexmath wrote:

I suspect the problem is that financing games today is sufficiently complex that budgets aren't computed on a per game basis.

Appreciating this post given your username. Of course I have to wonder, you built a new engine you can re-use; how is that accounted for? I don't know much about accounting, but it's another complex issue.

I would have assumed that creating a strong game based on a brand that could be used on a succession of sequels could withstand losing money on the first game. They may have had unreasonable expectations of sales, but the game still sold well, reviewed well, and many will line up to buy the sequel.

They need to look at the Batman model. They sold the first game with heavy week one discounts, word of mouth spread really fast, and it led to a sequel that required far less development time. The third game looks great, and will do well in week one regardless of how well it is executed, even though it has been passed to another developer.

The trick for Tomb Raider is that the sequel will be next gen, so they won't get the same break on development that rock Steady go. There is a reason publishers like franchises and sequels, and it seems odd that so much was riding on just the first game.

Just adding, way late to the party, finally picked this one up when it was on sale recently and it is much better than I thought it would be. Still a bit too much of a manshoot for my tastes, but its handled well at least.

Scratched wrote:

This just in: Eidos Montreal GM resigns

@Scratched

It's impossible to know, of course, precisely what the irreconcilable difference were, but - like you - I suspect this is to do with the less than enthusiastic critical response to Thief.

As you say, a significant number of Square Enix's games are taking 5 years to complete. Given the size of the team's involved that has to hurt financially and it has to affect the predicted/desired/required sales figures.

I know it's a bit apples and oranges, but it compares unfavourable to speed at which the film industry is able to establish and exploit franchises. I mean, the entire Transformers series took about the same time to knock out as Thief, didn't it?

It's been said by a number of people, but the current model simply isn't sustainable.

detroit20 wrote:

As you say, a significant number of Square Enix's games are taking 5 years to complete. Given the size of the team's involved that has to hurt financially and it has to affect the predicted/desired/required sales figures.

I know it's a bit apples and oranges, but it compares unfavourable to speed at which the film industry is able to establish and exploit franchises. I mean, the entire Transformers series took about the same time to knock out as Thief, didn't it?

It's been said by a number of people, but the current model simply isn't sustainable.

The thing is, there are companies that make it work for themselves, notably Ubisoft and Activision. It's not that the AAA model is broken, just that there are certain requirements and conditions to working in it, and say what you will about those two companies but they know a production line. Ubisoft have hundreds of people working on their games (less so for something like CoD:BO2) but they can make it pay off and they'll get a game out every 1/2 years.

The way it looks to me is that Squarenidos talk the talk of being a AAA developers/publisher, they try to work in that segment, but don't walk the walk of sustainably and reliably producing AAA games to keep the company going.

@Scratched

No, you're right; Triple-A isnt itself broken. I typed that last comment without enough thought or reference to earlier posts.

To be clearer, the way some companies are implementing it is faulty.

Ubisoft is an interesting example, because they have a real skill in creating solid franchise from arguably unsound beginnings (I'm thinking Far Cry to an extent, but certainly Assassins Creed). What is it that they are getting right, do you think?

From my point of view, they seem to really good at launching their titles on time (and presumably on budget). And they're also good at launching a first entry in a franchise that is serviceable at least then launching substantially improved sequels (but again, on time and on budget). Naught Dog seem to have this skill too. Uncharted 1 was flawed but promising enough to enable them to create Uncharted 2 (which I think is their masterpiece, having not played The Last of Us yet).

Scratched wrote:

Let me make that my wish for the next generation (doubly so now that they can't lock games to accounts for xbone) is that they find another way to increase how long people play the game and hold on to it rather than just tagging multiplayer on. If they wanted to experiment with TR multiplayer it should have been it's own title, either big or small (Guardian of light style), and if it's not strong enough to survive by itself then it's not strong enough to survive as part of a larger project and is just leeching resources. There's a bit of 20:20 hindsight there, but I don't think anyone was ever sold on TR MP except with the proviso that they did something interesting with it, and what we got was the most boring bog-standard multiplayer imaginable.

I think this game could have benefited from a new game+. As soon as I finished I want to jump back in, but not start from zero. It worked for recent Resident Evil and the Dead Space games. Let the people play through in the way the developer intended, then let the player go back through overpowered and work to get all the unlocks.

I think a lot of it comes down to having a clear direction. With Thief, for example, the team has had multiple creative leads and seems to have been essentially scrapped and restarted multiple times. That's years worth of cost that has no connection to the current product.

Right, by the time the game heads into full production they shouldn't be changing major things about the game, it should just be a case of making the thing. Any project is going to see minor changes needed, but pre-production is for hammering out what you're going to make.

To me, that seems like a problem with the idea of a studio where you employ people full time to do their job, you need to keep projects rolling down that production line or you're paying them to twiddle their thumbs. That means there's a pressure to keep them doing something that will make the wages produce something worthwhile. I'm wondering what would have happened if Eidos Montreal had been banging out DE:HR DLC such as the Montreal/India/Upper Heng Sha hubs, or producing DE:HR:The Fall as a multiplatform small title. They need lots of quality projects (note I said projects, not games) to fill their production capability rather than projects not ready to go.

Jayhawker wrote:

I would have assumed that creating a strong game based on a brand that could be used on a succession of sequels could withstand losing money on the first game. They may have had unreasonable expectations of sales, but the game still sold well, reviewed well, and many will line up to buy the sequel.

You must be confusing stock holders and board members with folks who have long term vision. ;p

Scratched wrote:
detroit20 wrote:

As you say, a significant number of Square Enix's games are taking 5 years to complete. Given the size of the team's involved that has to hurt financially and it has to affect the predicted/desired/required sales figures.

I know it's a bit apples and oranges, but it compares unfavourable to speed at which the film industry is able to establish and exploit franchises. I mean, the entire Transformers series took about the same time to knock out as Thief, didn't it?

It's been said by a number of people, but the current model simply isn't sustainable.

The thing is, there are companies that make it work for themselves, notably Ubisoft and Activision. It's not that the AAA model is broken, just that there are certain requirements and conditions to working in it, and say what you will about those two companies but they know a production line. Ubisoft have hundreds of people working on their games (less so for something like CoD:BO2) but they can make it pay off and they'll get a game out every 1/2 years.

The way it looks to me is that Squarenidos talk the talk of being a AAA developers/publisher, they try to work in that segment, but don't walk the walk of sustainably and reliably producing AAA games to keep the company going.

The thing is, not every AAA studio has a franchise on the scale of Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed, that sell bazijillions of copies that can sustain the smaller more experimental IPs. Where is Squeenix's IP of that scale? Does Final Fantasy even come close to those numbers?

The main numbered FFs are on that scale.

Also, Nintendo manages AAA quality and long tail, somehow.

nel e nel wrote:

The thing is, not every AAA studio has a franchise on the scale of Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed, that sell bazijillions of copies that can sustain the smaller more experimental IPs. Where is Squeenix's IP of that scale? Does Final Fantasy even come close to those numbers?

Yeah, they've probably got more, but less lucrative IPs than CoD (however, Acti has noted that reliance upon fewer IPs is a potential weakness for them and they need more to spread the risk).

That said, it's just another example of why they need to allocate budget/risk more appropriately. Don't go around with a zombie project for 5 years in production shambling on to release. Another aspect is that Ubisoft didn't allocate as much staff to AC1 as they did to later entries (if I'm interpreting mobygames properly, AC:B has more than double the credits) when they knew it would pay off, and they had an ongoing development.

Also I can appreciate when a project gets canned and shelved/binned. Taking Prey2 as a recent example when Human Head pretty much told Bethesda to screw themselves and it's gone dark ever since, while I'd expect Bethesda to try and continue/restart development, I wouldn't put it past them to cut their losses and quietly abandon it rather than throw good money after bad if they can't see a way to see it through to the finish (especially if the HH version isn't salvageable). But then, HH are an external developer rather than publisher owned, so Bethesda can just cut them loose rather than needing to continue paying paycheques to their own employees. That bring up another point, at least Eidos haven't done many mass layoffs as far as I can remember.

Demyx wrote:

The main numbered FFs are on that scale.

Also, Nintendo manages AAA quality and long tail, somehow.

Nintendo also manages rabid fanaticism for churning out the same game for the past 20+ years. ;p

nel e nel wrote:

Nintendo also manages rabid fanaticism for churning out the same game for the past 20+ years. ;p

Nintendo takes a lot more risks with Mario and Zelda than most big companies do with their bread and butter franchises.

I am glad that I picked it up during the Steam sale. I was honestly surprised about all the positive reviews when it first came out. Yet, the word has continued to be good from most everyone since then. It is always nice to have things turn out better than you expect.

May as well use this thread to keep all the Eidos bits together: Stephane D'Astous gives an interview to Polygon

MacGyverBomb wrote:

I am glad that I picked it up during the Steam sale. I was honestly surprised about all the positive reviews when it first came out. Yet, the word has continued to be good from most everyone since then. It is always nice to have things turn out better than you expect.

I was also happy I picked this up during the steam sale. I really really like this game and having a ton of fun playing, but my wife is not as happy with the lack of my help around the house.

Sucks to hear it did not do as well as projected.

Regarding the actual game:

I finished it the other night and I loved it--enough that I'm now replaying it and getting all the collectibles. I saw very little of the creepiness I felt from the devs in the pre-release PR work they did (was it an E3 when they said they were going to hurt Lara to make you want to protect her?). There were a few questionable camera angles during the cutscenes, but really, I thought the game did a good job of characterizing her (at least, it was reasonable given the norms of the genre; it still wasn't actually good). I never thought I would say this, but I actually liked Lara. It helped that the game is gorgeous (I was playing on Ultra), with great environments and character models.

And I loved the reference to

Spoiler:

The Descent, a movie I really liked, which actually has quite a few things in common with TR.

Yeah, I didn't get any of the creepiness that were suggested by pre-release commentary. I don't know if they changed the game based on public reaction to that news or if they simply gave people a bad idea of what the game would be like, but either way I really enjoyed Tomb Raider and was pleasantly surprised at the lack of attention paid to Lara being female.

I think they put a lot of that down to a marketing misstep and backpedalled on it, bringing journalists in to show them the scene properly.

So question for those that have finished... I'm currently at:

Spoiler:

Just escaped the bit where that contraption had me hanging upside down and got the shotgun

How far am I in the game? Half way?

Somewhere around half to two thirds I think. It's been a while since I played , but you've still got a good chunk left.

CptGlanton wrote:

And I loved the reference to

Spoiler:

The Descent, a movie I really liked, which actually has quite a few things in common with TR.

I thought it was more stealing from the movie and less of a callback, but I guess that depends on how you see it. Some scenes are almost identical.

I would say you're maybe 35-40% done, BlackSabre.