On the Ball: AAA Extinction

Jordan Deam

New member
Jan 11, 2008
697
0
0
On the Ball: AAA Extinction

EA's concept of "premium DLC" is yet another sign that AAA games are going the way of the dinosaurs.

Read Full Article
 

Samurai Goomba

New member
Oct 7, 2008
3,679
0
0
In a way, it's almost, almost a dream come true. I've been saying for a long time that games need to get cheaper until gamers can feel comfortably in the black again. With a 50 or 60 dollar game, a lot of people can't afford and won't buy it. The Internet and used game stores (not to mention digital distribution and Steam sales) make it a much more attractive option to spend between 5 and 25 dollars on a title instead, so it only makes sense EA have been losing big.

But as I said, it's almost the right thing, what EA is doing here. The problem is they are still thinking of taking big budget productions and reducing their length to reduce the price. What they should be doing is releasing full-length games at lower prices and just not packing them with as many fancy visual effects or big-name VAs. And I think eventually we'll get there.

Big-budget games can be great, but right now I don't know if the market can bear to have so many of them. It'll be sad to see some games never get proper sequels maybe, but you can only sell what people will buy. And I think when EA finds that most people aren't willing to pay full price for the "rest" of their game, they'll realize that.

Or not. This is EA, after all.
 

Kanodin0

New member
Mar 2, 2010
147
0
0
A very interesting prediction but I think it's a little early to believe that EA's premium DLC will become the industry standard. It's implementation more then anything will determine how successful it is, and even then there will almost certainly be hold outs.

Let's assume for a second that it does catch on like wildfire, I can see it creating a new cycle of when games are released, I.E. possibly many premium DLC's in early spring to test the waters, the ones that sell well going into full production hopefully in time for December. Or if that's too much of a crunch the DLC's in the fall of the year previous to the full games possible release.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
It feels when they came out with the idea someone was way too far up there own backside...

I really dont see what they are doing catching on, or, been around too much...its just...so stupid
 

KDR_11k

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,013
0
0
Meanwhile Nintendo is making unholy amounts of money by making their games much cheaper (dev cost wise) than the rest of the industry by stripping away the parts that aren't really necessary (like 50 million $ worth of graphics) while polishing the core parts to perfection. How much could Wii Sports have cost to make? Yet it was the biggest killer app this generation despite or possibly even because it is much less technically demanding than, say, God of War 3. The polished core allows the game to remain relevant even when the graphics and story are long obsolete and chewed to a tasteless mass, the peripheral elements impress once and then the game goes back to Game Stop, the core adds longevity. Mario Kart Wii still sells at full price, what super expensive AAA title can claim the same?

Other companies would do well to take note (and PROPERLY take it, not just scribble "cheap games = money" on a piece of TP, the quality is the central piece of the puzzle) and stop pretending that Nintendo exists in some alternate dimension that makes their games operate completely different in the market. Somebody needs to beat the notion that quality (which includes how much fun the game is a few hundred hours later, running out of steam after 10 doesn't qualify) is important into the brains of the publishers, preferably with a sledgehammer. Nintendo didn't become known as a high quality software developer by being appointed by some higher authority, they earned it and you, too, can earn it if you'd stop spreading sewage all over your company name by releasing quick cash grabs.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
So the world is now gowing to be filled with micro transaction games where you are paying $300 or so just to unlock all the good stuff and get a complete game?
 

RUINER ACTUAL

New member
Oct 29, 2009
1,835
0
0
Glad I have a good PC, because it looks like pirating games is going to be the way to go...sadly.
 

Unrulyhandbag

New member
Oct 21, 2009
462
0
0
I couldn't really care less about having more blockbuster titles.

Each time dev throw away a game engine and art assets to reinvent the wheel at massive expense to create a few hours of gaming seems a waste to me. Something as old as oblivion doesn't look terrible whereas a few years ago playing a four or five year old game would be horrendous, I don't think there's a need to develope every game from scratch anymore.

Why not build a few big games and then polish and develop them. If the future is developing a game in instalments of expansions and episodes then I'm all for it. Buy one expensive game and keep buying mini sequels as soon as they get done. Without building a full sequel the costs are lower and the time taken to make a story is less.

More gaming at lower cost; It's not a bad bottom line.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,491
3,437
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
ehh I have to take all of this with a grain of salt since whenever the industry does anything people are pretty quick to shout doom and gloom about it but somehow we are still going, I mean hell industry analists have been predicting the doom of the pc since the snes and strangly I was just playing games on mine. Spooooooky
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
KDR_11k said:
Meanwhile Nintendo is making unholy amounts of money by making their games much cheaper (dev cost wise) than the rest of the industry by stripping away the parts that aren't really necessary (like 50 million $ worth of graphics) while polishing the core parts to perfection. How much could Wii Sports have cost to make? Yet it was the biggest killer app this generation despite or possibly even because it is much less technically demanding than, say, God of War 3. The polished core allows the game to remain relevant even when the graphics and story are long obsolete and chewed to a tasteless mass, the peripheral elements impress once and then the game goes back to Game Stop, the core adds longevity. Mario Kart Wii still sells at full price, what super expensive AAA title can claim the same?

Other companies would do well to take note (and PROPERLY take it, not just scribble "cheap games = money" on a piece of TP, the quality is the central piece of the puzzle) and stop pretending that Nintendo exists in some alternate dimension that makes their games operate completely different in the market. Somebody needs to beat the notion that quality (which includes how much fun the game is a few hundred hours later, running out of steam after 10 doesn't qualify) is important into the brains of the publishers, preferably with a sledgehammer. Nintendo didn't become known as a high quality software developer by being appointed by some higher authority, they earned it and you, too, can earn it if you'd stop spreading sewage all over your company name by releasing quick cash grabs.
I'm gonna have to go with what this guy said.

I'm sick of all the "mainstream" sites babbaling on about graphics and such, when they don't matter that much. And I want to know how much money is spent into making the best graphics possible.

There's a reason I still pop in Timesplitters and Morrowind from time to time. And its not because of the graphics.
 

PopcornAvenger

New member
Jul 15, 2008
265
0
0
The $15 dollar "premium" DLC will work fine - for reviewers. Me, I'll still buy the games the way I always do - see what the consensus is on Metacritic, look at actual gameplay videos, then buy the full title. I'm not gonna pony up in advance for a stunted game, no thanks.
 

squid5580

Elite Member
Feb 20, 2008
5,106
0
41
I don't get how anyone "wins" here. FOr there to be this premium demo there has to be a game. For there to be a game there has to be a team working on said game. So said team needs to be paid regardless if the game sells 1 or a billion. So making games isn't going to get much cheaper if things stay the way they are now. And releasing a demo for a price is not going to help get a gauge on if the game will do well or not. Alot of people aren't going to be happy playing the same levels twice. Alot of people are going to say ehh I'll wait until the full game comes out (afterall why pay 10 bucks more for the same experience?). And what if the demo doesn't do well? I mean the game has already been worked on. Wages still need to be paid. So you intend on scrapping the whole project because a demo wasn't well recieved (which has little to do with the game itself) and this will save money?
 

TitsMcGee1804

New member
Dec 24, 2008
244
0
0
I would take 8 hours of god of war over 50 hours of mirrors edge, dantes inferno, sims...whatever tripe EA could ever come out with
 

Deathfish15

New member
Nov 7, 2006
579
0
0
Taking Pachter's advice is about the worse thing they could do.


This is the guy that stated: "there's no PC as as powerful as the PS3"

Watch http://www.gametrailers.com/video/episode-107-pach-attack/63344 and see all the foolish statements he makes towards PC gaming.

See what I mean? The guy is worse for the industry than Jack Thompson was when he was persuading the ban of violent games. I mean, if he's going to be an analyst for an industry, the least he could do is know something about the industry he's analyzing.
 

Pinstar

New member
Jul 22, 2009
642
0
0
Good!

With lower overhead and development costs, games become a less risk-less reward venture, which will encourage a lower focus on graphics and a higher one on good gameplay. Companies, like indie developers today, are more likely to try new concepts and ideas...which should give us a greater variety in games, and some brand new IPs.

These days, AAA budgets demand that the title have a proven track record.
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
I have to say that I don't agree with the closing point - that this extinction has already occured. Given the enormous mass of AAA games released of late or slated to ship soon, we are at best looking at the final generation of such things and that's painting it in the worst reasonable light. What's more, the actions of a single publisher, even of EA's stature is hardly indicative of the trends of the industry as a whole. While the core logic holds up just fine (it does make sense to not invest tens of millions of dollars into a game if it can be avoided afterall, especially given the success rate of games in general), there is no evidence of a trend beyond a single entity in a sea of several equal players and as such, asserting that the extinction has occured when the evidence presented offers no support is simple hyperbole.

That said it did make a catchy closing sentence.