Triple A Gaming Is the Future, Says Epic Co-Founder

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Triple A Gaming Is the Future, Says Epic Co-Founder

Epic vice president Mark Rein says that paid for content will always beat free-to-play.

As popular as games like Farmville and other free-to-play games might be, Epic co-founder Mark Rein doesn't believe that it's the future of the industry, and that paid content would always be more profitable.

Speaking at a Q & A session at the Gamehorizon conference in Newcastle, UK, Rein said that free-to-play was a misnomer, and there was always a cost attached, even if it wasn't immediately obvious.

"Let's be clear," he said "there's no such thing as free." Rein said that whether via advertising, microtransactions or the exchange of social contact information, players paid for the games they played.

Rein continued, saying that there was more money to be made in paid content, and the best free-to-play games couldn't compare to their paid counterparts. "They all pale in comparison to how much World Of Warcraft and Modern Warfare are making," he said. "Triple A isn't going away."

While nothing that Rein said is wrong, I can see room in the market for both paid content and free-to-play content. It seems like a question of scale: A game like Epic's own Gears of War certainly made millions of dollars, but it also cost millions of dollars to make. Something like Zynga's Frontierville probably made much less, but certainly cost less as well.

Source: Edge [http://www.next-gen.biz/news/epic's-mark-rein---triple-a-isn't-going-away]


Permalink
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Uh, must we always compare the two?

To me, they're separate markets; and that especially irks me when people say Farmville is the future of PC gaming.

No, it isn't. It's the future of stuff like solitaire on the PC maybe, but not the gaming market I'm apart of.
 

Ironic Pirate

New member
May 21, 2009
5,544
0
0
Woodsey said:
Uh, must we always compare the two?

To me, they're separate markets; and that especially irks me when people say Farmville is the future of PC gaming.

No, it isn't. It's the future of stuff like solitaire on the PC maybe, but not the gaming market I'm apart of.
Exactly!

Triple A gaming is a huge risk, and eventually some of the major companies will go down.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Triple A Gaming Is the Future, Says Man Who Has Vested Interest In Triple A Gaming Being the Future.

He's got a point though.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
I thought "triple A" gaming was epic's past? As they haven't made much of worth in the last five years. Does this mean they're planning to make better games in the future?

I hate to be that snarky, but epic talking about "triple A" games reeks of bullshit. Might as well have high school dropouts espouse the future of higher education.

Anyway... the whole "zygna" thing is pretty much over. "Social" games have existed as long as the internet, but never catch on because moderation staff invariably view it as spam. Facebook isn't moderated and wasn't regulated. Slight regulations applied, zygna starts hemorrhaging money.

Zygna made a ton of money, got noticed, and seeing as the industry completely lacks for imagination these days (GRAW! MUST COPY EVERY SUCCESSFUL BUSSNIESS/DESIGN DECISION!!), its understandable why this became an issue. Its just... over now. "Social" gaming works by forcing their userbases to get spammed and spam the shit out of one another. Applying that to live or psn would be an atrocity.

Not to mention, there is such thing as "free." Once you start quibbling about "time investment" and other such non-monetary functions being "costs," you're forgetting everything has these "costs." The difference being your game still costs $60 and won't last anywhere near as long.
 

Booze Zombie

New member
Dec 8, 2007
7,416
0
0
AAA games have got to evolve, they're too expensive right now.

You've got to standardise an effective and flexible engine across all platforms, use it as a base and reduce dev costs by having a stable engine at the start, as opposed to the mad-scramble all studios seem to imply they do, bashing out their own unique engines.

Cynical skeptic said:
I hate to be that snarky, but epic talking about "triple A" games reeks of bullshit. Might as well have high school dropouts espouse the future of higher education.
Those who have loved and lost wax on about romance more than any other...
 

Hurr Durr Derp

New member
Apr 8, 2009
2,558
0
0
I think there's room for a lot of different kinds of successful games in the future.

Gaming has grown an incredible amount in the last decade, and it's not about to stop that growth. While AAA titles will always remain popular (after all, that's where the big budgets go, including the marketing budgets), there are a lot of different types of games that are strongly on the rise. The Farmville type of games are one example, as they mostly appeal to people who are outside the target audience for traditional AAA titles. Another example are budget games by smaller (often indie) studios, which have become a lot more accessible and mainstream thanks to digital distribution.

I think the future is going to be very interesting while those different approaches to game-making are finding their balance, and I don't believe for a second that any one of those aspects will be pushed out of the market by the others.

Cynical skeptic said:
I hate to be that snarky, but epic talking about "triple A" games reeks of bullshit. Might as well have high school dropouts espouse the future of higher education.
I disagree strongly with your comparison. I'm a high school dropout, and even though I did eventually manage to get into higher eduction in a very roundabout way I think few people really get to experience first-hand the importance of education as those who lack it.

Besides, it doesn't take a top chef to be a good food critic, if you catch my drift.
 

JEBWrench

New member
Apr 23, 2009
2,572
0
0
Logan Westbrook said:
Rein continued, saying that there was more money to be made in paid content, and the best free-to-play games couldn't compare to their paid counterparts. "They all pale in comparison to how much World Of Warcraft and Modern Warfare are making," he said. "Triple A isn't going away."
Yeah, because Zynga totally didn't reel in a hundred million in profits last year alone.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
Hurr Durr Derp said:
I disagree strongly with your comparison. I'm a high school dropout, and even though I did eventually manage to get into higher eduction in a very roundabout way I think few people really get to experience first-hand the importance of education as those who lack it.

Besides, it doesn't take a top chef to be a good food critic, if you catch my drift.
I'm a high school dropout as well, but its not like I sit around talking about how important higher education is... or it's future.

And while that last bit is true, it does take a top chef to chart the future of the food industry and/or fine cuisine. Otherwise s/he is just speaking out his/her ass.
 

DazZ.

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2009
5,542
0
41
Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory was completely free, and fucking good. The only thing that rivalled it was Battlefield 1942 in classed based shooters but ET was objective based and BF was area holding.
W:ET is certainly on par with BF1942.

But I highly doubt a situation like that will occur again.
 

Jared

The British Paladin
Jul 14, 2009
5,630
0
0
Of course its more profitable...its paid for. I am sure Zynga enjoys swimming in peoples monnies though
 

mattttherman3

New member
Dec 16, 2008
3,105
0
0
Well free porn is better than paid for porn, I gotta say. Also what of games like Guild Wars? That's free to play after you buy the game.
 

Enigmers

New member
Dec 14, 2008
1,745
0
0
I think the future is in indie/small companies who understand that games are supposed to be fun, and all the goddamn graphics in the world can't stop a piece of shit from playing like a piece of shit. Hell, World of Warcraft doesn't exactly have up-to-date graphics, and it's got 11.5 million people willing to pay 15$ monthly to play it, because they made a quality game. Blizzard is rolling in money because they know gameplay is king. (I have no idea how Zynga stays in business.)
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
mattttherman3 said:
That's free to play after you buy the game.
Well, in that case, everything is free after you buy it.

(guild wars is not a mmo)
Enigmers said:
Blizzard is rolling in money because they know gameplay is king. (I have no idea how Zynga stays in business.)
Believe it or not, zygna games stay in business the same way WoW does. Time investment + maximum accessibility (read: piss easy grindfest).
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
The title seems like saying "Water is a better hydration choice than sand."

Am I missing something that makes this anything short of "duh?"

Pay to play beats free. Okay.
 

Flying-Emu

New member
Oct 30, 2008
5,367
0
0
Eh.

I disagree.

Free-to-play games are often as entertaining or more so than modern "Triple-A" titles, simply because they're remarkably inventive. A lot of Flash games out there are terrible, but some of them are absolutely wonderful. Sure, you won't be getting A-list animation or storytelling, but that's not what a GAME is about.