Analysts Say Take-Two Takes Too Long to Make Games

hansari

New member
May 31, 2009
1,256
0
0
DarkSaber said:
In all fairness, Valve have ONLY done L4D 1 and 1.5 since the orange box. But that's getting off topic.
And you missed the point...

Valve = 1 developer, TakeTwo = 21 developers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take-Two_Interactive#Subsidiaries]
Valve = private own, TakeTwo = public = angry investors.
 

hansari

New member
May 31, 2009
1,256
0
0
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
If the company were able to compress the development cycles for its triple-A titles in financial year 2010, we believe that its development costs during the fiscal year could have been at least $60 million lower.
But how would the final product of the game look?
Answer that question with another question, would the "look" and profit directly correlate with time and money invested?

The article says 6 years for Max Payne 3. Knowing the franchise, I can tell you thats just dumb and an obvious loss.

Gaming is a hobby, making games is a business. You wanna go on the quest for the best game of all time, you'll end up like Duke Nukem....
 

Dogchow89

New member
Apr 10, 2009
5
0
0
SnootyEnglishman said:
I'd rather wait a good long time and have a game that is well thought out and put together rather than having a game that's pushed out the door so quick that it's infested with bugs and other nit-picky glitches and breaks.
The company could go bankrupt, and you'd have no game at all. Is that the end result you'd rather have?
 

UnravThreads

New member
Aug 10, 2009
809
0
0
DarkSaber said:
coldalarm said:
@DarkSaber - Valve is one company though. Take-Two is a publisher and owns/publishes a bunch of studios so they need to take a lot more money to be profitable. Don't forget that Valve also did Left 4 Dead 1 + 2 since the Orange Box.

@Story - That's a fair enough set of points, to be honest. It's been a long time since Max Payne 2 came out, and I would suspect a lot of interest has been lost in MP3. They need to really just look at themselves and their studios to see where it's going wrong.
In all fairness, Valve have ONLY done L4D 1 and 1.5 since the orange box. But that's getting off topic.
Touché, good sir, touché.
 

Frank_Sinatra_

Digs Giant Robots
Dec 30, 2008
2,306
0
0
hansari said:
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
If the company were able to compress the development cycles for its triple-A titles in financial year 2010, we believe that its development costs during the fiscal year could have been at least $60 million lower.
But how would the final product of the game look?
Answer that question with another question, would the "look" and profit directly correlate with time and money invested?

The article says 6 years for Max Payne 3. Knowing the franchise, I can tell you thats just dumb and an obvious loss.

Gaming is a hobby, making games is a business. You wanna go on the quest for the best game of all time, you'll end up like Duke Nukem....
I do believe I've already addressed that issue. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.178825-Analysts-Say-Take-Two-Takes-Too-Long-to-Make-Games#5195944]
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,063
0
0
So what I'm gathering from this is that the next gta will probably have the same bare bones launch with a goty that's (a little) more like a real gta game. I guess I'll rent that first one and buy the follow up like I did with SF4.
Last generation they were coming out with gta games almost every year and they still got increasingly better. Now they're going to take longer and be about the same at launch.
The thing is that investors like myself are just interested in the investment making money which is why I ditched my T2 stock a while ago. They're still making those big budget games but not as many people buy them now: the new consoles (except the wii which they ignore) aren't as saturated as last gen. Their main bargaining chip (R*) seems to have passed its peak.
 

Aeshi

New member
Dec 22, 2009
2,640
0
0
So does this mean they take two long to make things?
...
...
...
Yes I know that was bad but somebody had to say it!
 

Generic_Dave

Prelate Invigilator
Jul 15, 2009
619
0
0
If they can't cut costs without cutting corners they may make more money in the short term, but over the long term people will leave there IP's. The reason people buy GTA in the truckloads is because they are amazing games, as soon as they are no longer of that quality, regardless of how often they turn them out, they will no longer make money. If they can keep coming up with new and profit spinning IP's thats not a problem...but can they?
 

Andronicus

Terror Australis
Mar 25, 2009
1,846
0
0
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
Pingieking said:
The problem is that as long as the game turns out "Good", there is some evidence suggesting that taking the time and effort to tweak the little things and make it "Amazing" might not make economic sense.
There seems to be a bigger correlation between marketing spending and sales than review scores. As long as the core idea of the game is executed well, the polish might not be necessary to reach sales numbers in the same region as the game would have if it was delayed for a year.
Okay my animation professor just got out of the games industry to teach so I'll tell you what he told us.
"In the industry right now it's all about looks and substance. If you can nail those two, the reviews by the idiots who don't know what they're talking about will go up. If you can get the reviews up the sales will go up. When sales are up, friends tell friends, who tell friends. More profits, publisher is happy, your boss is happy. Take your time to make it look good, and make sure the game has substance."

(Not an exact quote, but it's the gist)

People like polish as much as they like the substance, so if you can nail both on the head you're going to (probably) make some massive sales.
Sure with economies in the shitter right now this may not be the best time to do this, and I'm not asking for an immediate change.
All I'm asking is us gamers be more patient with developers, and that if we allow them to make fabulous games we should be willing to pay a heftier price for them.

I'm also not asking for the death of the 2 year dev titles. Those have their place as a drug to get us through the longer waits for very good games.
While the public profiles of highly rated games has risen considerably in recent years, you can't automatically assume that highly rated games are going to sell well. Just look at games like Psychonauts. Psychonauts got high ratings across the board, and even won a bunch of awards [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychonauts#Awards], but by the end of the first year that it was released, it had only sold about 100,000 copies. You can't just assume that good reviews means people are going to be climbing over themselves to buy a game.

The profile of high-budget games, like Red Dead Redemption, is a lot higher these days, as more and more money is put into marketing. But as much as I hate to admit it, without shorter development times, they simply won't make enough money to justify spending more than 3 or 4 years, at that, on a game. I want these games to be polished to a shine just as much as the next gamer; I don't mind how long I wait if the product is going to be extra awesome. But the fact of the matter is that companies like Take-Two can't afford to spend that long on a game, and if they lose money, they'll go under, meaning gamers would suffer just as much, as we won't be getting our awesome games.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
DarkSaber said:
What? Compared to Valve they release them weekly!
Valve doesn't have the spotlight like Take Two does, so I don't predict a analyst caring about them right now. (You know I'm right Valve fanboys)
If I get called a fanboy for saying you're wrong, so be it.
 

Flamezdudes

New member
Aug 27, 2009
3,696
0
0
To be honest, i'm glad this has been delayed. They get to fix problems and i can buy some other games like DA:O's expansion and Metro 2033 until this comes out. SO MANY GOD DAMN GAMES THIS YEAR!!
 

Simriel

The Count of Monte Cristo
Dec 22, 2008
2,485
0
0
In other news, Fish Swim, Tony Stark Drinks, and The Sky Is Blue.
 

Gindil

New member
Nov 28, 2009
1,621
0
0
I have three letters that keep me away from Take Two games. D. R. M.

I play a lot of games on Steam. So if I were to play GTA IV on my laptop, I'd have so much of a hassle that it wouldn't be convenient for me to check with three different online gaming systems (Steam's, Take-Two's, EA's) just to play one game.

I might like TT's more mature games (Max Payne was the shit) but they really need to focus less on security and more on the gameplay and execution.
 

Nuke_em_05

Senior Member
Mar 30, 2009
828
0
21
I think the community doesn't mind delays as much, if the final product is better.

For a company, however, another year in development is another year of cost and a year without revenue. For companies like Valve and Blizzard; they have enough reserves and cash-printing products to allow for extended development (ironically [I suppose] those projects may also be reason for delay). Such is apparently not the case for Take-Two.
 

TraderJimmy

New member
Apr 17, 2010
293
0
0
Doc Cannon said:
Now I'm not a fancy big city lawyer, but I don't think you need an analyst to tell you they take too long. :p

Which they do, 6 years sounds like a lot of money down the drain.
YES.

Screw Diabluh 3, give me the unfinished alpha NAO.