Deus Ex 3 Team Didn't Get it at First, Says Director

aaron552

New member
Jun 11, 2008
193
0
0
TsunamiWombat said:
The thing is, a decade later, I'm still finding out shit about Deus Ex I didn't know before.

YOU CAN SAVE LEBEDEV!?WTF!
You probably know this one, but you can save Paul, too :p
 

Centheon

New member
Aug 5, 2009
12
0
0
Credge said:
These are the same guys that did Prince of Persia and Mirrors Edge, and Assassins Creed, right?

If so... they're completely used to making games like that.
Actually it's this studios first project.
 

oranger

New member
May 27, 2008
704
0
0
its kinda scary to think these professionals have to be told what player agency is and how to implement it.
Drives home the fact that the age of craftsmen (and craftswomen) is over, and the age of the technician is in full swing.
 

oktalist

New member
Feb 16, 2009
1,603
0
0
Therumancer said:
So basically what your saying is that you think they are actually spending tens of millions of dollars on a team of marketing guys? I'm sure they would probably be shocked to learn that.

See, as nice as it is to say "well if you saw the parking lot you'd agree with me" the bottom line is I can simply go by the numbers, and I'm sorry but "marketing" doesn't seem like a sensible answer to where all that money is going.
Instead of repeating myself I will just quote my earlier post:

oktalist said:
TV networks regularly charge hundreds of thousands of dollars just for a single 30 second slot in prime-time, so multiply that by the number of times it was shown, then multiply that by the number of countries the game was marketed in, and you begin to see that a large, global marketing campaign can cost a shitload.
The cost of advertising in print publications and online is less, but not by much.

Marketing for a Hollywood movie usually runs into the tens of millions, if not more.

I can't argue with the rest of your points; it's possible that there is a minority of people making much more money than they should be, just like in any other industry. But I note that all this has very little effect on the retail price of games; in capitalism, the retail price of a product is dependent on how much the [del]suckers[/del] people are willing to pay for it, not how much it cost to produce. So if you don't like the price of a game, just wait for it to come down, don't rant about how much the people who made it got paid, because that has nothing to do with the price you pay for it.

You still pay the same to see a movie, whether it's a $100 million blockbuster or a $100,000 independent job.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
oktalist said:
Therumancer said:
So basically what your saying is that you think they are actually spending tens of millions of dollars on a team of marketing guys? I'm sure they would probably be shocked to learn that.

See, as nice as it is to say "well if you saw the parking lot you'd agree with me" the bottom line is I can simply go by the numbers, and I'm sorry but "marketing" doesn't seem like a sensible answer to where all that money is going.
Instead of repeating myself I will just quote my earlier post:

oktalist said:
TV networks regularly charge hundreds of thousands of dollars just for a single 30 second slot in prime-time, so multiply that by the number of times it was shown, then multiply that by the number of countries the game was marketed in, and you begin to see that a large, global marketing campaign can cost a shitload.
The cost of advertising in print publications and online is less, but not by much.

Marketing for a Hollywood movie usually runs into the tens of millions, if not more.

I can't argue with the rest of your points; it's possible that there is a minority of people making much more money than they should be, just like in any other industry. But I note that all this has very little effect on the retail price of games; in capitalism, the retail price of a product is dependent on how much the [del]suckers[/del] people are willing to pay for it, not how much it cost to produce. So if you don't like the price of a game, just wait for it to come down, don't rant about how much the people who made it got paid, because that has nothing to do with the price you pay for it.

You still pay the same to see a movie, whether it's a $100 million blockbuster or a $100,000 independent job.
I can't argue the point about TV commercials because truthfully I don't know that much about TV advertising at the moment.

However I will also point out that price fixing is something else I tend to be very critical about. The game industry has been acting more or less like a cartel, engaging in price setting and working to avoid direct competition so nobody winds up having to lower their prices in order to compete. The same kind of behavior that has gas companies in the US under federal investigation, it's just that the game industry is too small right now to have attracted notice given a lack of serious complaints about it.

The fact that a game developed on a shoestring budget, and one developed with a AAA level budget both retail for $60 is an issue. As is the fact that you see companies do things like change release dates to avoid competing with other titles. A lot of things had their release date changed when "Modern Warfare 2" was released for example. This being done instead of companies trying to undercut each others price while providing the highest level of quality (which is the American ideal of capitolism).

Hollywood enjoys something of a special relationship with the goverment due to decades of battles back and forth over various issues. What's more I can say that locally differant theaters charge differant prices for admission, a lot of it depends on the quality of the theater. Also the films rented by theaters can vary greatly in price to them, this has been a factor on how long certain movies have run. A cheap movie can stick around for months with mediocre attendance and make a profit, an expensive one might require virtually filling the threater more or less constantly. Then of course you have theaters that don't show "first run" movies and instead show stuff from the year before since it's a lot cheaper to rent and a lot of people do like to watch stuff on the big screen in general.

I guess what I'm getting down to is that that Hollywood gets away with a lot of things it probably shouldn't. However in an abolute sense I think your wrong in saying that the price there is constant since it's not.

Of course the whole issue of cartel behavior is another subject entirely.