Just Cause Creator: $60 Games Don't Make Sense Anymore
- Thread starter Cognimancer
- Start date
I'm mad at myself for not seeing that joke coming from a mile away.DasDestroyer said:
Also, after Mad Max is finished, Just Cause 3 is next on their to-do list, right?
Right?
It's hilarious because much of what you say is basically what he's saying, i.e. that AAA game-development has become so bloated in costs that everything has to be an immense hit just to get even, which in turn leads to publishers wanting to avoid risks by churning out the same stuff (or forcing the devs to put in new stuff at the last second, just because it's "in" right now) and instead trying to get an edge by having shinier normal mapping and ray-occlusion and a bigger marketing budget. If you had used some of the time you spent writing those ten paragraphs to actually read what the guy is saying, then you maybe would have saved enough time to make yourself a cup of tea, watch a funny video and all-together come across as less of a twat.Therumancer said:
How about game publishers stop spending millions on massive budgets for marketing? How about instead of holding events that the majority of people cannot get to due to proximity/happens during work hours/etc, stop spending money on Billboards and posters, signs, TV commercials and other old forms of marketing. How about we instead utilize the internet for marketing on a cheaper scale and getting more attention from the wider internet using audience than the dwindling TV audience.
Economics.
Supply and demand.
Look, $60 can buy me 6 unique and fun indie games on Desura or Steam that will probably be more enjoyable than another 3rd person shooter that's exactly the same as every other 3rd person shooter.
If you want me to buy your game and there are just so many other games that are 10x cheaper, I'm probably not going to buy your game.
Supply and demand.
Look, $60 can buy me 6 unique and fun indie games on Desura or Steam that will probably be more enjoyable than another 3rd person shooter that's exactly the same as every other 3rd person shooter.
If you want me to buy your game and there are just so many other games that are 10x cheaper, I'm probably not going to buy your game.
I wholeheartedly agree, and I have for quite some time now.
1. Consoles are sold at a cheaper price than construction costs. To make up the loss in profits, the 600-pound gorillas like Microsoft and Sony need financially stable development studios to return to them with games that appeal to their fan-bases. So for most developers and even certain sub-publishers, a portion of their earnings are circulated back through the 600-pound gorillas.
2. Continuing from point 1, most developers find themselves under publishers, and so a portion of their earnings are circulated back through their publishers. Every now and again independent studios find success, such as Mojang, but this isn't very often quite yet.
3. Additional construction costs for the discs, game-boxes, manuals, etc. etc. etc. suck up a portion of their earnings, which while isn't much, still cuts in and are a part of buying their games instead of separately. This is being alleviated a bit more these days with digital games, but the point is still there (hell, digital games can be a bit worse in this scenario since some of them require you to buy the extra stuff like manuals).
*So, with construction costs and the fact that their earnings are split between 2-4 different parties (also taking into account the cut second-party distributors get), I understand perfectly well how 60 USD, in the face of increasing inflation around the world, is becoming less and less profitable across the game market, leading to shoddier products being released to make up for costs (even amongst Indie developers).
*In a ways, I do digress: Digital games on the PC have no legitimate purpose being full priced. But for physical copies that rely on consoles to play, an increase in price is a very legitimate argument in my eyes.
1. Consoles are sold at a cheaper price than construction costs. To make up the loss in profits, the 600-pound gorillas like Microsoft and Sony need financially stable development studios to return to them with games that appeal to their fan-bases. So for most developers and even certain sub-publishers, a portion of their earnings are circulated back through the 600-pound gorillas.
2. Continuing from point 1, most developers find themselves under publishers, and so a portion of their earnings are circulated back through their publishers. Every now and again independent studios find success, such as Mojang, but this isn't very often quite yet.
3. Additional construction costs for the discs, game-boxes, manuals, etc. etc. etc. suck up a portion of their earnings, which while isn't much, still cuts in and are a part of buying their games instead of separately. This is being alleviated a bit more these days with digital games, but the point is still there (hell, digital games can be a bit worse in this scenario since some of them require you to buy the extra stuff like manuals).
*So, with construction costs and the fact that their earnings are split between 2-4 different parties (also taking into account the cut second-party distributors get), I understand perfectly well how 60 USD, in the face of increasing inflation around the world, is becoming less and less profitable across the game market, leading to shoddier products being released to make up for costs (even amongst Indie developers).
*In a ways, I do digress: Digital games on the PC have no legitimate purpose being full priced. But for physical copies that rely on consoles to play, an increase in price is a very legitimate argument in my eyes.
Simonism451 said:
You might need to re-read what I said then, as long as it might be.
He's talking about the industry as it is now, and working from the perspective that the current costs involved in developing these games are justified. He's argueing largely that while big games have their place, the industry needs to move away from AAA-level game development since it's so difficult to break even or make a profit.
In response what I pointed out was that AAA game development doesn't need to be that expensive, it's only where it is because of bloat. With increased professionalism and better organization you could make these games with half the manpower. The primary cost of making a game being the human resources, office space and computers are cheap when your dealing with budgets this size, the big cost comes from the huge number of people on the project, most of whom aren't likely to be working or doing anything of value for the majority of time they are being paid, especially seeing as many of them are going to be on staff for very specialized jobs.
The guy writing this is the head of Avalanche Studios, I can't speak for his particular company, but if it's like most I've seen "virtual tours" of and looked at the production credits of after a finished game, he could for example probably do the same job more cost effectively by cutting half of his team and demanding professional levels of conduct and productivity from the rest. That might not make it a "fun, creative workplace" like a lot of people going into gaming might want, but it also means a AAA level game wouldn't be the burden it is now.
On the other hand I was also more or less calling him a liar, because he's going off on how all these games are losing money or barely breaking even, and how companies are relying on the occasional success to pick up the slack for the rest. Looking at what's claimed by the industry almost yearly I find that hard to believe. We're talking a multi billion dollar industry, which is seeing constant growth, and countries wanting to encourage domestic video game development and associated companies because of what a profitable industry it is, and yet allegedly people are losing money hand over fist. As I explained what I think it is, is that "losses" are being defined as simply not making as much money as you think you should be. You'll notice most "bad news" involves companies saying "well, we made 25% less profits than we did during our peak earning period last year", or "our product fell far short of it's projections". That's touted as being a loss, but in reality it's making millions upon millions of dollars. Some company only makes 75 million in profit (profit being computed after expenses) instead of 100 million in profit like the previous year... cry me a bloody river. Some bean counter tells you that you should get 100 million off of a new product, and you only make 20 million, that's still 20 million in your pocket after expenses, you didn't LOSE anything, yet it's presented as some great catastrophe. Simply put if this guy was telling the complete truth and the gaming industry was in that bad a shape we'd likely have already seen the video game crash people have been forecasting. It doesn't happen because while some companies go under (like in any business) enough people are making enough money to keep it going, and the industry as a whole is pretty bloody healthy.
At any rate his bottom line seems to be a pitch for shovelware, albeit a phrased more diplomatically. He seems to be argueing that while big games have their place, the industry should instead focus on smaller, less ambitious, games produced in higher numbers, so less is riding on any one product. In short what your already seeing, as many companies move away from AAA game development and have turned to funding things in App-space or faux-indie productions. The idea being that you never know when some piece of shovelware will be the next "Candy Crush Saga" or "Angry Birds" games which can make as much as a big time AAA title for a fraction of the investment. You produce a thousand of those babies for the cost of one "Just Cause" and your odds of success go up.
You might disagree, but that's how I read what he's saying, and responded accordingly. I say keep working on high quality games, but streamline the development teams and manage them more professionally. 40 specialist graphics designers is a pointless excess, and tends to create messes like you see with games like "The Old Republic" with all the clipping issues. You get 10 people, carefully manage them, and have them work together and your going to get better results for a fraction of the price. Granted this means we won't see virtual tours where Coder Joe has all of his D&D stuff stacked up on his desk with the definite implication he runs a game in-office, and it might be a less fun place
to work, but it does mean a "AAA" quality game won't be costing as much to make.
With Tomb Raider its more of the fact that even though it sold well it still had a lot of trouble making profit, dont know if it was the marketing or those setpieces are that expensive but it did had a bad start even by selling doing well.Sgt. Sykes said:
Hitman Absolution on the other hand really was taking a simple design and throwing money at it to include all sorts of big setpieces that came with linearity that completely went against its original design. They fucked up hard and its something that is also showing up in Thief, they want to make something big out of a niche game and its obvious that it isnt going to make it (and again with adding things that go against its core design like rewarding headshots in a stealth game, not present now after a big fan backlash).
Also Call of Juarez Gunslinger is actually fucking awesome and a really good shooter (as a shooter it was one of the best of its year), the only thing that it lacked was length since it was a very fast paced game.
Shadow Warrior 2013 isnt exactly a remake as it has barely anything in common with the original.
You really need to take a look at some cheaper games out there, not even indie stuff, here is a list of some:
Serious Sam BFE
Battlefield 1943
Mark of the Ninja
Counter Strike Global Offensive
Magicka
Kung Fu Strike
I Am Alive
Alan Wake's American Nightmare
Stacking
Shoot Many Robots
The Wolf Among Us
State Of Decay
Trials Evolution
Section 8 Prejudice
Renegade Ops
etc...
No one is saying that 60$ games shouldnt exist (I also love big ambitious games like GTA), the thing is, when developing a game you shouldnt just choose with either not making the game or going full blown 60$ AAA game full of marketing and shit. For example, Hitman and Thief really dont need to be the bombastic game of the year, a smaller project would allow them to make proper stealth games out of them since they wouldnt need to target the product for everyone to make sure that is sells well enough ending up in creating a more focused title.
Also saying that "$60 games are perfectly fine if they're GOOD." doesnt mean anything, its not like they make shit games on purpose, for them they will only know if its good or not near release (most of the times at least). They should just make such games if they have need for such, for example, to make a open world sandbox with the level of attention that GTA has you sure will need a big budget but since that is a big part of what the game is then you really have to go with it. In Hitman going through linear setpieces with explosions and huge amounts of dialogue isnt exactly a big part of what Hitman is all about so maybe they should have understood that they didnt need to do that in the first place and keep the budget smaller.
Here's what I don't understand about the whole thing. Is it the publishers setting the prices for the games or is retailers setting the prices? If its retailers then the problem is that there is no legitimate competition for Gamestop. Department stores like Target and Wal-mart don't have a chance in hell. If there was a rival that could actually put games on sale and not have them be used games then we might actually see something. If its the publishers setting the prices though....I don't know what to do.BigTuk said:
I could buy into the argument that some of the bigger open-world sandbox games, or 50 odd hour RPGs might merit a higher price point then your call of duties, or your 6-8 hour beat-em up games. Except the same people often spouting it are still trying to charge the high end price for sports roster upgrades, racing games, fighters, and other things with not nearly as much content (I'm not saying that you won't get hypothetically 50+ hours out of those, particularly if you enjoy those sorts of MP).
I'm all for shorter but cheaper as long as its a solid experience from beginning to end. (but not $40 and 2 hours long. Oh gosh no)
My non-gaming sister was intrigued by the new Tomb Raider game but she resisted because she doesn't have a lot of free time.
I say more developers should go for TellTale's strategy.
My non-gaming sister was intrigued by the new Tomb Raider game but she resisted because she doesn't have a lot of free time.
I say more developers should go for TellTale's strategy.
It doesn't hurt that they've poisoned the well, so to speak. I know if I wait a couple of months I can get a game for 30 bucks, or if I wait several I can get it for 10 or maybe less. Or I can wait for sales, in the case of PC games or digital buys.Weaver said:
They wanted us to treat gaming like a disposable product, and now we do.
Didn't they make Just Cause 2, a game with a still strong and active community (even before MP went live)? I mean, since they're the ones preaching, it seems like they're the ones relevant here.Valderis said:
Publishers set MSRPs. You can undercut it, but video games have such a tiny markup in the first place that it's not going to happen in normal models.KazeAizen said:
Thing is, Wal-Mart is a bad example because they commonly do put games out for a few bucks less--the same as the used prices Gamestop offers on hot games--because games are already part of their loss-leader policy. Same with Amazon. That's why they can afford to knock five bucks off and still offer you ten bucks credit. They want you shopping with them, because while you're shopping for games you'll also buy other things (ideally).
Keep in mind that the publishers setting price is the reason that you primarily have to deal with loss-leader retailers or Gamestop. The gaming industry has made being a retailer incredibly difficult to maintain profitability, which has the effect of pushing people out. You get box stores, who can afford a loss or meager profit, or you get Gamestops, who make up their money other ways, like aggressively hawking warranties and used games.
Unless you're Wal-Mart or another big retailer and know how to spin a loss into a bigger profit.BigTuk said:
The problem isn't with the model, it's with the games that are coming out with it. No one wants to pay $60 for a game they can knock off in one day without too much trouble, and no amount of online is going to make up for that if they just release a new, pretty much identical game the next year that steals all the players.
Here is my simple to what I think games should cost (with AAA standards, so this does not apply to indy games). This list also assumes the game is actually good and worth playing. If the game is garbage, multiply the totals provided by 4/9. Free to play games are not included on this list since they are risk free.
If the game is story/campaign based
4.50USD per hour of non-grinding gameplay, up to a maximum of 65USD. This method provides an incentive to create more content instead of making the small content they have look pretty. It can also lead to BS garbage gameplay, but I think that would be the exception.
If the game is online multiplayer (and original)
50USD. Part of the cost of the game is the servers. It is stupid for Micro$oft and $ony to make you pay just to be able to play online, especially when they aren't even providing the service. Part of the cost of the game needs to go to paying them. Maybe then developers and publishers won't let those two companies screw them up the butt. After all, the publishers are the ones who need to be paid for server upkeep, not Sony and Microsoft.
If the game is COD
25USD. Let's be honest, re-texturing does not call for a 60USD price point. That series needs to roll over and die if it keeps spawning the same content, both in and out of the virtual space.
If the game is a handheld
3USD per hour of non-grinding gameplay, up to a maximum of 45USD. Games like Monster Hunter can provide hours of gameplay, but it is really all grind intensive and doesn't require much effort on the part of the developer. They shouldn't be paid premium if all the are doing is having you run back and forth to places. Insert rant here about the crappy font used for that game.
If the game is a MMO
40USD plus up to 10USD per month of subscription, depending on how good the game is. In the case of WoW, they need to make their subscriptions cheaper. I may or may not be willing to accept 60USD expansion prices. Likewise, I will accept the one-time payment option of 60USD as Guild Wars 2 offers, potentially going as high as 70USD for a one-time payment. Another option, let us pay as we go. I don't want to pay 15 bucks a month if all I am doing is raiding 2 nights a week. Give me a "wallet" and let me pay for X hours of game time.
If the game is story/campaign based
4.50USD per hour of non-grinding gameplay, up to a maximum of 65USD. This method provides an incentive to create more content instead of making the small content they have look pretty. It can also lead to BS garbage gameplay, but I think that would be the exception.
If the game is online multiplayer (and original)
50USD. Part of the cost of the game is the servers. It is stupid for Micro$oft and $ony to make you pay just to be able to play online, especially when they aren't even providing the service. Part of the cost of the game needs to go to paying them. Maybe then developers and publishers won't let those two companies screw them up the butt. After all, the publishers are the ones who need to be paid for server upkeep, not Sony and Microsoft.
If the game is COD
25USD. Let's be honest, re-texturing does not call for a 60USD price point. That series needs to roll over and die if it keeps spawning the same content, both in and out of the virtual space.
If the game is a handheld
3USD per hour of non-grinding gameplay, up to a maximum of 45USD. Games like Monster Hunter can provide hours of gameplay, but it is really all grind intensive and doesn't require much effort on the part of the developer. They shouldn't be paid premium if all the are doing is having you run back and forth to places. Insert rant here about the crappy font used for that game.
If the game is a MMO
40USD plus up to 10USD per month of subscription, depending on how good the game is. In the case of WoW, they need to make their subscriptions cheaper. I may or may not be willing to accept 60USD expansion prices. Likewise, I will accept the one-time payment option of 60USD as Guild Wars 2 offers, potentially going as high as 70USD for a one-time payment. Another option, let us pay as we go. I don't want to pay 15 bucks a month if all I am doing is raiding 2 nights a week. Give me a "wallet" and let me pay for X hours of game time.