On the Ball: AAA Extinction

[Pingieking]

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.

True, but that is only one side of the industry.
I for one, have not taken a liking to just about anything Nintendo has made in quite some time. Yes, the core is polished, but there's not a whole lot there aside from the gameplay. If I just wanted gameplay, I can forgo the entire "buy the game" step and just stick to flash games. Hell, I've had just as much fun with a Matlab or Python program as I've had with games that are pure gameplay. When I drop 50~70 dollars on a game, I want to see the effect of that money; I want my money to provide me with an experience that I couldn't have obtained without buying that product. I rarely get that with Nintendo's small budget offerings (this problem isn't limited to Nintendo, it's just that it was used as an example).
The main thing is that the extra $$ devs throw into their AAA games (provided that the basics are done well) do show. It does present an experience different from that of the small budget games. The key thing for me is that it represents an experience that I cannot replicate from anywhere else. Where as the small budget games can easily be replaced by numerous other things, from free browser games to stuff that I whipped up in Python in the last 6 hours.

Both styles of gaming have their place. I, for one, would be very sad to see the AAA's go.

 

[Nurb]

The day this becomes common, is the day I stop paying for games completely. The big publishers need to collapse and let people who actualy care about the games part of the games industry make them.

This crap just gets worse.

 

[MasterSplinter]

Maybe this is the dawn in another way of making games, maybe in the future we'll have both: low budget-episodic-short running-franchises, and big budget-one time every few years-AAA games.
Kinda like Tv series and Movies.

Eventually we could see a game that started with a very low budget, climb the steps by it´s own popularity to deliver a AAA game. Or a game being canceled like so many tv shows do.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

One problem. Small games are competing with free flash games that just get better and better as the libraries and developers grow stronger in the technology.

 

[MikeBBetts]

The problem is a shorter game doesn't necessarily drastically cut costs. Don't the majority of development costs go into creating the engine, game mechanics, etc? Asset development (extra levels, voices, new characters) cost, of course, but as you can see with DLC add-on packs, they can (if they come out at $5-$15 a pop) be churned out relatively cheaply and at little extra cost to the consumer.

If so, EA will not really be saving themselves money by canceling projects early, as they would have to heavily invest just to get the "paid demo" out the door. Once you pushed out the demo, you might as well deliver more, unless it just refuses to sell.

 

[Tears of Blood]

Ugh.

This won't even work the way they want. Why? 'Cos nobody will play the fuckin' things. Who wants to spend $10-15 bucks for an incomplete game? I sure wouldn't. Screw that. I believe most sensible people wouldn't either.

You know what I would do instead? I'd look online and see what someone else who did buy the game though. I'd read a few reviews of the game. Then, I'd have an idea of whether or not I should get it. I don't think I'm the only person who would, either.

Really, everyone always seems to think one thing or another is the future of gaming. Me? I think gaming's going to stay relatively the same. Until things come along that are clearly superior, not much is going to change the way people game. There will always be small side-notes like these, but they'll die out.

Plus, I'm not sure other 3rd-party developers would be keen on the idea, but who knows?

 

[theultimateend]

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.

People tend to shit on nintendo for their 'weak' system but frankly the most entertaining games for me of the last 4 years are using graphics that weren't 'in style' 6 years ago .

Fanatastic Gameplay tears the flesh off of great graphics. At least that's how I've always felt.

EA Owns SPORE, SPORE was initially produced by making a bunch of cheap ass concept games over a weekend.

You know how you test an idea cheaply? Make a bunch of graphically simple concept games and release them to customers and ask them if they'd get a boner for something using those concepts on a grand beautiful scale.

But that would just be taking the fiscally responsible and earnest to consumers way out...that's icky.

 

[Therumancer]

As a consumer I have no desire to buy games a piece of a time or a chapter at a time that way. Seems like it's ultimatly a scam to get people to pay yet more money for the same amount of overall content, hoping that by dividing it up people will be less likely to notice what they are spending.

I am quite clear about what I want. I want a disc in hand, and I want to be able to install my game as many times as I want, with no controls, DRM, or any mandatory internet access. I do not mind DLC providing it's a properly weighty addition to a successful game. I feel DLC should also properly be released in disc form as an alternative at the same time it hits online. I kind of look towards the old "Forge Of Virtue" and "Silver Seed" expansions for "Ultima 7" as examples of what additional paid content should be like. Bethesda has sort of gotten it right, since their "Point Lookout" expansion is what I'd consider a worthy expansion for the price. Some of their other DLCs for Fallout 3 like Operation Anchorage on the other hand were less than impressive, and I felt greatly overpriced for what they did.

 

[Citrus]

It's a bit presumptuous to assume that one company's as-yet-untested experiment is proof that the industry is going to completely reshape itself.

 

[Skinny Razor]

Am I the only one who sees this as business as usual? I think it's called "expanding revenue streams", or separating you from more of your hard-earned with little extra effort, or nothing extra at all. It almost seems like the MST3K skit about Johnny Longtorso, the man who comes in pieces.

 

[Nessmk2]

Yeah, I really hope this doesn't go through, because I can see the following happening.
1. Premium is released.
2. Gamers don't buy a lot (Why spent 15 bucks on a 4 hour demo when you can buy a full game that's out for the same price (used) or get a lot more than 4 times the content for 4 times the price?)
3. EA deems it a failure
4. Full game is never made.
5. All people who bought and liked the premium are upset that the game they demoed is never coming out, and decide to just buy the full version.
6. Lather, rinse, repeat until EA decides no-one wants games anymore.

Of course, it won't be that bad...
Hopefully.

 

[Jandau]

I'd just like to point out that there's a 99% chance that "Premium DLC" will end up selling you the same amount of content for a larger price. Just like current content DLC is vastly overpriced when we look at actual playtime compared to the full game, Premium DLC will likely do the same, bleeding you dry and giving you as little as possible in return.

This isn't a change in the way games are made, it's a change in the way the publisher parts you from your money. I agree that the current AAA model is unsustainable and will likely collapse under its own weight soon, but Premium DLC isn't something new - it's just repackaged AAA philosophy meant to draw out more money.

What the industry SHOULD be doing is looking into ways to cut costs without sarcificing quality too much, but that might require actual work beyond one guy thinking up a new marketing strategy...

 

[Samurai Goomba]

I'd just like to point out that there's a 99% chance that "Premium DLC" will end up selling you the same amount of content for a larger price. Just like current content DLC is vastly overpriced when we look at actual playtime compared to the full game, Premium DLC will likely do the same, bleeding you dry and giving you as little as possible in return.

This isn't a change in the way games are made, it's a change in the way the publisher parts you from your money. I agree that the current AAA model is unsustainable and will likely collapse under its own weight soon, but Premium DLC isn't something new - it's just repackaged AAA philosophy meant to draw out more money.

What the industry SHOULD be doing is looking into ways to cut costs without sarcificing quality too much, but that might require actual work beyond one guy thinking up a new marketing strategy...

A good way to cut costs is to hire unknown (but still competent) actors and VAs, tone down the extremely pretty graphics to a mere "respectable" level, go with synthesized music/local musicians instead of using an orchestra and avoid using any licensed material or likenesses.

None of these things will drastically decrease the quality of your game, so you can sell essentially the same (full size) game at a lower prize and come out money ahead because of reduced costs.

More than anything, I have faith that people who play games just want them to be fun to play. Give them that and they'll be happy even if Hugh Jackman's likeness isn't in it and it doesn't use the latest Crysis-topping graphics engine.

 

[Kollega]

I just wish that publishers made many cheaper, shorter, and more varied games instead of churning out a mega-blockbusters every now and then. Sure, some will fail - but others will be tremendously successful, and could be expanded upon. I don't want that stupid "premium DLC" bullshit, i want "single-A" games. They can still make something grandiose once in a while if the public really demands. For example, i'd certainly buy a game based entirely around jetpack and rocket weapons, even if gameplay and graphics were rough around the edges. Or "Gears of War meets Railroad Tycoon" that was mentioned in previous article. I don't require more polish, i require more variety!

Unfortunately, the game industry is run by "those guys from Aliens" who think their only flaw is not being evil and stupid enough.

 

[DarkLight523]

It's all for the better. Free markets lead to free people.

Economies shift, new players step in, but power always finds a place to rest its head.

Yes, I drew inspiration for that line from Modern Warfare 2.

 

[DTWolfwood]

well if u payed $10 for a 2-3 hour experience, how do you justify to the consumer to fork over 6x that money for the other half of the game? That in it self is mind blowing. u pay for a big demo. which is more or less 1/4 or 1/3 of the game and u still expect them to pay $60 for the rest? ludicrous.

Still good luck getting me to pay for the full game if this does come to fruition. 10$ for a 2-3 hour experience is a good deal. say if u charge me $20-$30 for the full game than we are talking business. $60 to see the ending, EA would be out of their minds.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Digital distribution seemed like a good idea years ago but the reality is so annoying that I'm sure that many of us want discs and carts to stay around for ever. For every company that gets it right like Gamers Gate there are twenty that try to do some crazy psychological marketing bullshit on you with pricing and DLC, or try to implement some unbelievable DRM scheme.

 

[tehroc]

Enjoy half made games and expect decent games that dont sell as expected be dropped to the wayside.

 

[Rack]

Unfortunately all this prototyping is utterly unnecessary. If you want to know if something is going to be an expensive money sink or a commercial blockbuster just play it for a couple of hours. If there's a single inventive or original feature then it will tank, if not then millions in profit await.

I fear this will finally be the step that leads publishers to realise good games just aren't profitable.

 

[sunpop]

I love this new premium dlc idea, we pay you to make sure you don't loose millions. I find the very idea laughable and have decided to only buy games from these companies second hand because I would rather gamestop profits than EA. I can wait for a new games release for in about a week there is always a used version, sure it is only like 5$ cheaper but the profits don't go to the pricks charging me to test their game.

Anyhow great Article Deam as usual, I find myself agreeing with you more and more and tend to use you as a reference point when telling people about some new idea like this. Oh and I enjoyed the dinosaur bits wish you could have gotten more in.