demos are something that honestly every game should have, and Microsoft taking it upon themselves to include them is not worth what they were inmposing.
Agreed on the second bit, but the first one is a point of contention.
Demos are great for players. We get to see how the game plays, how it feels, how much we like a snippet of it - for no cost to us. If a game is good, we (most likely) buy it.
Demos are *not* good, however, for developers and publishers. If every game was a quality product, demos would just be a way for players to find which ones they liked - but because most games are honestly huge steaming piles of shit, releasing demos for them just reduces your potential number of buyers.
It's been talked about before, and I think Extra Credits did an episode on it. Releasing demos are basically a lose-lose situation for developers, because of the cost of making them and the very real possibility of them hurting sales (if the game is sub-par, which most are). While it's nice for us to demand them, it's not realistic for companies to do them for every game ever, particularly not the godawful ones... since they still want to sell the damn things.
Why would you believe Microsoft would pass deals on to consumers if they were completely digital? That is beyond Naive. Now, if you could buy digital xbox games from multiple places like Amazon/bestbuy/gamestop and so on. Then I would be more trusting to them passing us on the savings.
Sorry, but to put it bluntly that's B.S. There are plenty of games out there that have been made, are being made, and will continue to be made that take hardly any people to make, cost the developers next to nothing, don't take more than a couple years to make, are a hit, and make ridiculous amounts of money, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Sure there's oceans upon oceans worth of crap and undiscovered gems buried under that crap that never get many sales, as well as games that are absolutely terrible but get snatched up by the millions anyway. However, that's true of the video game industry in general, whether it be some of the worst games in the world made by a small time penniless developer or the best AAA games ever made with ridiculous amounts of marketing. What's important about any industry is dedication to one's work, innovative and original ideas, (or at least a half decent ability to make it look like the old ideas are innovative and original) and a little common sense, not the time, cost, or the number of people. Being an entertainment industry this counts double for the VG industry.
Demos are *not* good, however, for developers and publishers. If every game was a quality product, demos would just be a way for players to find which ones they liked - but because most games are honestly huge steaming piles of shit, releasing demos for them just reduces your potential number of buyers.
It's been talked about before, and I think Extra Credits did an episode on it. Releasing demos are basically a lose-lose situation for developers, because of the cost of making them and the very real possibility of them hurting sales (if the game is sub-par, which most are). While it's nice for us to demand them, it's not realistic for companies to do them for every game ever, particularly not the godawful ones... since they still want to sell the damn things.
First, that's why they should only include some of the absolute best parts of a game in a demo, even the crap will look decent enough if they only show the best parts, kinda like how movie trailers work.
Secondly, in other words developers and publishers lack dedication and are too lazy to make anything worthwhile and scared that their crappy half assed games won't make sales so they don't allow demos because keeping the quality of such games a secret is the only way to ensure sales is that the gist of what you said? If so, then that means that if they had kept this game share system (which Microsoft never needed their DRM and check in crap for anyway) then any developer and publisher that made games for the Xbox One would have needed to make at least a little more effort to ensure their games were actually good before trying to sell them. I guess demos are pretty good for the customer all around then.
First, Minecraft DOES count, it doesn't I don't want to know what does. In fact it's probably the best example I could really offer. It was an indie game made by ONE guy who came up with a sound concept and the dedication to see it through, and he made profit margins that AAA publishers could only dream of. The only difference there than what I've said is that it took him longer than 2 or so years, and that's going to happen sometimes.
Ultratwinkie said:
And number of people DO count. Especially in programming when you have people to double check the work and debugging. One man CANNOT do every single facet of a decent game effectively. It makes development way faster as well.
You need programmers to make sure its stable, and capable. Highly expensive and hard to get a a hold of.
You need modelers if your game is 3d, because modeling every object and animating them is time consuming.
You need Sound designers, because composing songs and sounds is also time consuming.
You need artists to keep your art direction coherent, which takes talent. Especially important with indies that can't afford to have AAA graphics.
You need level designers, people who know how to design a level that will appeal to gamers on a fundamental level.
Second, that's not true, and once again I'm sure you know it. One person can learn how to program, model, sound design, art, and design levels, and whatever else is needed, and while not exactly common, they are by no means rare, there are plenty of people like that out there, and as above Minecraft really makes my case for me. 1 guy somehow managed to make Minecraft by himself, and thus needed all the above skills that YOU say cannot be done. Granted, later Notch started up a small independent studio and started building on it, but up until that point it worked just fine and was still VERY popular.
Third, as for other indie games I couldn't really tell you much aside from the more popular ones like Minecraft, I don't really play indies, mostly because there hasn't been any that have caught my attention, and because there's still plenty of console and bigger PC games both new and old that I'll wade through until something does.
Demos are *not* good, however, for developers and publishers. If every game was a quality product, demos would just be a way for players to find which ones they liked - but because most games are honestly huge steaming piles of shit, releasing demos for them just reduces your potential number of buyers.
It's been talked about before, and I think Extra Credits did an episode on it. Releasing demos are basically a lose-lose situation for developers, because of the cost of making them and the very real possibility of them hurting sales (if the game is sub-par, which most are). While it's nice for us to demand them, it's not realistic for companies to do them for every game ever, particularly not the godawful ones... since they still want to sell the damn things.
First, that's why they should only include some of the absolute best parts of a game in a demo, even the crap will look decent enough if they only show the best parts, kinda like how movie trailers work.
Secondly, in other words developers and publishers lack dedication and are too lazy to make anything worthwhile and scared that their crappy half assed games won't make sales so they don't allow demos because keeping the quality of such games a secret is the only way to ensure sales is that the gist of what you said? If so, then that means that if they had kept this game share system (which Microsoft never needed their DRM and check in crap for anyway) then any developer and publisher that made games for the Xbox One would have needed to make at least a little more effort to ensure their games were actually good before trying to sell them. I guess demos are pretty good for the customer all around then.
Effectively what that's saying is that its ok to bait and switch and gamers should "just deal with it". You want me to buy your shitty product then don't try to disguise it, that's called false advertising and its a crime under the Australian Consumer Law. Make it a game I WANT to buy. Reviewers are also to blame for this too buy agreeing to the stupid embargos. They should simply refuse to put up with that. Lastly consumers need to enforce there rights too, EB has a 1 week unconditional return policy so games like RE6 should be returned and as for stunts like those that Blizzard pulled with Diablo 3, EA with SimCity, SEGA with Aliens Colonial Marines and Gearbox Software and 2K games with Duke Nukem forever, those games should be returned under the clause that "products not as advertised" and "not fit for purpose"
I agree, bait and switching is not OK, in fact it's the lowest thing that an industry can do, and yeah, it's supposed to be a crime to false advertise, but all industries do it all the time and I've never heard of anyone being jailed for it.
One person COULD, but do you know how much work that is?
A lot of work yeah, but the fact that 1 person can make half decent games with little more cost than their time involved proves that bigger companies can do so as well. If 1 person can make a game that makes millions on a pittance in a couple years, maybe more of work, a team of 10 to as many as 50 people could accomplish the same, especially if people on the team are paid by how well the game sells instead of one lump sum that they get whether the game ever gets finished or not (I'm not sure if there's a business term for that or not.)
There is a reason game development costs are higher than they were in the 1980s. Games are more complex and expectation are higher. Its now a lot of work for one person.
Then work to make it easier and more automated. Those game maker programs I mentioned for instance? Work to make them easier to use, understand how to use, and make it so that more can be done in less time.
Minecraft doesn't count because it took gameplay and ideas from other games, and it still took around 5 years to actually be finished.
"Minecraft doesn't count because it took gameplay and ideas from other games"
Uh... So has every game that has ever existed. There is very little truly original ideas anymore. Minecraft may be just glorified legos with a resource gathering game thrown in, but that doesn't count against it as an example of how 1 person can
You cannot, as a developer, have a game stuck in development hell. You NEED to get the game done fast, and good. Otherwise, you end up with games like Duke Nukem. A game whose age has shown right at release. Gameplay that has already aged, etc.
First, I like DNF well enough, but I won't get into that because I know it'll turn this thread into a flame war before long and I'd rather not deal with that.
Second, development hell like with DNF happens because a person or people SAY they want to make a game, but don't really. They lack the drive and dedication to both come up with a concept that works and even if they do come up with one they don't put in enough effort to make it happen. All that one needs to make anything in any industry is a solid concept and can work out how to achieve that concept then issues like development hell never become a problem.
Unless you are doing an idea absolutely no one else is doing or considering like Dwarf Fortress, or Foresaken Fortress, you can't afford to have competition get that much leeway. You can't afford to be left behind.
If you focus on making a sound concept and fulfilling that concept, then what the competition does doesn't really matter. What's important is to make something that the customers are going to want, and if that takes awhile then fine, let the competition have their day in the sun, hell, learn from their mistakes. When you come out with your game and blow everything they have done so far out of the water it hits the moon, then you'd more then make up for "getting left behind".
Newsflash, most gamers don't really care about graphics, or innovative controls or things like that, what they want is games that entertains them and actually works right. All the bells and whistles that they throw in these days don't really matter to whether a game sells and it never has, all that is just window dressing. What truly matters is how fun a game is, and while those bells and whistles can help they aren't really needed.
Besides, you got me sidetracked from my original point, which is that there's plenty that can be done to cut costs in the video game industry, it's just a lack of effort and common sense on their part that prevents them from doing it.
You mentioned that already and I responded to that already remember? They can make their own highly modifiable engine with it's own tools, and like the game itself it would cost them nothing but their time and no licensing fees whatsoever to use it. Hell, with some game maker programs there isn't any licensing fees to begin with. While it's true that companies need to make a profit, companies can have a few people delegated to doing this while still making other games to get that profit, and the "some guy in the basement" indies can make the engine and games on their spare time. Once they make the engine and tools needed and start using it they become fully self sufficient, making games for a comparative pittance and raking in massive profits.
However, that's really besides the point, which you keep dodging.
Easy? When did I EVER say that doing this was easy? Of COURSE it's not easy! Nothing worth doing is!
First, it doesn't take half a decade to make a game if you have a sound concept and know what the hell you're doing, and especially if you have a team behind you, and yet again I think you know it.
Second, if I had the knowledge to make a game engine right now I would be making engines for game companies for a living instead of sitting here arguing with you about it, but I don't and I'm not, but I'm working on getting schooling for things like that so maybe someday...
How many strawmans are you going to throw at me? How many times are you going to be soundly defeated at every turn? How many times are you going to ignore my overall point or refuse to even discuss it, and refuse to admit it's correct despite it being ridiculously obvious that it is?
Almost fell out of my seat laughing about halfway through. They've invented demos for fuck's sake. Has this guy never seen the outside of Microsoft HQ? Fucking hell.
You mentioned that already and I responded to that already remember? They can make their own highly modifiable engine with it's own tools, and like the game itself it would cost them nothing but their time and no licensing fees whatsoever to use it. Hell, with some game maker programs there isn't any licensing fees to begin with. While it's true that companies need to make a profit, companies can have a few people delegated to doing this while still making other games to get that profit, and the "some guy in the basement" indies can make the engine and games on their spare time. Once they make the engine and tools needed and start using it they become fully self sufficient, making games for a comparative pittance and raking in massive profits.
However, that's really besides the point, which you keep dodging.
You know, there has been a practice that has been "recently" popularised by software engineers. It is called software reuse. A very neat thing, imagine having an engine that can be used for multiple games and is easily modifiable just like many reuse aimed softwares. Actually these lunatics in valve have cought onto that have made their own: Source engine which has been used by almost every game and their dog. As you said making an engine is hard and expensive. I have never made an engine myself but i know it is expensive. So why not reuse it and manage the spending so we won't have 200M$ smt flops again.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
