Take-Two: Good Games Are the New Bad

[The Random One]

I was going to say this is a good way to do business, but then I realized it is the only way to do business. Unless you're a massive behemoth like EA or Activision that has a bunch of sports franchises grazing in your backyard to take the hit for your own IP's it's only the really awesome games that'll turn up a profit. And eventually not even them.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Why aim for acceptable mediocrity when you could aim for phenomenal success?

This can only be a good thing for gamers.

Amen. Yet, longer production times means we are stuck for a year or two. But I am glad some companies produce the games I want in the mean time.

A great game would circumvent this logic; it would make it so that people who play video games don't need to have a new flavor for their fix every month; one would be able to tie them over until the next thing comes out.

The demand for many games fast probably was/is the driving reason why they lacked quality, which diminished longevity of the game's enjoyability, making a destructive cycle.

 

[lacktheknack]

So, will Take Two join the ranks of Blizzard and Valve? That would be nice.

 

[Something Amyss]

A great game would circumvent this logic; it would make it so that people who play video games don't need to have a new flavor for their fix every month; one would be able to tie them over until the next thing comes out.

The demand for many games fast probably was/is the driving reason why they lacked quality, which diminished longevity of the game's enjoyability, making a destructive cycle.

While I agree this is better, it may not be a superior business model. I would like more quality than quantity, but people love having a "new" game, even if it's the old game with roster updates, minor tweaks, etc. Not to mention, most delayed games aren't worth the wait. And since RDR is an example, I'm worried. It's a pretty, cinematic experience with shallow flawed gameplay.

 

[Anarchemitis]

A great game would circumvent this logic; it would make it so that people who play video games don't need to have a new flavor for their fix every month; one would be able to tie them over until the next thing comes out.

The demand for many games fast probably was/is the driving reason why they lacked quality, which diminished longevity of the game's enjoyability, making a destructive cycle.

While I agree this is better, it may not be a superior business model. I would like more quality than quantity, but people love having a "new" game, even if it's the old game with roster updates, minor tweaks, etc. Not to mention, most delayed games aren't worth the wait. And since RDR is an example, I'm worried. It's a pretty, cinematic experience with shallow flawed gameplay.

I retract implying it was a superior business model. But you gotta admit, sooner or later, people are going to Follow the Leader of Valve's success.

 

[Keslen]

I, obviously, can't speak for anyone else, let alone a majority, but I, personally, avoid spending money on most games because of the deluge of bad games rather than the rarity of great games.

If all or most games released were worth playing, I'd be much more likely to drop money into my collection. The overwhelming abundance of shovelware makes me reluctant.

 

[Something Amyss]

I retract implying it was a superior business model. But you gotta admit, sooner or later, people are going to Follow the Leader of Valve's success.

Well, I have to admit someone will try, but I don't think it will catch on. Why?

Valve is also Steam. Steam allows them to waste plenty of time between releases. If you have a major cash cow you can operate without significant development, you can afford to take more time on developing the games. It's one of the reasons they can afford free content for TF2: It's a great marketing point for Steam. Few companies will have the resources to compete with Steam on that level; fewer will want to/be able to take on a virtual monopoly.

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

Yeah, seems fair enough to me.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

In the case of Take-Two subsidiary 2K Games publishing Gearbox's upcoming Duke Nukem Forever [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/conferences/paxprime2010/8071-PAX-2010-Hands-On-Duke-Nukem-Forever], I would make an exception to the mandate. That game doesn't need any more delays.

On the other hand, speaking of Gearbox, their previous game could've used some delays, at least for the PC version. It was pretty clearly unfinished when it was released, and while they did eventually (after far, far too long) patch some stuff, as far as I know there's still stuff unfixed from launch day. That combined with them using RDR as their example of a great game, which could've used several more months to fix up properly before release (my friend who works at a different Rockstar studio but was called in to help them at least get something playable rushed out for the release date had some...interesting things to say about it in the last month or two they were working on it, and his entire team was very unimpressed by the way the whole situation was handled), is not terribly reassuring. I like the words coming out of their mouth, but I'm not going to believe them unless they change their actions, too.

 

[Anarchemitis]

I retract implying it was a superior business model. But you gotta admit, sooner or later, people are going to Follow the Leader of Valve's success.

Well, I have to admit someone will try, but I don't think it will catch on. Why?

Valve is also Steam. Steam allows them to waste plenty of time between releases. If you have a major cash cow you can operate without significant development, you can afford to take more time on developing the games. It's one of the reasons they can afford free content for TF2: It's a great marketing point for Steam. Few companies will have the resources to compete with Steam on that level; fewer will want to/be able to take on a virtual monopoly.

Also the reason why Valve [a successful company] rejects microinvesting [a successful company that rejects an idea, therefore other companies follow suit.]
Microinvesting I think is the term that describes when people contribute small amounts of funds to a Game Company in order to assist with the initial developments, and are rewarded with the game coming out sooner, and cheaper to those investors.

 

[I am Jack's profile]

Bethesda Softworks, please pick up the white courtesy phone. Todd Howard, Pete Hines, call on line 2. Something about Elder Scrolls 5...

DUDE, you just won.

not the internet, nor my life. Or a cookie.

No, you simply won.

 

[GonzoGamer]

He's got my number. If a game is only good, I'll rent it. Games are expensive now and I only buy one if it's really worth keeping for the long haul.
While this does give me greater hope for future Take Two games, I don't know how accurate the statement is overall.
Hell, a lot of people bought No More Heroes and that wasn't even good.
Then there are a lot of half-decent games that sell purely on hype.