Maybe we should stop ignoring gaming's screams for help.
- Thread starter lacktheknack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Luckily, Kickstarter has provided an arena for gamers to fund games they actually want. I'm pretty sure Torment (a game at the very least inspired by classic RPGs) won't be having a voiced protagonist, so it's not like the option is disappearing entirely. It is much less common in AAA games, and if I had to guess I would say it's because their market research indicates that a majority of people prefer that sort of thing (voiced protagonists that is), and it's kind of impossible to do both at the same time in the same game (if you think of a way, let me know and we'll make millions). So they go with the more popular version. Of course, without access to their research methodology, I can't really comment on it's verisimilitude; I'm just extrapolating their results from their actions. Anyway to sum up, "bonus areas" is subjective enough that I don't think it should be put on the table of this discussion (I feel rail shooting sections in action games are unnecessary bonus additions, but I wouldn't bring it up while discussing the financial fallacies of the video game industry).SpunkeyMonkey said:
If anyone has become entitled, I think it's the publishers. They seem to think crossing off every box on the AAA checklist entitles them to a very specific and predictable profit margin. Then, when things don't work out that way, it's apparently my fault for not buying something I didn't even want in the first place. It's like they have zero concept of video games as a creative medium. They treat it like a commodity, something to be managed and controlled, like a coal mine or an oil rig. "Do everything just so and we can expect exactly this return on investment." Thing is: that's not how gaming works at all. It's a luxury. It's entertainment. And it's 100% OPTIONAL.
I ask publishers: why do you deserve success? Because you spend so much money? Where is it written that I have to give you mine? Here's a thought: maybe the strategies you apply to other, non-creative industries don't work here all the time. Maybe constantly striving to expand a series or brand at the expense of an existing fanbase isn't always the best move. Maybe aping the biggest, baddest product on the market isn't a great idea when said product is still thriving. Maybe deciding people want what you want them to want, and designing/selling to that goal, is less effective than actually listening to what people want.
And maybe, just maybe, there isn't enough goddamn disposable income in the struggling global economy to support 50 AAA releases every year.
In the end, it's a business based entirely on consumer support. If we don't buy their games, they'll go under. More effective publishers will take their places. Life goes on.
I ask publishers: why do you deserve success? Because you spend so much money? Where is it written that I have to give you mine? Here's a thought: maybe the strategies you apply to other, non-creative industries don't work here all the time. Maybe constantly striving to expand a series or brand at the expense of an existing fanbase isn't always the best move. Maybe aping the biggest, baddest product on the market isn't a great idea when said product is still thriving. Maybe deciding people want what you want them to want, and designing/selling to that goal, is less effective than actually listening to what people want.
And maybe, just maybe, there isn't enough goddamn disposable income in the struggling global economy to support 50 AAA releases every year.
In the end, it's a business based entirely on consumer support. If we don't buy their games, they'll go under. More effective publishers will take their places. Life goes on.
I understand that, but I don't agree, because all of gaming is non-essential, it's a thing people enjoy. Companies study what the most people enjoy, and make more it for them. The only way they know what we want, is by us telling them. "Non-essential elements" being defined as something you don't like doesn't cut it for me. Thinking that game budgets are as bloated as they are because people want things they enjoy in the games they buy is... inaccurate. They are bloated for a laundry list of terrible business strategies, poor money management, ludicrous marketing expenditures, enormous executive salaries (if you don't think this is an issue, consider that a single senior executive who did exactly nothing on a game could easily eat 2-5 percent of the revenue - sadly this is not an exaggeration), and a variety of other factors. It's a complex issue, and placing the blame at the feet of the consumers is a tried and true strategy of dishonest and unscrupulous companies, and yet bizarrely, gamers seem to be buying into it lately, even going so far as to lambaste their own ilk. That sort of behavior allows the other sort of behavior (the terrible decisions being made by companies) to thrive because it's not under scrutiny.SpunkeyMonkey said:
Got to agree with this. I said this back when the story hit; there's no way Tomb Raider cost as much as they're suggesting it did, not in development costs anyway (if they spent a ludicrous amount on marketing then that's a separate thing and frankly they've only got themselves to blame). Just talking development costs here. The sales they wanted would've matched those of Assassin's Creed 3. Now don't get me wrong, I played both and I thought Tomb Raider was the better game. But there's no way that it cost as much to make as AC3. It was too short for that. AC3 had probably four or five times the amount of content. And I'm not talking superficial content here; I mean unique content that costs substantial money to create. The world was four or five times the size, there was four or five times as much dialogue (i.e. VOs), there were four or five times as many unique animations. There would have to have been something seriously wrong, and I'm talking mass fraud or something, for it to cost that much.Mr.K. said:
The game probably made a hefty profit and they just wanted an even bigger profit to cover debts elsewhere. I don't remember them saying they actually lost money on it. Did they? The only figures I saw were for a bunch of games combined, and you couldn't determine what was lost where.
Of course not, I was describing the situation at it's basic level. The biggest companies have to pander (somewhat) to the majority, and the smallest actively pander to the minority. The middle level is where you see the companies with the most self driven visions that are often the best games. In most cases, these companies either fail or eventually become the larger companies (a notable exception - so far - is CDProjekt, but even they take input which affect their final product), so I think the consumer informed development is a dominant part of the industry, like it or not.SpunkeyMonkey said:
My point about what's essential was possible a bit too broadly phrased, but my intent was to point out that what one might see as integral: another could easily live without, and this applies to almost every aspect of a game beyond the base mechanics that allow it to function. Not that long ago, a lot of JRGs featured a lot of hand drawn character art, some of which now is being replaced with in engine rendered models. Some feel adamantly that the old style is completely necessary for their experience, while others don't care much either way. More broad reachingly (is that even a word?), some games don't even have any direction or goals, something often believed to be integral to a game (freeform games like minecraft).
What I'm trying to say is for most games, the consumers help shape the product, but that has nothing to do with the issues the OP tries to blame on this fact, i.e. the instability of the current AAA financial model.
Um....Winnosh said:
http://uk.gamespot.com/news/activision-blizzard-profits-hit-11-billion-in-2012-6403613
http://www.vgchartz.com/article/87355/ea-profits-221m-in-the-june-2011-quarter-on-999m-in-revenue/
There are probably some more relevant ones but I only gave myself a budget of 10 seconds on google.
Really?HardkorSB said:
I know FFXIII copped a lot of hate, hell, I didn't like it either, but I was under the impression that it sold like hot cakes.
I swear I remember reading the words "one of the best selling FF games of all time" somewhere along the line.
Gamers are the ones who need to listen? Publishers are the ones who need to stop sitting in an echo chamber.
Tomb Raider was a great game, I had a lot of fun with it and it was the first Tomb raider game that I have played. However, for some reason it had lots of combat and even multiplayer. Nobody asked for multiplayer, and the evidence is obvious. I dare you to try to find a multiplayer match for Tomb Raider, it took me 10 minutes within days of the release of the game and I have never bother to touch it after trying it once. I wish the resources that were poured into Hair Tesselation, Combat, celebrity actors and multiplayer were poured into MORE TOMBS. Gamers are not at fault here. Publishers that copy and paste everything from market leader regardless of whether it fits the game or not are the problem.
Spec Ops the line is another good example. Developers flat out refused to add multiplayer to the game because it completely went against everything that the game was trying to accomplish(play the game if you dont believe me, you will see for yourself) yet publisher forced their decision and outsourced the multiplayer. I did not even TRY the multiplayer section of the game. Once again, am I responsible for publishers wasting money? HELL NO
Dead Space 3. EA in their infinite wisdom decided that Dead Space 3 will sell more than 1 and 2 combined and therefore added a budget to match that expectation. That is pure insanity.
Finally, what about games that were successful this generation? Did the gamers scream bloody murder about lack of photorealistic graphics in Dark Souls? Did World of Tanks fail because of its horrible flash engine? How does League of Legends survive with only three maps?
Dont put the blame on the gamers. Put the blame on the publishers who form focus groups consisting of only males and then yell: "SEE, gamers do not want FEMALE protagonists". They create focus groups of college age frat members and yell "see, the gamers really do want every game to have realistic graphics, violence and multiplayer". The game I have had the most fun this year was Crusader Kings 2, a game where sprites walk around a 2D map.
Tomb Raider was a great game, I had a lot of fun with it and it was the first Tomb raider game that I have played. However, for some reason it had lots of combat and even multiplayer. Nobody asked for multiplayer, and the evidence is obvious. I dare you to try to find a multiplayer match for Tomb Raider, it took me 10 minutes within days of the release of the game and I have never bother to touch it after trying it once. I wish the resources that were poured into Hair Tesselation, Combat, celebrity actors and multiplayer were poured into MORE TOMBS. Gamers are not at fault here. Publishers that copy and paste everything from market leader regardless of whether it fits the game or not are the problem.
Spec Ops the line is another good example. Developers flat out refused to add multiplayer to the game because it completely went against everything that the game was trying to accomplish(play the game if you dont believe me, you will see for yourself) yet publisher forced their decision and outsourced the multiplayer. I did not even TRY the multiplayer section of the game. Once again, am I responsible for publishers wasting money? HELL NO
Dead Space 3. EA in their infinite wisdom decided that Dead Space 3 will sell more than 1 and 2 combined and therefore added a budget to match that expectation. That is pure insanity.
Finally, what about games that were successful this generation? Did the gamers scream bloody murder about lack of photorealistic graphics in Dark Souls? Did World of Tanks fail because of its horrible flash engine? How does League of Legends survive with only three maps?
Dont put the blame on the gamers. Put the blame on the publishers who form focus groups consisting of only males and then yell: "SEE, gamers do not want FEMALE protagonists". They create focus groups of college age frat members and yell "see, the gamers really do want every game to have realistic graphics, violence and multiplayer". The game I have had the most fun this year was Crusader Kings 2, a game where sprites walk around a 2D map.
I don't think we've all been blind to this problem. In fact, I've read a lot of comments from people saying the same and similar things... AAA titles cost too much to make for too little return. You have to ask, how much did TR take to make?, how many salaries does it need to pay?
5mil, at a profit point of at least 50%, more with online sales... that's got to be around $100m profit, and it cost more than that?
Obviously things are screwed up - it shouldn't cost more than a few million to make a AAA title. I'd be interested in seeing the budget plan for it, how much was spent on marketting, how much went to upper management and covering losses from other games.
Really though, we are pissing in the wind. Developers don't really care about what gamers want, not really. I know people might take offense to that - but as an indie developer myself, I can say that gamers...
A) Only really complain.
B) Don't appreciate what is involved in game development.
C) Make assumptions about how things are done, then complain about how they assume they are done.
Developers have enough people offering/forcing their opinions on them, sorry to say but the end user is a low priority.
Indie game development is a bit like reality TV. A few years ago it was great, we had so many new ideas, and a good market to compete in. Now, the big guys have muscled in - just like reality TV... you can't make a game that makes a profit unless you are a fricken celebrity developer these days, just like we only see celebrities or wanna-be celebrities on reality TV. We can't make ends meet because our games don't make enough money, and all because Tomb Raider needs to sell another 5 million copies. Any marketplace that used to be great for indies is now locked up tight by marketting departments... like the Apple store - shovelling mindless driving games and rehashed puzzle games down our collective throats. Theres no place for the little guy these days, so the big guys can all bloody well suffer for all I care.
5mil, at a profit point of at least 50%, more with online sales... that's got to be around $100m profit, and it cost more than that?
Obviously things are screwed up - it shouldn't cost more than a few million to make a AAA title. I'd be interested in seeing the budget plan for it, how much was spent on marketting, how much went to upper management and covering losses from other games.
Really though, we are pissing in the wind. Developers don't really care about what gamers want, not really. I know people might take offense to that - but as an indie developer myself, I can say that gamers...
A) Only really complain.
B) Don't appreciate what is involved in game development.
C) Make assumptions about how things are done, then complain about how they assume they are done.
Developers have enough people offering/forcing their opinions on them, sorry to say but the end user is a low priority.
Indie game development is a bit like reality TV. A few years ago it was great, we had so many new ideas, and a good market to compete in. Now, the big guys have muscled in - just like reality TV... you can't make a game that makes a profit unless you are a fricken celebrity developer these days, just like we only see celebrities or wanna-be celebrities on reality TV. We can't make ends meet because our games don't make enough money, and all because Tomb Raider needs to sell another 5 million copies. Any marketplace that used to be great for indies is now locked up tight by marketting departments... like the Apple store - shovelling mindless driving games and rehashed puzzle games down our collective throats. Theres no place for the little guy these days, so the big guys can all bloody well suffer for all I care.
On the marketing point; just a quick question, how many of you were convinced to buy a game by a tv or internet commercial? Now, how many were interested in a game based on a gameplay trailer or a review of it's actual gameplay?
That's the thing; games, in the end, are sold on the quality of their gameplay; what the mechanics are, how well the controls for those mechanics work, those sorts of things. You can't communicate those in a movie style trailer. All that shows is a cutscene. Now, with something with an established and consistent gameplay style, like Elder Scrolls or Grand Theft Auto, you can maybe get away with more trailer type ads, since everyone already knows what you're about with this game (open-world dicking around and open-world genocide, with some story for when you're bored). But blowing a shit ton of money on these types of ads just doesn't help compared to, oh say, releasing a free demo on Steam and XBL/PSN.
Here's a marketing idea; send pre-release copies to several random games blogs. Not just big name ones ("10/10 greatest thing evars buy 12 copies lol" is just a given and therefore meaningless, but do it anyway cuz why not), just random mid-sized gamer sites or vid series that get a decent number of views, and let them have total free reign to review the thing however they want. That seems like it would generate way more interest amongst gamers than yet another predone trailer. Also seems like it would be way cheaper.
That's the thing; games, in the end, are sold on the quality of their gameplay; what the mechanics are, how well the controls for those mechanics work, those sorts of things. You can't communicate those in a movie style trailer. All that shows is a cutscene. Now, with something with an established and consistent gameplay style, like Elder Scrolls or Grand Theft Auto, you can maybe get away with more trailer type ads, since everyone already knows what you're about with this game (open-world dicking around and open-world genocide, with some story for when you're bored). But blowing a shit ton of money on these types of ads just doesn't help compared to, oh say, releasing a free demo on Steam and XBL/PSN.
Here's a marketing idea; send pre-release copies to several random games blogs. Not just big name ones ("10/10 greatest thing evars buy 12 copies lol" is just a given and therefore meaningless, but do it anyway cuz why not), just random mid-sized gamer sites or vid series that get a decent number of views, and let them have total free reign to review the thing however they want. That seems like it would generate way more interest amongst gamers than yet another predone trailer. Also seems like it would be way cheaper.
Here are two companies that try to squeeze every single penny out of their franchises and it doesnt seem to help:Tom_green_day said:
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/05/13/square-enix-posts-134m-fiscal-net-loss-projects-profit-for-com/
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/01/31/ea-posts-45-million-net-loss-in-q3-reduces-revenue-forecast/
THQ also went bankrupt as you might remember because gamers demanded Udraw and then failed to purchase it when it came out (tricky bastards).
I also find it funnny that you list an article from 2011 to prove your point back when EA actually released games that people liked. Then they released Mass Effect 3, Origin and so on. Things that gamers were very angry about.
Activision/Blizzard are doing well, however, they are market leaders and they are spending a lot less money on their games than companies that try to copy them. EA has apparently spent 100 million USD for Battlefield 3 PR budget, which is a main game in a famous franchise to compete with Call of duty. Did they succeed? Hell no, as their fiscal losses above show.
Dont care. I just play the games i like and enjoy. If developers stopped making games i like, then i wont buy games. Simple as that really. These companies can only learn but what sells and what fails.