284 réponses à ce sujet

[Noatz]

LinksOcarina wrote...

DnVill wrote...

Noatz wrote...

I've no idea who this guy is, or what "Wedbrush Securities" are or why anyone cares what he/they have to say.

I do know that hes flat out wrong in at least some of what hes saying however.

Saying the industry cannot support longer development times and still remain profitable? From what I see Blizzard have always and are still doing rather well with extremely lengthy development periods.

If as a supposed "games commentator" he makes ignorant statements such as that, I have a hard time taking any of what he says seriously.

Not to mention that Blizzard is concentrating only on PC.

He is right, actually. Long dev times= more money spent, more resources and manpower allocated to singular projects, and overall, less impact on the market.

Basically, if you have five development studios working on five games for five years, versus those five studios working on ten games for five years, you tend to lose more money than gain money. Most of those games would not be triple A titles, they would be new I.P's to establish new franchises, older I.Ps for sequel power and brand familiarity, and even speculative games. 

EA, for example, has Madden, Battlefield 3 and Mass Effect 3 as their major bits out right now, but they also have collaborated on speculative titles like Kingdoms of Amalur, and had studios develop titles like Mirrors Edge and new I.Ps like Dead Space, to generate a more diverse portfolio.

Dev times were cut down for most of this, and for the lesser experienced teams it shows heavy sometimes. That said, the average development cycle for a game is 24 months, most good games take 2-3 years to complete, some with longer cycles 3-4, although that is when you see feature creep...but thats another story. But you also got to keep in mind that most games never make money. An average game is usually a cost of 20-30 million, unless if the numbers have gone up recently. Most games make a fraction of that back, with few exceptions. And those numbers are based on average dev-times and team size. A bigger scaled project would be double that, 60-70 million, if it took longer to make. It would also cost an arm and a leg more for advertising costs as well to keep interest up during the games development.

Arguably, Blizzard is in worse shape than EA. EA may have lower stocks than from five years ago, but EA has also been fairly consistant for the past five years in terms of averaging out losses and gains. Blizzard, on the other hand: 

A) has had their revenue stream begin to wane in the past three years.Cataclysm underperformed based on previous numbers for WoW, and they lost a lot of the player base because of FTP modeled MMO's.

Has not made a new I.P since Starcraft in 1998, so 14 years. Since then it's been Warcraft, Diablo, and WoW (which is based off an I.P) and more Starcraft. 

C) Has not really made a new game from 2004-2010, when Starcraft II came out. And it was considered lackluster as well.

D) Is co-owned by Activision, even though it is a laizee faire policy between the two, they are basically following Activision rules for short-term gains over long term investments. Simply put, Activisions buisness model is short-term profit making, then when the bubble bursts, to no longer exploit it. Guitar Hero was the big casualty of that, CoD is close to following suit soon, Tony Hawk died that way as well, and in it's wake Activision is promoting the hell out of Skylanders and Prototype. 

Because of this, I am honestly half-expecting Blizzard to take heavy losses in the coming years, mainly because they are banking on Mists of Pandaria to keep WoW going a bit longer, and Diablo III to sell well when pre-release buzz has been really lukewarm. Hell, when one of your product managers says not to get overly excited about the game they are making, thats a red flag to me.


Anyway, my point is, longer dev times making better games is basically a myth. Some studios get away with it, Nintendo and Rockstar come to mind, but for the most part, that is a skill that is difficult to master correctly...and it takes really good business sense to balance out a fiscal year involving 20 or so releases per year to keep the company afloat as much as possible. 

You are clueless.

To contest your points individually:

A - WoW is undeniably in decline, but its obvious Blizzard have prepared for this. The resources dedicated to WoW are less than they were, and in any case the game was so phenomenally successful that even now as its starting to wither its probably producing some of the highest profit margins in the industry I imagine.

B - First of all, even cursory research reveals that while Blizzard haven't created a new IP for some time, they are in the process of developing one at this very moment. Second, is this really surprising when the very nature of this discussion is how they don't release games as often but yet seem to do just fine financially?

C - See above, but also nice blanket statement about Starcraft 2. Its held in pretty high regard from what I've seen.

D - Activision-Blizzard is a merger. So Blizzard maintains its own policies on releasing games. I mean this is obvious, are you really trying to argue that Blizzard is focused on short term over long term? I mean really come on now. You can argue (convincingly) that some elements of Activision's models have bled over into Blizzard games, such as the WoW online store or the Diablo AH, but this is a peripheral, not fundamental change. Contrast it to EA forcing rush releases from its slave studios.

Longer dev times making better games just so obviously true I'm amazed you even contest it. And its a really simple thing here. If you make an amazing game people not only buy it, but they enjoy it. And when they enjoy it they let others know this. Its the oldest truth of entertainment - if something is really great then whoever is responsible reaps the benefits. Rampant profiteering from people like EA and yes, Acivision, is unustainable as ultimately you cannot replace good word of mouth with hollow media reviews, as EA are currently learning. At some point they will be forced to change their ways, or sink into mediocrity. Activision's solution was to pair themselves with a company known for producing solid games that will retain this crediibility in the eyes of the consumer, EA I fear hasn't entirely cottoned on. I have no idea if rhis will work for Activision (who are arguably even more awful than EA), but they are in a slightly better long term position as of this moment.

[LinksOcarina]

 

Noatz wrote...

You are clueless.

To contest your points individually:

A - WoW is undeniably in decline, but its obvious Blizzard have prepared for this. The resources dedicated to WoW are less than they were, and in any case the game was so phenomenally successful that even now as its starting to wither its probably producing some of the highest profit margins in the industry I imagine.

B - First of all, even cursory research reveals that while Blizzard haven't created a new IP for some time, they are in the process of developing one at this very moment. Second, is this really surprising when the very nature of this discussion is how they don't release games as often but yet seem to do just fine financially?

C - See above, but also nice blanket statement about Starcraft 2. Its held in pretty high regard from what I've seen.

D - Activision-Blizzard is a merger. So Blizzard maintains its own policies on releasing games. I mean this is obvious, are you really trying to argue that Blizzard is focused on short term over long term? I mean really come on now. You can argue (convincingly) that some elements of Activision's models have bled over into Blizzard games, such as the WoW online store or the Diablo AH, but this is a peripheral, not fundamental change. Contrast it to EA forcing rush releases from its slave studios.

Longer dev times making better games just so obviously true I'm amazed you even contest it. And its a really simple thing here. If you make an amazing game people not only buy it, but they enjoy it. And when they enjoy it they let others know this. Its the oldest truth of entertainment - if something is really great then whoever is responsible reaps the benefits. Rampant profiteering from people like EA and yes, Acivision, is unustainable as ultimately you cannot replace good word of mouth with hollow media reviews, as EA are currently learning. At some point they will be forced to change their ways, or sink into mediocrity. Activision's solution was to pair themselves with a company known for producing solid games that will retain this crediibility in the eyes of the consumer, EA I fear hasn't entirely cottoned on. I have no idea if rhis will work for Activision (who are arguably even more awful than EA), but they are in a slightly better long term position as of this moment.

 

And yet, the Warcraft Franchise has been keeled over because many hardcore players in WoW have complained about the inconsistencies with the storyline and character development of the world, which was established back in Warcraft III, to be technical about it.

Project Titan is also going into a speculative territory, which is always the riskiest thing a company can do. And since Titan is also an MMORPG, one that they plan to run side by side with WoW, the issue that will come up is a split in their marketplace. It may bring back pepple but it is still a very risky, and honeslty unsual, move from Blizzard.

But, Blizzard is not as financially stable as you might think. The problem, as I said above, is that they have put pretty much all of their eggs in one basket, which is extremely dangerous. If WoW ended tomorrow, Blizzard would have to bank on the success of Diablo III to survive until Project Titan is even shown, along with the Starcraft II Expansion. They have nothing else to show to the market, but the big difference is that by working on one project for such a long time, they can afford it. For now.

The point I was making, which it feels like you missed, is that long term, Blizzard is gimping themselves by stifling creativity. If they keep focusing on three-four franchises and make the same games (Warcraft IV, Diablo IV, WoW 2, etc. I don't mean games like starcraft Ghost, which should have been made) then they will slowly eat away at their own base like they are now. 

Of course, the same is true for over-saturation, which is what Activision is notorious for, and which is why they are a bad company. EA is also not helping in this field either, but they were smart to have several franchises and recognizable I.Ps to actually have the wiggle room to experiment. As I said, the more diverse portfolio is more impressive in the end.

You are right that EA needs to change, but the answer is not long-term development times. Games with long dev times have failed miserably in the past. Feature Creep basically killed games with great potential, like Alpha Protocol,  Brutal Legend, Duke Nukem Forever (extreme example but still an example)  and L.A Noire suffered a long dev time and added way too much into the project, along with years of abuse by McNamara. 

But that is just one pitfall, as I said, because most game companies need to have sveral releases per fiscal year, and because most dev costs average $20 million, most of the time everything is compressed to cut costs and keep up with the market, because it keeps changing every year. Being relevant is usually more important for the longevity of a company. BioWare, for example, has been making RPGs for the most part since 1998 in several different genres, from isometric DnD-inspired games based on adapted products, to their first original I.P in Jade Empire, to the voice-tech in Mass Effect, to entering the MMO market their way; by emphasizing storyline over typical grinding. All of this is stuff that Blizzard has not done since they made WoW in 2004. They have not diversified or used new techniques or hell, take risks, to showcase growth or relevency in the sense of a financial market. WoW may be a million seller, but WoW is also, in the end, not going to last forever. 

This is also why DLC has been used wantonly from all companies, it is pure experimentation to figure out how to not gouge customers, but to gain revenue to cover dev costs. It's why games cost $60.00 now as well, if they didn't  many developers and publishers would begin to buckle as we have seen in the past five years. This is why BioWare alone has tried four different DLC plans for their past four games; and yet none of them have worked because of general hatred for DLC, and because of stores like Gamestop threatening to not carry the games because they saw free DLC as a violation of their liscencing agreement.

So really, there is no right or wrong answer here. The point though is that there is no absolute "good" or "bad" answer as you, and some others, make it out to be. Considering the current financial climate, EA is in better shape than Blizzard for the long run, but EA also needs to change still or else it will fall into the same trap.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 08 avril 2012 - 05:01 .

[Noatz]

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, the Warcraft Franchise has been keeled over because many hardcore players in WoW have complained about the inconsistencies with the storyline and character development of the world, which was established back in Warcraft III, to be technical about it.

Project Titan is also going into a speculative territory, which is always the riskiest thing a company can do. And since Titan is also an MMORPG, one that they plan to run side by side with WoW, the issue that will come up is a split in their marketplace. It may bring back pepple.

Its more understandable with the Warcraft lore comparing to the Mass Effect lore (I imagine that is what you are trying to do here) because its spans 3 RTS's plus expansions and one MMO which has been running for 8 years. Mass Effect is one trilogy preconcieved as such, and yet the ending to it has managed to screw up the established lore almost as badly as Warcraft's. The Warcraft story has no pre designated conslusion which is why newer lore so often contradicts older lore. It isn't so much badly planned as not planned at all. Mass Effect was planned, they just chose to change the plan with the last game (and look where it got them). Its an old rule of singular storytelling: make sure you know how it ends before it begins.

Blizzard understand that their lore is so large for that IP that there will be contradictions, and they freely wield the retcon hammer to patch it up. Is it a good solution? Hardly, but its served their franchise well enough.

And with Titan I suspect Blizzard's plan will be to wind down WoW in preparation. Expect the final WoW expansion to release about 6 months before Titan's release.

[LinksOcarina]

Noatz wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

And yet, the Warcraft Franchise has been keeled over because many hardcore players in WoW have complained about the inconsistencies with the storyline and character development of the world, which was established back in Warcraft III, to be technical about it.

Project Titan is also going into a speculative territory, which is always the riskiest thing a company can do. And since Titan is also an MMORPG, one that they plan to run side by side with WoW, the issue that will come up is a split in their marketplace. It may bring back pepple.

Its more understandable with the Warcraft lore comparing to the Mass Effect lore (I imagine that is what you are trying to do here) because its spans 3 RTS's plus expansions and one MMO which has been running for 8 years. Mass Effect is one trilogy preconcieved as such, and yet the ending to it has managed to screw up the established lore almost as badly as Warcraft's. The Warcraft story has no pre designated conslusion which is why newer lore so often contradicts older lore. It isn't so much badly planned as not planned at all. Mass Effect was planned, they just chose to change the plan with the last game (and look where it got them). Its an old rule of singular storytelling: make sure you know how it ends before it begins.

Blizzard understand that their lore is so large for that IP that there will be contradictions, and they freely wield the retcon hammer to patch it up. Is it a good solution? Hardly, but its served their franchise well enough.

And with Titan I suspect Blizzard's plan will be to wind down WoW in preparation. Expect the final WoW expansion to release about 6 months before Titan's release.

Edited the post, I got cut off somehow.

And no, I was not comparing the lores. That would be stupid honestly because both of them are different and have their own pitfalls from a narrative standpoint.

And just to clarify, Blizzard said in an interview they want the two MMO's to co-exist, and to try to point out that they can't compare Project Titan to WoW, which is all but impossible in the end anyway because of the company making the game. So I doubt they will do that. 

This may just turn into an everquest/everquest 2 scenario once again. 

ETA 2: 

My computer must be messing up right now, I keep getting cut off so I apologize if my response doesn't flow properly. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 08 avril 2012 - 05:01 .

[Adanu]

BDelacroix wrote...

Who is Michael Pachter and why should I care?

Oh, so when they support you you point at them and go I told you so, but when they rail on you for being entitled brats suddenly you don't care?

I hope you realize that just proves his point.

[Bloodhound66]

Wow. That wa the most insulting article I've ever read. This guy can S my D.

[Noatz]

LinksOcarina wrote...

But, Blizzard is not as financially stable as you might think. The problem, as I said above, is that they have put pretty much all of their eggs in one basket, which is extremely dangerous. If WoW ended tomorrow, Blizzard would have to bank on the success of Diablo III to survive until Project Titan is even shown, along with the Starcraft II Expansion. They have nothing else to show to the market, but the big difference is that by working on one project for such a long time, they can afford it. For now.

The point I was making, which it feels like you missed, is that long term, Blizzard is gimping themselves by stifling creativity. If they keep focusing on three-four franchises and make the same games (Warcraft IV, Diablo IV, WoW 2, etc. I don't mean games like starcraft Ghost, which should have been made) then they will slowly eat away at their own base like they are now. 

Of course, the same is true for over-saturation, which is what Activision is notorious for, and which is why they are a bad company. EA is also not helping in this field either, but they were smart to have several franchises and recognizable I.Ps to actually have the wiggle room to experiment. As I said, the more diverse portfolio is more impressive in the end.

You are right that EA needs to change, but the answer is not long-term development times. Games with long dev times have failed miserably in the past. Feature Creep basically killed games with great potential, like Alpha Protocol,  Brutal Legend, Duke Nukem Forever (extreme example but still an example)  and L.A Noire suffered a long dev time and added way too much into the project, along with years of abuse by McNamara. 

But that is just one pitfall, as I said, because most game companies need to have sveral releases per fiscal year, and because most dev costs average $20 million, most time is compressed to cut costs and keep up with the market, because it keeps changing every year. Being relevant is usually more important for the longevity of a company. BioWare, for example, has been making RPGs for the most part since 1998 in several different genres, from isometric DnD-inspired games based on adapted products, to their first original I.P in Jade Empire, to the voice-tech in Mass Effect, to entering the MMO market their way; by emphasizing storyline over typical grinding. All of this is stuff that Blizzard has not done since they made WoW in 2004. 

Really, there is no right or wrong answer here. The point though is that there is no absolute "good" or "bad" answer as you, and some others, make it out to be. Considering the current financial climate, EA is in better shape than Blizzard for the long run, but EA also needs to change still or else it will fall into the same trap.

Games like WoW don't just die overnight however. Just like EA and everyone else they have thier schedule worked out, and their policy on releases works fairly effectively to severely lessen the chance of their games flopping.

But you're right about long dev times not necessarily equalling success, I actually wasn't arguing Blizzard style dev times are better for business, just that they are not necessarily worse, which is what the fool quoted in the OP seems to believe. What is necessarily worse is games that have clearly not had the dev time they need, such as ME3 and DA2. DA2 is perhaps the better one to pull out here since it has been quantifiably proven that it sold only half as well as its predecessor DA:O, despite an intensive marketing campaign and many favourable reviews. Why was this? Because it was obviously rushed with the clone maps and fans picked up on that, therefore bad word of mouth and relatively bad sales. Now it looks as if the same thing is about to happen with ME3.

This is unfair perhaps to the game, which is great, but it goes to show how much damage can be done in this way. An extra six months or so of development on ME3 and it is likely we would have had something truly remarkable, instead we have had a month (so far) of the internet roaring out in frustration that such an opportunity was allowed to go to waste.

Modifié par Noatz, 08 avril 2012 - 05:08 .

[pavi132]

All I read was "I'm an ****". Did I get that right?

[LinksOcarina]

Noatz wrote...

Games like WoW don't just die overnight however. Just like EA and everyone else they have thier schedule worked out, and their policy on releases works fairly effectively to severely lessen the chance of their games flopping.

But you're right about long dev times not necessarily equalling success, I actually wasn't arguing Blizzard style dev times are better for business, just that they are not necessarily worse, which is what the fool quoted in the OP seems to believe. What is necessarily worse is games that have clearly not had the dev time they need, such as ME3 and DA2. DA2 is perhaps the better one to pull out here since it has been quantifiably proven that it sold only half as well as its predecessor DA:O, despite an intensive marketing campaign and many favourable reviews. Why was this? Because it was obviously rushed with the clone maps and fans picked up on that, therefore bad word of mouth and relatively bad sales. Now it looks as if the same thing is about to happen with ME3.

This is unfair perhaps to the game, which is great, but it goes to show how much damage can be done in this way. An extra six months or so of development on ME3 and it is likely we would have had something truly remarkable, instead we have had a month (so far) of the internet roaring out in frustration that such an opportunity was allowed to go to waste.

Funny thing is, they had five extra months given to them. The game had a 30 month dev time, which is well above average, and it was a longer dev time than Mass Effect 2 had by at least 6 months. Remember, Mass Effect 3 was pushed back from a November release to March, two of those months going through certification and working on finishing up From Ashes, the rest probably fine-tuning the game as it was said elsewhere, and finalizing the endgame. 

So honestly, I don't consider Mass Effect 3 as being rushed in this case at all. Dragon Age II for sure, but Mass Effect 3 felt like a complete game. The issues with the ending is mre of a question about writing and interpretation over dev time honestly. 

As for WoW, you are right. But the problem is Blizzard is banking on three things, Starcraft 2 expansion, Diablo III, and Project Titan as far as we know right now. If say Diablo III undeperforms and Project Titan splits the MMO market Blizzard has, they phase out WoW and people keep comparing Project Titan to WoW. If the worst case scenario happens basically, the problem is, despite the partnership with Activision, Blizzard has little to fall back on.

If  Mass Effect 3 ends the series, BioWare can still survive because they have Dragon Age, they are sitting on Jade Empire, they have TOR, and they are now working on C & C generals 2, and even then, EA has expanded BioWare internally in the past few years, showing trust in the developers and Dr. Ray's leadership, so they will likely give them breathing room for future projects if they start to slide in sales. Even if BioWare Victory is a seperate entinty, the are still under BioWare control, according to the way EA's corporate structure works from what I read. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 08 avril 2012 - 05:25 .

[Solmanian]

I liked how anyone that doesn't agree with the retakers, is branded a troll and their opinion don't matter...

Oh wait, I didn't like it all.

[danteliveson]

pavi132 wrote...

All I read was "I'm an ****". Did I get that right?

That's mature.

[stcalvin13]

Wow people really need to learn how to do stats. Comparing sells to retake members is a stupid way to gage outrage. OF COURSE there will be more sells than retake members, nobody's gonna join retake without buying the game.

[TweedleDee66]

legion999 wrote...

"I can’t think of anything that EA does that is bad enough to warrant this distinction. They sell entertainment products that are better than the average, at competitive prices.”

Is it just me or does this look like EA's paying him to say this?

And after reading the rest of the article it becomes apparent he is yet another person who has no clue.

ROFL!  How true. Must get a paycheck from EA or free games.

Competitive prices? Is that why games still cost as much as everyone else’s and if you buy it used you still have to fork out $15 to have the privilege to play online. Not to mention all the nickel and diming they do with the downloadable content? See the new Tiger Woods PGA for a perfect example.

[satunnainen]

So if a journalist is with you (your movement), he is insightful and a good read, if he is against you, he is a troll and doesnt know anything about anything anyway or even paid by EA?

Modifié par satunnainen, 08 avril 2012 - 06:46 .

[JPR1964]

satunnainen wrote...

So if a journalist is with you (your movement), he is insightful and a good read, if he is against you, he is a troll and doesnt know anything about anything anyway or even paid by EA?

No, but perhaps you should read the interview before too?

JPR out!

[Bourne Endeavor]

tschamp wrote...

The reason we get games like Max Payne and Alan Wake only every six years or so is that the developers strive for perfection, and whiny gamers are only going to cause their beloved games to take even longer between episodes. The BioWare guys are prolific, but if they slow down development of future games to make sure that everybody is happy, consumers will have even fewer choices, and will have something new to complain about. Game development is a balance between delighting consumers and making a profit, and if everyone focuses on guaranteeing 100 percent satisfaction, development costs will rise unacceptably, and nobody will make any money.”

Is this guy serious? I would have waited another year,2,3,or 6 years for Mass Effect 3 if they would work out the glitches, quest system, face importer, ending, weapons upgrade, and added more squad members.

I was about to post essentially this. If BioWare came out and said they would like to include all ME2's cast in a more meaningful way, many returning to the squad and stretch out the game but in doing so would delay it at least two years. My response might have been akin to, "Can I give you my money now? And take as all as you want!"

Granted, that was before all this fiasco. Point stands, I would happily wait longer for games if it meant higher quality. ME3 is great, endings aside, but it definitely could be more fleshed out and greater depth be placed on our choices and its predecessors.

[snakeboy86]

Michel pacter? we have dismissed these claims

[AgentWhite1416]

"Fans should be able to show their dissatisfaction" "..But they're whiners!" Stay classy media, stay classy.

[Tony208]

Narayan23 wrote...

he's hilarious he doesn't want people to strive for better games because it would cost to much and everyone should settle for mediocrity. That's what's wrong with american business in general.
When you look at german car manufacturers they don't settle for mediocrity and they make insane profits their american counterparts are lucky to make a buck these days.

German auto workers earn twice as much as Americans. Their auto industry actually makes money.

Quality is hard thing to find these days in America.

Modifié par Tony208, 08 avril 2012 - 07:10 .

[Karmicmoogle]

It's Michael Patcher... He is just trying to be relevant. They compared movies to games again... Apples and oranges can not be compared even though they are both fruit.

I didn't think that the ending did the story justice. The dev interviews described an ending that is not in the game. I am not a retaker but I still think Bioware has to take responsibility for the product. They have with the announcement of the extended cut. We just have to wait and see

[Adanu]

JPR1964 wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

So if a journalist is with you (your movement), he is insightful and a good read, if he is against you, he is a troll and doesnt know anything about anything anyway or even paid by EA?

No, but perhaps you should read the interview before too?

JPR out!

If I read it and still agree with JPR, what does that make me?

[Baihu1983]

When Pacther predicts something right ill care what he says.

[FOX216BC]

I care about ME, i couldn't care less Michael Pachter.

That guy on the other hand i do like

Modifié par FOX216BC, 08 avril 2012 - 09:50 .

[satunnainen]

JPR1964 wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

So if a journalist is with you (your movement), he is insightful and a good read, if he is against you, he is a troll and doesnt know anything about anything anyway or even paid by EA?

No, but perhaps you should read the interview before too?

JPR out!

I have. I have read plenty of interviews, watched videos and so-on. I have seen the trend, thats why I wrote what I wrote. Did you have some kind of point, or was that just the automatic: "did you even read the..." argument, some people seem to think is a valid counterpoint?

[frozn89]

Wow.. He comes of as a complete moron. Ignorance is apparently bliss for him.