764 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

So you feel the game is worth $20 to you. That sounds reasonable.

I feel it's a safe assumption that the million plus that pick up the game on release day for $60 probably enjoy the game as well. Certainly enough to justify paying $60 for it. Otherwise they'd wait for the price to go down.


I do the same thing. There's the odd game out there that I'll likely pick up day one (next on my list is Firaxis' XCOM), and if a game piques my interest but I don't feel is worth the full price, I just wait for it to come down in price. Plenty of time to waste in Fallout New Vegas >.>

[wsandista]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Ironically, the discussion about attracting a wider audience has evolved into an esoteric discussion on particle physics. Isn't it ironic? Doncha think?

It's better than what discussions here usually evolve in to.

[hussey 92]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So you feel the game is worth $20 to you. That sounds reasonable.

I feel it's a safe assumption that the million plus that pick up the game on release day for $60 probably enjoy the game as well. Certainly enough to justify paying $60 for it. Otherwise they'd wait for the price to go down.

Many people buy the $60 dollar game without realizing it's just worth $20 to them.  Thats what happened with DA2.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So you feel the game is worth $20 to you. That sounds reasonable.

I feel it's a safe assumption that the million plus that pick up the game on release day for $60 probably enjoy the game as well. Certainly enough to justify paying $60 for it. Otherwise they'd wait for the price to go down.

BioWare's silent protagonist games have been worth far more than $60 to me.  I paid as much as $160 (in 2010 dollars) for games in the mid-80s, and I would happily pay that much again for good games.

BioWare's silent protagonist games are good games.

[Allan Schumacher]

hussey 92 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

So you feel the game is worth $20 to you. That sounds reasonable.

I feel it's a safe assumption that the million plus that pick up the game on release day for $60 probably enjoy the game as well. Certainly enough to justify paying $60 for it. Otherwise they'd wait for the price to go down.

Many people buy the $60 dollar game without realizing it's just worth $20 to them.  Thats what happened with DA2.

That type of situation doesn't result in continued sales though.

As much as you may feel ripped off with your DA2 purchase (which is fine, you're not alone in feeling that way), if that's the way many of the COD fans feel then the game would eventually stop breaking sales records every time a new one came out hahah.

[wsandista]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BioWare's silent protagonist games have been worth far more than $60 to me.  I paid as much as $160 (in 2010 dollars) for games in the mid-80s, and I would happily pay that much again for good games.

BioWare's silent protagonist games are good games.

I think that may be part of the appeal of Kickstarter. It will probably end up costing more (if you donate to a project), but you a product that is what you want will be produced.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, kickstarter can also keep costs relatively under control because it does cut out "middle men" and the thing I find most interesting about the idea is that if the devs use up all the money, deliver the game, the supporters like it, and they don't sell a single copy beyond that, it was a success.

The idea that a game can be successful without turning a profit, because it's funded directly by the consumer, is a very interesting idea to me. I'm curious to see if the higher profile ones can deliver. It's certainly a risk and if they flop it'll possibly be the deathknell for kickstarter funded games.

The cost doesn't need to be too high though. I believe I chipped in like $30 for Wasteland 2.

[wsandista]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Well, kickstarter can also keep costs relatively under control because it does cut out "middle men" and the thing I find most interesting about the idea is that if the devs use up all the money, deliver the game, the supporters like it, and they don't sell a single copy beyond that, it was a success.

The idea that a game can be successful without turning a profit, because it's funded directly by the consumer, is a very interesting idea to me. I'm curious to see if the higher profile ones can deliver. It's certainly a risk and if they flop it'll possibly be the deathknell for kickstarter funded games.

The cost doesn't need to be too high though. I believe I chipped in like $30 for Wasteland 2.

Well, all of us will just have to see how they turn out. I know some people that didn't pitch in to Shadowrun Returns, but still intented to buy the game, and I'm almost posititve that Wasteland 2 will get sales outside of those who donated. Then you have to factor in "word-of-mouth" exposure, which can possibly boost sales(word-of-mouth is hwat got me to buy DAO). Again, this is just speculation, but your probably right about the sucess of the high profile kick-starter games determining if kickstarter-funded games becoming prevalent in the market.

I think chipped in around $30 as well BTW.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Well, kickstarter can also keep costs relatively under control because it does cut out "middle men" and the thing I find most interesting about the idea is that if the devs use up all the money, deliver the game, the supporters like it, and they don't sell a single copy beyond that, it was a success.

The idea that a game can be successful without turning a profit, because it's funded directly by the consumer, is a very interesting idea to me. I'm curious to see if the higher profile ones can deliver. It's certainly a risk and if they flop it'll possibly be the deathknell for kickstarter funded games.

The cost doesn't need to be too high though. I believe I chipped in like $30 for Wasteland 2.

I like Kickstarter because it allows niche markets to be served whenever those niche markets are willing to pay enough to offset their niche-ness.

Previously, developers would only make those games by misreading the market or by making an extremly high-risk gamble.  Now the market can fund the development directly and eliminate much of the risk.  Companies hate risk.

So Kickstarter saves me the trouble of executing a hostile takeover of EA, selling off all of their non-BioWare assets, and using the liquidity to fund games developed to my exacting standards.  Which, frankly, if I had $50 billion, I would totally do.

[wsandista]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So Kickstarter saves me the trouble of executing a hostile takeover of EA, selling off all of their non-BioWare assets, and using the liquidity to fund games developed to my exacting standards.  Which, frankly, if I had $50 billion, I would totally do.

Would you mind if I take this statement as a signature?

[Allan Schumacher]

wsandista wrote...

Well, all of us will just have to see how they turn out. I know some people that didn't pitch in to Shadowrun Returns, but still intented to buy the game, and I'm almost posititve that Wasteland 2 will get sales outside of those who donated. Then you have to factor in "word-of-mouth" exposure, which can possibly boost sales(word-of-mouth is hwat got me to buy DAO). Again, this is just speculation, but your probably right about the sucess of the high profile kick-starter games determining if kickstarter-funded games becoming prevalent in the market.

I think chipped in around $30 as well BTW.

I'm sure the games will have post release sales too.  Hopefully lots because it means the game is good!  I'm just saying that the game doesn't actually need any sales to be successful.  The fans all effectively preordered the game 18 months in advance.

There's nothing else like that in gaming.  BioWare cannot make a game and still call it a success if it doesn't sell a single unit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wsandista wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So Kickstarter saves me the trouble of executing a hostile takeover of EA, selling off all of their non-BioWare assets, and using the liquidity to fund games developed to my exacting standards.  Which, frankly, if I had $50 billion, I would totally do.

Would you mind if I take this statement as a signature?

Not at all.

[Neo DrKefka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

FaWa wrote...

And yet its still on my computer, while Dragon Age 2 is not. 
I don't think anyone involved with the creation of DA2 should be in the position to call another game bad. 

I'm sure the opposite is true in many cases as well.  I'm sure there are some that have both games installed too.  There's probably also some that have neither game installed (in fact "most" people are probably in this boat).

Although for all of Dragon Age 2's faults, I still can think of many games that are worse.  I can think of many that are much better.


Also, just to be clear for everyone, when I state that a game is poor it shouldn't need to be clarified that it's my opinion on the matter.  I may disagree that someone else thinks that Morrowind or Oblivion are fantastic games.  For me, they are not.  I also recognize that not all games are going to appeal to me, and that there is likely value for others in games that I don't care about.  I know for a fact that there are games that I like that aren't typically well liked.  To each his or her own.

As for your point whether or not I should be in the position to call another game poor because of my work on DA2, I'll disagree.


I try to be candid on the forums.  The forums have actually asked for more open and honest discourse.  Naturally there ARE some restrictions (that even make sense) so I can't talk about everything.  I think people would rather have a clear perspective on what types of games I do and do not like so that they can better qualify statements I make about qualities of games.  Just my perspective anyways.

Alan, I am sorry I do not have anything to add to the topic but I would like to thank for all your wonderful responses. I think your take is a breath of fresh air from what we have seen for the past two years on the forums.

[Fast Jimmy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm sure the games will have post release sales too.  Hopefully lots because it means the game is good!  I'm just saying that the game doesn't actually need any sales to be successful.  The fans all effectively preordered the game 18 months in advance.

There's nothing else like that in gaming.  BioWare cannot make a game and still call it a success if it doesn't sell a single unit.

Allan, if a Kickstarter game like Wasteland 2 had a totally non-cinematic approach to story-telling, lots of old-school cRPG stats and mechanisms, silent PC and all sorts of other things some here on the forums are begging for, and it is completely financed by the supposed 'niche' players AND it ships more than, say, 1.5 million copies, do you think EA and Bioware will begin realizing it's not a niche market after all?

Not saying that's going to happen, or even if it does I'm going to have some party or anything... but do you think an outcome like that will cause a review of the gaming direction Bioware has recent been trending towards?

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So Kickstarter saves me the trouble of executing a hostile takeover of EA, selling off all of their non-BioWare assets, and using the liquidity to fund games developed to my exacting standards.  Which, frankly, if I had $50 billion, I would totally do.

Would you mind if I take this statement as a signature?

Not at all.

To be honest, you wouldn't need anywhere near $50 billion to do that. I'd say maybe $10 billion (three times their Market Capitalization, more than double their annual revenue) would get the conversation going, with $20 getting the deal sealed right from the start.

Then again, I sense that the even the richest memberson the forums would find they are short 9 billion 999 million 900 thousand dollars for money they could afford to invest in taking over a gaming franchise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

To be honest, you wouldn't need anywhere near $50 billion to do that.

Of course not, but I'm not going to blow my entire fortune on this.

Then again, I sense that the even the richest memberson the forums would find they are short 9 billion 999 million 900 thousand dollars for money they could afford to invest in taking over a gaming franchise.

But it's something for which to strive...

[EricHVela]

The problem I see:
"Niche" versus "typical" or "average"

One tries to appeal to a focused audience while the other tries to appeal to a larger audience with less focus.

I'm one for more focus when it's story-centric and less focus when the gameplay is the only point to the game (with the setting immaterial).

Gameplay is always important, but I don't think anyone should require the player to put so much time into the story if the story is little more than an afterthought.

Sadly, you make do with the resources you have versus the resources you want. Schedules, funding, staff ... The sad part is when there are not enough resources to make a decent game or when there are enough resources but the the various parts do not come together in a mutually beneficial manner.

I put the heaviest weight on funding, then schedule -- mostly because one should assume the talent is there (even if it isn't there -- a good bet usually), but as weighted aspects go, a conflict of schedules can possibly still ruin a well-funded project.

I'm greedy. For the next Dragon Age (which I hope doesn't have III on it versus an episode title), I want a niche game for story-focused gamers. I felt that BWE was able to get the most out of those when they focused on that. Yet, I highly suspect that the numbers show that there are more sales for the "average" or "typical" gamer instead of the "niche" gamer. "Niche" gamers lose when they receive less focus.

C'est la vie.

[Fast Jimmy]

ReggarBlane wrote...
"Niche" gamers lose when they receive less focus.

C'est la vie.

Niche players LEAVE when they receive less attention.

They know what their tastes are and don't like to be told that their tastes are not important. 

They will bargain, and compromise, but ultimately? They'll take a product with less bells and whistles (n the video game world, this would be cinematics, voiced characters and high-end graphics) that addresses their core needs. You see it in every industry - there is a niche market for everything. In our rapidly digitial purchase world for video games, you'll see less and less people who have niche tastes flocking to the AAA studios as we saw in the past. 

Bioware needs to determine if they want to be content making niche content for customers who have been loyal for over a decade, or if they want to attempt to tackle the more broad gaming crowd. 

HIstory has shown that when a company tries to do both, they fail. Because the niche market doesn't feel satisfied, and thus the base is removed, and the broad market never latches on, due to unfamiliarity and bad word of mouth from the niche customers. Mostly because niche customers are very vocal about their opinions and broad market people tend to not be as invested, so the niche market becomes the loudest voice in many of these discussions.

This doesn't make the niche market bullies or the broad market idiots... but it is what it is. If Bioware could change that about the entire consumer base of the world, then they'd have done something much more significant than make a good video game.

[Fallstar]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

To be honest, you wouldn't need anywhere near $50 billion to do that. I'd say maybe $10 billion (three times their Market Capitalization, more than double their annual revenue) would get the conversation going, with $20 getting the deal sealed right from the start.

Then again, I sense that the even the richest memberson the forums would find they are short 9 billion 999 million 900 thousand dollars for money they could afford to invest in taking over a gaming franchise.

I'm holding out for $10.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware needs to determine if they want to be content making niche content for customers who have been loyal for over a decade, or if they want to attempt to tackle the more broad gaming crowd. 

Something I think BioWare is ignoring is a principle I follow every day.

I'm a fundraiser.  I solicit people for charitable donations.  The principle is: My best donor is the one I already have.  The group of people who already give me money will respond more favourably and more generously to requests for more money than will the group of people who've never given me money before.

BioWare doesn't seem to be taking this into account.  The fans they already had are the ones most likely to buy their games, regardless of features.  Similarly, the people who don't already buy their games are less likely to do so, regardless of features.

They're targeting non-fans with these new features, but those non-fans are really hard to turn into fans.  But it's also really easy to shed current fans if you ignore them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

ReggarBlane wrote...

Gameplay is always important, but I don't think anyone should require the player to put so much time into the story if the story is little more than an afterthought.

The most important part of the story is the gameplay.  The gameplay is what builds the story.

[Dakota Strider]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware needs to determine if they want to be content making niche content for customers who have been loyal for over a decade, or if they want to attempt to tackle the more broad gaming crowd. 

Something I think BioWare is ignoring is a principle I follow every day.

I'm a fundraiser.  I solicit people for charitable donations.  The principle is: My best donor is the one I already have.  The group of people who already give me money will respond more favourably and more generously to requests for more money than will the group of people who've never given me money before.

BioWare doesn't seem to be taking this into account.  The fans they already had are the ones most likely to buy their games, regardless of features.  Similarly, the people who don't already buy their games are less likely to do so, regardless of features.

They're targeting non-fans with these new features, but those non-fans are really hard to turn into fans.  But it's also really easy to shed current fans if you ignore them.

That is a universal principle of business, that current customers are easier to keep, than find a new customer.  And it is also true, that word of mouth by happy customers, will attract more new customers than any paid advertising.

[Realmzmaster]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Bioware needs to determine if they want to be content making niche content for customers who have been loyal for over a decade, or if they want to attempt to tackle the more broad gaming crowd. 

Something I think BioWare is ignoring is a principle I follow every day.

I'm a fundraiser.  I solicit people for charitable donations.  The principle is: My best donor is the one I already have.  The group of people who already give me money will respond more favourably and more generously to requests for more money than will the group of people who've never given me money before.

BioWare doesn't seem to be taking this into account.  The fans they already had are the ones most likely to buy their games, regardless of features.  Similarly, the people who don't already buy their games are less likely to do so, regardless of features.

They're targeting non-fans with these new features, but those non-fans are really hard to turn into fans.  But it's also really easy to shed current fans if you ignore them.

That is a universal principle of business, that current customers are easier to keep, than find a new customer.  And it is also true, that word of mouth by happy customers, will attract more new customers than any paid advertising.

Another truth in business is that you do not grow without attracting new business and a larger audience. You do not get new donors if you do not ask them for money. That is how you got the old donors in the first place. Also with old donors you are aware enough to never dip into that well to often or too soon. So the pool must expand.
Another truth is that if I can attract two new customers for everyone I lose I am ahead. That is where Bioware failed.

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't think they failed because they were trying to replace their fans.

I just honestly think they didn't understand what DA:O did well. They looked at all of the complaints made by their newest customers and then fixed them in a way that violated some of the fundamentals that got many people interested in the first place.

I don't think it's a matter of snubbing anyone, neccessarily, but more of wanting to change too much, too soon. They should have spent the time developing the sequel working on a way to highlight the most popular portions of Origins more, instead of trying to change the formula completely to 'fix' some of the complaints.

Complaints will happen - no one will be happy 100% of the time. If you can fix the source of the quarter of your complaints in each iteration, but focus more on enhancing what people loved about your product much more, then you will have a successful product. If, instead, you focus all your efforts on the things you did wrong with your original product, and redesign it from the ground up after only one round of feedback, you will have a sloppy final product that is neither free of flaws or complaints, but also so far from the original product that you lose your audience.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 juin 2012 - 12:20 .

[Vormaerin]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I'm greedy. For the next Dragon Age (which I hope doesn't have III on it versus an episode title), I want a niche game for story-focused gamers. I felt that BWE was able to get the most out of those when they focused on that. Yet, I highly suspect that the numbers show that there are more sales for the "average" or "typical" gamer instead of the "niche" gamer. "Niche" gamers lose when they receive less focus.
.

The problem is that the story focused gamer isn't a niche.  Its several niches.  Or its a misleading niche.   The pro VO, pro Cinematic experience type player is certainly "story focused," yet the games that appeal to them are anathema to Silvius.

In fact, the way Silvius and allied posters talk almost makes it seem like a malleable protagonist is more important that the story. 

So, you'd have to clarify what you mean by a "niche game for story focused gamers."