70 réponses à ce sujet

[Sakanade]

As I was reading through articles on Destructoid, I came across an article that stated that the creators of Kingdoms of Amalur (38 Studio's) has been bankrupt for a couple of months now.

Now I'm not going to go in depth about that, as it's just the game developers that made a huge error and grossly overspent their resources which noosed them badly.

Trying to go on topic, because this is the DAII forum:

However, it did bring to light how much making these video games actually cost.

90 million for Kingdoms of Amalur?
It wasn't even THAT great of a game.

I shudder to think how much it would cost to make DAIII or even how much DAII did cost.

In light of this, I'm kind of thinking people should give Bioware's Dragon Age team some peace of mind, to make sure they get some peace and quiet.
Because if ****storms already happen while nothing has been released yet, they'd have to spend resources on putting out fires, just like with Mass effect 3.

And for people who want new platform versions with better graphics, I got a wake up call from this:


As I quote from a post I read:

This is just a reminder of how much these games now cost to develop, and everyone wants a new generation of games/tech. We are going to end up bankrupting ourselves with this ****. Sooner or later theres not going to be anything left. Games are going to cost even more to make, they are going to obviously increase the prices of games which is going to make it even more of a exclusive type hobby. Who are they going to sell games to when the cost to purchase a single copy of one costs 70 or 80 bucks. The industry needs to seriously look into these issues, not to mention us, the consumers. Are we ready to shell out 70 or 80 bucks for a single game? That is what asking for a new generation is asking for.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Discuss.

[cJohnOne]

Isn't game cost more a business decision. How to optimize sales and maxamize profits at the same time?

[cJohnOne]

Or is it just charge what everyone else is charging?

[Cyne]

The upcoming south park game needs to sell 2 million copies to break even:

THQ will focus now on breaking even on a title-by-title basis by releasing low-cost triple-A titles, such as Obsidian Entertainment's South Park: The Stick of Truth, which will release next March.

South Park requires a relatively smaller investment than other titles due to its simple animation. That project's break-even point is also 2 million units, though the publisher believes it can sell well above that, THQ told Pachter.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/172036/THQ_sold_UFC_license_after_failing_to_break_even_on_it.php


It's got the same graphics as on the show. Anything more complex, like a typical bioware game probably costs more (unless the majority of the cost is for licensing ?) Yeah, games are very expensive these days.

edit: Also skyrim is selling for $89.99 on steam in Australia, and this is NOW, not the release day price. Clearly some people are willing to part with $80+ for a single game.

Modifié par Cyne, 16 juin 2012 - 01:23 .

[ashwind]

Sakanade wrote...


As I was reading through articles on Destructoid, I came across an article that stated that the creators of Kingdoms of Amalur (38 Studio's) has been bankrupt for a couple of months now.

Now I'm not going to go in depth about that, as it's just the game developers that made a huge error and grossly overspent their resources which noosed them badly.

Trying to go on topic, because this is the DAII forum:

However, it did bring to light how much making these video games actually cost.

90 million for Kingdoms of Amalur?
It wasn't even THAT great of a game.

I shudder to think how much it would cost to make DAIII or even how much DAII did cost.

In light of this, I'm kind of thinking people should give Bioware's Dragon Age team some peace of mind, to make sure they get some peace and quiet.
Because if ****storms already happen while nothing has been released yet, they'd have to spend resources on putting out fires, just like with Mass effect 3.

And for people who want new platform versions with better graphics, I got a wake up call from this:


As I quote from a post I read:

This is just a reminder of how much these games now cost to develop, and everyone wants a new generation of games/tech. We are going to end up bankrupting ourselves with this ****. Sooner or later theres not going to be anything left. Games are going to cost even more to make, they are going to obviously increase the prices of games which is going to make it even more of a exclusive type hobby. Who are they going to sell games to when the cost to purchase a single copy of one costs 70 or 80 bucks. The industry needs to seriously look into these issues, not to mention us, the consumers. Are we ready to shell out 70 or 80 bucks for a single game? That is what asking for a new generation is asking for.

Sorry for the wall of text.

Discuss.

KOA imo is a VERY underrated game - All it lacks is story. Its game play is one of the best - definitely lightyears better than DA2 and Skyrim (minus some balancing issue).

[cJohnOne]

I read somewhere that 38 studios had a 75 million dollar loan they couldn''t pay back. I don't really believe the games cost could be so high. Desn't seem reasonable.

[cJohnOne]

How much do you think DA2 cost to make? I was thinking 10 million dollars. I guess that's a little low.

[deuce985]

Kingdoms of Amalur's studio just had really bad management. Most games that sold like it did would be considered a success.

They just had no idea how to manage their checkbook. Another major dev that comes to mind with really bad management is Rockstar. All their games go through development hell because of this. LA Noire sold millions and Rockstar still folded that studio. Red Dead Redemption cost a ton of money and had nightmare stories from the family of the devs throughout development. That game needed over 4 million sold just to make profit(and it did). GTA4 cost over $100 million to make and had development problems but was obviously a huge success.

I know that game costs are going way up but absolutely no way should a dev be shut down when his game hits 4 million sold the first month...that's ridiculous. It's exactly what happened to Bondi when Rockstar shut them down. Horrible management on somebodies end. Whether it was R* or Team Bondi, who knows.

It's all on how well a dev can manage themselves. Bioware seems to do a pretty good job. The Amalur studio was just unfortunate because the game sold close to 1.5 million. That should be considered a success in such a short period and the genre it's in. It wasn't. That studio paid too much for people like Todd Mcfarlene.

Luckily, Bioware doesn't seem to have management anywhere near that. Those devs were also picked up by Epic, so they have a happy ending to that story. It's nice to see they rebounded for their families.

I saw a article awhile back that showed the top 10 highest developed games. GTA4 was #1 at 100 million right before SWTOR came out. Amalur shouldn't come close a number like that...like I said, bad management and they spent too much money in areas they didn't need. They banked on guys like Todd Mcfarlene to help sell the game and it didn't work...

Modifié par deuce985, 16 juin 2012 - 02:27 .

[deuce985]

Oh, I could touch on the boom for social/tablet gaming too. It's making huge money because games are so cheap. I'd argue gaming is at a point where it's priced too high. Especially in this economy.

But they will always have a market for the hardcore audience. If your game is good, it will be a commercial success. It's really that simple.

The casual market might be infinitely larger but they do not have the attach rate hardcore gamers have.

The devs just have to adapt to the market. Is it a bigger risk? Sure. But it's no different than any business in the world. You either adapt to your competition and evolve or you fold. That's how every business works...

I see the publishers always complaining about ways to make money in the industry. Companies like Gamestop damage them, piracy, blah blah. They never show market resource that proves their claim either. You could argue that renting games actually boosts the industry more than a corporation like EA claims. Because it's exposed to more people like that. I know when I was younger I wouldn't be the gamer I am today without game rentals. Adapt your business model to fit the market and stop complaining.

Modifié par deuce985, 16 juin 2012 - 02:34 .

[ev76]

That game was suppose to be an mmo as well right? (KOA reckoning) was that also part of the 90 million?

[Firky]

I'm interested in the issue of games with gigantic budgets. This seemed like a comprehensive thing on the 38 Studios thing. And there's discussion of the MMO and the MMO environment since 2006.

http://www.quarterto...-to-38-studios/

Modifié par Firky, 16 juin 2012 - 02:47 .

[deuce985]

They have a rumor that next-gen consoles will see 24/7 internet DRM. And games will be tied to accounts much like how PC games use CDKEYs. It's so they can cut used game sales out completely. I'm not sure I believe that rumor but I could see a company like EA jumping for joy if that was true. That would be substantial extra revenue for companies like EA to offset gaming budgets. Although, I'd argue it also shrinks the gaming industry to newer people towards games.

What I'd really like to see is a project like DA3 go to a F2P model. F2P games are a booming craze right now like social/tablet gaming and further reinforces my theory about games priced at the $59.99 USD price point is too high. The game industry has been seeing numbers drop the past few years in sales. The market has been shifting to F2P/social/tablet gaming.

The key is to make a big game like DA3 to be F2P, IMO. Of course it would have microtransactions to offset the cost but the key to that is putting it in the game where it never feels like it interferes with our experience. They would have to find a balance for it. F2P games give more exposure out. I think F2P and MTs are the future for gaming, IMO.

More exposure for your game can't hurt it if it's a good game...it just puts it in the hands of more people that are willing to spend money on it and offset the game budget. It would take some major balls on EA's part to do it but if they think it through, I think it can be done with big success, IMO.

When people are paying $5 on a tablet game and getting all the fun they need, they're going to question why should they spend $59.99 on a game. Personally, price isn't a problem for me. But I'm not everybody...

Modifié par deuce985, 16 juin 2012 - 02:59 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I wouldn't mind paying more for AAA games, such as a $80, $90 or even $100 price tag if I knew it was a quality game with tons of replayabilty. I have also not spent a dime on paid DLC or microtransactions for any game. I don't mind paying for quality, but I despise being nickeled-and-dimed for a product I've already purchased.

That being said, there was a very interesting article in this month's Game Informer* that discussed the new Unreal Engine 4 being developed. It has all the new bells and whistles that come with a new engine, including graphics and the whatnot, but more importantly, it discussed how the new engine has an incredibly higher amount of interactivity that does not require programming know how.

We have seen this model apply to Flash game design programs, such as StencylWorks, where little to no programming knowledge is required to make games. The newest Inreal Engine embraces that Kirk of philosophy, where entire locations, character renderings, effects such as lighting or physics... all of this can be set up using an intuitive interface. This is a drastic change from the current model, where each change or feature has to be drawn up by the design/writing/creative side, sent to the programming department for interpretation of the feature, coding for it developed, then looping it back to the design team to see if it is up to spec, THEN having the feature tested in game. This leads to lots of wasteful back and forth and lack of deep testing, since the feature has to be coded for each time if a fault is found.

The guys at Epic say this kind of engine tool would obviously not eliminate the need for programmers, but would greatly widen the ability of the creative and design teams to flesh out their ideas with coding without coding, so to speak, and then has programmers connect the dots in the final stages, after things have been tested and tweaked.

This could result in the huge 300-500 person teams required to make games and whittle it down to much more sustainable and manageable number. It also could give indie developers a shot at making games without a team of tech-savvy programmers, further allowing for more independence and creativity.

We'll see if any of this holds up when the Unreal Engine 4 comes out**, but either way this concept is incredibly interesting. Will we see a DA game in the future where zots won't be a limitation and much deeper content could be created based on branching choice? The verdict is still out.

*I would link this article, but since it's GI's issue this month, only digit magazine subscribers would be able to see it. Sorry.
**The first games by Epic are slated for later this year, with the full engine out in 2013

[ev76]

@Firky cool read, thanks for the link.

[deuce985]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I wouldn't mind paying more for AAA games, such as a $80, $90 or even $100 price tag if I knew it was a quality game with tons of replayabilty. I have also not spent a dime on paid DLC or microtransactions for any game. I don't mind paying for quality, but I despise being nickeled-and-dimed for a product I've already purchased.

That being said, there was a very interesting article in this month's Game Informer* that discussed the new Unreal Engine 4 being developed. It has all the new bells and whistles that come with a new engine, including graphics and the whatnot, but more importantly, it discussed how the new engine has an incredibly higher amount of interactivity that does not require programming know how.

We have seen this model apply to Flash game design programs, such as StencylWorks, where little to no programming knowledge is required to make games. The newest Inreal Engine embraces that Kirk of philosophy, where entire locations, character renderings, effects such as lighting or physics... all of this can be set up using an intuitive interface. This is a drastic change from the current model, where each change or feature has to be drawn up by the design/writing/creative side, sent to the programming department for interpretation of the feature, coding for it developed, then looping it back to the design team to see if it is up to spec, THEN having the feature tested in game. This leads to lots of wasteful back and forth and lack of deep testing, since the feature has to be coded for each time if a fault is found.

The guys at Epic say this kind of engine tool would obviously not eliminate the need for programmers, but would greatly widen the ability of the creative and design teams to flesh out their ideas with coding without coding, so to speak, and then has programmers connect the dots in the final stages, after things have been tested and tweaked.

This could result in the huge 300-500 person teams required to make games and whittle it down to much more sustainable and manageable number. It also could give indie developers a shot at making games without a team of tech-savvy programmers, further allowing for more independence and creativity.

We'll see if any of this holds up when the Unreal Engine 4 comes out**, but either way this concept is incredibly interesting. Will we see a DA game in the future where zots won't be a limitation and much deeper content could be created based on branching choice? The verdict is still out.

*I would link this article, but since it's GI's issue this month, only digit magazine subscribers would be able to see it. Sorry.
**The first games by Epic are slated for later this year, with the full engine out in 2013

That's very interesting if true. That means Epic is jumping on that Indie dev craze, which is flourishing on XBLA/PSN/tablet/social gaming. That means it would cut down on gaming budgets too, as you mentioned. Or at the very least, expand gaming.

Also, it's too early to assume how much gaming budgets will soar on the new consoles. You'd have to think Sony/M$ are aware of publisher concerns about rising budget costs, therefore they're going to do whatever they can to reduce budgets. Otherwise publishers will be less reluctant to adopt the new consoles. Sony could start by making their next system architecture much easier to develop on. Unlike PS3. I know for a fact that would reduce costs...

That also means people like me who aren't in the industry but interested in it makes it more accessible for us to do so? Am I reading that right?

Modifié par deuce985, 16 juin 2012 - 03:24 .

[AmstradHero]

deuce985 wrote...
They just had no idea how to manage their checkbook. Another major dev that comes to mind with really bad management is Rockstar. All their games go through development hell because of this. LA Noire sold millions and Rockstar still folded that studio. Red Dead Redemption cost a ton of money and had nightmare stories from the family of the devs throughout development. That game needed over 4 million sold just to make profit(and it did). GTA4 cost over $100 million to make and had development problems but was obviously a huge success.

I know that game costs are going way up but absolutely no way should a dev be shut down when his game hits 4 million sold the first month...that's ridiculous. It's exactly what happened to Bondi when Rockstar shut them down. Horrible management on somebodies end. Whether it was R* or Team Bondi, who knows.

The information I had was that not an insignificant amount of GTAIV's budget was spent licensing the many, many songs used for the radio stations. Incidentally, licensing costs and market oversaturation were the two key factors that led to the demise of Guitar Hero / Rock Band.

As for LA Noire, blaming Rockstar is not appropriate either. Brendan McNamara (head of Team Bondi) is pretty much solely to blame there. LA Noire had been in the works for years before Rockstar effectively paid to keep the project alive.

Gamers expect better graphics from new titles, and along with voice acting, this is pushing the development costs of AAA games up. We're already starting to see indie games rise in prevalence, and I imagine we're going to see an increase in companies dedicated to making game engines separate from companies who make games. For example, Carmack and more than a few guys at id can make a good engine, but do you remember when they last made a good game?

[deuce985]

Firky wrote...

I'm interested in the issue of games with gigantic budgets. This seemed like a comprehensive thing on the 38 Studios thing. And there's discussion of the MMO and the MMO environment since 2006.

http://www.quarterto...-to-38-studios/

Very interesting.

[deuce985]

AmstradHero wrote...

deuce985 wrote...
They just had no idea how to manage their checkbook. Another major dev that comes to mind with really bad management is Rockstar. All their games go through development hell because of this. LA Noire sold millions and Rockstar still folded that studio. Red Dead Redemption cost a ton of money and had nightmare stories from the family of the devs throughout development. That game needed over 4 million sold just to make profit(and it did). GTA4 cost over $100 million to make and had development problems but was obviously a huge success.

I know that game costs are going way up but absolutely no way should a dev be shut down when his game hits 4 million sold the first month...that's ridiculous. It's exactly what happened to Bondi when Rockstar shut them down. Horrible management on somebodies end. Whether it was R* or Team Bondi, who knows.

The information I had was that not an insignificant amount of GTAIV's budget was spent licensing the many, many songs used for the radio stations. Incidentally, licensing costs and market oversaturation were the two key factors that led to the demise of Guitar Hero / Rock Band.

As for LA Noire, blaming Rockstar is not appropriate either. Brendan McNamara (head of Team Bondi) is pretty much solely to blame there. LA Noire had been in the works for years before Rockstar effectively paid to keep the project alive.

Gamers expect better graphics from new titles, and along with voice acting, this is pushing the development costs of AAA games up. We're already starting to see indie games rise in prevalence, and I imagine we're going to see an increase in companies dedicated to making game engines separate from companies who make games. For example, Carmack and more than a few guys at id can make a good engine, but do you remember when they last made a good game?

This is a good point and the poster above touched on this with the next Unreal engine. It's interesting to read.

I'm personally interested to see what Bioware's next engine will be. I've never been that impressed with Bioware engines.

It's also important to note that Unreal supposedly shackled Bioware on some coding for Mass Effect. I know the DA2 engine is inhouse, correct? What was said above on the Unreal 4 engine is very interesting because I could see something like that being a massive benefit for a company like Bioware and how they design their games.

[Sinuphro]

perhaps if EA and Bioware produced quality games they would not be in this mess. Look at the game called elder scrolls skyrim produced by bethesda. Despite the bugs in the game sooo many people still love it. You know why?? because the game makers put their hearts into making great games. They are bringing out an expansion or dlc in July... and even if that dlc is 40 USD peeople are going to rush and buy it because bethesda has a reputation of making great games and they had continued to maintain that reputation. Also, Bethesda unlike bioware...pays a lot of attention to their fan and consumer base.

IN short; if Bioware had continued DAO properly or even do a very good job with the hawke story line, bioware's reputation would not be in shambles. But one of the most dangerous boo boo that bioware did was to insult their fan and consumer base that protested about how bad DA2 and ME3 were. Word of mouth is very very powerful in the business world. When you wrong multiple customers, those customers tend to have powerful friends in critical high places that can spread the word easier to multiple ppl. Oh and lets not forget the internet.

And why does bioware need to produce games for next gen consoles?? If they are smart; they'll stick to creating games for the ps3 and xbox 360 until it gets cheaper to produce games on the next gen console.

Bioware deserves all the problems its received

[Yrkoon]

In light of this, I'm kind of thinking people should give Bioware's Dragon Age team some peace of mind, to make sure they get some peace and quiet.
Because if ****storms already happen while nothing has been released yet, they'd have to spend resources on putting out fires, just like with Mass effect 3.

And for people who want new platform versions with better graphics, I got a wake up call from this:

Don't worry. EA will never go bankrupt from "over-expending" resources on one game. lol

Modifié par Yrkoon, 16 juin 2012 - 07:54 .

[Urzon]

deuce985 wrote...

They have a rumor that next-gen consoles will see 24/7 internet DRM. And games will be tied to accounts much like how PC games use CDKEYs. It's so they can cut used game sales out completely. I'm not sure I believe that rumor but I could see a company like EA jumping for joy if that was true. That would be substantial extra revenue for companies like EA to offset gaming budgets. Although, I'd argue it also shrinks the gaming industry to newer people towards games.

I'm not looking forward to the future of gaming if that rumor is true. It's basically a big screw you to people/companies that buy used games, and to people that have limited to no internet connetion.

I just hope it won't come to that, since it will be a huge cut to their profits. Alot of gamers won't buy it simply because they can't play it, or that they don't like the idea of having to be connected to the internet the entire time they play it.

[AkiKishi]

Urzon wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

They have a rumor that next-gen consoles will see 24/7 internet DRM. And games will be tied to accounts much like how PC games use CDKEYs. It's so they can cut used game sales out completely. I'm not sure I believe that rumor but I could see a company like EA jumping for joy if that was true. That would be substantial extra revenue for companies like EA to offset gaming budgets. Although, I'd argue it also shrinks the gaming industry to newer people towards games.

I'm not looking forward to the future of gaming if that rumor is true. It's basically a big screw you to people/companies that buy used games, and to people that have limited to no internet connetion.

I just hope it won't come to that, since it will be a huge cut to their profits. Alot of gamers won't buy it simply because they can't play it, or that they don't like the idea of having to be connected to the internet the entire time they play it.

Sony were going to do that at one point with the PS3. Same thing with how games were going to be more expensive (actually I've got PS1 and PS2 games that costs more on release than PS3 games).
In the end you can only get away with what the market will take, unless there is some sort of consensus it's just going to be a handicap to a particular sytem.

Likewise retailers could just not sell your games. The retail sector has a lot of power and they won't want to give up the profits of used titles anymore than the consumers will want to give up on that option.

[nightcobra]

kingdoms of amalur was a diamond in the rough, so much potential. if the quests and plot presentation were better along with a more balanced difficulty the game would have been stellar. its DLCs were pretty good too, the problem was that they were developing an mmo right after amalur.
this company only had amalur under its belt and then tried to develop an mmo? that's almost like commiting company suicide which it did.

i really was looking forward for another dlc expansion or a sequel...such a shame. maybe someday another company can buy the rights to the IP and develop a sequel but i'd wager it'll be a long time until then.

[bEVEsthda]

I kinda see the video games industry today as one churning out formulaic console combat games.
And trying to compete inside the same formula. And with what?

When occasional different kinds of games have some success, DA:O, Skyrim, what is then done? They, too, get the formulaic console combat treatment. DA2, KoA.


What if the movie industry made only Hong Kong style Ninja movies? Wouldn't they find it tough to compete, for the same small market of Ninjutsu aficionados, with increasingly expensive action spectacles? Wouldn't most people completely ignore movies?

Wouldn't someone one day say: "Oh, there's a market shift towards theater"?

[AkiKishi]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

kingdoms of amalur was a diamond in the rough, so much potential. if the quests and plot presentation were better along with a more balanced difficulty the game would have been stellar. its DLCs were pretty good too, the problem was that they were developing an mmo right after amalur.
this company only had amalur under its belt and then tried to develop an mmo? that's almost like commiting company suicide which it did.

i really was looking forward for another dlc expansion or a sequel...such a shame. maybe someday another company can buy the rights to the IP and develop a sequel but i'd wager it'll be a long time until then.

In many ways Amular did a lot more than it needed to do. The key to any game selling is that people know about it. If you don't know about something you won't buy it.
EA practically rented the Sci Fi channel to advertise ME3 as well as having advertising spots during the walking dead.
I never saw a single add for KOA. In fact had I not just downloaded the demo from PSN on the off chance I never would have bought it.

Sadly sales are now due less to the quality of the game and more to do with how much you can saturate the mass market with advertising. You can spot a truly great game, because it continues to sell long after the advertising is over. Skyrim would be one of those. A lot of AAA titles advertise like crazy, sell in a short period then disapear into discount land within a couple of weeks (that was what happened to ME3).

Modifié par BobSmith101, 16 juin 2012 - 11:51 .