611 réponses à ce sujet

[AmstradHero]

AlanC9 wrote...
Yep. The size of the market is up, and so are the costs necessary to make an AAA-level game, which is the space Bio wants to play in. I'm not quite sure where this is going to get us.

The point being that the size of the market (and thus the number of copies of a game that can be sold) has expanded such that the increased profits from sales have been able to offset the increased cost of production. If the market had not increased, then prices would have had to rise in order to still make game development a viable proposition.

The accessibility and appeal of games is a key factor in their marketability and hence the possibility of a game being backed by a publisher. At the current point in time, most gamers whinge if a game is priced above the "standard" price point because it's not "value for money", regardless of whether it is a niche game or not. This is why we don't see many big titles tailored to suit "the hardcore gamers" who complain about the "casual market", simply because they're unlikely to sell enough copies enough to make a profit.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 27 janvier 2013 - 01:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AmstradHero wrote...

Except you, and everyone else who brings up this argument is failing to acknowledge that the market of people buying these games has expanded significantly since that time.

An expansion made necessary, in part, by the falling prices.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Yep. The size of the market is up, and so are the costs necessary to make an AAA-level game, which is the space Bio wants to play in. I'm not quite sure where this is going to get us.

I don't think "AAA-level" is a meaningful descriptor.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Yep. The size of the market is up, and so are the costs necessary to make an AAA-level game, which is the space Bio wants to play in. I'm not quite sure where this is going to get us.

I don't think "AAA-level" is a meaningful descriptor.

The question is whether Bio staff think it's meaningful. I've seen them use the term.

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Except you, and everyone else who brings up this argument is failing to acknowledge that the market of people buying these games has expanded significantly since that time.

An expansion made necessary, in part, by the falling prices.

You're getting into chicken and egg territory here, but I'd firmly argue games became more popular, which allowed the games to be sold at the same/reduced price. Living in Australia, I'd actually say the market here is proof of this, because game prices have DROPPED over the past 15-20 years, from around $80-$100 for every major title to $60-$80 for a major title. The drop has only come in recent years, and the number of gamers has been expanding for a long time before then.

Of course, some publishers still attempt to gouge Australian consumers... I respond by refusing to give them my money.

Also, AAA is an standard industry term. Deal with it.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 27 janvier 2013 - 07:13 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm aware it's a standard term. I dispute that AAA status matters, in and of itself.

A cheaper game made for a smaller audience could still be profitable using ROI calculations from 15 years ago.

And the best part is that we can test this hypothesis. We just need to wait to see how Project Eternity does. That's a low-budget, niche product.

[AmstradHero]

I'm not sure how in excess of 4 million funded in advance by interested parties constitutes a "low-budget" product.

Regardless, this has little to do with the discussion of DLC, micro-transactions, or the potential for developer enabled paid mods to serve as either.

[MerinTB]

AmstradHero wrote...
I'm not sure how in excess of 4 million funded in advance by interested parties constitutes a "low-budget" product.

You have to use comparitive numbers.  What is the size and scope of the game, and what do games cost to make.

You could say that "a ten million dollar picture isn't low-budget" because, to the average joe or jane on the streeet, ten million is a lot of money--but for motion pictures, which can cost upwards of two-hundred million dollars now, that IS low-budget.

Since game budgets usually run about fifty million dollars and many are much more, a game that costs five million or less to make would be, comparitively, low budget.

Modifié par MerinTB, 27 janvier 2013 - 02:07 .

[BlazingSpeed]

In Exile wrote...

Neither do I. EA will nevertheless find a way to incorporate them. It's been a business platform for quite a while. My hope is that they're not especially intrusive.

Do you mean things like that huge glowing exclamation mark that was over Levi Dyrdens head in camp in Dragon Age Origins?

[Sylvius the Mad]

BlazingSpeed wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Neither do I. EA will nevertheless find a way to incorporate them. It's been a business platform for quite a while. My hope is that they're not especially intrusive.

Do you mean things like that huge glowing exclamation mark that was over Levi Dyrdens head in camp in Dragon Age Origins?

I am so glad we could turn those off.

But, if the game is designed to encourage microtransactions, and microtransaction opportunities need to be shown to the players, I fear that the ability to disable those glowing exclamation marks will stop being offered.

[Conduit0]

AmstradHero wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Yep. The size of the market is up, and so are the costs necessary to make an AAA-level game, which is the space Bio wants to play in. I'm not quite sure where this is going to get us.

The point being that the size of the market (and thus the number of copies of a game that can be sold) has expanded such that the increased profits from sales have been able to offset the increased cost of production. If the market had not increased, then prices would have had to rise in order to still make game development a viable proposition.

The accessibility and appeal of games is a key factor in their marketability and hence the possibility of a game being backed by a publisher. At the current point in time, most gamers whinge if a game is priced above the "standard" price point because it's not "value for money", regardless of whether it is a niche game or not. This is why we don't see many big titles tailored to suit "the hardcore gamers" who complain about the "casual market", simply because they're unlikely to sell enough copies enough to make a profit.

The problem is the gaming market has reached saturation, which means continued growth of the market will be far too slow to keep up with rising development costs.

[bEVEsthda]

Conduit0 wrote...

The problem is the gaming market has reached saturation, which means continued growth of the market will be far too slow to keep up with rising development costs.

It depends. Because I and many others think there's an excellent growth potential for entertainment software, "games". But the market for the the very formulaic,childish, consolish, bash the baddies, pick up the 'jewels', watch the movie, whittle down the 'Boss' -drivel which the industry leaders and their game-design consultants have converged all game-genres to, is probably totally saturated. Yes!

A small indicator that I'm not totally off here, is the sales figures of a recent, independent, lowbudget game called 'Minecraft'.
I also still remember how many new gamers, often women, often adults, were drawn into videogaming by games like Simcity, adventure games, roleplay games, The Sims. Once upon a time different genres of games. Now either not done anymore, despite good sales, or changed to the same consolish crap.

[ianvillan]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'm aware it's a standard term. I dispute that AAA status matters, in and of itself.

A cheaper game made for a smaller audience could still be profitable using ROI calculations from 15 years ago.

And the best part is that we can test this hypothesis. We just need to wait to see how Project Eternity does. That's a low-budget, niche product.

You could look at the walking dead game, made by a small company for a small audience but made a big profit and achieved lots of awards. There is also a lot of people waiting for a new game from telltale so I would say if you make the best game you can for the audience that enjoys the project you are making and not try to make the same type of game for a different audience it can be profitable for you.

[Gatt9]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

The problem is the gaming market has reached saturation, which means continued growth of the market will be far too slow to keep up with rising development costs.

It depends. Because I and many others think there's an excellent growth potential for entertainment software, "games". But the market for the the very formulaic,childish, consolish, bash the baddies, pick up the 'jewels', watch the movie, whittle down the 'Boss' -drivel which the industry leaders and their game-design consultants have converged all game-genres to, is probably totally saturated. Yes!

A small indicator that I'm not totally off here, is the sales figures of a recent, independent, lowbudget game called 'Minecraft'.
I also still remember how many new gamers, often women, often adults, were drawn into videogaming by games like Simcity, adventure games, roleplay games, The Sims. Once upon a time different genres of games. Now either not done anymore, despite good sales, or changed to the same consolish crap.

You're right.  Gaming has alot of headroom to increase sales.  You're also 100% correct that the problem is that Publishers believe the only type of Gamer that exists is the one who wants to play shooters.  The true market size is substantially larger than what we currently see,  but because Publishers chasing blockbusters have condensed the market down to Shooter and Action-Adventure,  a very significant portion of the market goes unserved.

We can see this clearly evidenced by Minecraft,  and by Kickstarter.  Minecraft is a game Publishers claim cannot sell,  because it's not a Shooter,  not Action-Adventure,  and doesn't have DLC.  According to Publishers the following games can't possibly sell to anyone...

-Wasteland 2 (TB RPG)
-Project Eternity (Inifity Engine RPG)
-Planetary Annihilation (RTS)
-Dead State (TB RPG)
-Faster than Light (Rogue like RPG)
-Predestination (MOO2 clone)
-Plus any number of Minecraft-esque games like Castle Story and space sims

Further,  all of those games are funded at levels Publishers claim is impossible,  which directly disproves AlanC9's assertion that "Games cost more to make",  as does Paradox Interactive's business model.  Games can be made at many different budget points.  Publishers inflate the budget by an enourmous factor,  and this can easily be seen by reading the credits of any given game and counting the number of people who have nothing to do with development who are credited. 

There's plenty of Gamers out there,  far more than what we're currently servicing.  There's enourmous room for growth that's being hamstrung by Publishers who have absolutely no business sense and are just chasing last year's blockbuster. 

Quite honestly,  micro transactions are just hastening the inevitable.  Companies like EA are using them to try and hide the fact that they don't have any idea how to service their market,  and their customer base is shrinking by very significant amounts. 

It's like the housing bubble.  Banks sold debt to each other shifting it around to hide the losses until they got to be so huge they couldn't hide them anymore.  Companies like EA use DLC to hide the losses,  and as they increase how necessary they are to play a game they alienate more people causing them to lose more customers.  Eventually,  they'll hit a point of unsustainability (Will occur in 2014).  You can actually see this coming just by looking at EA's most recent financial.  They reported 50 million in losses,  but if you factor out BF3's DLC,  it's likely somewhere between 150 million and 200 million in losses for the quarter as IIRC they delayed reporting BF3's DLC revenue.

What they need to do is start serving the whole market instead of a tiny portion of it,  instead,  they'll continue to try and force revenue initiatives like micro transactions on everyone.

[LinksOcarina]

Gatt9 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

The problem is the gaming market has reached saturation, which means continued growth of the market will be far too slow to keep up with rising development costs.

It depends. Because I and many others think there's an excellent growth potential for entertainment software, "games". But the market for the the very formulaic,childish, consolish, bash the baddies, pick up the 'jewels', watch the movie, whittle down the 'Boss' -drivel which the industry leaders and their game-design consultants have converged all game-genres to, is probably totally saturated. Yes!

A small indicator that I'm not totally off here, is the sales figures of a recent, independent, lowbudget game called 'Minecraft'.
I also still remember how many new gamers, often women, often adults, were drawn into videogaming by games like Simcity, adventure games, roleplay games, The Sims. Once upon a time different genres of games. Now either not done anymore, despite good sales, or changed to the same consolish crap.

You're right.  Gaming has alot of headroom to increase sales.  You're also 100% correct that the problem is that Publishers believe the only type of Gamer that exists is the one who wants to play shooters.  The true market size is substantially larger than what we currently see,  but because Publishers chasing blockbusters have condensed the market down to Shooter and Action-Adventure,  a very significant portion of the market goes unserved.

We can see this clearly evidenced by Minecraft,  and by Kickstarter.  Minecraft is a game Publishers claim cannot sell,  because it's not a Shooter,  not Action-Adventure,  and doesn't have DLC.  According to Publishers the following games can't possibly sell to anyone...

-Wasteland 2 (TB RPG)
-Project Eternity (Inifity Engine RPG)
-Planetary Annihilation (RTS)
-Dead State (TB RPG)
-Faster than Light (Rogue like RPG)
-Predestination (MOO2 clone)
-Plus any number of Minecraft-esque games like Castle Story and space sims

Further,  all of those games are funded at levels Publishers claim is impossible,  which directly disproves AlanC9's assertion that "Games cost more to make",  as does Paradox Interactive's business model.  Games can be made at many different budget points.  Publishers inflate the budget by an enourmous factor,  and this can easily be seen by reading the credits of any given game and counting the number of people who have nothing to do with development who are credited. 

There's plenty of Gamers out there,  far more than what we're currently servicing.  There's enourmous room for growth that's being hamstrung by Publishers who have absolutely no business sense and are just chasing last year's blockbuster. 

Quite honestly,  micro transactions are just hastening the inevitable.  Companies like EA are using them to try and hide the fact that they don't have any idea how to service their market,  and their customer base is shrinking by very significant amounts. 

It's like the housing bubble.  Banks sold debt to each other shifting it around to hide the losses until they got to be so huge they couldn't hide them anymore.  Companies like EA use DLC to hide the losses,  and as they increase how necessary they are to play a game they alienate more people causing them to lose more customers.  Eventually,  they'll hit a point of unsustainability (Will occur in 2014).  You can actually see this coming just by looking at EA's most recent financial.  They reported 50 million in losses,  but if you factor out BF3's DLC,  it's likely somewhere between 150 million and 200 million in losses for the quarter as IIRC they delayed reporting BF3's DLC revenue.

What they need to do is start serving the whole market instead of a tiny portion of it,  instead,  they'll continue to try and force revenue initiatives like micro transactions on everyone.

Kickstarter sadly has not proven anything yet, because most of the projects funded on it are speculative at best, and promising a product in the future. The numbers for kickstarter projects like Wasteland 2, Project Eternity, Shadowrun, and so forth are also very miniscule in comparison to the general audience. 

The caveat for them is that they don't need to be big-scale, so they have their niche space to grow in. But at the same time, the Kickstarter projects are also competing against each other more than anything else, which is making the indie market saturated with both good and bad games. Ironically, your last line is what these kickstarters are not doing, as they are serving a tiny portion of the market for their own financial gain. There is even no guarentee they will all be successfull or on the up and up, if you will. They may have been funded yes, but that doesn't determine quality of the product. If anything Kickstarter is on the verge of a bursted bubble.

Minecraft is also a special case, because they are more like Rovio only with actual game ideas coming out. They hit it big with one thing, expanded it, and are now trying to diversify. The question is maintaining versus being successful, and if Mojang can't maintain, they will fail or at the very least, decrease production. 

EA is also a different beast financially. Yes, they can recoup losses by using DLC, but the DLC is now built into the fiscal plan of the company, and its also a sector that is on the rise in making revenue and profit for Electronic Arts, since they are pulling a Valve and opting for the gaming as a service model. So instead of "hiding losses" like you claim, DLC and their smaller, downloadable titles are built-into the reports, meaning they are tracked and measured like everything else.

So for the recent Q3 report, ,their biggest failing was Medal off Honor utterly failing to meet expectations, while Battlefield 3 and FIFA carried the banner through both game sales, and DLC figures. Warfighter failed on both fronts for the company, and is one of  the cited reasons for the $45 million net loss. However, comparing it to last year, which was a $205 million net loss, that is still an improvement. EA is admittingly playing it conservative right now because were on the verge of a console change, so that is also factoring into their numbers and sales forecast, not to mention the over $80 million spent on speculative technology, meaning new game consoles and engines.


Basically, your analysis is correct, but only on the wrong company. EA is perhaps one of the more diversified publishers out there, along the lines of Ubisoft, Valve and the growing presence of Koch and Sega, after the THQ sale. They had high sales in downloadables and social media games, iPhone titles and the like, which all cater to their "gaming as a service" model that is emulating Valve at the moment. If you want to talk about a company that is focusing on being hit driven, and is hiding the numbers through DLC, look at Activision as the poster boy. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 04 février 2013 - 08:46 .

[Tootles FTW]

I have no problem with microtransactions if it's fluffery like new outfits or weapons. In fact, I'd buy 'em quite happily.

[In Exile]

AmstradHero wrote...
The point being that the size of the market (and thus the number of copies of a game that can be sold) has expanded such that the increased profits from sales have been able to offset the increased cost of production. If the market had not increased, then prices would have had to rise in order to still make game development a viable proposition.

That's completely true. But it has also made (or appears to have made) certain types of games, effectively, non-viable. If fans want Bioware to design a game like BG2 (or project eternity) they have to accept either a game that has the production value of that (so, PE's approach of being a top-down, isometric 2D game) or accept the greater cost of a AAA product being sold to a smaller audience (so >60$ prices).

I like games like DA:O, ME1, KoTOR. But it's not clear the market can support these games, as opposed to a game like ME3, with a greater focus on MP (and even certain kinds of Co-Op). Which is where you have a problem, and why I support greater revenue via DLC from the same fanbase, rather than expanding it. 

[In Exile]

BlazingSpeed wrote...
Do you mean things like that huge glowing exclamation mark that was over Levi Dyrdens head in camp in Dragon Age Origins?

You can disable the plot icon annoyances. But Levi, himself, is still annoying if you don't have Warden's Keep.

[In Exile]

Gatt9 wrote...

You're right.  Gaming has alot of headroom to increase sales.  You're also 100% correct that the problem is that Publishers believe the only type of Gamer that exists is the one who wants to play shooters.  The true market size is substantially larger than what we currently see,  but because Publishers chasing blockbusters have condensed the market down to Shooter and Action-Adventure,  a very significant portion of the market goes unserved .

Your list of games proves the opposite. All of the kickstarter games are being designed on a pittace of what an AAA product would be, and we have no idea if the entire fanbase for that game hasn't already been tapped.

[hoorayforicecream]

In Exile wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

You're right.  Gaming has alot of headroom to increase sales.  You're also 100% correct that the problem is that Publishers believe the only type of Gamer that exists is the one who wants to play shooters.  The true market size is substantially larger than what we currently see,  but because Publishers chasing blockbusters have condensed the market down to Shooter and Action-Adventure,  a very significant portion of the market goes unserved .

Your list of games proves the opposite. All of the kickstarter games are being designed on a pittace of what an AAA product would be, and we have no idea if the entire fanbase for that game hasn't already been tapped.

He's also conveniently ignoring the large number of titles in other genres that come out regularly that don't support his point. Sports, racing, RPG, RTS, MOBA, Turn-based Strategy, puzzle, simulation, tower defense, rhythm and beat, fighting, motion games, and hybrids of these various genres are all still being produced regularly by many studios of varying sizes that aim for varying numbers of sales.

Nobody's going to believe that EA expects millions of units sold for Tiger Woods PGA Golf year over year, nor does EA pay a team of hundreds to produce it. It's certainly not a shooter or an action adventure game either. It's a niche game aimed at a niche market with a very focused base, yet it still comes out every year because it is profitable for the cost needed to produce it.

[wrdnshprd]

Conduit0 wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Yep. The size of the market is up, and so are the costs necessary to make an AAA-level game, which is the space Bio wants to play in. I'm not quite sure where this is going to get us.

The point being that the size of the market (and thus the number of copies of a game that can be sold) has expanded such that the increased profits from sales have been able to offset the increased cost of production. If the market had not increased, then prices would have had to rise in order to still make game development a viable proposition.

The accessibility and appeal of games is a key factor in their marketability and hence the possibility of a game being backed by a publisher. At the current point in time, most gamers whinge if a game is priced above the "standard" price point because it's not "value for money", regardless of whether it is a niche game or not. This is why we don't see many big titles tailored to suit "the hardcore gamers" who complain about the "casual market", simply because they're unlikely to sell enough copies enough to make a profit.

The problem is the gaming market has reached saturation, which means continued growth of the market will be far too slow to keep up with rising development costs.

i dunno man.  you take a look at games like torchlight 2, which is arguably better than Diablo 3, and witcher 2 which blows DA2 out of the water.  also consider rift in comparison to TOR and Natural Selection II in comparison to COD and Battlefield..

all of these "independent" games were/are hugely successful and, in my opinion, show that you CAN still make a quality game on a "low" budget.   and the best part.. none of these "independent" games have anywhere close to the microtransactions and other moneygrabs like their AAA counterparts.

[Wozearly]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

He's also conveniently ignoring the large number of titles in other genres that come out regularly that don't support his point. Sports, racing, RPG, RTS, MOBA, Turn-based Strategy, puzzle, simulation, tower defense, rhythm and beat, fighting, motion games, and hybrids of these various genres are all still being produced regularly by many studios of varying sizes that aim for varying numbers of sales.

But there's a grain of truth if you widen his argument to a less extremist position, as a lot of the AAA activity seems concentrated on a relatively small number of genres, most of which are action-based formats (shooters, racing and sports spring most immediately to mind) which have a natural multiplayer element.

That's not to say this doesn't reflect the preferences of the majority of the PC/console gaming market - it almost certainly does. Or that there aren't successful and large budget games appearing from other genres...or games from those genres produced at a lower budget for a niche audience.

The only downside to heavy focus on a few areas is if the AAA end winds up pushing its cost base up in a destructive fashion in order to 'keep up with the Joneses' to a degree that their player base cannot, or will not, financially support. Then one failure brings a studio down.

Much though I have a low opinion of EA, by having its fingers in multiple genres, acting both as publisher and developer across multiple genres, creeping steadily into the distribution channel and generally showing a healthy disregard for the views of its customer base in pursuit of profitisation, they're pretty secure against one-off risks for the immediate future.

As a result, Bioware are probably better in than out. I wouldn't want a single flop to kill them, no matter how much I might disagree with them around whether DA2 was any good or not.

The only note of caution I'd sound is that its a depressingly good indicator that a company which treats its customer base as cash cows and has customer perceptions moving steadily towards rock bottom (hello, EA) has been a market leader for longer than it should have been and become complacent. History shows that as with empires, so with companies...no dominant power lasts forever, no matter how much it looks like it will at the time. .
So its probably a good thing that Bioware is consistently playing second fiddle to Bethesda in terms of sales, because it'll discourage complancency. Following this logic to its Sylvius-like conclusion, if you want DA:3 to be magnificent, rave about how amazing Skyrim was and how you wish Bioware would learn more from Bethesda and the Elder Scrolls world.

Just don't do it in front of John Epler...I hear he has a vicious temper.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I don't know why people get so upset over optional DLC. Those folks who cancelled their Dead Space 3 pre-orders over this are beyond stupid.

[Mythic Gekko]

 please for the love of andraste dont put microtransactions in DA3..

thank you ^^

[Paul E Dangerously]

Really, I think Bioware hit the perfect balance in ME2. The bonus character and some other content free for anyone who buys the game new, and substantial DLC, with a few "I can get this if I want, but it's not vital" stuff like the weapon packs.