TheMadCat wrote...
I see a lot of maybes, supposes, and hypothetical's in your post there. You also seem to derive a lot of stuff that is very subjective in nature, value of entertainment based products cannot be classified and examined solely from a longevity point of view. Really your posting your worst nightmare rather then basing things off of facts.
Here's my problem with your idea. Businesses are always there to maximize their business, to maximize profits through peak pricing. If what you were saying is indeed a direction the industry is heading don't you think we would have seen signs, trial runs, things of that nature. Don't you think if this was indeed viable the thousands of marketing directors and business analysts in the industry whose sole job is to find to premier way to turn a profit without alienating the majority of their customer base would be pushing for this change and we would have seen something different rather then almost the same strategy for the past 7 years? Like I said your theory seems to revolve around your personal nightmare of a worst case scenario then any practicality.
I'm not thumping my chest here; just offering a bit of resume.
I've worked in and around the gaming industry most of my life. I was working for the TSR Accounting Department during "the Early Days" around when D&D was transitioning to AD&D and the company was fanning out across a broad spectrum of other RPGs as well. Back then, _everybody_ had input and got to see The Process in action. Beyond TSR, I did creative work for Game Designers Workshop, FASA, Mayfair Games, Avalon Hill, and a score more of companies that you most likely never heard of. Yes, these were all pre-videogames. But trust me when I say that the House of Videogame RPGs was built on a foundation created by these boardgame and paper-and-pencil game companies.
Yes, businesses are out make money. If they're NOT doing that, first and foremost, they have or will be going OUT of business. (Saw that happen to a LOT of companies that were started by people "for the love of gaming".) Eventually, companies that generate millions of dollars in _profit_ (not just revenue) learn that the way to get MORE profit is by A) having more money coming in, and
less money being spent.
For A, they become adept at Marketing. Marketing sells you the idea, to the point that you have already mentally purchased the game long before you even touch the physical product. [Honestly now: Everybody that had decided that you _would_ be buying the game before it actually released, raise your hand. Everybody that pre-ordered OR purchased _on_ the release date, get your hands up there. THAT shows you the power of Marketing.]
For B, how can they possibly NOT spend more money on voice-acting, programming, payroll, QA testing, playtesting, et al? Well, gee, you have to have
something to put inside to actually make the game. And all those things have to be paid for. What's left to be left out?
Redirect. Thinking back, how long ago did you first hear about DLC? For me, it was either late 2007 or early 2008. I'm sure others may have heard of it further back -- but I'd wager that most of you only started to hear about it sometime in 2008/2009. And _I_ have been around the industry all these years and DLC is pretty new to me. As it is for a LOT of companies. It started as a conduit for patches and updates. Then for forum-level betatesting. Then for in-game tweaks, like adding furniture and other graphic "windowdressing". As a channel to sell modules, DLC is like in it's infancy.
THAT is why you haven't been seeing much in the way of
obvious market research. It's been waiting for the the really big companies like M$ to get interested enough in the gaming market to get involved. The vast majority of smaller companies that are actually run by business amateurs whose idea of "market research" = "Guess and by gosh".
The thing about DLC is that it IS the wave of the future. In this Internet world, it allows manufacturers to keep a LOT of their profit margin. In the gaming industry, it was par for the course for a manufacturer to give distributors a 40-60% discount off of the retail price (who would in turn give retailers a 20-30% discount off of list). This reduced the profit margin, but massively increased the sales volume. Then add to that "lost" profit, the cost of packaging, manuals, printing, and transportation and a manufacturer was lucky to see 20-cents out of every dollar that a game sold for.
Enter Digital Sales. NO cost for packaging. No discount given to distributors. NO cost for distribution. Because now customers go directly to the manufacturers' websites, pay the full retail price, and download off of a master copy on a server. The manufacturer saves soooooo much on this arrangement, it can afford to lower the price _some_, AND seriously pump up the Marketing budget -- which results in a HUGE increase for demand.
Now, all that remains is to ween consumers off of the psychological need to have a hard copy of the game materials that they can fondle late at night. And the way to do that is to start selling
smaller games that are followed by a parade of DLCs that you keep getting to flesh out your gaming experience. How long will it take before we go from buying the core game in the store and then adding 4, 5, 6, 7 more DLCs to go with it, to getting to, "Heck, I might as well just download the core game as well. I'll be sure to get it ON the day it releases, I'll save on the sales tax, and I'll get to playing it that much sooner"?
If any of you have followed events surrounding EA, you'll probably intuitively understand that it is most likely the REAL culprit in this DAO soap opera. BioWare was originally, and probably still is a company created by and operated by
gamers. And like nearly all gamer-run companies, content was a REAL high priority. But as the cost of production starts getting into the tens of millions of dollars, those gamer-run companies simply can NOT go it alone. So a moneylender appears and fronts the cost of development. The price that is paid is that the developer (BW) starts to have to dance to the tune of the publisher (EA). "You _will_ release by this date. No, you can NOT have that nice, but unprofitable resource. No, you can NOT add this neat feature." Etc. "You take our money, you follow our 'advice'." And as I have alluded earlier, if you've tracked EA, you'll see that their products seem to be having less bang for the buck, and they've been down-sizing the creative elements of the companies they control like crazy. It is also why soooo many games are being released that still have a LOT of major bugs kicking around. "You can fix that with a patch. We need the cashflow NOW!"
Anyway, the last element [this is where you say, "It's about time!"] is that having created a detailed framework of game engine and "canned" graphics, the way you milk a LOT more money out of a game is to keep adding content. And the most profitable way to market that additional content is via DLC. Having examined DAO extensively, I can pretty much guarantee you that BW has already blocked out most of the framework for DA2, DA3, and DA4. Along with those, are
probably 2 expansion packs each. All that is necessary to make those happen is to demonstrate that there is a large enough ongoing interest to make production VERY profitable. Which is to say,
HOW MUCH IS _YOUR_ ABSOLUTE BREAKING POINT to be allowed to play a frequently refreshed DAO? You've already spent $50-60 to get started. How much more can they squeeze out of you before you say, "To hell with it!" and go off to play something else?
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
