|
Holy crap this blog entry is so bad I had to register an account just to tell you how bad it is.
$60K per developer per year? Make that around $120K per developer per year, because you have salary (80-100K is somewhat average for non-junior positions), and you have to take into account for taxes, medicare, paid vacations etc.
And that number 20 for "programmers", you realise that if you want to even get close to a proper RTS, you need more then just programmers? You need designers for both the game itself, units and balance, effects and UI, content artists to produce those assets, engineers to build a proper engine (That tablet game? Good luck getting that properly synched over a network), engineers to import those art assets end let the designers create effects. Then of course network engineers to build the infrastructure for your matchmaking, testers and a couple of managers to let everything run smoothly, legal department to make sure you're not going bankrupt the first time something. Let's just say that if you really want to make a fully polished game at the scope of SC1, you will need around 120 manyears, or 40 people working fulltime for 3 years. Also 5 people to support a game that has 300k customers, of which some will be playing on a network infrastructure that also needs to be maintained? And still fixing bugs and patching balance? Good luck with that.
Now, onto computers. 1.5K per computer? Yeah good luck with that. A reasonable developer workstation (i5 or i7, lots of ram with decent graphics card, two high-resolution monitors, licenses for software and miscellaneous stuff like a desk, a proper chair. Lets just say that you're looking at around 5K per developer, and that's excluding maintenance, networking and all that jazz. Add that up, and you could be expecting to spend around 1-2K per developer per year on licenses alone.
Now, as final point, licensing and sales. You will need a sales support team (since people will fsck up their transactions) or have a 3rd party like Steam do it (and eat 30% of your revenue). And if you don't use a 3rd party for sales, you will also have to consider distribution costs, some sort of DRM to make sure all the logins into your multiplayer service are legit, and suddenly you lost 50% of your sales income. And kespa is suddenly going to sponsor you 25 million just so they can broadcast your (unknown) game, when SC1 (and probably later SC2) can be broadcast with a reasonable expected popularity?
I'm not saying that it's impossible, I'm just saying that your math is wrong, your estimates are wrong and you clearly know jack shit about game development.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bqdgA.jpg)
|
I agree with baHmi up top, there is a significant amount of underestimating the cost of running this business. DCF/NPV is only going to be as good as your inputs, and it seems like these inputs have no backing at all.
|
On April 25 2012 20:40 baHmi wrote:
Holy crap this blog entry is so bad I had to register an account just to tell you how bad it is.
I have to agree that he is vastly overestimating the difficult and expense. However I also think that it is possible for a small experienced team to make an RTS of BW caliber given the right approach.
Many of the problems people have pointed out could potentially be overcome if the focus of the game was to make a purely professional e-sports focused game. This would mean no single player campaign which would greatly reduce the number of art assets (and mean no need for cut-scenes, extensive voice-work etc). It would also make sense to use the mantra of releasing early and often. Perhaps even releasing alpha builds for player feedback. However the focus should be on making the game engine as deep and as refined as possible. Remember only 15 years ago games cost just 100-200k to develop which is nowhere near 100+ million. These amounts are not necessary at all if the game has a very narrow focus.
To solve many of the money issues you could open source everything except the engine code including all the server code. This would allow community's to run their own servers and ladders (think of minecraft where there is no centralized server). It would also greatly reduce the huge task of maintaining servers and map pools (and dealing with hackers), and would allow others to build server mods.
It would also make sense to support extensive modding not just through a map editor by open sourcing the content creation tools as well. You could let the community supply patches and improvements to the tools (think SCMDraft 2). You would of course also open source the map and replay formats making analysis easier.
All this sounds great but it would be very difficult to get a mainstream audience (and the money that comes with it) to pick up a game like this and it would also be almost impossible to get pro-player feedback during development. Also whether this is financially feasible is unlikely however technically it is possible and perhaps could be funded with a Kickstarter or Minecraft funding model. I have no idea how to solve those issues but a man can dream...
|
im pretty sure most people who were attached to sc2 soon will just move over DotA2 with valve. They listen to the community and response with in a week. Their games are greatly designed and they will release a custom mapmaker in the future.
|
On April 25 2012 22:10 NB wrote:
im pretty sure most people who were attached to sc2 soon will just move over DotA2 with valve. They listen to the community and response with in a week. Their games are greatly designed and they will release a custom mapmaker in the future.
Dota 2 is a MOBA. SC2 is not a MOBA. There are already popular MOBAs available for people that want to play MOBAs. I don't understand your logic.
|
Nice blog but how are you rpfitting during the first year only paying foremploys rentals computers etc? thats loss no?
|
Italy12247 Posts
Don't worry Orome and me are constantly coming up with fucking genius plans to get rich enough to buy activision and get Starcraft 3 done the way it's supposed to. Just wait for it.
Anyway, i'm not sure how realistic i think this is; it's highly, highly unlikely an indipendent community will create a game that will sell enough to challenge a major company like Blizzard. But then again, Riot Games :D one can hope!
|
On April 25 2012 22:23 deathly rat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 22:10 NB wrote:
im pretty sure most people who were attached to sc2 soon will just move over DotA2 with valve. They listen to the community and response with in a week. Their games are greatly designed and they will release a custom mapmaker in the future. Dota 2 is a MOBA. SC2 is not a MOBA. There are already popular MOBAs available for people that want to play MOBAs. I don't understand your logic.
its about esports building. soon sc2 will be the worst esports title out there simply bc other companies will learn from blizzard mistakes and step their game up. Look at D3, they dont even have private chat channel + PvP upon release, Blizzard has learned NOTHING from their mistake of building esports title.
|
its about esports building. soon sc2 will be the worst esports title out there simply bc other companies will learn from blizzard mistakes and step their game up. Look at D3, they dont even have private chat channel + PvP upon release, Blizzard has learned NOTHING from their mistake of building esports title.
d3 is not an esport title, nor have they ever had plans to make it one. Sure, it will have an arena system that is competitive, but they've clearly stated that they dont have plans to make it an esport in such a way that it would affect the PvE experience. B.net 2.0 sucks, but the rest of D3 is just as it should be.
Also, I think that OP is wrong with his estimates and money consumption math, but is correct as far as Blizzard not doing the fixes it clearly should have done, and which it clearly has had the time to do yet hasn't done.
|
Italy12247 Posts
On April 25 2012 22:52 NB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 22:23 deathly rat wrote:On April 25 2012 22:10 NB wrote:
im pretty sure most people who were attached to sc2 soon will just move over DotA2 with valve. They listen to the community and response with in a week. Their games are greatly designed and they will release a custom mapmaker in the future. Dota 2 is a MOBA. SC2 is not a MOBA. There are already popular MOBAs available for people that want to play MOBAs. I don't understand your logic. its about esports building. soon sc2 will be the worst esports title out there simply bc other companies will learn from blizzard mistakes and step their game up. Look at D3, they dont even have private chat channel + PvP upon release, Blizzard has learned NOTHING from their mistake of building esports title.
D3 isn't really meant to be an esport, but i get what you mean. You really get the feeling that Blizzard doesn't give a shit about community, customers and game quality anymore...at least not nearly as much as they used to.
|
I really don't understand why people are so critical of Blizzard for SC2, when they launched it into a gaming scene that hadn't had a major RTS success in years. SC2 is an amazingly polished game with a great map editor and a lot of custom games (which for me is like getting many more games for free). Yes people have been asking for clans, but it wouldn't offer anything that you couldn't already easily create in a Facebook group. I feel like we have this amazing game and people are just nit-picking about stuff which wouldn't actually impact the game at all anyway.
I for one respect the fact that Blizzard isn't too close to the community, because if they listened to all the stupid stuff people have requested since SC2's release they would have been jumping through hoops left and right, and we would have ended up with a much worse game.
|
On April 25 2012 23:12 deathly rat wrote:
I really don't understand why people are so critical of Blizzard for SC2, when they launched it into a gaming scene that hadn't had a major RTS success in years. SC2 is an amazingly polished game with a great map editor and a lot of custom games (which for me is like getting many more games for free). Yes people have been asking for clans, but it wouldn't offer anything that you couldn't already easily create in a Facebook group. I feel like we have this amazing game and people are just nit-picking about stuff which wouldn't actually impact the game at all anyway.
I for one respect the fact that Blizzard isn't too close to the community, because if they listened to all the stupid stuff people have requested since SC2's release they would have been jumping through hoops left and right, and we would have ended up with a much worse game.
*cough* LAN *cough**cough*
|
On April 25 2012 13:13 bokeevboke wrote:I wonder how many programmers are in TL. Maybe we could do our own open source project. We will make the game as it should be, and who knows maybe it will work 
Liquid Starcraft gogogo!
|
Italy12247 Posts
On April 25 2012 23:22 DyEnasTy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 13:13 bokeevboke wrote:I wonder how many programmers are in TL. Maybe we could do our own open source project. We will make the game as it should be, and who knows maybe it will work Liquid Starcraft gogogo!
There's R1CH. All that's needed.
|
On April 25 2012 23:12 deathly rat wrote:
I really don't understand why people are so critical of Blizzard for SC2, when they launched it into a gaming scene that hadn't had a major RTS success in years. SC2 is an amazingly polished game with a great map editor and a lot of custom games (which for me is like getting many more games for free). Yes people have been asking for clans, but it wouldn't offer anything that you couldn't already easily create in a Facebook group. I feel like we have this amazing game and people are just nit-picking about stuff which wouldn't actually impact the game at all anyway.
I for one respect the fact that Blizzard isn't too close to the community, because if they listened to all the stupid stuff people have requested since SC2's release they would have been jumping through hoops left and right, and we would have ended up with a much worse game.
We have asked for the same things since before the release.... and we only have one of those requests/demands fulfilled. Nothing that we want is stupid. Of course im mainly referring to chat channels/clan support/LANLANLANLAN/ect.
|
On April 25 2012 22:59 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 22:52 NB wrote:On April 25 2012 22:23 deathly rat wrote:On April 25 2012 22:10 NB wrote:
im pretty sure most people who were attached to sc2 soon will just move over DotA2 with valve. They listen to the community and response with in a week. Their games are greatly designed and they will release a custom mapmaker in the future. Dota 2 is a MOBA. SC2 is not a MOBA. There are already popular MOBAs available for people that want to play MOBAs. I don't understand your logic. its about esports building. soon sc2 will be the worst esports title out there simply bc other companies will learn from blizzard mistakes and step their game up. Look at D3, they dont even have private chat channel + PvP upon release, Blizzard has learned NOTHING from their mistake of building esports title. D3 isn't really meant to be an esport, but i get what you mean. You really get the feeling that Blizzard doesn't give a shit about community, customers and game quality anymore...at least not nearly as much as they used to.
actually D3 could easily make an esport title if they do the PvP correctly.
|
You think they haven't considered LAN and rejected it for good reasons? They have chat channels. Clan support is irrelevant.
|
Italy12247 Posts
Yeah possibly but i don't see Blizzard doing it on purpose...they have sc2 as "their" esport right now.
|
On April 25 2012 21:49 nekoconeco wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 20:40 baHmi wrote:
Holy crap this blog entry is so bad I had to register an account just to tell you how bad it is.
Many of the problems people have pointed out could potentially be overcome if the focus of the game was to make a purely professional e-sports focused game. This would mean no single player campaign which would greatly reduce the number of art assets (and mean no need for cut-scenes, extensive voice-work etc). It would also make sense to use the mantra of releasing early and often. Perhaps even releasing alpha builds for player feedback. However the focus should be on making the game engine as deep and as refined as possible. Remember only 15 years ago games cost just 100-200k to develop which is nowhere near 100+ million. These amounts are not necessary at all if the game has a very narrow focus.
The problem with this kind of model is that it will be very difficult to get a critical mass of users to gain a foothold as an esport. One of the reasons SC2 is so popular in (western) esports is because of it's accessibility. The single player campaign can be beaten by anyone if they just drop the difficulty low enough. Flashy graphics, cut-scenes, voice-overs, all lure the casual crowd into the game. And once in, they may stick around for the esports side of it.
The model you're proposing would only serve a very small, hardcore group of competitive gamers and is unlikely to expand beyond that.
|
United States1719 Posts
On April 26 2012 00:25 Rannasha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2012 21:49 nekoconeco wrote:On April 25 2012 20:40 baHmi wrote:
Holy crap this blog entry is so bad I had to register an account just to tell you how bad it is.
Many of the problems people have pointed out could potentially be overcome if the focus of the game was to make a purely professional e-sports focused game. This would mean no single player campaign which would greatly reduce the number of art assets (and mean no need for cut-scenes, extensive voice-work etc). It would also make sense to use the mantra of releasing early and often. Perhaps even releasing alpha builds for player feedback. However the focus should be on making the game engine as deep and as refined as possible. Remember only 15 years ago games cost just 100-200k to develop which is nowhere near 100+ million. These amounts are not necessary at all if the game has a very narrow focus. The problem with this kind of model is that it will be very difficult to get a critical mass of users to gain a foothold as an esport. One of the reasons SC2 is so popular in (western) esports is because of it's accessibility. The single player campaign can be beaten by anyone if they just drop the difficulty low enough. Flashy graphics, cut-scenes, voice-overs, all lure the casual crowd into the game. And once in, they may stick around for the esports side of it. The model you're proposing would only serve a very small, hardcore group of competitive gamers and is unlikely to expand beyond that.
exactly, the million person viewership and 300K copies sold in its first year, that's out the window.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
