|
On July 22 2010 00:32 Escape wrote:
I wonder if it would profitable for SC2 to do some in game advertising. Maybe on the bnet2.0 interface, while you are joining a ladder game. Since you have to wait a few seconds anyway for the matchmaker to find you an opponent.
Wouldn't be surprised if that happens in the future. Other games already do it.
|
But it's true, new companies can't afford taking risks.
fixed.
Start-ups in the gaming industry are extremely risky so you often see bizarre models coming from them (like Riot's "free to play but we will take your money if you want to give it to us" model).
The gaming industry catering to the casual gamer is no different then any other market really. Name one market which says "we aim to keep 5% of people happy, fuck the other 95%" and has been successful for at least 10 years
|
On July 22 2010 00:36 STS17 wrote:fixed. Start-ups in the gaming industry are extremely risky so you often see bizarre models coming from them (like Riot's "free to play but we will take your money if you want to give it to us" model). The gaming industry catering to the casual gamer is no different then any other market really. Name one market which says "we aim to keep 5% of people happy, fuck the other 95%" and has been successful for at least 10 years
Pretty much any new startup in any new market will be looking at "keeping the 5% happy". It is called a niche.
Like a startup company which sells on designer clothes it is a niche that maybe only 10% of people might consider buying from that store but it is still a valid startup.
The issue with new game developers is that the people who go into games design are generally pretty stupid and only did it because they didn't have the grades to do something they actually wanted to do at university. So you end up with a bunch of copycat startup companies doing exactly the same as the bigger companies and eventually going bankrupt because of it.
The notable ones like Innogames for example which actually makes money from a niche in the market come from people who actually have a passion for games and understand the industry as opposed to people who only went into the industry because they lacked the skills to do anything safety critical.
|
On July 21 2010 00:18 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 00:16 Zaru wrote:The problem is, a one-time fee won’t cover these upkeeps which we demand from game companies. I sure wonder how Valve does it, then. Valve owns its own storefront, where much like Apple does with iTunes or the App Store, reap a bit of profit on each sale from other companies. They don't need to charge for DLC, because they make so much money off other developers' game sales.
I sure wonder how Blizzard did it before wow, then.
edit: the guy above me speaks the truth as a new company its allot safer to aim for that reliant 5% rather than being all ambiguous and aim for EVERYONE chances that everything you get is a crappy product that no one will like anyway because you didn't have the huge budget you need to make something big enough to fit everyone.
|
On July 22 2010 00:34 Necrosjef wrote:
I think this wish that Blizzard is somehow a quality game manufacturer is something that people have convinced themselves is true and it is really a huge lie. Yes they are better than EA but then again that is not hard. Blizzard products are far from quality though.
Which company makes games of quality according to you? (I'm not taunting, i'm looking for good games)
Before War3 came out, I tried a bunch of RTS games which were original/fun/entertaining but a RTS game can die very quickly if the company doesnt follow the development after the release. IMO, it's one of the main sign of quality for a RTS game and i think Blizzard does this pretty well.
|
of course one-time sales are profitable. DLC's are just there for milking even more money.
if companies had to rely on DLCs to cover their costs, nobody would make games anymore.
|
On July 22 2010 00:45 Necrosjef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 00:36 STS17 wrote:But it's true, new companies can't afford taking risks. fixed. Start-ups in the gaming industry are extremely risky so you often see bizarre models coming from them (like Riot's "free to play but we will take your money if you want to give it to us" model). The gaming industry catering to the casual gamer is no different then any other market really. Name one market which says "we aim to keep 5% of people happy, fuck the other 95%" and has been successful for at least 10 years Pretty much any new startup in any new market will be looking at "keeping the 5% happy". It is called a niche. Like a startup company which sells on designer clothes it is a niche that maybe only 10% of people might consider buying from that store but it is still a valid startup.
While true, I asked for a market as a whole not an individual company and no start-up stays on that track for 10+ years.
The issue with new game developers is that the people who go into games design are generally pretty stupid and only did it because they didn't have the grades to do something they actually wanted to do at university.
...
as opposed to people who only went into the industry because they lacked the skills to do anything safety critical.
I am currently a Junior in Interactive Media and Game Development
Appreciate it man.
|
On July 22 2010 00:57 Icks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 00:34 Necrosjef wrote:
I think this wish that Blizzard is somehow a quality game manufacturer is something that people have convinced themselves is true and it is really a huge lie. Yes they are better than EA but then again that is not hard. Blizzard products are far from quality though. Which company makes games of quality according to you? (I'm not taunting, i'm looking for good games) Before War3 came out, I tried a bunch of RTS games which were original/fun/entertaining but a RTS game can die very quickly if the company doesnt follow the development after the release. IMO, it's one of the main sign of quality for a RTS game and i think Blizzard does this pretty well.
I don't really look at it in terms of quality of games. I look at it in terms of quality of software.
Games Blizzard makes the most quality games, don't think anyone would argue about that. But compare them to a reputable software manufacturer like ANSYS or IBM for example and you can very quickly see the difference in quality and customer support between the two companies.
What I would like to see is the same care and attention that is spent on things like CAD packages and other design and analysis programs spent on designing games and game companies actually delivering really really good quality stuff that no one complains about.
|
On July 22 2010 01:03 STS17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 00:45 Necrosjef wrote:On July 22 2010 00:36 STS17 wrote:But it's true, new companies can't afford taking risks. fixed. Start-ups in the gaming industry are extremely risky so you often see bizarre models coming from them (like Riot's "free to play but we will take your money if you want to give it to us" model). The gaming industry catering to the casual gamer is no different then any other market really. Name one market which says "we aim to keep 5% of people happy, fuck the other 95%" and has been successful for at least 10 years Pretty much any new startup in any new market will be looking at "keeping the 5% happy". It is called a niche. Like a startup company which sells on designer clothes it is a niche that maybe only 10% of people might consider buying from that store but it is still a valid startup. While true, I asked for a market as a whole not an individual company and no start-up stays on that track for 10+ years. Show nested quote +The issue with new game developers is that the people who go into games design are generally pretty stupid and only did it because they didn't have the grades to do something they actually wanted to do at university.
...
as opposed to people who only went into the industry because they lacked the skills to do anything safety critical. Appreciate it man.
I assume it is you who is in game development. Answer me this question then. Would you have done that subject is you had the grades to be lets say a Doctor.
|
On July 21 2010 08:02 QuothTheRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 02:16 Bibdy wrote:
I was incredibly entertained by certain discussions on the Dragon Age: Origins forum. Lots of people got about 40 hours of gameplay out of a SINGLE playthrough and were complaining, ceaselessly, that they probably got about twice as much out of a single playthrough of Baldur's Gate 2.
It seems there's this type of gamer who is ONLY concerned with the entertainment hours per dollar ratio who demand that shorter single-player games should naturally be cheaper. Forget a full-blown game editor, replayability value, the gameplay, the story, the graphics or whatever features that draw gamers to a game and the things which keep increasing these game's budgets (compare the graphics of BG2 to DA:O for a quick second)...these people only care about how much it cost them for a single playthrough.
Mind boggling. Even getting 40 hours of gameplay makes it average out to around $1 per hour, which is *significantly* cheaper than most other forms of entertainment. E.g., seeing a movie in theaters will probably cost you about $5 per hour (tickets cost $11 where I live). Taking a date out to dinner will probably cost you like $40 per hour at a decent restaurant. Going out to a bar? Still significantly over the $1 per hour for DA:O. In an age where video games where mostly targeted at little kids and teenagers (you probably didn't see too many people in their 20s or 30s playing Super Mario, for example), paying something like $1 per hour might have been more of a concern, since that target audience doesn't have any money. But when a good portion of the gaming audience is made up of late teens or adults, it seems not only reasonable but in fact rather cheap in terms of cost/hour for entertainment.
Makes 10 $ for SC and Brood War for 1000+ hours of gaming seem like a ridiculous bargain.
|
On July 22 2010 01:05 Necrosjef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 00:57 Icks wrote:On July 22 2010 00:34 Necrosjef wrote:
I think this wish that Blizzard is somehow a quality game manufacturer is something that people have convinced themselves is true and it is really a huge lie. Yes they are better than EA but then again that is not hard. Blizzard products are far from quality though. Which company makes games of quality according to you? (I'm not taunting, i'm looking for good games) Before War3 came out, I tried a bunch of RTS games which were original/fun/entertaining but a RTS game can die very quickly if the company doesnt follow the development after the release. IMO, it's one of the main sign of quality for a RTS game and i think Blizzard does this pretty well. I don't really look at it in terms of quality of games. I look at it in terms of quality of software. Games Blizzard makes the most quality games, don't think anyone would argue about that. But compare them to a reputable software manufacturer like ANSYS or IBM for example and you can very quickly see the difference in quality and customer support between the two companies. What I would like to see is the same care and attention that is spent on things like CAD packages and other design and analysis programs spent on designing games and game companies actually delivering really really good quality stuff that no one complains about.
why would any company put that level of support on something as simple as a video game? there is no need what so ever for this level of support.
we might see it when games costs as much as CAD packages and that in the price range from 1000-10000 USD for pretty basic stuff. when you pay that amount of money for you average video game you can expect that level of support. right now there is now need for it.
|
On July 22 2010 01:12 Zerum wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 01:05 Necrosjef wrote:On July 22 2010 00:57 Icks wrote:On July 22 2010 00:34 Necrosjef wrote:
I think this wish that Blizzard is somehow a quality game manufacturer is something that people have convinced themselves is true and it is really a huge lie. Yes they are better than EA but then again that is not hard. Blizzard products are far from quality though. Which company makes games of quality according to you? (I'm not taunting, i'm looking for good games) Before War3 came out, I tried a bunch of RTS games which were original/fun/entertaining but a RTS game can die very quickly if the company doesnt follow the development after the release. IMO, it's one of the main sign of quality for a RTS game and i think Blizzard does this pretty well. I don't really look at it in terms of quality of games. I look at it in terms of quality of software. Games Blizzard makes the most quality games, don't think anyone would argue about that. But compare them to a reputable software manufacturer like ANSYS or IBM for example and you can very quickly see the difference in quality and customer support between the two companies. What I would like to see is the same care and attention that is spent on things like CAD packages and other design and analysis programs spent on designing games and game companies actually delivering really really good quality stuff that no one complains about. why would any company put that level of support on something as simple as a video game? there is no need what so ever for this level of support. we might see it when games costs as much as CAD packages and that in the price range from 1000-10000 USD for pretty basic stuff. when you pay that amount of money for you average video game you can expect that level of support. right now there is now need for it.
I'd pay $1000 for a video game I could play for the rest of my life. Think how many hours you spend on video games. Hell people already spend $1000 on WoW over 5 years or w/e. Why should all games be $50? who made that law up?
And I think you would be hard pressed to find a CAD package people actually used that was over $1000.
|
Apologies, long (first) post below. While it does seem like I am on the side of Blizzard, please try and get to the end of the post before you flame away.
On July 22 2010 00:34 Necrosjef wrote:
Games like FIFA are the best examples of games that have almost no development costs and yet rake in a ton of cash from casual gamers. Blizzard business model is slowly changing to be able to reach into that market with things like achievements becoming more and more popular.
Disclosure: I have been a professional game developer for 10 years. I have worked for large 3rd party studios like EA and first parties like Nintendo. I have shipped 6 high-profile console titles, most of which have gone on to ship more than 1 million units. I have a pretty decent understanding of the industry from the inside and hope that informs what I am about to elaborate on.
1.) With the exception of privately held indy studios, the video game industry is about making money, period. Publicly traded companies have an obligation to their shareholders, not their employees or customers. The sooner you integrate that into your analysis, the better. It will help you to understand why studios do what they do.
2.) Making games is expensive. Even annual iterative titles like the above mentioned FIFA are multi-million dollar investments. On the last generation of consoles (PS2, Xbox, NGC), teams were typically 40-60 people including artists, engineers, designers and project management. Current generation teams (360, PS3) are frequently in excess of 100 people not including contract labor. Large teams for high-profile games are sometimes in excess of 200 people. Wii development is typically in line with previous generation development as the development is very similar to NGC games.
Considering the typical "burn", or expense to operate, at a video game studio with 50-60 people is around $1 million (that is right $1,000,000) a MONTH, you are typically looking at an investment of $20-30 million dollars for a quality game with a 2 year development cycle on the PREVIOUS GENERATION OF HARDWARE. These estimates are not numbers I am pulling out of my ass, this is the reality of studios that I have been an employee of. Yes, you have good re-usage of your existing tools and tech which helps control costs but that also is just a necessity to be able to ship a game every 12 months. People who think that Madden (or FIFA) each year is a "roster update" or just something to fleece consumers are really are doing a disservice to the people who have slaved long and hard to make better a game that has to fit in memory, on the same disc, and run at framerate even with additional features, and is expected by the customer.
3.) The vocal community online represents a very small percentage of the customer base. Think about this for a moment. If SC2 doesn't have LAN, what does that mean to sales? Very little to be honest. Considering point #1 above, does adding LAN play (and removing the DRM that is Battle.net) good for sales or bad? If you don't have to authenticate to play, you can pirate more easily. Piracy is more of a concern than the desires of the small vocal online base.
4.) Most studios don't have the deep pockets of Blizzard. They have the option of shipping a game "when it is done". People will buy it and they will make money. Most games have to make the compromises necessary to pay the bills. A company that ships a great game that doesn't sell goes out of buisness. While it is easy to dismiss this, try being in the industry and knowing that if your game doesn't sell well (no matter what the quality is), you very well could be out of a job. When you are a professional developer with a family, you start to have a much more pragmatic view about making games as it is YOUR mortgage that you have to pay.
In Closing:
Video game companies exist to make money. How do you do that, right now, in the moment? You ship a game that will sell well enough in the current market to cover the high development cost. We are in the business of creating a product that just happens to be a game. Being a successful company is only measured by your ability to continue to make money by selling games. Those games can be epic releases like SC2 or less epic like Barbie's Dream Horse Adventures, it doesn't matter as long as they sell.
In the long run, if you can make games that sell and those games are high-quality, you can develop into a studio like Blizzard where you can take the time to craft the product into a polished gem. It is in your interest as a studio to develop brand loyalty and to be seen as a studio that releases only quality products. That is a luxury that you earn, and is the exception not the rule. Smart studios listen to their consumers and find a way to service them to their satisfaction. Smarter studios find the balance necessary to stay in business so they can continue to do this.
At the end of the day, while it is my passion to make great games, I would rather have a job than be unemployed and true to my "art". And when you throw around wild uninformed speculation and insult, please try to remember those of us behind the keyboard on the other end working hard to make a toy for you to play with.
|
On July 21 2010 00:16 Zaru wrote:Show nested quote +The problem is, a one-time fee won’t cover these upkeeps which we demand from game companies. I sure wonder how Valve does it, then.
Valve shows how you make tons of money developing video games while still keeping everyone happy and avoiding an ethics debate. They develope great games and run a client that primarily makes good old console games availible to PC gamers.
This trend of microtransactions, partially released content, and generally ruining good games for the purpose of a few extra bucks is only going to cause resentment (especially when companies like Valve still exist). There's plenty of games I wouldn't have minded trying out if it wasn't for the extraneous bullshit involved with them (Dragonage, MW2, etc). The backlash will result in either more pirating or a migration of customers to indie developers. If the games industry doesn't want to be in the same boat as the music industry, they need to smarten up in time.
I really don't mind if the games industry tanks and we see a rise of small developers. I much rather enjoy playing games made by people who are in the industry for the fun of it rather then money. Developers have been working under the post-Atari, "complete control over released content" format that no longer applies. Honestly, it hasn't applied since 2000.
|
Please understand that THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR A COMPANY'S EXISTANCE is to produce profit. Company's do not exist for any other reason unless there non profit.
|
On July 22 2010 01:05 Necrosjef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 00:57 Icks wrote:On July 22 2010 00:34 Necrosjef wrote:
I think this wish that Blizzard is somehow a quality game manufacturer is something that people have convinced themselves is true and it is really a huge lie. Yes they are better than EA but then again that is not hard. Blizzard products are far from quality though. Which company makes games of quality according to you? (I'm not taunting, i'm looking for good games) Before War3 came out, I tried a bunch of RTS games which were original/fun/entertaining but a RTS game can die very quickly if the company doesnt follow the development after the release. IMO, it's one of the main sign of quality for a RTS game and i think Blizzard does this pretty well. I don't really look at it in terms of quality of games. I look at it in terms of quality of software. Games Blizzard makes the most quality games, don't think anyone would argue about that. But compare them to a reputable software manufacturer like ANSYS or IBM for example and you can very quickly see the difference in quality and customer support between the two companies. What I would like to see is the same care and attention that is spent on things like CAD packages and other design and analysis programs spent on designing games and game companies actually delivering really really good quality stuff that no one complains about.
Entertainment vs Tools. Opinion vs fact. Its hard to argue that the latest greatest piece of processor technology from IBM isn't a fantastic innovation and leap forward. Its easy to argue, just on something as small as personal preference alone, that Blizzard's latest greatest video game doesn't come up to par to previous ventures.
About the only thing you can complain about with most tools is the user-interface and the cost of maintenance. If the thing does its job and doesn't break down all the time, then there isn't much to complain about, except maybe the price.
That's another big difference between industries like entertainment vs tools and technology. Prices in video games, movies etc and generally fixed prices. Even if SC2 was god's gift to video gamekind Blizzard aren't likely to do well in profit if they start charging $150 for it. In the technology world, you get what you pay for and more expensive stuff is basically better, so they can afford to pump as much awesomeness into it as they want, so long as they price it correctly. Video game publishers/movie producers don't have that luxury.
|
While people have a right to criticize Blizzard if they wish concerning small issues like LAN etc, I prefer to be appreciative that - though they are now a large company - Blizzard still acts in many ways like a small company.
And, oh yeah, the quality of their games is at the very top.
|
On July 22 2010 00:26 Icks wrote:
You make a point there: the audience has changed a lot. Many more gamers overall, and particularly more casual gamers.
Casual gamers are obviously an easy target to sell unconsistant products in large numbers. So companies take advantage of it. They can afford to create products of low quality; as long as it looks "cool for the casual", it will make money.
So, you're right, companies that value marketing over quality can survive nowadays, thanks to casual gamers.
But does it really take the quality behind? Especially for us, "nerds", who know where the quality is, and where it is not.
Now if you look at Blizzard, they are more and more appealing the casual with "bling bling" stuff, but the core quality is still there... i hope?
I think several companies keep on creating quality products.
But it's true, new companies dont dare taking risks.
It's all like the music industry.
Personally I don't think blizzard has ever been a great dev, since their only game I really like is starcraft, and it's a fluke that owes most of its success to the community. But anyways, regardless of my personal tastes their games do have high production values and I'll admit they have some merit - however that merit is lost when they casualize their games to appeal to the non-gamers I talked about before. Also Blizzard is sort of an anomaly, the one if you will, amongst this sea of modern devs; no other company can throw as much money around as blizzard, so their one saving grace (super high production value) doesn't apply to any other devs games.
summary: bliz is okay because they spent 100 million on SC2 but most other mainstream devs have declined in quality. over all casualization lowers the quality of games and it's a result of devs marketing to casuals.
|
Blizzard actually has a passion for making games and wants to make great games for their customers. Just because they are successful and making a lot of money from WoW doesn't make them greedy and now all of a sudden heartless.
Out of the big developers in the gaming market today Valve and Blizzard are the only ones who i can truly say care about their products being really high quality without having to rely on mass marketing to casuals. Sure they do a lot of things to appeal to casuals but they do not sacrifice quality for it.
Whereas a company such as EA is 100% in games to exploit it for money. Look no further then the EA sports range. Lol full price games every year for roster updates.
|
On July 22 2010 01:53 Onlinejaguar wrote:
Blizzard actually has a passion for making games and wants to make great games for their customers. Just because they are successful and making a lot of money from WoW doesn't make them greedy and now all of a sudden heartless.
Out of the big developers in the gaming market today Valve and Blizzard are the only ones who i can truly say care about their products being really high quality without having to rely on mass marketing to casuals. Sure they do a lot of things to appeal to casuals but they do not sacrifice quality for it.
Whereas a company such as EA is 100% in games to exploit it for money. Look no further then the EA sports range. Lol full price games every year for roster updates.
Why does blizzard have passion but not EA? SC2 is basically just a graphics upgrade and roster update from brood war... the only difference is that you like RTS games but not sports. and asides from SC2 beta blizzards past 5 or so releases have been related to WoW.
I'm really not seeing this 'passion' that everyone keeps saying blizzard has.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
