|
This post is about 800 words so if you don't like reading you can stop here.
I am making this post in response to many of the “Blizzard only cares about making money off of us” threads that exist on this forum. I am currently a Junior in Interactive Media and Game Development so I am intimately aware of how business models work in the gaming industry. This thread is not to discuss the shortcomings of battle.net 2.0 but rather the concerns of the consumer for things like micro-transactions.
Historically speaking, a consumer would buy a game from a company, all of its features would be free and it would be a one-time purchase and when you were finished with the game you could move on and buy another. In these days, developing a video game was cheap (relative to the costs of developing one today) and had a relatively limited user base. Things like Internet Connections were “rare” (i.e. it was unsafe to assume your consumer had one) and so games could not have features added to them through patches reliably. Thus the Expansion Pack was born. These would cost the consumer a relatively small additional fee but would add new gameplay and could revive an older game – thereby renewing a source of income for the company, generally giving them the revenue to produce a new title.
Nowadays, there are many business models available to a company; Internet Connections are as widespread as Oxygen and there are a host of new options to provide additional content to your patrons. I will offer you a few examples:
Guild Wars offers players a free-to-play game but releases frequent expansion packs to add additional content (effectively a subscription fee as each expansion costs as much as a new game). Free-to-play games which offer downloadable content (DLC) for a fee fall under this category as well.
World of Warcraft (and other MMOs) exchanges a monthly fee for free new content and features while major updates to the game are released through expansion packs.
League of Legends, produced by Riot Games, is 100% free to play and players can unlock 95% of the games features (only things which require money are additional character skins and experience boosts for your character) if they have enough patience. However, more impatient players can choose to purchase “riot points” if they wish to unlock content more quickly. This has proven to be extremely successful for Riot Games and has even provided them with the income to constantly release new content and even recently revamped their UI and added a ladder and ranked matchmaking system. Personally, this is my favorite model both from a business and consumer perspective, though it does have inherent risks.
All Points Bulletin, a recent MMOTPS by Real Time Worlds, uses an interesting model which tries to appeal to all types of players. You can elect to pay per hour of play, or purchase a monthly subscription which has unlimited playtime. Additionally, similar to Riot Games, you can purchase “real time worlds points” to purchase upgrades for your character faster. However, their model also includes in-game advertising (which players can pay an additional fee to turn off) so they can double-dip off of their consumers.
Other models include free-to-play gameplay but the consumer is subjected to in-game advertising which covers the maintenance costs of the server. Other games (such as RuneScape, or WoW 0.5 as some call it) offer limited free-to-play gameplay but require a subscription fee to play the “full” version of the game.
Why do these charges occur? Well for one we as the consumer demand most of these features in our games now-a-days. Many people won’t buy a game that only offers a few hours of single player with nothing else (i.e. no multi-player/DLC). Likewise, we expect games to release new content and offer multi-player modes as well as capability to play over the internet. The problem is, a one-time fee won’t cover these upkeeps which we demand from game companies.
Many of these costs go towards covering the cost of upkeep for the games (new content/server maintenance/etc.) but as a game grows in popularity, so too does the profit margin from these models. This encourages those rare companies who are interested in making money to produce quality games as those will generate a greater profit steam then several mediocre games released in succession.
Love it or hate it, but this is the trend of the future.
|
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.
|
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 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.
|
Valve is great with its marketing, but there still doing it to make money.
Take alien swarm for example. The amount of people downloading it is insane because its free. Do you think valve released it to make its fan happy? no. They now have there sales platform being spread on more computers then ever. There now getting more income from advertising then ever. Even if someone doesnt buy any games off steam and just plays alien swarm valve is making money.
There all in it to make money, but go about it in diffrent ways.
|
I understand your ultimate point completely, and do not necessarily disagree with you.
My only counter-point would be that, with the very notable exception of the of the MMO type subscription method, none of these pricing models has been proven to be a true alternative to the "traditional" model. There are two reasons for the rise in all these different pricing schemes that I see.
1) Small time developers are still having a hard time figuring out how to make money off of their work. For various reason I won't get into here, consumers have basically spoken with their wallets in that they are going to pay for the best games available, even if those games cost significantly more. Merely pricing an independent title at a lower price has not proven to be a successful means of making money, even if you sell a game that is, lets say, about half as long and half the quality of a AAA title but for a quarter or even a fifth of the price, consumers will still prefer to buy the AAA title even if the apparent value is higher on the indie title. Thus, small developers have been searching for a good way to sell their product as evidenced by the myriad different pricing schemes out there for such titles.
2) Large companies that feel like they need to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I feel like there is a disconnect in some places between theory and reality. Take this hypothetical. The giant game maker Donut Games (which I just made up), releases Munchkins, and it is unequivocally the most profitable game of all time. It sells a gazillion copies and they have more money than they know what to do with. But then someone at Donut Games gets to thinking... "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we could make even MORE money without having to do all that much extra work?" And so the powers that be start trying to come up with ways to make the game production process more money efficient. They brain-storm ways to increase revenue without increasing cost or maintaining revenue while decreasing cost.
Now, I'm not saying that this process is inherently bad, it is just how business works, but what I do think is a problem is that it tends to result in the company pushing the consumer to see how far they can push before getting a pushback.
So, just look at stardock. They are the perfect example of how the traditional model still works just fine. They make games without any sort of DRM. They charge one-time for all their games, and use frequent, free patches as a method to get people that like the game to actually pay for it. Their games have been applauded critically and have done exceedingly well financially. (With the exception of Demigod, which was a train-wreck if ever their was one, and Stardock's CEO has said as much).
|
Any successful company will try to make money.
/thread.
|
Completely screwing your customers will always be wrong in my eyes but I feel some people are too naive about these companies. I love Blizzard and Valve but saying they are not in it for the money is just silly.
They are companies, money is the only thing that keeps them up. Some companies just treat their customers better.
With that said I think blizzard is doing a decent job listening to their future customers and I hope they get their money, they deserve it.
|
On July 21 2010 00:24 beefstew wrote:
Valve is great with its marketing, but there still doing it to make money.
Take alien swarm for example. The amount of people downloading it is insane because its free. Do you think valve released it to make its fan happy? no. They now have there sales platform being spread on more computers then ever. There now getting more income from advertising then ever. Even if someone doesnt buy any games off steam and just plays alien swarm valve is making money.
There all in it to make money, but go about it in diffrent ways.
Also if people think the game is good enough, whenever they do release DLC people will pay for it mainly cause they spent $0 on the game so far and if its good, why not play new content? They make a lot of money just based on "everyone" having it because it was free and willing to pay for DLC to keep up the enjoyment of the game.
|
i know im a bit off topic, but Alien Swarm is probably the best new game ive played.
|
I was incredibly entertained by certain discussions on the Dragon Age: Origins forum. Lots of people got about 40 hours of gameplay out of a SINGLE playthrough and were complaining, ceaselessly, that they probably got about twice as much out of a single playthrough of Baldur's Gate 2.
It seems there's this type of gamer who is ONLY concerned with the entertainment hours per dollar ratio who demand that shorter single-player games should naturally be cheaper. Forget a full-blown game editor, replayability value, the gameplay, the story, the graphics or whatever features that draw gamers to a game and the things which keep increasing these game's budgets (compare the graphics of BG2 to DA:O for a quick second)...these people only care about how much it cost them for a single playthrough.
Mind boggling.
|
60$ price tag is fine if b.net would continue to be free (unlike in WOW) and there was LAN.
Blizzard needs to make money are there will be no SC 3 in 20 years (wait, I'm talking about blizzard so it should be 30 years)
All I really want is LAN. URGGG
|
On July 21 2010 02:24 aztrorisk wrote:
60$ price tag is fine if b.net would continue to be free (unlike in WOW) and there was LAN.
...
All I really want is LAN. URGGG
From the OP:
This thread is not to discuss the shortcomings of battle.net 2.0
Please stay on topic
|
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.
I have to agree with this, but they are essentially statistical outliers when it comes to the general gaming populace
|
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.
I'm more or less one of those people. If I can play 1 game for 3 months that costs the same as a game that will only keep me entertained for 1 month... well I'm going with the 3 month game. I waited until MW2 went on sale before buying it because I didn't feel the price justified the amount of content.
Forgive me for being responsible with my money.
|
800 word is not that much to read
|
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.
|
imo small developers are getting more and more left out, some of the maths, coding, tricks in logic etc (just finished a module.. wow) is ridiculous. gone are the days that a sole guy working his guts out 24hrs a day can match production quality of a development team.
Also its key to note that blizzard is floated on the stock exchange which means its a PLC, and which means that shareholders (he evil business money making people) have significant control of the company. They can and will apply huge pressure to management to maximise revenues from customers from every way imaginable. We havent seen this yet from blizzard (although wow was a good start).
Dont think people should be crying about blizzard doing this yet, we'll see in the coming months/years if its happened or crazy people just crying wolf.
|
I'm still surprised that people EXPECT DLC from games these days. I'm perfectly happy with a solid single player experience if a game is meant to play that way.
Ex. Batman Arkham Asylum reminded me what made some single player games so great. Sure it had DLC eventually, but I thought it was fair to charge consumers for the extra content in that context.
I think downloadable content is sometimes controversial for people in this community who eat and breathe gaming, since for PC gamers extra content can be free if you know where to look, especially if its community made.
The success of Valve is almost insane. I'm tempted to call it fluke, since they seem to make the right moves at all the right times.
|
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.
well the problem with dragon age was that it was hyped as the new baldurs gate. while my problem witht he game wasnt exactly the length i too was very dissapointed when i noticed its a rather short,very console-ish,had mostly tiny irrelevant sidequests etc.
so imo its mostly related to the hype which it just couldnt stand up to.
cause really you normally never see people complain about the length of a single fast playthrough. ppeople by mediocre shooters with 6 hours all the time. no one complained about mass effect beeing to short even tho you could finish it very quick.
ontopic :
ofc evry company needs to make money. but there is still a huge difference between good and "bad" companys. sadly the whole dlc stuff kinda drew evryone into the "lets make em pay for stuff that used to be free!" crap. sure for "miniexpansions" like in borderlands or mass effect why not pay a few $ (most are totally overprized but the concept is ok) but when they start charging for maps or even core features like cross region play in sc2(which seems very likely) they jump across the ripoff line with their money fueled smiles.
but in the end you always have to care about your customers. sure milking your franchises and ripping your customers off will work short term. long term people will just pirate even more,boycott,go to other games or whatever.
|
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.
So, by that logic Blizzard doesn't need to charge us for content in SC2 because they make an absurd amount of money from WoW? If you think even half of the money made from WoW is being invested back into new content and servers, you'd be mistaken.
|
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.
Well yeah, if there's an older, cheaper product that offers more content, people are going to complain about the crappy, new expensive product being so bad.
Taking a date out to dinner will probably cost you like $40 per hour at a decent restaurant.
Lets use this following scenario as a better comparison:
At first there's a cheap, family owned resteraunt that makes great food and offers a great atmosphere, and dining there costs $20 an hour or w/e. But then suddenly a big corporation moves in, buys out the old resteraunt and starts serving overpriced meals with a generic and artificial atmosphere at twice the price. People are going to complain about this, however they're also going to continue eating there cause they have no alternative (and b/c they're morons with too much money) - this situation mirrors the gaming industry in many ways.
Also to respond more to Bidby's post: Dragon Age not only offered less playtime, it offered less content as well. Baldurs Gate 2's dungeons were filled with all sorts of puzzles, npc's, unique encounters and other bits of flavour. Dragon Age's dungeons otth were mostly filled with generic mobs of enemies, maybe one npc encounter at the end (usually the boss), almost no puzzles (I can only think of 2 puzzles in the entire game, and they were optional) and a bunch of copy-pasted corridors with only a few hints of flavour. Despite the poor quality of DA:O it still had less content, and I think that's the gripe most haters had with it (also if they're 'ceaselessy' bringing up this gripe my guess is that it's because the rest of the fanbase is ceaselessly denying the issue).
|
Thank you for the post. Hopefully you will enlighten the infidels who blaspheme against Blizzard so.
|
Many of the new business models you talk about concerning games look to me (and a lot of other people) like a cheap scam. That doesn't mean they are, but here's my perspective.
I grew up with games being the one-time purchase you are talking about, and everything else seems either completely foreign or at least a large adjustment. Buying a game like this is a simple affair. You buy the game, you play the game. If you bought the game in a box, you even have the option to resell it.
Nowadays, there is so much junk attached to games that it really does feel like you are buying a license to play the game instead of "buying the game".
Games with DLC are terrible inventions designed solely to generate profit, with little benefit to the gamer. I play Guild Wars (even to this day) and own every expansion pack. Games like Guild Wars are not comparable to games that offer DLC in the naming schema that I am imagining.
Dragon Age is a game that has "DLC". This is content that was effectively stripped from the full game in order to be sold separately. This content is non-essential/secondary in nature, meaning it has no real impact on the (rest of the) game itself.
Guild Wars is a game that has "expansion packs". These expansions were very roughly a year apart and added not only content (more items/armors/locations/quests etc.) but also entirely new game mechanics that make it effectively a new game. Each expansion pack also added more content than existed in the original game (except for the very last one).
"DLC" then (in this naming scheme I've imagined for myself) is content that is just lumped into the current game. "Expansion packs" in the Guild Wars sense are something that essentially grow the game to be something more than it was before. You can see that one of these is good for both gamers and publishers, and the other is good mostly for publishers.
One thing that publishers like about DLC is that it can be used to counteract the used games market. If you own Dragon Age and all the DLC, you can still sell your boxed game. However, you can't sell all your DLC, the other person will have to buy it for themselves. This seems like a good idea from a business perspective, but it turns out badly in some situations. Look at FPS games on XBox live. Selling maps and weapons. Sometimes the PC versions of these games even get the stuff for free. In this case it's nothing but a money-grab.
With that said, I come to the point of my rambling: I don't think this is the "future" they're looking for. This "DLC" scheme is working OK right now because an overall less demanding market (the console market) is putting a lot of money into it. However, in the long run, you can't count on this. The console market is slowly growing more demanding, and PC gamers are generally wary of "DLC" and even other things like certain DRM schemes. There is a reason that GFWL (Games for Windows Live) failed miserably.
I think the key to making money in this business is going to be just like any other business - the fundamental stuff. Hire and keep good employees, and make products with excellence. Good games sell - even indie games. The internet is an incredible platform for word-of-mouth - this is going to simultaneously punish bad games (games with overzealous DRM schemes, lazy "DLC" etc.) and reward good games.
Blizzard didn't make a name for themselves with advertising or tricky business practices. They made high-quality games that ended up being very polished and provided a good gameplay experience. Nowadays it's hard to find a game with all these attributes, and I often find myself just ignoring AAAAAAAA games and going straight for indie games to avoid the hassles and trickery of modern publishing.
|
I remember when DLC first came out and they made some new halo 2 maps which you could buy. So I bought the DLC at the store and gave all my friends the CD (a lot of people played halo 2 and we had lans a lot). It was irritating I had spend $15 for some stupid maps but whatever. But then they released more DLC that you couldn't buy except DL off xbox live AND they required those maps for certain playlists. They did the same thing for halo 3. I had 3 copies of halo 1 (2 xbox 1 PC), 2 copies of halo 2 (one limited), and one limited copy of halo 3. I even bought a 2nd xbox for my brother so I could play lan at my house. I had bought books of halo. And this was in highschool where I saved my lunch money to buy this stuff. But this making you buy maps to play online playlists was bullshit. I now hate bungie and haven't bought any of their games after halo 3 and barely bought that, or any of their other products nor do I plan to. I went from being a huge halo fan to hating it b/c of DLC ripoff maps AND general worse quality of games. The DLC just made me enraged that they would try to rip me off like that. Its like a big fuck you.
Also Dragon Age was decent with really good story/characters but it felt tedious and repetitive with generic enemies. How about instead of adding sex into a game make actual content. It felt pretty dead and linear and small for a big RPG. The Expansion was broken too. Way too ez and short. I got it on Steam for 50 bucks with most of the DLC + Expo. It wasn't a bad game but it was no Morrowind or Fallout: 3 where I very much enjoyed myself.
The game industry suffers from the same thing as the movie industry. Basically unless I'm taking a girl out I NEVER want to go to the movies. Not only is it expensive but most movies just suck. The Dark Knight is possibly the only good movie I've seen in the last 4 years. But why spend a bunch of time and hazzle and money, even if you sneak your own candy like I do, to see garbage? One of the last times I went to see movies my friend bought one ticket and I bought two, he was basically sneaking into the 2nd movie. And when I got into the 2nd movie there were SO MANY people who snuck in I couldn't even get a seat to a movie I payed for. I got a refund and my friend actually got caught cause they checked a small portion of tickets OF THE PEOPLE ON THE STAIRS and said it was a fire hazard. I have a home theater with a projector so we just used that. He pirated/netflixed movies (and we rented) all at the same time. Make a nice dinner and we'd watch movies and maybe drink a little, much more fun.
So I don't go to movies or buy many games anymore because I feel so cheated. I have bought a few games off Steam b/c I love Valve and the games were super cheap. When I feel like I'm getting ripped off, and a lot of people are like me, we stop buying. If these industries treated there customers better they would make more money, and see less pirating. Also I hate gamestop.
/end rant
|
Also Dragon Age was decent with really good story/characters
Not to veer too much off topic, but the story was terrible and recieves way too much praise (just like all bioware stories). The gist of it is that you're recriuted into a l33t order, sent off to do 4 filler sidequests that don't advance the plot and then sent off to fight the MORALLY AMBIGUOUS (read: shallow) antagonist and his generic pet dragon. Fantasy cliches ahoy! The sad thing about this is that it's hailed as "The Greatest Story of Any Video Game Ever" by practically every gaming 'journalist' - the even sadder thing is that they're probably right.
|
I agree with the OP here.
If there's only a few companies I find these days that really deserve my money, Blizzard would be #1. Despite all the stupid shit they're charging a ton for with WoW. Though, most of that stuff I thought it was charged so much for because it would dissuade just anyone from changing realms on the fly when they find something better.
Then I saw the $25 mount and died a little.
2 SC expacs, I'm not too worried about. It's like an extra campaign. And everyone knows it'll be good! If the old SC engine wasnt so dated they might have added another after brood war.
|
I don't get angry at video games being $60 or companies charging subscriptions. Games are disposable to me. I play it for awhile if I get bored or beat or find out it sucks I just uninstall it or take a break from it. Don't get me wrong there are games I totally love and play all the time. I guess in my point of view to me it's like renting movies, going to an amusement park, going to a movie theater or a concert. I pay for it cause it sounds like fun to me. If I don't have a good time I just shelve that thought and move on to something else.
|
If the old SC engine wasnt so dated they might have added another after brood war.
And that woud've been a good thing? Who knows, it could've improved it a bit, but then again brood war is already so good I don't think tampering with it would be a good idea.
That's a possible problem I see with SC2's preplanned expansions: they might be unnecessary and counter productive. Better to wait and see how the game goes, and then add content as it's warranted. (and don't tell me that the expos are single player only, I doubt blizzards will skip the chance of adding vital multiplayer units and making them necessary purchases)
|
In the last 5 years people forgot that game companies weren't about making money.
If you wanna make money, don't make games, it's just not profitable and you end up screwing over everyone else.
One of the best games I bought recently was Torchlight, basically the Diablo team left Blizzard, went back to their roots, and made a game. Guess how much it cost, 10... fucking... dollars.
|
Don't blame companies, blame customers.
We spend money on features that WE think are worthy.
Every game feature has a cost. But every game feature doesn't deserve that the costumer spends money for it.
From the company's point of view: i add new content to a game, i sell it. Good quality or not, it costs time - at least.
From my customer point of view: the content is useful/worthy/consistant i buy. If it is not, i dont buy it.
I cannot understand people who spend dollars in WoW mounts and pets. But if they continue buying, it must be because it's worthy, so Blizzard should continue selling them.
Now if they want me to continue buying their products, they should continue to sell consistant products...
|
On July 21 2010 18:57 attackfighter wrote:Show nested quote +If the old SC engine wasnt so dated they might have added another after brood war. And that woud've been a good thing? Who knows, it could've improved it a bit, but then again brood war is already so good I don't think tampering with it would be a good idea.
True, but I think they were pretty well on with the new WC3 engine that was in full 3D, and didn't want to produce something below that level of content.
|
As a quick aside:
I enjoyed DA:O, I thought the game itself was rather buggy (needed at least another month of polishing) but the world itself felt alive. The towns had culture to them and the world as a whole felt complete (even with an "in-depth" religion to make the world feel more real). I do agree that the story is cliche but really there is no such thing as an original storyline anymore so I don't discount the game for that fact.
On topic:
I think Icks has some great points a couple of posts above this one, we as a consumer base spend money too freely which enables the kind of business models in my OP to function. Is that a problem? Not really, but it could get out of hand eventually, though it would kill the industry as a whole if it did. I'm just glad that most people posting here appear to get the overall premise of my post.
|
On July 21 2010 22:35 STS17 wrote:
As a quick aside:
I enjoyed DA:O, I thought the game itself was rather buggy (needed at least another month of polishing) but the world itself felt alive. The towns had culture to them and the world as a whole felt complete (even with an "in-depth" religion to make the world feel more real). I do agree that the story is cliche but really there is no such thing as an original storyline anymore so I don't discount the game for that fact.
On topic:
I think Icks has some great points a couple of posts above this one, we as a consumer base spend money too freely which enables the kind of business models in my OP to function. Is that a problem? Not really, but it could get out of hand eventually, though it would kill the industry as a whole if it did. I'm just glad that most people posting here appear to get the overall premise of my post.
First of all you misinterpreted my post. I wasn't merely saying Dragon Age is cliche, my main point was that it has such poor story structure. You're inducted into the ranks of an unrealistic 'order', then promptly sent off to do shit unrelated to the plot for the next 40 hours, and finally for w/e reason you're allowed to go kill off the antagonists - there's basically just an exposition and then a brief denounment with some unrelated filler thrown in between.
Secondly I disagree with you (and icks) about who's to blame over the state of the video game industry. Consumers do not make up a single entity, some consumers spend more then others, etc.. In the old days, video games were marketed to a rather small audience, many of whom were nerds that knew better then to blow $20 on a map pack. Recently however, game companies have marginalized those nerds in favour of kids, women, jocks and various other 'non-gamers' who just buy whatever the flavour of the month happens to be. The root of the problem is the companies that value marketing over quality, as without them the gaming market wouldn't be a motley crew of people who barely give 2 shits about the stuff they're buying.
|
Lets not forget people, the first and only rule of a business is to make money for its investors. Not sell quality product. Quality product is a by-product of the system of free market capitalism, just like bernie madoff, ActiBlizztion and Wall Streets general disregard for honest business practices..
Don't blame any single company for shortcomings of our economic and social system.
|
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.
They still make a profit out of providing free DLC for their games through new sales. They published their takings after a TF2 update once and it showed a healthy profit from that alone so it does fly against this statement that a one-time fee wont cover it. They have discovered that once a game has been out for a while its better to sell a game to thousands for a massive discount at intervals of releasing new content than charging top whack for DLC that will sell to an ever decreasing pool of players.
|
On July 21 2010 22:35 STS17 wrote:
As a quick aside:
I enjoyed DA:O, I thought the game itself was rather buggy (needed at least another month of polishing) but the world itself felt alive. The towns had culture to them and the world as a whole felt complete (even with an "in-depth" religion to make the world feel more real). I do agree that the story is cliche but really there is no such thing as an original storyline anymore so I don't discount the game for that fact.
.
I agree I fould DA:O a lot of fun to play and have played it through a number of times but I will never buy their DLC it was overpriced in most cases for what they were providing. The story was no better or worse than Baldurs gate and there werent exactly any challenging puzzles in that either. It was well worth what I paid for it but they arent getting anymore from me.
The one game I might have paid extra for DLC was GTA IV but they abandoned the PC and I gave up waiting. Rockstar was one of my favourite game developers but now they can go hang I hope they figure its worth it bleeding the console market dry before bothering with us again. They used to be one of the good guys.
|
On July 21 2010 08:28 psion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 00:18 PanzerDragoon wrote: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. So, by that logic Blizzard doesn't need to charge us for content in SC2 because they make an absurd amount of money from WoW? If you think even half of the money made from WoW is being invested back into new content and servers, you'd be mistaken.
Blizzard are making somewhere in the region of $150mil per month in WoW subs.
They have also posted profits of $500mil (roughly) in the last 12 months. That sort of gives a bit of an indication how much of WoW subs are actually profit. (500mil in profit is more than all other game companies combined minus EA from 1 game.)
Total income from WoW per year = $1.8bil
SC2 is never going to make as much money as WoW.
Even if SC2 sold 20mil copies in the first 6 months it would only equal the income from WoW in those 6 months. After the SC2 sales stop coming in then WoW goes into making more money than SC2 in month 7.
WoW is a HUGE cash generator, most of the money made from it goes back into WoW upkeep, expansions etc. or into profits, almost none of the money made from WoW goes into other products because they simply aren't as profitable as WoW and there is no point in investing say $1bil in SC2 if you won't make the cash back.
|
On July 21 2010 23:31 attackfighter wrote:
Secondly I disagree with you (and icks) about who's to blame over the state of the video game industry. Consumers do not make up a single entity, some consumers spend more then others, etc.. In the old days, video games were marketed to a rather small audience, many of whom were nerds that knew better then to blow $20 on a map pack. Recently however, game companies have marginalized those nerds in favour of kids, women, jocks and various other 'non-gamers' who just buy whatever the flavour of the month happens to be. The root of the problem is the companies that value marketing over quality, as without them the gaming market wouldn't be a motley crew of people who barely give 2 shits about the stuff they're buying. 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.
|
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.
|
On July 22 2010 00:26 Icks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 23:31 attackfighter wrote:
Secondly I disagree with you (and icks) about who's to blame over the state of the video game industry. Consumers do not make up a single entity, some consumers spend more then others, etc.. In the old days, video games were marketed to a rather small audience, many of whom were nerds that knew better then to blow $20 on a map pack. Recently however, game companies have marginalized those nerds in favour of kids, women, jocks and various other 'non-gamers' who just buy whatever the flavour of the month happens to be. The root of the problem is the companies that value marketing over quality, as without them the gaming market wouldn't be a motley crew of people who barely give 2 shits about the stuff they're buying. 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.
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.
In future though the games industry is going to become more and more catered to selling to the casual uninformed player, that's where the money is at.
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.
E-Sports is just a dream for maybe 1% of gamers, it will never become big because there is no serious money to be made from it, that's another reason why Blizzard aren't particularly encouraging E-Sports. And don't say Korea makes money from E-Sports, they don't. All of it in Korea is subsidised by other companies as a marketing gimmick to sell things like mobile phones.
|
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.
|
Well EA as a company is a publisher, like Activision or Ubisoft, while EA Sports is the in-house, publisher-owned development company (like Blizzard) that does all the sports games for EA.
The only thing I see that sets Blizzard apart from the crowd is they're very chatty about their projects, they currently stick to a small number of franchies and when they do finally release something, it quickly sells in the millions.
|
On July 22 2010 01:07 Necrosjef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 01:03 STS17 wrote: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. 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. 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.
Well, let's see shall we? I've been a straight-A student from first grade all the way through my high school graduation. That trend has continued through my past two years at college. So, yes, I do have the grades to be a Doctor but I choose a different path. And, as that is a quote from my OP, yes it would be safe for you to assume that I am in game development. Reading the OP would have told you that.
|
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.
Will never happen, simply because games make no one money, so it's not nearly as important to provide the same level of reliability and service as software sold to businesses for productivity.
|
On July 22 2010 02:32 SugarBear 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. Will never happen, simply because games make no one money, so it's not nearly as important to provide the same level of reliability and service as software sold to businesses for productivity.
More or less, video games don't have nearly the lifespan of those products either. Spending the resources to set-up that kind of infrastructure is simply impractical. For a game like WoW, it should be done since it is such a massive success but they don't really care about the players who have a brain stem so it hardly matters
|
On July 22 2010 02:23 STS17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 01:07 Necrosjef wrote:On July 22 2010 01:03 STS17 wrote: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. 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. 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. Well, let's see shall we? I've been a straight-A student from first grade all the way through my high school graduation. That trend has continued through my past two years at college. So, yes, I do have the grades to be a Doctor but I choose a different path. And, as that is a quote from my OP, yes it would be safe for you to assume that I am in game development. Reading the OP would have told you that.
Sucks to be you bro. You should have been a doctor. Good luck getting a job when you finish college.
|
The way I see charging for the use/features of a $60 game after the point of sale is like going to a restaurant where they charge $1.50 for a soda, then $1.50 for every time they refill it out of the fountain.
Seriously? You gave me 8 ounces of soda mixed with water for $1.50, then have the nerve to charge me for the relatively appropriate amount of soda I'll drink during my meal. I know you got that soda out of a fountain, not a pop can or bottle, you're just RIPPING ME OFF.
So why contribute to that, when you have a very loyal fanbase. Why not just feed them on "this is the best place for you to spend your money, because we want to be the best of all our competitors".
|
On July 21 2010 00:16 Zaru wrote:
I sure wonder how Valve does it, then.
Valve, at its core, does not produce ONLY games. Kind of like EPIC isn't only making unreal tournament.
Companies like theirs make a hundred times what a best-selling game *might* sell by renting/loaning/selling their engines to game making companies.
For instance, depending on contract, EPIC will sell the UEngine3 right to a certain company for X (usually around 5M$) or get a percentage of the selling price if its a smaller company (renting).
Multiply 5 millions (bare minimum) by the number of games made on the Unreal Engine 3 (including 360/PS3 SDKs) and you get a pretty clear picture of how gaming sales do not matter AT ALL to them.
+ Show Spoiler +Unreal Development Kit (UDK)
While the Unreal Engine 3 has been quite open for modders to tinker around with, the ability to publish and sell games made using UE3 was restricted to licensees of the engine. However, on November 2009, Epic released a free version of their engine, called the Unreal Developer Kit (UDK) that is available to the general public. According to the current EULA, game makers can sell their games by paying Epic the cost of $99 USD at the outset, and 25% of all revenue above $5000 USD.
Plus valve and company are not "master server" friendly. When a game is released its up to the players to host their servers.
|
On July 22 2010 02:43 Necrosjef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 02:23 STS17 wrote:On July 22 2010 01:07 Necrosjef wrote:On July 22 2010 01:03 STS17 wrote: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. 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. 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. Well, let's see shall we? I've been a straight-A student from first grade all the way through my high school graduation. That trend has continued through my past two years at college. So, yes, I do have the grades to be a Doctor but I choose a different path. And, as that is a quote from my OP, yes it would be safe for you to assume that I am in game development. Reading the OP would have told you that. Sucks to be you bro. You should have been a doctor. Good luck getting a job when you finish college.
Why do you say that? Because I would be handed a job upon graduation of medical school? Life's not about money man. Nor am I worried about having a job when I graduate
|
On July 22 2010 03:10 STS17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 02:43 Necrosjef wrote:On July 22 2010 02:23 STS17 wrote:On July 22 2010 01:07 Necrosjef wrote:On July 22 2010 01:03 STS17 wrote: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. 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. 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. Well, let's see shall we? I've been a straight-A student from first grade all the way through my high school graduation. That trend has continued through my past two years at college. So, yes, I do have the grades to be a Doctor but I choose a different path. And, as that is a quote from my OP, yes it would be safe for you to assume that I am in game development. Reading the OP would have told you that. Sucks to be you bro. You should have been a doctor. Good luck getting a job when you finish college. Life's not about money man.
As you get older you will realize how wrong you are.
|
Many people won’t buy a game that only offers a few hours of single player with nothing else
This is so wrong. People are more likely to buy short one-time hits than back then. Whereas you had games for the PC and SNES that lasted forever, there are mostly 20 hour FPS's out now.
And sure, Valve does make money, but saying that Alien Swarm was done for the money is stupid. Yes, there will be more people using Steam, but they could've easily charged money for it and made way more. Valve just happens to be making money while still respecting gamers because they are still gamers themselves.
|
On July 22 2010 02:46 Santriell wrote:Valve, at its core, does not produce ONLY games. Kind of like EPIC isn't only making unreal tournament. Plus valve and company are not "master server" friendly. When a game is released its up to the players to host their servers.
True but Valve behaved this way before Steams profits kicked in. In fact it was this very philosophy that lead to Steam being developed and invested in in the first place. So that they could cheaply provide updates, more content and support online.
Many of us prefer not to have "friendly master servers" its why TF2, L4D, Counter Strike etc can be played at LANs and I can play a game against a player anywhere in the world as long as I dont mind taking the hit on my ping. The people that run the servers in any case end up being communities like Team Liquid, ESL, GOMTV etc etc so it doesnt cost the individual any more. Its also more supportive to gaming communities people come back to them for long periods of time and often for more than one game and its a breeding ground for good modding too which is kind of Valves not so secret weapon they continually recruit from modders, the latest being revealed as Black Cat who wrote Alien Swarm.
|
On July 22 2010 03:34 Necrosjef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2010 03:10 STS17 wrote:On July 22 2010 02:43 Necrosjef wrote:On July 22 2010 02:23 STS17 wrote:On July 22 2010 01:07 Necrosjef wrote:On July 22 2010 01:03 STS17 wrote: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. 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. 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. Well, let's see shall we? I've been a straight-A student from first grade all the way through my high school graduation. That trend has continued through my past two years at college. So, yes, I do have the grades to be a Doctor but I choose a different path. And, as that is a quote from my OP, yes it would be safe for you to assume that I am in game development. Reading the OP would have told you that. Sucks to be you bro. You should have been a doctor. Good luck getting a job when you finish college. Life's not about money man. As you get older you will realize how wrong you are.
I doubt that. Money is not but a medium of exchange. It replaced bartering when the distances between people began to grow and transporting goods and livestock became impractical. I pity those who view money as the object of desire.
There was a farmer near my home who died less than a year ago. He owned a construction company responsible for building my entire town and most of the neighboring ones as well. He was a multi-millionaire. Yet he chose to work 4am-dark every day growing hay and tending to cows because that made him happy. He never spent his money (most of which went to charities) because it was useless to him. Would you tell him that life was all about money or that he was wrong to think otherwise?
|
On July 22 2010 00:20 Necrosjef wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2010 08:28 psion wrote:On July 21 2010 00:18 PanzerDragoon wrote: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. So, by that logic Blizzard doesn't need to charge us for content in SC2 because they make an absurd amount of money from WoW? If you think even half of the money made from WoW is being invested back into new content and servers, you'd be mistaken. Blizzard are making somewhere in the region of $150mil per month in WoW subs. They have also posted profits of $500mil (roughly) in the last 12 months. That sort of gives a bit of an indication how much of WoW subs are actually profit. (500mil in profit is more than all other game companies combined minus EA from 1 game.) Total income from WoW per year = $1.8bil SC2 is never going to make as much money as WoW. Even if SC2 sold 20mil copies in the first 6 months it would only equal the income from WoW in those 6 months. After the SC2 sales stop coming in then WoW goes into making more money than SC2 in month 7. WoW is a HUGE cash generator, most of the money made from it goes back into WoW upkeep, expansions etc. or into profits, almost none of the money made from WoW goes into other products because they simply aren't as profitable as WoW and there is no point in investing say $1bil in SC2 if you won't make the cash back.
I agree with this poster. In fact, the financial statements of Activision/Blizzard do as well. Last year they did about 1.2 billion in subscription, licensing, and other revenue. The costs related to those sales was somewhere in the 800 million range. That did not include any costs for development and advertising because they lump those costs into one category and not game specific.
|
The best business model for the gaming industry, I think, can be taken from Nintendo. They focus on the core, initial experience of the game instead of trying to lengthen playtime as much as possible by tacking on DLC. There's a reason why I still love The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Paper Mario and am willing to buy them for the 3DS when it's released.
It seems like American companies are too focused on making money in the most efficient way possible to fully craft their games into experiences.
|
|
|
On July 22 2010 04:30 LunarC wrote:
The best business model for the gaming industry, I think, can be taken from Nintendo. They focus on the core, initial experience of the game instead of trying to lengthen playtime as much as possible by tacking on DLC. There's a reason why I still love The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and Paper Mario and am willing to buy them for the 3DS when it's released.
It seems like American companies are too focused on making money in the most efficient way possible to fully craft their games into experiences.
What is this guy thinking? What a moron! Nintendo is garbage and they'll be out of business by 2015. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
