|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
