|
|
 |
| [Apr 18, 2012, 7:21 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Thanks nin.
The PA Report - How Valve “devalued” video games, and why that’s great news for developers and players.
Those seem to be wise words, and gamers are increasingly sensitive to the price of the games they play, but when you look at the data you see that Valve has done something magical: The company has found a way to charge less, and earn more. This isn’t a purely selfish move, as developers also praise the pricing structure of these sales. The issue of game pricing is much more complex, and mysterious, than most are willing to admit.
Wired.com - We Don't Need Game Publishers, Hardware Makers or Retailers.
But something critical has changed. While publishers, retailers and hardware makers might still be adding value, they are no longer required. Using the miracle of the internet, game creators can make videogames — good ones! — and sell them to game players without any involvement from traditional publishers, retailers or hardware makers. And when creators don’t have to put their work through the gauntlet of middlemen, with everybody down the line taking their cut of the profits, they can sell those games much more cheaply.
The PA Report - The ugly side of Kickstarter- the risks in backing game dev campaigns are greater than you think.
Of those projects that do manage to ship, some will be good games and some will be awful, with most winding up somewhere in the middle. This is the reality of game development in the real world, and projects funded by Kickstarter are no different. The unfortunate truth is that many backers of game projects are buying the ability to wait 18 months to play a mediocre game.
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 28. |
Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. |
Apr 19, 2012, 11:24 |
Beamer |
|
|
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Apr 19, 2012, 11:19:
Beamer wrote on Apr 19, 2012, 11:11:
You're risking $15 per project. Let's say you back 5 projects one month and 3 don't come out, or come out poorly. That's $45 you wasted. Had you simply waited you could have judged the product at completion, rather than at pitch, and saved yourself that money. No, had you waited (and others done the same), the project would not get funded and there would be no game.
That's not really true. Had I not put a dime into Shadow Run or Wasteland 2 they'd still be equally likely to be there waiting for me in a year or whatever.
Collectively yes, the project may not get funded, but there's no shortage of good games out there - I have dozens in Steam that I bought for $5 and have yet to play. Yes, the two I just pointed out have pedigree, but that Tactical FPS also got funded, with money coming from people here. I could live easily without that. I still haven't played Mount & Blade, which looks awesome and was only $5.
Getting Wasteland 2 is awesome. Most Kickstarter games won't be Wasteland 2, they'll be Bob's Cool Idea & CGI Reel. Plenty of people get their cool ideas onto Steam for $5 without me having to pay before a single line of code is written. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Twitter 
