Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Op Ed

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.

View
33. Re: Op Ed Apr 19, 2012, 11:43 Beamer
 
Creston wrote on Apr 19, 2012, 11:31:
That's a very good point. As I think about it, I actually hope that's what it turns into. When a dev becomes experienced, and makes games people love, it'd be awesome if they could turn to their fans for funds to make the games the fans want them to make, rather than having to sell out to fucking EA or Activision or their miserable kind.

Shit, that couldn't happen fast enough to suit me. I would have happily paid for Bioware's games in advance, before they sold everything they ever were to fucking EA.

Creston

I still think we'll need central publishers to take the risk. I know I'm in the minority here, but I dig MW3 multiplayer, and a huge part of it being successful comes down to oodles of cash going to polish and, honestly, it being successful (it being successful makes it successful because you're guaranteed a large, diverse multiplayer population.) Marketing, too, but ignore that because while I think it's important everyone agrees it's out of control.

What I'd like to see is publishers scared back to older days of trying to make quality. Being maybe more like Hollywood - kick out a few wide-aiming games that make huge profits but use those profits to invest in lower cost higher risk games that are designed to be good, not to sell millions. There are problems there (mostly in price, as people can afford to see more movies than they play games, and time, in that people often watch 5-10 movies in the same time period they're playing through one game [e.g., if they play Skyrim for 2 months they probably go to the movies, watch HBO or rent DVDs of 5-10 movies in that time.])

I'd really like to see non-public publishers skimming off the top and doing well for themselves but interested in the art, not the profit, which leads to each other if people are smart about it. Gamecock was supposed to be that but Mike Wilson was an idiot and Mike Wilson funded games that were clear losers just so he was funding games.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Previous Post Next Post Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
    Date Subject Author
  1. Apr 18, 21:07 Re: Op Ed mag
  2. Apr 18, 21:17  Re: Op Ed Sepharo
  3. Apr 18, 22:22   Re: Op Ed RollinThundr
  4. Apr 18, 22:30    Re: Op Ed ASeven
  5. Apr 18, 23:02    Re: Op Ed Sepharo
  7. Apr 18, 23:41     Re: Op Ed eRe4s3r
  10. Apr 19, 00:35      Re: Op Ed Creston
  12. Apr 19, 02:22       Re: Op Ed eRe4s3r
  13. Apr 19, 03:02        Re: Op Ed The Half Elf
  14. Apr 19, 03:36         Re: Op Ed Wowbagger_TIP
  15. Apr 19, 03:46          Re: Op Ed Jerykk
  16. Apr 19, 04:05          Re: Op Ed killer_roach
  37. Apr 19, 12:04           Re: Op Ed ASeven
  17. Apr 19, 05:08          Re: Op Ed eRe4s3r
  19. Apr 19, 07:11           Re: Op Ed briktal
  20. Apr 19, 07:24            Re: Op Ed InBlack
  21. Apr 19, 07:28             Re: Op Ed eRe4s3r
  27. Apr 19, 11:23             Re: Op Ed Creston
  29. Apr 19, 11:29              Re: Op Ed Beamer
  31. Apr 19, 11:31               Re: Op Ed Creston
>> 33. Apr 19, 11:43                Re: Op Ed Beamer
  39. Apr 19, 12:05                 Re: Op Ed Creston
  41. Apr 19, 12:50                  Re: Op Ed Beamer
  24. Apr 19, 11:17           Re: Op Ed Creston
  26. Apr 19, 11:21            Re: Op Ed Beamer
  30. Apr 19, 11:30             Re: Op Ed Creston
  32. Apr 19, 11:36              Re: Op Ed Beamer
  34. Apr 19, 11:51               Re: Op Ed Creston
  35. Apr 19, 11:54                Re: Op Ed nin
  40. Apr 19, 12:07                 Re: Op Ed Creston
  45. Apr 19, 20:05                  Re: Op Ed Dev
  46. Apr 19, 21:19                   Re: Op Ed Parallax Abstraction
  47. Apr 19, 21:43                    Re: Op Ed nin
  43. Apr 19, 18:55                 Re: Op Ed xXBatmanXx
  38. Apr 19, 12:05                Re: Op Ed ASeven
  42. Apr 19, 15:00              Re: Op Ed eRe4s3r
  18. Apr 19, 07:05         Re: Op Ed Dev
  6. Apr 18, 23:34   The risk of failure IS greater than you think. IMAPC
  8. Apr 19, 00:26    Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. PropheT
  9. Apr 19, 00:34     Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. xXBatmanXx
  11. Apr 19, 01:56    Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Cutter
  22. Apr 19, 10:07    Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Prez
  23. Apr 19, 11:11     Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Beamer
  25. Apr 19, 11:19      Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Wowbagger_TIP
  28. Apr 19, 11:24       Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Beamer
  36. Apr 19, 11:54        Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Wowbagger_TIP
  44. Apr 19, 19:58      Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Dev
  48. Apr 20, 00:07       Re: The risk of failure IS greater than you think. Beamer
  49. Apr 20, 07:44 Re: Op Ed Dades


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo