Sepharo wrote on Apr 10, 2012, 01:02:
Spiral Knights is hugely successful and it's one of the games that work on "energy" that is limited unless you pay. I've seen what it's done to my friends' wallets despite them saying early on that they would never need to pay.

I think that's the "time" thing like in Farmville.

Worst game I've played was some Android/WebOS game. You had a certain amount of energy that you lost with each fight. If you did well you could play for hours without running out of energy, and even if you did poorly you'd probably get at least 5 from the game.
When energy was gone the only way to recharge it was to buy a charging station.

I had no clue the game even HAD microtransactions until I'd run out of energy. So, halfway through a game, it told me I had to pay to continue, otherwise I needed to uninstall. Blah. Had the game been upfront I wouldn't have minded (I also would not have downloaded it, but that's neither here nor there.)

Sepharo wrote on Apr 10, 2012, 01:02:
Spiral Knights is hugely successful and it's one of the games that work on "energy" that is limited unless you pay. I've seen what it's done to my friends' wallets despite them saying early on that they would never need to pay.

Do they still pay or have they learned their lesson?

Spiral Knights is hugely successful and it's one of the games that work on "energy" that is limited unless you pay. I've seen what it's done to my friends' wallets despite them saying early on that they would never need to pay.

Endo wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 23:16:

Jerykk wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 17:12:

Are you sure about TF2? Quake Live didn't generate much, and all of the "pay more for more weapons" games have failed to do much of anything.

That's pretty much why Quake Live fails as a F2P game. It doesn't have any microtransactions or unlockables. Conversely, TF2 has tons of cosmetic items that apparently sell really well.

People mind paying extra for things they feel should have come with the game. They don't mind paying extra for things that are clearly fluff and extraneous.

I think that's pretty true. Look at every successful F2P - all those facebook games and Maple Story sell fluff (or time or something, I dunno, whatever you get in Farmville.)

Jerykk wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 17:12:

Are you sure about TF2? Quake Live didn't generate much, and all of the "pay more for more weapons" games have failed to do much of anything.

That's pretty much why Quake Live fails as a F2P game. It doesn't have any microtransactions or unlockables. Conversely, TF2 has tons of cosmetic items that apparently sell really well.

People mind paying extra for things they feel should have come with the game. They don't mind paying extra for things that are clearly fluff and extraneous.

Are you sure about TF2? Quake Live didn't generate much, and all of the "pay more for more weapons" games have failed to do much of anything.

That's pretty much why Quake Live fails as a F2P game. It doesn't have any microtransactions or unlockables. Conversely, TF2 has tons of cosmetic items that apparently sell really well.

Slashman wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 13:13:

Kajetan wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 11:17:

And thats the main problem the majors have nowadays. Budgets are exploding, marketing costs are going through the roof, revenue has to be bigger every year, which requires even MORE marketing. These companies are simply too big. They CANNOT produce games with less money anymore.

That would be valid if the money was going to the development costs of the game instead of buying reviews and 4-page magazine spots.

It IS valid because more and more money has to go into marketing. The more expensive a game, the more marketing you have to make to maximize potential sales. The more saturated the market is (which it is), the more marketing you have to make to make your expensive game stand out. A revenue giant like EA apparently is not any longer capable of making profit, partially due to an extensive marketing budget. The actual production budget, as high as it is, is no longer the major part of all costs combined. Marketing is.

I'm not saying AAA games should disappear altogether, I'm saying that only doing AAA games is insane. Bigger earning doesn't mean anything if its accompanied by bigger marketing and dev costs.

It is insane, because there is no more diversity, all eggs in one basket. One or two potential blockbusters failing and the company folds. Or becomes a perfect candidate for a takeover.

Something will eventually give. Making the same game with 'AAA' production every year can't work for everyone.

This "something" is called market concentration. There is no more room for more growth, so one or two or even more major publisher will diappear in the next few years. Or they survive as a subsidary of a big asian company trying to get into the western gaming market. Things will change.

Kajetan wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 11:17:

And thats the main problem the majors have nowadays. Budgets are exploding, marketing costs are going through the roof, revenue has to be bigger every year, which requires even MORE marketing. These companies are simply too big. They CANNOT produce games with less money anymore.

That would be valid if the money was going to the development costs of the game instead of buying reviews and 4-page magazine spots.

I'm not saying AAA games should disappear altogether, I'm saying that only doing AAA games is insane. Bigger earning doesn't mean anything if its accompanied by bigger marketing and dev costs.

Something will eventually give. Making the same game with 'AAA' production every year can't work for everyone.

Jerykk wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 12:30:

On the other hand, it's a crowded market that no one has proven is at all lucrative.

There are a lot of F2P games that have been lucrative. Maple Story and League of Legends come to mind as the most obvious. TF2 has also generated more profit since going F2P than it did when it was a retail title.

If there was no proof that F2P could be profitable, nobody would be making F2P games.

Sorry, meant F2P FPS games.
Are you sure about TF2? Quake Live didn't generate much, and all of the "pay more for more weapons" games have failed to do much of anything.

On the other hand, it's a crowded market that no one has proven is at all lucrative.

There are a lot of F2P games that have been lucrative. Maple Story and League of Legends come to mind as the most obvious. TF2 has also generated more profit since going F2P than it did when it was a retail title.

If there was no proof that F2P could be profitable, nobody would be making F2P games.

I see this as a Alan Wake scenario, sure it will be a PC exclusive until 6 months until launch and oh wait the new consoles are announced and they also have the power to run this. So the the game will be redesigned around the power of the new consoles, and the PC will take a backseat if we get a port at all.

It's Epic guys, they will find a way to screw us and maximize their profits.

Games as a whole aren't going to step backwards in time just to make money.

Oh I think you would find many people who would argue they have done exactly that in many regards. Graphics aren't everything.

That said, I agree some game properties are better with larger budgets but the dev budgets themselves aren't really what people are criticizing. It's the tertiary stuff like marketing buys that are starting to dwarf actual dev costs that is alarming.

You also can't look at consoles and say that those games aren't making any money, when it's the primary source of income for the console makers. The hardware is sold at a loss, they're making money hand over fist on the games themselves, and often on new franchises.

I'm not sure the console model is sustainable going forward. Both Microsoft and Sony actually lost money on their console efforts until about a year ago. The only company to really "make money hand over fist" was Nintendo who sold their console at a profit.

ASeven wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 10:00:
Verno puts it down nicely. The growing exponential costs of developing a game is ensuring that publishers rarely see any profit from their AAA release due to the insane costs of making a AAA game today. As Verno says well you don't need a big budget to make a big, great game. Amnesia, Terraria, Minecraft, Frozen Synapse amongst others are perfect examples of that.

Those things aren't just "lower" budget though, they're practically no-budget. We're not even approaching the budget of a "A" title, let alone "AAA" when talking about these indie games. Minecraft was done by one guy, and its graphics are from the stone age. Games as a whole aren't going to step backwards in time just to make money.

These games have an audience, but there are types of games that do in fact [i]need[/i] a larger budget. Just like the increased popularity of indie films weren't the death knell of the blockbuster sci-fi epic, indie games aren't the answer to lowering the budget for something like Warcraft, Half Life, Battlefield 3, or TES. From the sales of these games it's obvious that people aren't dropping high-end graphics to play sprite-based side-scrollers.

You also can't look at consoles and say that those games aren't making any money, when it's the primary source of income for the console makers. The hardware is sold at a loss, they're making money hand over fist on the games themselves, and often on new franchises.

Slashman wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 10:23:
There is a huge amount that can be done with a moderate budget. If the Witcher 2 can get made for around 35 million, why the hell are companies pouring 100 million into a game that may or may not sell well based on nothing but the 'AAA' nametag?

AFAIK Witcher 2 development costs were about 10-12 million dollars.

And thats the main problem the majors have nowadays. Budgets are exploding, marketing costs are going through the roof, revenue has to be bigger every year, which requires even MORE marketing. These companies are simply too big. They CANNOT produce games with less money anymore.

And that is the one of the reasons why the majors are incapable to diversify. They are no longer able to produce cheaper games, which is a requirement for a middle ground game being profitable. They can only go AAA, their whole structure and business model only works with expensive high profile games. They are stuck, they cannot go backwards anymore.

Hobeaux wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 10:34:
You guys are just so crotchety—first you complain that Epic doesn't care about PC gaming, and then when they actually state that they are working on a PC-only title you complain about that too.

What? You think years of fucking us over with a console focused engine, shitty ports to the PC with that same engine (by them and other developers), and all the bagging on the PC platform by CliffyB The_Epic_Douchebag can be forgiven with a SINGLE announcement of a PC-Only game? Especially after it was PC gamers that got Epic to where it was in the first place?

Uhm... No.

They'd have to make something along the lines of "Skyrim success", in order to be forgiven, otherwise they can't be taken seriously, IMO.

Verno wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 10:38:

Hobeaux wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 10:34:
You guys are just so crotchety—first you complain that Epic doesn't care about PC gaming, and then when they actually state that they are working on a PC-only title you complain about that too.

Straw man. People complained because Epic largely ignored the PC platform and because of how they treated people who dared question them about it. Now that the gravy train is back in town their reappearance seems more than a little convenient.

I still think it's less about gravy train and more about next-gen console delays. They never hated the PC and they're not in love with it now. It's always been a platform they enjoy, and right now it's the only option to get a next-gen game out in 2013.

I'm guessing Fortnite is a 2012 release, this game will be slotted in as a 2013 release, and then there will be something big in 2014 launching with next-gen consoles. Or, perhaps, they don't think it makes sense to be a launch title (probably against Killzone 4, Halo 4, Uncharted 4, etc.) and will do a big title launch on PC and next-gen consoles in 2015.

In any case I'd wager big money that this is an experiment for them and based on timing. Fortnite is very obviously an experiment. They have room in their release schedule so it makes perfect sense to let the design teams stretch their muscles and try something totally new that is unlikely to be a big hit but is cheap, keeps them busy and lets them learn something. I'd wager this is the same, although I'd be afraid it's either a business model experiment more than a gameplay one (bad) or it's a "core" project done small (i.e., them proving to themselves they can still do awesome FPS games in non-Gears settings.)

Hobeaux wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 10:34:
You guys are just so crotchety—first you complain that Epic doesn't care about PC gaming, and then when they actually state that they are working on a PC-only title you complain about that too.

Straw man. People complained because Epic largely ignored the PC platform and because of how they treated people who dared question them about it. Now that the gravy train is back in town their reappearance seems more than a little convenient.

You guys are just so crotchety—first you complain that Epic doesn't care about PC gaming, and then when they actually state that they are working on a PC-only title you complain about that too.

The thing is that publishers and large developers have no urge to diversify their portfolios.

Instead of using that huge budget to make 3 or 4 titles of different genres/IPs, they instead pour everything into a single game and 'bet' on AAA status selling their product.

A game is either so huge, that it demands a gargantuan marketing budget or so small that it is a dumbed-down casual game. No one is interested in the middle ground and the thought that maybe having 3 or four unique titles, each earning from different market segments might be less of a strain than nothing but 'blockbuster' AAAs.

There is a huge amount that can be done with a moderate budget. If the Witcher 2 can get made for around 35 million, why the hell are companies pouring 100 million into a game that may or may not sell well based on nothing but the 'AAA' nametag?

Verno wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 09:51:

Xombie wrote on Apr 9, 2012, 09:39:

Indie games, kickstarter, etc

None of these indie games have large budgets. They have simple graphics and concepts that can be done by a few people, there aren't any Half Life 2's or BF2's among them, which need large teams. Even Double Fine's adventure game has a fraction of the budget that was needed to make Brutal Legend. Indie games are good but it is naive to think they're the magic bullet to big-budget games.

It's likewise naive to think that big budget games can continue with the same revenue model. Indie games can be as engrossing with 1/10th the production values and reach a large audience with practically no marketing budget. The industry would be foolhardy to ignore that growing trend. Most DLC doesn't go anywhere near far enough creating a meaningful experience for the cost, especially when compared to indie games that are at a similar price level.

Verno puts it down nicely. The growing exponential costs of developing a game is ensuring that publishers rarely see any profit from their AAA release due to the insane costs of making a AAA game today. As Verno says well you don't need a big budget to make a big, great game. Amnesia, Terraria, Minecraft, Frozen Synapse amongst others are perfect examples of that.

Also, the fact that many big name devs are going indie also shows the trend that devs are starting to think that working independently is far better than having a middle-man interfering in their development.