Support NeoGAF

[Salsa]

Far Cry 3 exists -> Blood Dragon gets made -> Blood Dragon is well recieved -> we get big budget AAA standalone independent Blood Dragon game.

i'd be okay if the $15 weird expansion thing became a thing that didnt necessarely went anywhere else than their own little contained experiences, but I find it equally (or actually more) interesting if it's used as a way to "test the waters" before jumping in with a risky new idea from the ground up, in an age where it looks like the only safe, thus worthy bet is a military shooter

 

[diffusionx]

Blood Dragon was made because the hard work was already done with FC3. They made lots of money on it and had a receptive audience.

 

[KojiKnight]

Instead of that.... I'd rather just see the $15-20 range become the home for short A to AA titles. I'd love to see more games in the 5-10 hour range for this price tag... There are a lot of great "short story" ideas that would work well in this format, but wouldn't work for major releases.

 

[Salsa]

Blood Dragon was made because the hard work was already done with FC3. They made lots of money on it and had a receptive audience.

well that's.. my point?

what im saying is that there's not that much money/time investment to try new things when you already did all the heavy lifting in the base game

 

[Jawmuncher]

The approach has its Pros and Cons.
Though I'd be interested in seeing more.
Hell just the bite-size adventures in general like we've see with the Dead Rising XBLA games, blood dragon, and the like.

Has the potential to be worked into something very interesting.

 

[SolsticeZero]

I was fine paying $15 for the Dark Souls expansion content. I'd rather big things like that than tiny little $1 or $2 pieces. I think Bethesda had the right idea with the Skryim content, too.

 

[blame space]

I just finished Blood Dragon yesterday the ending was pretty crazy.

 

[Sulla1980]

Yeah, that's cool as long as the last part of the equation (ie, Blood Dragon small title is well received --> full Blood Dragon game) doesn't necessarily occur. I would like these offshoots, or expansion packs, to be unique, risky things.

But I think the standalone expansions are great ways for a company to recoup some of the costs of development. Somehow this will become manipulated for evil, but until then, I like it!

 

[Mugaaz]

But the $15 weird expansions are that price because 90% of the assets exist, the engine is already made, they just come up with new story, skins, etc. Its like 10% of the work.

 

[Salsa]

But the $15 weird expansions are that price because 90% of the assets exist, the engine is already made, they just come up with new story, skins, etc. Its like 10% of the work.

again: this is my point

I must be not making myself clear

what I mean is that the success of said piece of content proves to the company that making a bigger investment and turning that small thing into a more expansive, bigger budget $60 one is worth it

it's a way to test an idea. An expansion doesnt require the same time and money put into it as a thing built from the ground up, that's my whole point

 

[LiK]

Call of Juarez: Gunslinger is pretty great too. Doesn't feel like a $15 game to me. I would play a full blown game with Silas Greaves.

 

[antitrop]

Call of Juarez: Gunslinger is pretty great too. Doesn't feel like a $15 game to me. I would play a full blown game with Silas Greaves.

13 hours on Steam and still firing up the Arcade mode once in a while to run through a few levels real quickly, Gunslinger puts most AAA games to shame. It's so incredible for the price.

It is a substantially better game than Blood Dragon, in my opinion, but the Metacritic averages are puzzling.

Reviewers are fucking high, this is a 9/10 game. Or maybe they should be high, they would enjoy it more. Some people seemed to appreciate it, though, like Justin McElroy.

As good as Blood Dragon is, I think the higher Metacritic score than Gunslinger is purely due to hype and Ubisoft marketing. Not the actual quality of the games.

I've made my opinion clear, I absolutely want more of this style of game. It's good for us, it's good for the publishers, it's good for the developers. This new era of $15 standalone expansion DLC is the answer to the rising, bloated costs of AAA development.

 

[hachi]

New Super Luigi U is certainly following this route. $20 DLC, same size (in levels) as the original game.

 

[Sulla1980]

again: this is my point



what I mean is that the success of said piece of content proves to the company that making a bigger investment and turning that small thing into a more expansive, bigger budget $60 one is worth it

it's a way to test an idea. An expansion doesnt require the same time and money put into it as a thing built from the ground up, that's my whole point

Is it the opinion of those who finished Blood Dragon that they would like that small experience translated into one much larger?

I don't know, because I haven't played, but general talk had led me to believe that the standalone expansion was enough.

 

[Salsa]

Is it the opinion of those who finished Blood Dragon that they would like that small experience translated into one much larger?

I don't know, because I haven't played, but general talk had led me to believe that the standalone expansion was enough.

I think a lot of the talk is that the game being tied to far cry 3's mechanics limits it in a way that doesnt necessarely fit with the themes, and that there could be a lot more done

I doubt people would complain at a bigger Blood Dragon 2, and I think most people much rather get that than another small Far Cry 4: Blood Dragon

 

[Felix Lighter]

I believe the appeal of these standalone expansions or at least what makes them feasible for devs and publishers is that they are leveraging all of the engine work and what not they did during the development of the full game with the larger budget.

All this work would need to be done within the budget of the expansion if it was being released first as a "test the waters" prototype so I think it would be less appealing for publishers. If the bite sized game didn't work out they would already be heavily invested in the product.

 

[Salsa]

I believe the appeal of these standalone expansions or at least what makes them feasible for devs and publishers is that they are leveraging all of the engine work and what not they did during the development of the full game with the larger budget.

All this work would need to be done within the budget of the expansion if it was being released first as a "test the waters" prototype so I think it would be less appealing for publishers. If the bite sized game didn't work out they would already be heavily invested in the product.

im not saying the experiences need to be like, cliffhangers or clearly unfinished games, just that they should venture into being radically different than the game they're based on (as blood dragon) and maybe see that as an opportunity for a new IP, independent from that game

 

[Revengineer]

13 hours on Steam and still firing up the Arcade mode once in a while to run through a few levels real quickly, Gunslinger puts most AAA games to shame. It's so incredible for the price.

It is a substantially better game than Blood Dragon, in my opinion, but the Metacritic averages are puzzling.

That is your opinion. The games are VERY different; open world versus arcade shooting (even the story mode is completely arcade score based).

I don't understand the point in complaining about metacritic scores like this.

Edit: As for the topic, I am 100% in agreement with the opinion that these $15, 8-12 hour experiences (even 4-5 if rushed) are completely worth the price of admission and I felt MUCH less hesitant to jump in to both Blood Dragon and Gunslinger than I feel for most AAA games, even if the reviews are 90% or above in aggregate.

 

[antitrop]

That is your opinion. The games are VERY different; open world versus arcade shooting (even the story mode is completely arcade score based).

I don't understand the point in complaining about metacritic scores like this.

Because it's my opinion that Blood Dragon got more attention and better review scores because of Ubisoft's marketing, not on the overall quality of the games.

They basically forced one of the best games of the year into a word of mouth situation and that always pisses me off. I think most people were aware that Blood Dragon was a $15 stand-alone game from Far Cry 3, but there seemed to be a lot of confusion about what Gunslinger was at release, and still even a bit after that. Many people thought it was a full-priced game, or another shitty sequel after The Cartel, or whatever, Ubisoft just didn't get the message out there and I feel that they should have. It deserves it.

 

[Sulla1980]

I think a lot of the talk is that the game being tied to far cry 3's mechanics limits it in a way that doesnt necessarely fit with the themes, and that there could be a lot more done

I doubt people would complain at a bigger Blood Dragon 2, and I think most people much rather get that than another small Far Cry 4: Blood Dragon

Interesting point about the mechanics.

 

[Revengineer]

Because it's my opinion that Blood Dragon got more attention and better review scores because of Ubisoft's marketing, not on the overall quality of the games.

They basically forced one of the best games of the year into a word of mouth situation and that always pisses me off.

That may be a possibility for the reason the review scores are higher, but another possibility is that the majority of people reviewing games prefer open world experiences to linear arcade ones. The best example I can come up with is the Giant Bomb quicklook where Patrick is wholly impressed with the game while Jeff seems very flippant about the positives. I think Jeff's reaction is fairly accurate to the rest of the reviews on Metacritic.

That being said, I agree that Gunslinger had very little publicity except word-of-mouth, but I think there's something positive to pure word-of-mouth publicity: it's cheap, it's more effective and trustworthy than advertising, and it lasts longer (in my opinion).

 

[wenis]

If publishers were a bit more liberal with license use then yeah, the Blood Dragon concept should absolutely be adopted. That relies though on publishers not being a bag of dicks and pulling the rug from underneath potential content creators and letting them work on these budget titles within these huge franchises as the frame of reference.

 

[Revengineer]

If publishers were a bit more liberal with license use then yeah, the Blood Dragon concept should absolutely be adopted. That relies though on publishers not being a bag of dicks and pulling the rug from underneath potential content creators and letting them work on these budget titles within these huge franchises as the frame of reference.

I would buy the shit out of a FUSE $15 standalone that played out with the older, goofier style. Plus, I think that 3-5 hour experience would do that type of game good.

 

[Q8D3vil]

As much as i love blood dragon people shouldn't neglect Call of Juarez gunslinger, best use of assets for a perfect $15 game.

Edit: everything said by antitrop is true, gunslinger meta score is fucking retarded, the game should get 9 just for the fucking perfect gunplay it offers (neglecting the awesome story,ost and voice acting).

 

[antitrop]

The best example I can come up with is the Giant Bomb quicklook where Patrick is wholly impressed with the game while Jeff seems very flippant about the positives. I think Jeff's reaction is fairly accurate to the rest of the reviews on Metacritic.

Perfect example of the disconnect between fans and game reviewers. I have seen nothing but shining positivity in online discussions about Gunslinger.

This review in particular exemplifies the problem with $15 downloadable titles, people EXPECT a $60 experience out of every single video game they play and PR suffers for it.

IncGamers - 50 - The broad stylistic flourishes do a fair job of masking the underwhelming reality of much of the gameplay, but once Greaves’ tall tale is told you’re left with a pretty linear, whack-a-cowboy shooter in a no-horse town.

^ What a bunch a bullshit. It's a $15 arcade game, not Red Dead Redemption 2.

 

[Felix Lighter]

im not saying the experiences need to be like, cliffhangers or clearly unfinished games, just that they should venture into being radically different than the game they're based on (as blood dragon) and maybe see that as an opportunity for a new IP, independent from that game

Interesting, maybe like a Chivalry type situation.

It started off as a source mod, basically a prototype leveraging available tools but then expanded on from scratch as a UE3 game once a greater investment was justified?

 

[Salsa]

Interesting, maybe like a Chivalry type situation.

It started off as a source mod, basically a prototype leveraging available tools but then expanded on from scratch as a UE3 game once a greater investment was justified?

yup, it's very much like publisher-funded mods

 

[CookTrain]

I would love if, between big massive projects, more studios adopted the DoubleFine/Lionhead approach of letting their developers have a month or so to churn out something on a vastly smaller scale, but with vastly more freedom, that would let them flex their creativity without having the huge millstone of a million sales round their neck.

Seeing what comes out of game jams and how that could scale with the talent of a AAA studio being let loose more often... Shame it rarely happens.

 

[borghe]

I think you are missing the forest for the trees on this one (but you are sort of right).

Indies are taking it to the big publishers right now because indies ARE willing to do development with teams of 1-20 people, whereas publishers have these studios set up employing dozens if not hundreds of employees. In turn this means that it's difficult to have multiple projects in a single studio. So if you have a project at this publisher, you have like 100 people committed to it.

Where your point lies is that there's no reason for these publishers to not have TONS of smaller teams, each able to carry a project from inception to launch. In turn these smaller teams could have access to full engines/assets from the larger teams, but work on smaller titles with more rapid development cycles.

I think the biggest problem with this is that anyone who would be a perfect fit for that sort of team...... probably wouldn't want to work at a big publisher to begin with . And considering it takes $0 to start an indie title (well, aside from free time).

 

[Cheddahz]

I much rather have big expansion packs that cost $30, like Shivering Isles for Oblivion

 

[Salsa]

I think you are missing the forest for the trees on this one (but you are sort of right).

Indies are taking it to the big publishers right now because indies ARE willing to do development with teams of 1-20 people, whereas publishers have these studios set up employing dozens if not hundreds of employees. In turn this means that it's difficult to have multiple projects in a single studio. So if you have a project at this publisher, you have like 100 people committed to it.

Where your point lies is that there's no reason for these publishers to not have TONS of smaller teams, each able to carry a project from inception to launch. In turn these smaller teams could have access to full engines/assets from the larger teams, but work on smaller titles with more rapid development cycles.

I think the biggest problem with this is that anyone who would be a perfect fit for that sort of team...... probably wouldn't want to work at a big publisher to begin with . And considering it takes $0 to start an indie title (well, aside from free time).

I dont disagree, I just think that the most "safe" developers could use this as a way to test the waters without the need to doing what you're saying, although it would be absolutely ideal and the smart thing to do

I much rather have big expansion packs that cost $30, like Shivering Isles for Oblivion

but that's unrelated to this

 

[phantomspiker]

I would rather they spent those resources making another risky, but small budgeted title.

 

[Salsa]

I would rather they spent those resources making another risky, but small budgeted title.

sure, but let's get real

big games are getting riskier to make, so no one bets on anything other than the military shooter and that's getting worse; this is potentially a way out, having already put the effort and money into building the foundation (base game)

 

[quest]

Reusing the engine and assets to be budget conscious? Don't you know games can only be made by teams over 100 with new assets and engines yearly.

All kidding aside I think this is a great idea. I think something like this be perfect for the huge void of console games between 20-50 dollars. It be really great for those who love single players games. With huge reduction in budget and price there be no pressure to fill up the game filler and tack on multiplayer. I think this is a great idea!

 

[phantomspiker]

sure, but let's get real

big games are getting riskier to make, so no one bets on anything other than the military shooter and that's getting worse; this is potentially a way out, having already put the effort and money into building the foundation (base game)

I just think publishers should be spending their efforts on making more games cheaper. Not figuring out a way to sell us another 60 dollar "AAA" title.

 

[Salsa]

I just think publishers should be spending their efforts on making more games cheaper. Not figuring out a way to sell us another 60 dollar "AAA" title.

why not? I would love more smaller games like Blood Dragon but I still love huge expensive games that are more diversive in it's themes than just being a modern warfare copy/paste job, this is potentially a way of keeping those alive

 

[phantomspiker]

why not? I would love more smaller games like Blood Dragon but I still love huge expensive games that are more diversive in it's themes than just being a modern warfare copy/paste job, this is potentially a way of keeping those alive

How many huge military shooters exist? Most are linear corridor shootbangs that focus on MP.

There is plenty of variety in the sandbox genre.

 

[Salsa]

How many huge military shooters exist? Most are linear corridor shootbangs that focus on MP.

There is plenty of variety in the sandbox genre.

im mostly making a generalization, but you get what I mean. The big guys are just gonna continue to take less and less risks

 

[Guevara]

I love the $15 standalones.

Actually if I'm honest, $20 would be fine.

 

[Heart of Black]

No, 15-30 expansions built off the engines should become the norm though, instead of this $60 sequelitis.

 

[Salsa]

No, 15-30 expansions built off the engines should become the norm though, instead of this $60 sequelitis.

what im saying here is a direct solution against the $60 sequelitis

im weirded out by so many people getting confused, is the OP that bad?

 

[Franklinator]

I definitely want more of these games. I'd be more willing to put down $60 for a full game if I know I'm into the concept presented by the $15 game.

 

[phantomspiker]

what im saying here is a direct solution against the $60 sequelitis

im weirded out by so many people getting confused, is the OP that bad?

I think it's fine.

Although I don't think that turning a $15 game into a $60 dollar sequel solves the $60 dollar sequelitis problem.

Kinda makes the problem even worse.

 

[H3xum]

I think that's a fantastic idea, but, the problem is you can only really convey new concepts over familiar engines and gameplay at that price range. But it would definitely pay off in the long run when people end up pouring 75 into your game instead of 0 or 60.

 

[Scherzo]

I think the OP has a good idea in principle, but I understand people who would want just 10-15 dollar downloadable games. Indeed I think that the market for them will only grow with the growth of digital as a platform.

However as someone pointed out elsewhere, gaming like most of the economy operates on an Economy of Scale, that is to say it's more profitable to make one or two big AAA games than it is to make a small profit on a half a dozen or so downloadable games. The problem with only AAA games is, of course, franchise fatigue; we've probably already hit Peak COD with MW3, and I doubt ACIV will do as good as ACIII given the tepid reaction to the latter. I think Downloadable, experimental Triple-B games, like Gunslinger or Blood Dragon except potentially with new IPs, to test the waters, would go hand in hand with bigger budget games.

 

[RipRamsey]

I love the idea of stand alone expansions priced in the $15-$20 dollar range rather than standard dlc. I believe they help drive sales for the original game as well with the cheaper entry point.