Support NeoGAF

[Garlador]

Do you have any suggestion to how to battle the rising cost of game developement?

Don't pull a Konami and replace affordable and reliable voice actors with very expensive Hollywood actors? Don't blow millions of dollars on marketing campaigns like EA's "Sin to Win" or "Your Mom Hates Dead Space 2"? Don't spend 10 years on one game, changing engines multiple times, while crew grow disillusioned and quit over time? Don't decided everything needs to be a huge, open-world experience? Don't assume online multiplayer or online social elements need to be developed and crammed into every game, taking up time and resources?

Really, in general, while the cost of game development has gone up, a lot of it is due to inordinately insane budget mismanagement in the first place, where "feature creep" rears its ugly head and games balloon in size to be these gargantuan (and often mediocre) things following big-budget trends. Is Resident Evil 6, the most expensive game Capcom ever made with a team of over 1000 people, really a better game than a more focused and well-paced Resident Evil Remake, with a team of around 100?

Basically, the main problem - to ME - is so many companies have adopted the "go big or go home" mindset, where everything must be a blockbuster, and middle-level games have all but vanished. It's either shovelware or "next big thing", no middle ground, despite there being a huge audience for middleware software (which most Kickstarter games end up being, for example).

Is it our fault Capcom decided to bet big on a big-budget, triple-A multiplatform release of Lost Planet 3 instead of a smaller-scale, lower-budget installment of Mega Man Legends 3 on the 3DS? Is it our fault companies like Konami spent huge swaths of money on voice talent that, honestly, wasn't even as good as the cheaper and reliable alternatives? Is it gamers' fault that so many games decided "lets go HUGE" and confuse map size and fetch quests with game quality?

That's not even factoring in that a lot of my game purchases over the years were "collector's editions" that weren't $60, but were, instead, $70-100+ dollars, or that pre-order culture has made day one purchases at full price more common and viable, or that DLC is a constant revenue stream for many companies, or that you can even pre-order season passes before the games even come out nowadays.

I look at something like Dark Souls as a good example of doing it right. The Souls team is shockingly small for games as big and polished as they are, but they still have some jankiness to them. But they focus on the things that REALLY matter - atmosphere, gameplay - and work with an incredibly efficient budget at a ridiculously efficient pace. They can be considered "huge successes" at 1 million copies sold and celebrate the achievement, while Square Enix bemoans the "failure" of Tomb Raider only selling 3.4 million copies in one month. They're just a team that knows how to manage their budget and marketing, focus on what they do best instead of cramming in "big budget" features, and catering to a thirsty demographic hungry for something unique.

The best way to combat rising game budgets? It starts with scaling back pie-in-the-sky ambitions and coming to terms with the fact you can't do everything and should focus on what you're good at with a limited budget, instead of being mediocre at everything with unlimited funds.

 

[CountAntonius]

The best way to combat rising game budgets? It starts with scaling back pie-in-the-sky ambitions and coming to terms with the fact you can't do everything and should focus on what you're good at with a limited budget, instead of being mediocre at everything with unlimited funds.

This could work fine for single player experiences. None of this applies to multiplayer games that get continued support for months even years. You either offer expansions which split up the community, map packs which split up the community charge a monthly fee or offer cosmetic DLC. The price of entry simply isn't enough to keep developing a game for that amount of time.

 

[balohna]

At the base price of $60, I've more than gotten my money's worth. This game could be all wireframes shooting at each as and it would still be crazy fun. I didn't even open loot boxes for my first few weeks since they don't offer any new skills or weapons.

Now I could see the argument that the whales who bought summer games lootboxes subsidized lucio ball (which I didn't care for, since rocket league did it better), but even then, you don't have to buy it. If this is such a violation of consumer rights or whatever, don't buy the boxes and let blizzard know why. If you buy them, they'll keep selling them.

I like the game enough that I mostly don't care, but looking at it from a value perspective I think they're being stingey. They have every right to do whatever they want, but I don't think that's good.

Overwatch is an awesome game, but it is a fairly light package at the entry level. I paid $30 for Animal Crossing: New Leaf and played it for hundreds of hours, and it doesn't even have microtransactions. Nintendo COULD, and probably will one day, jack up the cost of everything and put in real money purchases as shortcuts. I don't think they deserve extra money on principle, though.

Again, if OW was free to play it would be one of the best value free to play games out there. But at $40 minimum spend per player, and taking into account that many players will pay that and stop playing after a week, and taking into account that many more players will spend way more than that regardless... I think Blizzard are being exactly as greedy as the market will tolerate. Armchair business GAF probably thinks that's great, but as a consumer I think it's greedy and shitty.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Not all visual designs are cosmetics, but all cosmetics are part of the visual design.

Simpler?

And I had several points where I mentioned how alternate costumes matter to people and can affect their game experience. Entire games often wrap their mechanics and player-feedback loop around unlockables such as cosmetics.

It's one reason why so many people joke that "glamour" is the endgame of Final Fantasy XIV; to work hard so you can look the coolest.

What I'm saying is that I don't understand what need there is to mix visual design at all into the discussion. Your point is that cosmetic DLC feels like important, relevant content to many players and putting it behind a paywall alienates them. Fair enough! The argument appealing to visual consistency or style is entirely irrelevant.

For a reductio ad absurdum example, consider using the same argument to say that the sequel of a game, since it shares its visual design, is an integral part of the original one and thus by not giving it to me for free, the visual design of the original is compromised. Cosmetic DLC is the exact same, there is no way for you or anyone to prove that it was an integral part of the original design (that was parceled to be sold separately) rather than content developed after the whole game was closed. Note that while this is more arguable or less for other types of DLC (typically by analyzing how whole the product feels with or without it), for aesthetic DLC this is clear cut by the very definition (alternate content to the default that does not impact the game in any other way).

This is not to say that I disagree with your claims (or that I need them explained to me with examples, really); on the contrary, I fully agree with them. I only disagree with how this particular argument was presented.

 

[Garlador]

This could work fine for single player experiences. None of this applies to multiplayer games that get continued support for months even years. You either offer expansions which split up the community, map packs which split up the community charge a monthly fee or offer cosmetic DLC. The price of entry simply isn't enough to keep developing a game for that amount of time.

Look at early Bungie and Epic Games then, who I felt handled multiplayer support SUPREMELY well. What they did was offer new levels and maps and modes as DLC and players could pay for them... and THEN, after about 6-8 months, those packs eventually became FREE. Players were simply paying for early access, which only temporarily split the community. Ultimately, they got money from their most hardcore fans and were very financially successful from it, while more casual players over time were brought in and everyone was granted access to all content if they were patient enough. It was a "have your cake and eat it too" win-win for gamers and developers.

What I'm saying is that I don't understand what need there is to mix visual design at all into the discussion. Your point is that cosmetic DLC feels like important, relevant content to many players and putting it behind a paywall alienates them. Fair enough! The argument appealing to visual consistency or style is entirely irrelevant.

Actually, while it's bothersome, my point was more that putting cosmetics behind a GAMBLING wall is significantly worse. I tend to be far more agreeable to post-launch content being offered for a reasonable price; extra work, extra cash. My main point of contention was taking content that used to be free and locking it behind a paywall, locking on-disc content behind a paywall, and locking great cosmetics behind a RNG microtransaction slot machine involving real money. It's not the content itself; it's the methods used to acquire it.

For a reductio ad absurdum example, consider using the same argument to say that the sequel of a game, since it shares its visual design, is an integral part of the original one and thus by not giving it to me for free, the visual design of the original is compromised. Cosmetic DLC is the exact same, there is no way for you or anyone to prove that it was an integral part of the original design (that was parceled to be sold separately) rather than content developed after the whole game was closed. Note that while this is more arguable or less for other types of DLC (typically by analyzing how whole the product feels with or without it), for aesthetic DLC this is clear cut by the very definition (alternate content to the default that does not impact the game in any other way).

Being locked as on-disc content shipped on a day one retail disc was a pretty good indicator of content developed, finished, and programmed into the game from the start (again, I called out Capcom on this for practically a dozen blatant examples of slicing off content on a finished disc to sell back to you).

I think I answered most of this above, though. I'm not rigidly against the idea of charging people for post-release content. Most of my issues are when a company reneges on their own promises and instead pushes players towards buying the content rather than earning it themselves, as was the case with Overwatch, especially when there is absolutely no guarantee their investment - either with their time or their money - will have any payoff whatsoever. That is a very problematic value dissonance.

This is not to say that I disagree with your claims (or that I need them explained to me with examples, really); on the contrary, I fully agree with them. I only disagree with how this particular argument was presented.

And perhaps I misspoke in my zealous rage. It was less an indictment of cosmetics themselves, but more the people who have legitimately dismissed them as an unimportant and inconsequential part of games. There are plenty of people who don't care how their character looks, only how their character plays, but there are plenty of others who obsess over the aesthetics of their chosen game avatars and invest a great deal of time and energy into shaping them to their preference. I took umbrage with those that said those individuals don't matter since, again, "I got mine and I don't care". I feel they do matter.

 

[shintoki]

Don't pull a Konami and replace affordable and reliable voice actors with very expensive Hollywood actors? Don't blow millions of dollars on marketing campaigns like EA's "Sin to Win" or "Your Mom Hates Dead Space 2"? Don't spend 10 years on one game, changing engines multiple times, while crew grow disillusioned and quit over time? Don't decided everything needs to be a huge, open-world experience? Don't assume online multiplayer or online social elements need to be developed and crammed into every game, taking up time and resources?

1. Before you decide to blame it marketing, you do know Games have never been cheaper.

2. If we take inflation into account from 2005 to 2016(When 60$ games were introduced), the price would be around 74$. This means, we should have got an increase in gaming costs. We are over due for an increase, yet prices have remained static if not dropped. Partially due to the birth of Digital, where they can trim 8-10$ off production costs. Though console games aren't as fortunate.

The bigger, more important reason is they can now get additional money after the project is released. Even though you're praising Souls. They have Deluxe Digital additional with DLC. They are earning an extra 25$.

These additional costumes, DLC, etc. Are how they've been making up ground.

You also have to include it takes more to hirer programmers now and you need more, even for mid tier development. You bring up Souls, but that is still costing around 10-15 million. Probably even higher now with III. 10 years ago, mid tier would have been around 5 million or less.

The reason they also have to do it is very simple too. There are more games out there than ever before. This isn't walking into Funcoland anymore and seeing the titles. Every week, you have 10-20 games releasing. The world is far more competitive now. Even Indie developers need to market their games correctly. Gone are the days of just a title getting released on Steam being enough to make it a success. Not even including the thousands of mobile games.

You can't apply logic that worked 10-15 years ago for developers into today's modern world. There is more competition, more costs, more venues, etc.

And the single biggest reason why this happened are the very people in this thread. We wanted bigger, we wanted more, we wanted better. Think it's coincidence that gamers are the one who killed the mid tier development on consoles, while pouring all their money into large publishers like EA, Squeenix, Sony, MS, etc. They are simply following the trends of the market driven by console development. Mid Tier has since moved to PC, in largely the form of Indie development or smaller companies trying their luck.

Also, Souls is no longer Mid Tier, it hasn't been since Demon.

 

[Seventy_X_Seven]

I absolutely agree with the OP, but pragmatically don't see it ever changing back to the way it was. The "as long as it doesn't effect gameplay" crowd has won.

 

[Grimalkin]

The best way to combat rising game budgets? It starts with scaling back pie-in-the-sky ambitions and coming to terms with the fact you can't do everything and should focus on what you're good at with a limited budget, instead of being mediocre at everything with unlimited funds.

You don't know shit about how funding works. It's easier to get 30 million than 3 million from an investment firm as they only want to fund things that have the potential to be huge. Then when you get your 30 million it comes with strings attached since it's such a large amount.

Second, marketing and development are two separate budgets. I have never in my 8 years working on AAA games seen money taken from one side and given to the other. What I have seen, over and over again, is poor management and the development not being done on time and so the executives have to go back to the money people (be it a publisher or an investment firm) and ask for more money for development. How does that go? See above. Easier to get bigger amounts but to get it you have to promise more features.

If studios didn't do that the game would be canceled. It would never come out. A studio head cannot play hardball with the people giving them money, it doesn't work out in the studio's favor.

And it is your fault that all that remains is "shovelware" and "AAA". That's what sold. The middle ground didn't sell enough to be able to survive with the rising costs of development to make the minimum required visuals during the HD era.

Publishers make what they think will sell best. They follow market trends. That's it. You have no one to blame but yourselves. Just because you personally want something different doesn't mean the the collective market of gamers wants what you want.

If no one had purchased Oblivion's Horse Armor things might be different but I highly doubt it. They would have tried again and again until something stuck.

The game devs whose job it is to plan, price, and sell micro transactions have known that cosmetics are the most important thing to players for years. That's why they sell it. It just also happens to be marketable because gamers have determined that selling cosmetics is acceptable, so it's really a win-win for both sides.

Once again, what people on NeoGAF and Reddit think and complain about is not even remotely close to the reality of the market.

Game devs make decisions based on actual metrics and data gathered from sales and players. Everything you see happening now, especially from studios like Blizzard, is based on actual data they gather from players.

How many people on NeoGAF admitted to spending more than $100 on the Overwatch summer games stuff?

Since your post talked exclusively about Japanese developers I will too. They were hit hardest during the market's turn to HD graphics and have been playing catch-up ever since. Their management is looking for that big hit to prove they can compete with western devs. Right or wrong, that's what is happening. It doesn't help the bigger publishers you mentioned in any way to make middle-ground games. Making 2 - 15 million dollar budget games will not see them anywhere close to the same ROI as making 1 - 30 million dollar budget game.

Again, what NeoGAF likes is not even remotely close to what the actual market of gamers likes.

From Software is the perfect combo of management and design. They are not typical, they are very unique in the entirety of game development. As in your own post, Square or Capcom or Konami are typical and they cannot do what From does without tearing their entire company apart and that isn't worth it to them (for whatever reason).

Finally, Japanese developers are playing western games and like western games. They want to make their own take on western style and mechanics which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. They are still figuring out where they fit in to the global picture.

I feel that people on NeoGAF don't realize just how much gamers' tastes in games and game mechanics has changed since the PS2 era. You really couldn't put the average gamer of today's market in front of a PS2 game and tell them to play it. They wouldn't. It would be too hard, too boring, the controls too fiddly, etc. I have sat watching focus groups and despaired.

My point in all this being: saying to just return to making AA games like the PS2 era is a terrible idea and would lead to more studio closures. The way things are today is determined by the overall market forces that NeoGAF doesn't want to acknowledge or understand.

 

[Coffee Dog]

Game publishers decreed that lower budget games were dead, and when have games publishers ever been wrong?

 

[Grimalkin]

1. Before you decide to blame it marketing, you do know Games have never been cheaper.

2. If we take inflation into account from 2005 to 2016(When 60$ games were introduced), the price would be around 74$. This means, we should have got an increase in gaming costs. We are over due for an increase, yet prices have remained static if not dropped. Partially due to the birth of Digital, where they can trim 8-10$ off production costs. Though console games aren't as fortunate.

The bigger, more important reason is they can now get additional money after the project is released. Even though you're praising Souls. They have Deluxe Digital additional with DLC. They are earning an extra 25$.

These additional costumes, DLC, etc. Are how they've been making up ground.

You also have to include it takes more to hirer programmers now and you need more, even for mid tier development. You bring up Souls, but that is still costing around 10-15 million. Probably even higher now with III. 10 years ago, mid tier would have been around 5 million or less.

The reason they also have to do it is very simple too. There are more games out there than ever before. This isn't walking into Funcoland anymore and seeing the titles. Every week, you have 10-20 games releasing. The world is far more competitive now. Even Indie developers need to market their games correctly. Gone are the days of just a title getting released on Steam being enough to make it a success. Not even including the thousands of mobile games.

You can't apply logic that worked 10-15 years ago for developers into today's modern world. There is more competition, more costs, more venues, etc.

And the single biggest reason why this happened are the very people in this thread. We wanted bigger, we wanted more, we wanted better. Think it's coincidence that gamers are the one who killed the mid tier development on consoles, while pouring all their money into large publishers like EA, Squeenix, Sony, MS, etc. They are simply following the trends of the market driven by console development. Mid Tier has since moved to PC, in largely the form of Indie development or smaller companies trying their luck.

Also, Souls is no longer Mid Tier, it hasn't been since Demon.

Agree with everything in this post except that the Souls series is more like a budget AAA series. They don't spend anywhere near the money of a flagship AAA game and don't bring in the sales like one either. But it works out because of From's track record and management.

The last reported sales numbers for Dark Souls III was 3 million copies sold. Activision would lose their shit if that's all the more Call of Duty sold. Even Square would be pissed if FFXV only sold 3 million copies in the first 3 months.

 

[Garlador]

1. Before you decide to blame it marketing, you do know Games have never been cheaper..

I'm well aware that, factoring in inflation and development costs, games are much cheaper than ever (ESPECIALLY factoring in the prevalence of the used games markets). Blaming over-budget spending on exorbitant marketing isn't THE only reason for budget woes... I was just pointing it out as an example of A reason for budget issues.

2. If we take inflation into account from 2005 to 2016(When 60$ games were introduced), the price would be around 74$. This means, we should have got an increase in gaming costs. We are over due for an increase, yet prices have remained static if not dropped. Partially due to the birth of Digital, where they can trim 8-10$ off production costs. Though console games aren't as fortunate.

I'm well aware. I'm not young anymore. I remember there was even a period during the N64 days where my stores were selling Killer Instinct Gold for $80. Cartridge prices early one were obscene and it's no surprise developers flocked to cheaper discs and have, over time, trimmed out things such as instruction booklets or punched holes in game cases to save on costs (and, as you mention, digital is the cheapest and most profitable option available to them).

The bigger, more important reason is they can now get additional money after the project is released. Even though you're praising Souls. They have Deluxe Digital additional with DLC. They are earning an extra 25$.

True, and I have NO PROBLEM with DLC that adds value to a game while the game itself can unquestionably stand on its own. Dark Souls 1 is a great example where they didn't even plan on any DLC but decided to do some after release to further add lore and mystery to the universe, yet you can enjoy the entire Dark Souls experience without feeling like they held content back or that you're missing out on important bosses or lore. It was supplementary content rather than prime content, and they've walked that fine line like champs.

The point, though, is they still make and release games on a shockingly limited budget with a surprisingly small team, so that even without the DLC, they make a profit and are financially successful if even a million copies of their games are sold.

That's much better than some companies that bank on the DLC to keep them afloat to offset costs.

You also have to include it takes more to hirer programmers now and you need more, even for mid tier development. You bring up Souls, but that is still costing around 10-15 million. Probably even higher now with III. 10 years ago, mid tier would have been around 5 million or less.

Mid-tier is still around 5 million. The difference is Dark Souls graduated from mid-tier to upper mid-tier. It's audience grew, along with expectations. But, rather than cave in to the "let's toss everything and kitchen sink approach" to the games, they've still been reasonable and kept their growth and development costs down compared to everyone else. A Souls game costing 10 million is RIDICULOUS cheap compared to the over 500 million Activision invested in Destiny. And that's the big issue; companies looking at the big, blockbuster, expensive games like Destiny or Grand Theft Auto or Assassin's Creed and feeling that the only way to stay competitive is to drop gargantuan amounts of money at their problems and hope it turns out... when you could've made FIFTY Dark Souls games for $10 million for that same investment.

The reason they also have to do it is very simple too. There are more games out there than ever before. This isn't walking into Funcoland anymore and seeing the titles. Every week, you have 10-20 games releasing. The world is far more competitive now. Even Indie developers need to market their games correctly. Gone are the days of just a title getting released on Steam being enough to make it a success. Not even including the thousands of mobile games.

Right, and a great way to stand out from the crowd would be to stop copying the expensive and often unpredictable business models of the absolute most high-budget games leading the market and to instead work within your own limits to find something truly unique and special. Portal was made by a bunch of college interns for Valve. DOTA started as just a bunch of fan mods. Wii Sports is a cheap but effective tech demo for motion controls. Dark Souls was just a small and dedicated team with a vision. Even the Elder Scrolls and Fallout teams are jaw-droppingly small compared to their peers because they don't want development to spread too thin and neuter their team dynamic, even if that means working with aging engines and lots of jankiness. They just focus on what matters, even if it means rough edges.

You can't apply logic that worked 10-15 years ago for developers into today's modern world. There is more competition, more costs, more venues, etc.

Which is precisely why the most important parts of a game should be prioritized: the core experience and player accessibility.

It reminds me of the music industry fighting against digital distribution. Why buy anything when you can now download it for free? And yet iTunes and other digital platforms now thrive because people are innately, well, lazy, and convenience is something people will pay for. Artists started making more money off of $1 singles sold on iTunes and Amazon than they had with $20 CDs sold in record stores.

When developers of a game create barriers for players to jump through - spreedsheets of which retailer and which version has which pre-order content, DRM that bogs down your computer, always-online in singleplayer games that doesn't always work, game mechanics skewed towards punishing and frustrating players in the hopes they'll buy microtransaction boosters or content, etc. - you create an environment where more and more players might feel it's just not worth the effort. You have to admit, far too many games have the stink of businessmen attached to them, jamming in microtransactions and online features nobody needed or asked for because they viewed games as a "service" and were too obsessed over the core game as a base platform for DLC distribution instead of being a stand alone experience (remember when Evolve advertised it's DLC before we'd even seen a single slice of gameplay footage?).

And the single biggest reason why this happened are the very people in this thread. We wanted bigger, we wanted more, we wanted better.

Then companies took away the wrong message. Bigger isn't always better. More isn't always satisfying.

It's like the Star Wars prequels. For years, people wanted to know the history of Darth Vader, the history of the Jedi, the history of the rise of the Empire. When we finally got those answers, we collectively realized we were better off not knowing and keeping those answers vaguely tied to our collective memories and interpretations.

Smart developers and creators know how to filer what audiences THINK they want from what they ACTUALLY want. In fact, following gamer trends is what homogenizes games and makes everything so same-y.

Kevin Levine once stated that Bioshock wasn't something ANYONE was asking for until they announced it, and that that's the secret to making something special. Finding that thing people never even knew they wanted, rather than giving them the same things they always ask for.

Think it's coincidence that gamers are the one who killed the mid tier development on consoles, while pouring all their money into large publishers like EA, Squeenix, Sony, MS, etc. They are simply following the trends of the market driven by console development. Mid Tier has since moved to PC, in largely the form of Indie development or smaller companies trying their luck.

Don't count mid-tier out just yet.

LOTS of great mid-tier games have been coming to consoles lately and a huge ton of indies are thriving on consoles (PS+ and Games with Gold freebies are certainly helping). Ori and the Blind Forest, Cuphead, Journey, Bound, Below, Unfinished Swan, and even mid-tier games like ReCore, Gravity Rush, and TONS of quirky Japanese games too numerous to even mention (Earth Defense Force, D4, Deception IV, etc.) all carry the mid-tier torch forward, and even big companies like Capcom and Square Enix have released budgeted games like Resident Evil Revelations 2 and Life is Strange to much profit and acclaim. Companies like TellTale have their bread and butter doing mid-tier games to great success (just bought Wolf Among Us. It's fantastic).

Also, Souls is no longer Mid Tier, it hasn't been since Demon.

Are we arguing budget or quality on this one? It's certainly a AAA franchise, with a comparative higher budget, production, and marketing than many other titles... but it's also a fraction of the size and cost of the industry's biggest and most expensive and successful franchises.

As you said, a budget of $10 million is extremely high compared to any B-list game or indie game, but it's nowhere near the cost of an Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto release. If GTA5 cost over $265 million to make, that would be the equivalent of over 26 Dark Souls games, because FromSoftware prides themselves on keeping costs down.

If I remember correctly, I think Dark Souls was even cheaper to make than Demons's Souls, because the hardest and most time-consuming part was creating the engine and programming and workflow for Demons's Souls. Dark Souls was cheaper to develop since the infrastructure was already in place and they recycled a huge amount of elements into Dark Souls - from animations to models to sound effects.

 

[King Gilga]

Yeah, skins/alt costumes have always mattered to me.

But I also don't buy games at $60, or half that, or even half of half of that really.

 

[test_account]

Don't pull a Konami and replace affordable and reliable voice actors with very expensive Hollywood actors? Don't blow millions of dollars on marketing campaigns like EA's "Sin to Win" or "Your Mom Hates Dead Space 2"? Don't spend 10 years on one game, changing engines multiple times, while crew grow disillusioned and quit over time? Don't decided everything needs to be a huge, open-world experience? Don't assume online multiplayer or online social elements need to be developed and crammed into every game, taking up time and resources?

Really, in general, while the cost of game development has gone up, a lot of it is due to inordinately insane budget mismanagement in the first place, where "feature creep" rears its ugly head and games balloon in size to be these gargantuan (and often mediocre) things following big-budget trends. Is Resident Evil 6, the most expensive game Capcom ever made with a team of over 1000 people, really a better game than a more focused and well-paced Resident Evil Remake, with a team of around 100?

Basically, the main problem - to ME - is so many companies have adopted the "go big or go home" mindset, where everything must be a blockbuster, and middle-level games have all but vanished. It's either shovelware or "next big thing", no middle ground, despite there being a huge audience for middleware software (which most Kickstarter games end up being, for example).

Is it our fault Capcom decided to bet big on a big-budget, triple-A multiplatform release of Lost Planet 3 instead of a smaller-scale, lower-budget installment of Mega Man Legends 3 on the 3DS? Is it our fault companies like Konami spent huge swaths of money on voice talent that, honestly, wasn't even as good as the cheaper and reliable alternatives? Is it gamers' fault that so many games decided "lets go HUGE" and confuse map size and fetch quests with game quality?

That's not even factoring in that a lot of my game purchases over the years were "collector's editions" that weren't $60, but were, instead, $70-100+ dollars, or that pre-order culture has made day one purchases at full price more common and viable, or that DLC is a constant revenue stream for many companies, or that you can even pre-order season passes before the games even come out nowadays.

I look at something like Dark Souls as a good example of doing it right. The Souls team is shockingly small for games as big and polished as they are, but they still have some jankiness to them. But they focus on the things that REALLY matter - atmosphere, gameplay - and work with an incredibly efficient budget at a ridiculously efficient pace. They can be considered "huge successes" at 1 million copies sold and celebrate the achievement, while Square Enix bemoans the "failure" of Tomb Raider only selling 3.4 million copies in one month. They're just a team that knows how to manage their budget and marketing, focus on what they do best instead of cramming in "big budget" features, and catering to a thirsty demographic hungry for something unique.

The best way to combat rising game budgets? It starts with scaling back pie-in-the-sky ambitions and coming to terms with the fact you can't do everything and should focus on what you're good at with a limited budget, instead of being mediocre at everything with unlimited funds.

The main reason why gaming developement has gone up is because games are more complex to make these days. It requires more time and more people to do things. Things like Hollywood actors and marketing budgets come on top of that (marketing is also extremely important regardless, so skimping out on that might not be a good idea). And things like changing engine is not a common thing that happends, and those things are of course not planned. Those things can only be looked at in hindsight.

Mismanagement is a problem in some cases, but i'm not sure that it is a general thing. Here is a list of studios closed in the past 10 years: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1253550 | A lot of those studios didnt make mega blockbuster games nor had Hollywood actors and 1000 employees, yet they failed.

If making middle-level games are such a good business idea, why arent we seeing a lot more of it? I'm really curious about that actually.

Games with 1000 employees are likely exaggerated by the way. I mean, its not like there are 1000 employees working on a game for 2-3 years. Some guys maybe did some texture work for a couple of weeks and thats it. Such high number is also very uncommon.


From Software (Souls developer) are very good indeed. Not sure i would call it shockingly small though, they have over 230 employees (not sure how many that works on the Souls games). But its not exactly easy to copy this success. Demons Souls might have ended up being a 100k seller that would never leave Japan and that was it. Their previous serie (King's Field, kinda like Souls in first person) never really set the sales chart on fire.

If its our fault? Well, i wouldnt use the word 'fault', but yes, people are expecting bigger and better things. Otherwise it would be somewhat pointless to improve hardware power for gaming purposes and developers could still be making games wil low polygon count and low resolution textures. Setting games back 10-15 years, or keeping gaming at the same level for so many years, that would likely not be a good idea.

I dont think that Lost Planet 3 is really a big budget AAA game. Its made by Spark Unlimited, and dont they have less than 100 employees? (i dont think that they are making anymore games, but at the time of developement). Capcom did also make lower-budget and smaller scale game as well, E.X. Troopers. It did not end up selling very well.


That said, i agree that it would be nice if budgets had come down. Not mainly because of us consumers, but mostly because it could potentially mean less risk for the developers (as in less chance of losing their jobs). But if budget come down a lot, it would also mean less job openings though. But i think its a lot easier said than done. Many people have certain expectations from games now, so scaling back on that might be quite risky, but who knows.

Overall, games are really cheap today and most of them have a lot of content. I think some people feel that they're missing out on additional stuff because those things exist, while had they never existed, i dont think people would have cared that much.

 

[Garlador]

If making middle-level games are such a good business idea, why arent anyone doing it anymore? I'm really curious about that actually.

Jim Sterling did a video on that, I think. That big game studios adopted a "homerun or bust" mentality of "if I can't have ALL the dollars, I want NONE of the dollars".

We've seen that frequently these past several years in particular, of big companies outright saying things like "survival horror is dead and unprofitable" while lower-budget horror titles then exploded in popularity to fill the gap. I remember 2K games saying with a straight face that "turn-based strategy just wouldn't sell" as a defense for turning XCOM into a shooter... and then they decided to do a RTS XCOM game soon afterward (and it's no surprise which one sold better). It's why Kickstarter's biggest successes are from developers frustrated at being told "the market doesn't want this" and turning to the fans to make things like Double Fine's untitled "adventure game" (Broken Age was great), or Iga's frustration at Konami refusing to let him make a traditional Castlevania game, giving birth to Bloodstained, or even the fact that probably 3/4ths of the Mighty No. 9 backers (as bad as the game ended up being) were doing it because they were thirsty for a traditional Mega Man game and were upset with Capcom for dropping the ball so hard.

Jim's point was that so many businessmen living in a small bubble kept calling the shots and just deciding that something was or was not profitable based on very little evidence or trends, or misreading the market to take experiences like "Overstrike" and gutting them down into bland, forgettable games like "Fuse".

Even EA recently backtracked on their "remasters mean your out of ideas" stance after seeing the popularity of competent remasters, apparently caught off guard that EVERY SINGLE PUBLISHER was doing them and making easy money while they kept insisting the demand wasn't there or loud enough yet.

There has been a pretty big tone-deaf problem with a lot of big publishers lately, so to ask why middle-ware games have dried up if they're profitable, it's real easy to just point to the trend of ignorant or clueless businessmen universally deciding where the market is going and jumping all in. I mean, the original Xbox One console debut was one of the most infamous misreads of gamer trends and expectations in the whole history of the industry, and you had so many people up there in Redmond, WA scratching their heads and going "but all our charts said this was the future everyone wanted!"

 

[test_account]

*text*

Sure, there are business ideas that some people believe in and some people dont. Putting those idea into reality is the only way to know for sure if its a good idea or not. Then theres always the "what were they thinking" kind of moments, but i'm more generally speaking. Another question is that why no one is jumping into this "untapped" market. The gaming business is pretty big afterall, so every businessman cant think that its a bad idea if its in reality a really good idea? I'm sure that there are many great ideas that can be successful. We have seen some cases of this more recently, like the new Ratchet & Clank game is $40 instead of $60. Recore (upcoming Xbox game) is also $40. Maybe we'll see some more cases of this.

Another thing that might be worth mentioning is that stuff like DLC is not there only to battle higher gaming developement cost, but they're also there as business opportunities. Expansion packs (as they were called back in the days) were also business opportunities. Its also about finding ideas that can be profitable. Offering additional content (that cost extra money and time to make) is more than fair, in my opinion.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I honestly have never been interested in any cosmetic item in a game. If you get your rocks off chasing hats, good for you, but don't expect me to be there on the ramparts with you. I don't care.

Secondly, the "on disk SLC" complaint is banal and makes no sense at all. What relevance does it have to anything?

 

[test_account]

I honestly have never been interested in any cosmetic item in a game. If you get your rocks off chasing hats, good for you, but don't expect me to be there on the ramparts with you. I don't care.

Secondly, the "on disk SLC" complaint is banal and makes no sense at all. What relevance does it have to anything?

The on disc DLC complaint in general has been that people feel that they should have gotten the content for free because its on the disc. Since the content is already made, it should have been included for free in the base game. I dont think many, if any, publishers will do this anymore. Its better to just release the content as a patch later on. While the result is no different, people will feel that they get more value for their money this way.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The on disc DLC complaint in general has been that people feel that they should have gotten the content for free because its on the disc. Since the content is already made, it should have been included for free in the base game. I dont think many, if any, publishers will do this anymore. Its better to just release the content as a patch later on. While the result is no different, people will feel that they get more value for their money this way.

That's all completely irrational. Even if they never get it. When you're making a choice to buy a game, or deciding if the product you're buying is worth the price they're asking, the only thing you should look at is whether the cost of thing you're actually buying is worth the money. Gamers don't have the "right" to own everything the studio has made in the last [insert arbitrary time period since last game] years. Whether it's on the disk or not is an irrelevancy.

 

[test_account]

That's all completely irrational. Even if they never get it. When you're making a choice to buy a game, or deciding if the product you're buying is worth the price they're asking, the only thing you should look at is whether the cost of thing you're actually buying is worth the money. Gamers don't have the "right" to own everything the studio has made in the last [insert arbitrary time period since last game] years. Whether it's on the disk or not is an irrelevancy.

I agree, as long as the base game has enough content/value, thats what people should look at, in my opinion.

 

[Garlador]

That's all completely irrational. Even if they never get it. When you're making a choice to buy a game, or deciding if the product you're buying is worth the price they're asking, the only thing you should look at is whether the cost of thing you're actually buying is worth the money. Gamers don't have the "right" to own everything the studio has made in the last [insert arbitrary time period since last game] years. Whether it's on the disk or not is an irrelevancy.

I forget the lawyer who popped up and said that hacking a game to access "DLC" on-disc was probably "legal piracy" or something similar, and there was the matter of false advertising, since "on-disc" content is not, as advertised, "DOWNLOADABLE" content whatsoever.

That's a whole 'nother can of worms, and I was involved in the thick of it with Capcom and even their legal team for a bit. I kicked up a bit of a storm over what I viewed as deceptive marketing practices, especially since publishers weren't disclosing that the "DLC" was already on the disc, while hackers and modders were diving into the games code and finding enormous chunks of certain games (in Street Fighter x Tekken's case, 1/3rd of the entire roster) was already complete and merely sectioned off from normal access until you paid extra for it.

"Whether it's on disc or not is irrelevant" was the argument used by Capcom (along with "we were just thinking of your bandwidth costs! We're the GOOD guys, promise!").

Ultimately, I have the mindset that what a game is "worth" depends heavily on the context surrounding it. It would be like if I read a great book and enjoyed it, I might find the book "worth it" at the time, but if someone then revealed to me that several pages had actually been removed and I had bought an incomplete copy missing essential chapters, my stance on the book's value would change with this additional knowledge. We like to think in terms of black and white, but something's "value" is mutable and depending on many factors.

 

[Zolo]

I feel the idea that costume dlc wouldn't happen if games could jack the base cost up is wrong. Even then, publishers would still realize they can just get more money by doing the same thing.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Ultimately, I have the mindset that what a game is "worth" depends heavily on the context surrounding it. It would be like if I read a great book and enjoyed it, I might find the book "worth it" at the time, but if someone then revealed to me that several pages had actually been removed and I had bought an incomplete copy missing essential chapters, my stance on the book's value would change with this additional knowledge. We like to think in terms of black and white, but something's "value" is mutable and depending on many factors.

I don't think that argument holds any water either. Would you feel aggrieved? Maybe. And I'm not a fan of developers cutting content from a game to specifically then sell it separately. It's rational to just want as much as you can get for the lowest price you can. But if we live in a parallel universe where Capcom only hired half the people to work on the game, and so the content that you were able to access was actually the only content that got made - now your perception of value has increased? It's now worth more to you? Despite it being absolutely literally the same thing that you're playing? Like I said, it's entirely irrational.

 

[Garlador]

I don't think that argument holds any water either. Would you feel aggrieved? Maybe. And I'm not a fan of developers cutting content from a game to specifically then sell it separately. It's rational to just want as much as you can get for the lowest price you can. But if we live in a parallel universe where Capcom only hired half the people to work on the game, and so the content that you were able to access was actually the only content that got made - now your perception of value has increased? It's now worth more to you? Despite it being absolutely literally the same thing that you're playing? Like I said, it's entirely irrational.

It's not irrational, because people contextual an experience depending on the information we have available at the time.

Like, as a big example, I enjoyed Mass Effect and I enjoyed the trilogy, but I know I'm not alone in feeling like the original ending of ME3 was SO bad it soured my opinion of the entire experience because the destination disappointed so strongly that the journey didn't seem worth it, even if it felt incredible at the time. It was hard to replay the game knowing where it was leading to, and the big choices that I was told were "important" at the time and felt meaningful and had weight suddenly, with the full context of the experience, felt shallow and meaningless. So, yes, despite being literally the exact same content I once greatly enjoyed, it became far less enjoyable when fitted within the overarching context of the experience.

I mean, don't we judge things for "what they are" all the time, even in the context of bigger and arguably better experiences? We often hold low-budget horror movies to a lower standard than big-budget Hollywood action blockbusters.

Or, let's use this for a good example: the movie Kingdom of Heaven. I watched the theatrical movie and, good grief, it's an awful film. Poorly paced, poorly acted, poorly made. And it was already nearly 2 hours long. When I was told they were going to do a director's cut that was an hour LONGER, I thought "who's going to see an extra hour of this junk?"... but I heard great things about it and watched it, wow, it's a stunning movie and it became one of my favorite films of all time. I was watching the EXACT SAME FOOTAGE, but with additional content and context reinserted into the film. The content I initially experienced was insubstantial, but with the whole thing recontextualized and missing pieces added, it transformed my entire opinion of the movie and altered my perception of footage I initially despised and performances I initially questioned.

For games, a lot of content is like Kingdom of Heaven's missing footage. Important characters that serve the plot (Javik in Mass Effect for instance) or characters in a fighting game (Tekken's Harada often states that missing characters is like playing chess without all the pieces) or even the endings and conclusions to video games entirely (Asura's Wrath held it's ACTUAL ending hostage as premium, additional DLC...). There are plenty of people who enjoyed the games without that content, but for many others, that was often essential content that elevated the entire game and the games were LESSER if that content was removed.

Everyone has a different threshold for "value", and that can and does change in an ever-evolving landscape, not just within the games themselves being altered through DLC but through competition raising the bar and altering standards.

 

[Negaduck]

For me personally, I don't care if I'm not able to get special skins. If I do get them, awesome and I'm happy. But I don't really care if I don't get a seasonal or rare skin/dlc.

Unless it's a different character in a fighting game for example, I know that it doesn't effect game play (and those games that do I don't tend to play really).

Maybe because I've played games for so long when there wasn't dlc and had an absolute blast that if it's there or not it doesn't bother me.

I can understand people getting bummed if they miss out but to me personally it never felt like an issue video games are great.

I mean, the fact that dlc even exists is amazing. I still remember games that if you didn't like an aspect of it, or if it was broken in some way, too bad. Better hope the next version is better.

Now a days we have the ability to completely fix or alter a game/expand upon it after its come out. How nuts is that!! That's such a crazy thing to think of.

Shit before a game is out you can have it loaded up on your machine!

 

[EpicBox]

Paying for microtransactions is optional, but their presence is not. And their presence is usually damaging to the experience.

Fuck any developer who tries turning the spending of real money into a gameplay mechanic.

 

[Lupin the Third]

In 2016 dollars, this game cost about $110.00 and had a dev team of only about 15 people max.

Probably actually more like $135. It likely sold for more than $50 US at retail.

It also probably didn't take 2+ years to develop.


A big problem with modern retail video games is most are trying soooo hard (and spending soo much) to be everything to everybody. But really they just need to do one or two things very well. Games don't all need voice acting. They don't all need to look A++ graphically. They don't always need a massive marketing machine. They need to be good, fun, and have positive word-of-mouth, along with an appropriate marketing plan. And reasonable prices...I don't think the public masses are quite prepared to pay out for $70+ games at the counter, but maybe it would be a more honest industry if they did go that route...

 

[MegaManTrigger]

That's all completely irrational. Even if they never get it. When you're making a choice to buy a game, or deciding if the product you're buying is worth the price they're asking, the only thing you should look at is whether the cost of thing you're actually buying is worth the money. Gamers don't have the "right" to own everything the studio has made in the last [insert arbitrary time period since last game] years. Whether it's on the disk or not is an irrelevancy.

I disagree about on-disc being irrelevant, especially when you consider the the cost of the game is supposed to typically cover a development team's budget. Rightfully, people get pissed off when the "DLC" had already been programmed in and the only thing you're paying for is the key to unlock the content, not to support and compensate for a developer's extra time that was put in adding content into the game. In that regard, I don't think it's irrational to complain about on-disc DLC.

It's why stuff like Smash 4 doesn't get a lot of complaints with regards to DLC compared to say SFxTekken back in the day.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's not irrational, because people contextual an experience depending on the information we have available at the time.

Like, as a big example, I enjoyed Mass Effect and I enjoyed the trilogy, but I know I'm not alone in feeling like the original ending of ME3 was SO bad it soured my opinion of the entire experience because the destination disappointed so strongly that the journey didn't seem worth it, even if it felt incredible at the time. It was hard to replay the game knowing where it was leading to, and the big choices that I was told were "important" at the time and felt meaningful and had weight suddenly, with the full context of the experience, felt shallow and meaningless. So, yes, despite being literally the exact same content I once greatly enjoyed, it became far less enjoyable when fitted within the overarching context of the experience.

As a comparison, this doesn't work at all. In fact, I don't really know how you got there. My argument was simply that, if it's not included in the retail release, the very existence of additional content doesn't make any difference to the value proposition of that actual retail release. Maybe if they did cut stuff out, and that stuff they cut out is really great and now the retail release isn't worth it, then the value proposition has gone down compared to if it were there. But it's not there.

Your example is entirely different. You're talking about a shitty ending. The Mass Effect trilogy was always going to have an ending of some kind, and I can understand why it being the way it was could sour replayings of content you previously enjoyed. I'm not unfamiliar with the idea that context affects things. I'm just saying it doesn't affect this - or, if it does, it's at a purely emotional level and not at all a rational one (ergo irrational).

Or, let's use this for a good example: the movie Kingdom of Heaven. I watched the theatrical movie and, good grief, it's an awful film. Poorly paced, poorly acted, poorly made. And it was already nearly 2 hours long. When I was told they were going to do a director's cut that was an hour LONGER, I thought "who's going to see an extra hour of this junk?"... but I heard great things about it and watched it, wow, it's a stunning movie and it became one of my favorite films of all time. I was watching the EXACT SAME FOOTAGE, but with additional content and context reinserted into the film. The content I initially experienced was insubstantial, but with the whole thing recontextualized and missing pieces added, it transformed my entire opinion of the movie and altered my perception of footage I initially despised and performances I initially questioned.

For games, a lot of content is like Kingdom of Heaven's missing footage. Important characters that serve the plot (Javik in Mass Effect for instance) or characters in a fighting game (Tekken's Harada often states that missing characters is like playing chess without all the pieces) or even the endings and conclusions to video games entirely (Asura's Wrath held it's ACTUAL ending hostage as premium, additional DLC...). There are plenty of people who enjoyed the games without that content, but for many others, that was often essential content that elevated the entire game and the games were LESSER if that content was removed.

Two things: One is that the original King of Heaven remains shit. It was shit before you knew about the directors cut, and it's still shit now. What you now enjoy is a different product so it's not an example of contextualising something appropriately.

Secondly, you're talking about something entirely different here. You're talking about lopping off bits of the game. I'm not saying developers should do that. I specifically said they shouldn't, actually. You're arguing against something I didn't say.

Everyone has a different threshold for "value", and that can and does change in an ever-evolving landscape, not just within the games themselves being altered through DLC but through competition raising the bar and altering standards.

I agree.

 

[Garlador]

Two things: One is that the original King of Heaven remains shit. It was shit before you knew about the directors cut, and it's still shit now. What you now enjoy is a different product so it's not an example of contextualising something appropriately.

And I listed examples in gaming where context was missing, even endings were missing, and thus the retail release was lacking as a result until the DLC came out to address those disparities and inadequacies. I'm speaking in generalities here, not specifically lobbying blame at Overwatch for instance. But something like From Ashes in Mass Effect 3 was important lore-related content, and it was mostly locked on the disc, locked away as premium DLC, and the only way you could get it at launch was either by buying the Collector's edition or shelling out nearly $10+ for something that, having played it, should have been included in the game proper without question.

That's just an example, and that's what I was referring to with Kingdom of Heaven; examples of publishers doing this very thing.

Secondly, you're talking about something entirely different here. You're talking about lopping off bits of the game. I'm not saying developers should do that. I specifically said they shouldn't, actually. You're arguing against something I didn't say.

It's only different in that my argument is that cosmetics can have as much value as "optional" story or "optional" levels or "optional" gameplay. Not addressing you in particular, but rather those that have defended such practices (and I've met plenty of them). A lot of really important stuff in recent video games wasn't "lobbed off" but rather just not developed until after the game was released, and the presence of that content either benefits or negates the experience of the main game proper. While this key discussion is over cosmetics and costumes, I was lumping them in with "content" in general, of which there's no shortage of publishers handling this content quite poorly, and how player apathy led to progressively worse and worse examples of missing or premium content excluded from the core game.

 

[Tecnniqe]

I'm just gonna say that if WoW had a cosmetic shop I'd be on the street right now.

Slutmog all the way.

If anything WoW is a good example of that cosmetics really do matter. We got people who pay out their ass for tokens or farm for weeks to earn the gear or gold just get a hold of just 1 armor piece or mount. It's all a part of the experience to look the most bad-ass and stand out as a individual.

I love when games offer cosmetic options, paid or in-game rewarded.

However the moment its all based on RNG money boxes with no other way to earn it, its abuse as shit and scummy.

 

[M0nochromatic]

Great post. i love this part:

I wouldn't be surprised to see these things become monetized within the next 5 years as the budgets keep getting higher. All it takes is one publisher and dev figuring out a way to pull it off that dosen't startle the hornets nest, and it'll quickly spread throughout the industry.

 

[test_account]

It's only different in that my argument is that cosmetics can have as much value as "optional" story or "optional" levels or "optional" gameplay. Not addressing you in particular, but rather those that have defended such practices (and I've met plenty of them). A lot of really important stuff in recent video games wasn't "lobbed off" but rather just not developed until after the game was released, and the presence of that content either benefits or negates the experience of the main game proper. While this key discussion is over cosmetics and costumes, I was lumping them in with "content" in general, of which there's no shortage of publishers handling this content quite poorly, and how player apathy led to progressively worse and worse examples of missing or premium content excluded from the core game.

We cant really know for sure (unless the developers confirm it) if additional costumes etc. would have have been made at all if it someone didnt want to pay for it (the publishers that is, they pay for the extra work being done). Its possible that many of these things are being made simply because its possible to profit from it. I'm sure that we would have seen free stuff, we do that today as well, but i'm not sure that we would see the same amount that we're currently seeing. I get the notion of wanting as much as possible for as little as possible, but i dont see why it should be forbidden to sell additional content to a game after that its been released.

I do agree that extra costumes might be great. I've bought a few myself, but i guess that i'm interested in purchasing maybe one out of a 100++, or maybe even more. When i beat Uncharted 4, i unlocked a lot of unlockable skins that you can change at any time in the story. It also unlocked a lot of different graphical filters, but those things didnt change my view on the game one way or the other and i didnt replay the game because of those things. I mean, i love that they give additional options after beating the game, but i would have like the game a lot even if they didnt. Personally, i cant think of any cases where additional costume DLC changed my view on a game itself, as in that i felt that the game was worse because i had to pay a small amount to look like something else in the game.

I wouldn't be surprised to see these things become monetized within the next 5 years as the budgets keep getting higher. All it takes is one publisher and dev figuring out a way to pull it off that dosen't startle the hornets nest, and it'll quickly spread throughout the industry.

That wont happen. You're not going to release a game without music and textures and sell those things seperately. It would be similar to car manufacturers starting selling consumer cars without doors and windows (the car would still operate without those things, so its technically possible). Its not comparable to have additional things. A comparison would be to sell for example an orchestral soundtrack instead of having chiptune-like music, or the other way around. Or sell additional texture packs that alters the look of things.

 

[CountAntonius]

This is where I'm at. The fact that they don't split up the community or affect game balance makes it hard for me to get too worked up about them.

Agreed. It also seems like the best option for post game support. They need a steady revenue stream and this is by far the best way to do it. I haven't heard anyone make any suggestions about a better way.

 

[M0nochromatic]

We cant really know for sure (unless the developers confirm it) if additional costumes etc. would have have been made at all if it someone didnt want to pay for it (the publishers that is, they pay for the extra work being done). Its possible that many of these things are being made simply because its possible to profit from it. I'm sure that we would have seen free stuff, we do that today as well, but i'm not sure that we would see the same amount that we're currently seeing. I get the notion of wanting as much as possible for as little as possible, but i dont see why it should be forbidden to sell additional content to a game after that its been released.

I do agree that extra costumes might be great. I've bought a few myself, but i guess that i'm interested in purchasing maybe one out of a 100++, or maybe even more. When i beat Uncharted 4, i unlocked a lot of unlockable skins that you can change at any time in the story. It also unlocked a lot of different graphical filters, but those things didnt change my view on the game one way or the other and i didnt replay the game because of those things. I mean, i love that they give additional options after beating the game, but i would have like the game a lot even if they didnt. Personally, i cant think of any cases where additional costume DLC changed my view on a game itself, as in that i felt that the game was worse because i had to pay a small amount to look like something else in the game.



That wont happen. You're not going to release a game without music and textures and sell those things seperately. It would be similar to car manufacturers starting selling consumer cars without doors and windows (the car would still operate without those things, so its technically possible). Its not comparable to have additional things. A comparison would be to sell for example an orchestral soundtrack instead of having chiptune-like music, or the other way around. Or sell additional texture packs that alters the look of things.

It's not that ridiculous. I can imagine GTA 6 coming with a handful of songs for a handful of radio stations, and conveniently enough, there'll be DLC to add more music and stations.

Of course there will be default skins and textures and models. It's the fact that everything that can be considered optional can become DLC if the profit is there. We've seen it happen with cheat codes and basic cosmetics, and there's no reason that the companies are content to stop there.

 

[CountAntonius]

Look at early Bungie and Epic Games then, who I felt handled multiplayer support SUPREMELY well. What they did was offer new levels and maps and modes as DLC and players could pay for them... and THEN, after about 6-8 months, those packs eventually became FREE. Players were simply paying for early access, which only temporarily split the community. Ultimately, they got money from their most hardcore fans and were very financially successful from it, while more casual players over time were brought in and everyone was granted access to all content if they were patient enough. It was a "have your cake and eat it too" win-win for gamers and developers.

No. This was not a win win and is in my opinion absolutely terrible compared to premium cosmetic skins. Gotta disagree with you there.

 

[test_account]

It's not that ridiculous. I can imagine GTA 6 coming with a handful of songs for a handful of radio stations, and conveniently enough, there'll be DLC to add more music and stations.

Of course there will be default skins and textures and models. It's the fact that everything that can be considered optional can become DLC if the profit is there. We've seen it happen with cheat codes and basic cosmetics, and there's no reason that the companies are content to stop there.

Maybe i misunderstood the initial point, but i read it as that things like music and textures could be seen as optional stuff (as being taken out of a game partially, or maybe even completely) because they didnt affect the gameplay itself. If its about offering extra and additional music and such, then thats not far fetched at all of course, i agree. I cant see games being stripped for those thing down to a bare minimum and then offer more music and extra textures as payable DLC that feels missing from the game though .

I'm also not sure if additional texture packs would be popular. I cant recall any games that has such feature out of the box at least (not thinking about games like Little Big Planet and games that comes with official modding tools, but games where you simply go into a menu and choose to change the texutre of e.g rocks in the game).

As for GTA, the music and radio channels is a staple for the serie, so i cant see them skimp out on that. Additional music being for sale, that i can see however. The PC, PS4 and Xbox One version have many extra songs included compared to the PS3 and Xbox 360 version.

 

[Garlador]

No. This was not a win win and is in my opinion absolutely terrible compared to premium cosmetic skins. Gotta disagree with you there.

How is it not a win for everyone?

Those that want early access to DLC maps can pay for them and enjoy them as soon as they are available. A majority of players did this and supported the company with DLC money. After a period of time, the maps were then made available to everyone, ensuring absolutely no player was left behind and the community only grew larger and stronger. It also created a cycle of continued interest, as there was a wave of players that purchased the maps, and then waves of players returning to play the game after they were made free, keeping interest in the game going longer and harder than most competitors.

The companies go their money and support, impatient fans got their maps as soon as they came out, and patient fans had the option of waiting until the paid period was over to rejoin everyone else. The community ultimately remained together and the company received both positive PR among the fanbase as well as their financial support post-launch.

I don't see any downsides.

 

[CountAntonius]

How is it not a win for everyone?

Those that want early access to DLC maps can pay for them and enjoy them as soon as they are available. A majority of players did this and supported the company with DLC money. After a period of time, the maps were then made available to everyone, ensuring absolutely no player was left behind and the community only grew larger and stronger. It also created a cycle of continued interest, as there was a wave of players that purchased the maps, and then waves of players returning to play the game after they were made free, keeping interest in the game going longer and harder than most competitors.

The companies go their money and support, impatient fans got their maps as soon as they came out, and patient fans had the option of waiting until the paid period was over to rejoin everyone else. The community ultimately remained together and the company received both positive PR among the fanbase as well as their financial support post-launch.

I don't see any downsides.

Because I value the community all getting game changing content on day one over everyone having access to a cosmetic skins for free.

 

[Garlador]

Because I value the community all getting game changing content on day one over everyone having access to a cosmetic skins for free.

They do get it day one (or day 30 or 60 or 90 depending on how long the DLC takes to make). They just have to pay for it, or they can wait.

It's not like the other levels and maps and modes vanished either. Players could still play that content if they wanted to wait and then, eventually, they got all the content as everyone else.

AND there was unlockable cosmetics as well! AND none of it was locked behind RNG microtransaction paywalls.

 

[Xiaoki]

You don't know shit about how funding works. It's easier to get 30 million than 3 million from an investment firm as they only want to fund things that have the potential to be huge. Then when you get your 30 million it comes with strings attached since it's such a large amount.

Second, marketing and development are two separate budgets. I have never in my 8 years working on AAA games seen money taken from one side and given to the other. What I have seen, over and over again, is poor management and the development not being done on time and so the executives have to go back to the money people (be it a publisher or an investment firm) and ask for more money for development. How does that go? See above. Easier to get bigger amounts but to get it you have to promise more features.

If studios didn't do that the game would be canceled. It would never come out. A studio head cannot play hardball with the people giving them money, it doesn't work out in the studio's favor.

And it is your fault that all that remains is "shovelware" and "AAA". That's what sold. The middle ground didn't sell enough to be able to survive with the rising costs of development to make the minimum required visuals during the HD era.

Publishers make what they think will sell best. They follow market trends. That's it. You have no one to blame but yourselves. Just because you personally want something different doesn't mean the the collective market of gamers wants what you want.

If no one had purchased Oblivion's Horse Armor things might be different but I highly doubt it. They would have tried again and again until something stuck.

The game devs whose job it is to plan, price, and sell micro transactions have known that cosmetics are the most important thing to players for years. That's why they sell it. It just also happens to be marketable because gamers have determined that selling cosmetics is acceptable, so it's really a win-win for both sides.

Once again, what people on NeoGAF and Reddit think and complain about is not even remotely close to the reality of the market.

Game devs make decisions based on actual metrics and data gathered from sales and players. Everything you see happening now, especially from studios like Blizzard, is based on actual data they gather from players.

How many people on NeoGAF admitted to spending more than $100 on the Overwatch summer games stuff?

Since your post talked exclusively about Japanese developers I will too. They were hit hardest during the market's turn to HD graphics and have been playing catch-up ever since. Their management is looking for that big hit to prove they can compete with western devs. Right or wrong, that's what is happening. It doesn't help the bigger publishers you mentioned in any way to make middle-ground games. Making 2 - 15 million dollar budget games will not see them anywhere close to the same ROI as making 1 - 30 million dollar budget game.

Again, what NeoGAF likes is not even remotely close to what the actual market of gamers likes.

From Software is the perfect combo of management and design. They are not typical, they are very unique in the entirety of game development. As in your own post, Square or Capcom or Konami are typical and they cannot do what From does without tearing their entire company apart and that isn't worth it to them (for whatever reason).

Finally, Japanese developers are playing western games and like western games. They want to make their own take on western style and mechanics which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. They are still figuring out where they fit in to the global picture.

I feel that people on NeoGAF don't realize just how much gamers' tastes in games and game mechanics has changed since the PS2 era. You really couldn't put the average gamer of today's market in front of a PS2 game and tell them to play it. They wouldn't. It would be too hard, too boring, the controls too fiddly, etc. I have sat watching focus groups and despaired.

My point in all this being: saying to just return to making AA games like the PS2 era is a terrible idea and would lead to more studio closures. The way things are today is determined by the overall market forces that NeoGAF doesn't want to acknowledge or understand.

Quoting in full to say that this is incredible post and probably too good for this topic, really deserves its own topic.

I would say that everyone should read it but then there are people that don't want to know, they don't want to know "how the sausage is made", they only care about the end result and how it effects them.

 

[Artdayne]

I don't get how people are so up in arms over this, but something like Heroes of the Storm or League of Legends, which hide actual gameplay behind money or absolute grinding, doesn't catch any flack.

I would say the key difference is that HOTS and LOL are not buy to play games, they are free to play.

 

[Pompadour]

Quoting in full to say that this is incredible post and probably too good for this topic, really deserves its own topic.

I would say that everyone should read it but then there are people that don't want to know, they don't want to know "how the sausage is made", they only care about the end result and how it effects them.

I agree. It's very disheartening to read the narrative here on GAF and on Reddit that these publishers and developers whose livelihood is trying to figure what will sell know less than gaming enthusiasts who believe that their tastes represent the tastes of the gaming public at large.

 

[Alcotholic]

Ok, whats worse? Pay to win or pay to look good?

 

[ghst]

Ok, whats worse? Pay to win or pay to look good?

on preys on people's consumerist status symbol vanity, the other sabotages the balance of the game.

 

[Garlador]

I agree. It's very disheartening to read the narrative here on GAF and on Reddit that these publishers and developers whose livelihood is trying to figure what will sell know less than gaming enthusiasts who believe that their tastes represent the tastes of the gaming public at large.

There are PLENTY of examples of clueless businessmen and corporate suits in some sort of weird bubble who misread the entire market to a shocking degree and universally decided for everyone what's best. I could list hundreds of examples, big and small, from the public backlash over online passes (now discontinued) to always-online DRM schemes (oh, it's IMPOSSIBLE for Sims to be played offline, eh?... until the sales dropped) to every single facet of the Xbox One system reveal (the list of misfires on that are too numerous to mention). I really could list a practically endless stream of examples of "publishers and developers whose livelihood is trying to figure what will sell" and missing the mark so badly that everyone and their dog looked at them with raised eyebrows going "we ALL called it".

I mean, someone at Capcom just KEPT coming up with formerly free or quintessential pieces of content from prior games they tried to cut out and sell for extra profit - be they as simple as cheat codes, DIFFICULTY modes, and even GAME ENDINGS (that's just scratching the surface).

I believe it's possible to sell players extra content and not also take advantage of their loyalty and love for a franchise, to have a least a semblance of mutual respect for their audience, or to create content that is worth the value ascribed to it. It's a hard line to balance on, but it's possible (CD Projekt Red does quite well with it, I think).