EA Says Game Development Budgets Have Peaked 157
Gamasutra reports on comments from Electronic Arts VP David Demartini indicating that the company thinks AAA game development budgets are not going to continue their skyward trend. "If [a developer] happens to make a lot of money based on that budget, great for them. If they come up short and have to cover some of it — y'know, they'll be smarter the next time they do it. That's kind of the approach that we take to it." Certainly this has something to do with a few major economic flops in the games industry lately, such as the cancellation of This Is Vegas after an estimated $50 million had been dumped into the project. Another example is the anemic response to APB, an MMO with a budget rumored to be as high as $100 million. Poor sales and reviews caused developer Realtime Worlds to enter insolvency and lay off a large portion of the development team.
Bout time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of money does not a good game make...
Bring back innovative fun gameplay and stop pushing graphics!
Crappy games with awesome graphics... Are still crappy games.
Re:Bout time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know people say "Gameplay is more important than graphics" and I agree with them - lets get that straightened out, but lets clarify exactly why it seems to be that so much money gets dumped into graphics.
Before you can even start much of anything else for your game, you need an engine to run it in. You can either dump a ton of money into licensing one, or you can dump a ton of money into building one from scratch. The latter is of course going to take more time - and the former is taking from people who b
4U, Not everyone; some have more 'refined' tastes (Score:2)
I don't consider buying a game unless it can make use of my graphics.
I want an aesthetic experience in my games as well as configurability and good game play.
Games aren't that important for me that I'll buy them at all, if they don't interest me. That includes something that will interest my eyes and my mind and my sense of control. It also is a big "MINUS" score, for me, if the primary character can't be an attractive and strong female. Ugly, weak or secondary...major detraction -- makes it hard for me
Re:Bout time... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Hollywoodization of the games industry has killed it in my opinion. I've seen more quality and had more fun from games coming from companies like Valve and publishers like Paradox in the last 5 years than I have from EA or Activision or any other big name. Hollywood is not the direction that the game industry should be looking for inspiration, it should be a lesson in what NOT to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You talk like there's no alternatives. Go search for some of the indie or freeware games, some of them are quite impressive. A lot of times they're also how games would be without big budgets. You don't really need to play big budget AAA games, but you want to, don't you?
I think it's only good we have a lot of choices, something for everybody.
Hollywood (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the direction that movies have gone it, it's the direction
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that Half-Life 2 was perhaps the epitome of the Hollywoodization of games, right?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The Hollywoodization of the games industry has killed it in my opinion. Killed it in what sense? I would rather be a gamer in the current generation than in any previous one. Some of the stuff that was released during the 8-bit and 16-bit days was just awful.
Just as some of the stuff released now is awful. Some of the things released back then were classics, also, just as some of the things released now are classics. Just as in Hollywood, you can produce big budget crap, or great films on a low budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bout time... (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately this does seem to be the case in the market the AAA companies are going for. It's getting a little less true overall, though. An "MMO" with hilariously ancient voxel graphics [minecraft.net] made by one guy has racked up about $1m in sales, because the super-simple, low-overhead, and low-programmer-hassle graphics free him up to do interesting things with the gameplay.
These do seem to be "alternative" games, though--- I can't imagine the mainstream game-review mags giving such a game a glowing review.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to Darwinia (http://www.introversion.co.uk/darwinia/) and Defcon (http://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/) (no I didnt know that it was the same company until now).
Extremely fun games, raving reviews, appallingly bad graphics.
Re:Bout time... (Score:5, Informative)
Erm... I bought my delightfully GREEN boxed copy of Darwinia partly because it had wonderful visuals (and audio). It's got great graphics. Most definitely not photorealistic, but for some reason 'photorealism' is the only thing that equates to 'good graphics' in many people's minds.
World of Goo? Lovely smooth bouncily awesome. Machinarium? Gorgeous hand-drawn beauty. And so on.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
None as they are both games made by the one company (as the parent notes), Introversion.
Re: (Score:2)
A tiny minority will defend it as a great game but the company who made it won't make any money.
Unless the game is cheaper to make than what the tiny minority would pay. And not many people complain about the graphics of a 10$ game.
Anyway, I also disagree with your main statement (to the point that, at this godforsaken hour in the morning, I'm not sure you aren't being sarcastic). I have no problem at all with playing WoG, PvsZ or, nowadays, puzzle quest 2, in my gaming beast machine. I also play brutal graphics games, of course, but I somehow think the simpler games are racking a better benefit ratio
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet a game like eg Torchlight which is hardly state of the art graphics wise got a ton of praise.
Do I have a top-end graphics card? Yes, I do. But my first and foremost concern with a game is whether it is *fun*. Gameplay is king. Does it tickle my brain, does it make me laugh, does it make me cry, perhaps even pound my head on the keyboard in frustration?
Graphics look sweet for about 5 minutes and after that you have to deal with their downsides for the remainder of the gameplay.
Besides, there's more to bi
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet a game like eg Torchlight which is hardly state of the art graphics wise got a ton of praise.
Parent did not say "state of the art" graphics, he (or she) said "brilliant" graphics. There is a difference - brilliant graphics need not be extremely hard on the GFX card or take enormous amounts of effort and budget to produce - one artist with a great visual style can do a lot for the graphical appeal of a game.
Re: (Score:2)
he fact that the ingame character you're talking to was voiced by Martin Sheen ends up adding very little to the actual game in comparison to how much it added to the bill
You might be right about the value / cost ratio, but good voice acting can make an otherwise average game far better.
e.g. Hostile Waters - Antaeus Rising - voice work by Glynis Barber, Paul Darrow, and Tom Baker. In particular, Baker's work as the narrator (together with Warren Ellis' redoubtable wordsmithing) helped some of the cutscenes literally bring me to tears.
The other thing that can make or break any piece of visual media is the music - a good composer can make your emotions dance to his tune.
Withou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The other thing that can make or break any piece of visual media is the music - a good composer can make your emotions dance to his tune.
Part of that is timing and when a game changes pace depending on what you are doing the music has to change to fit. Which makes this a job not just for the composer but also for whoever programs the music system. Two minutes of dramatic chase music is just annoying when you finish the chase after one minute...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So true about the voices. Sometimes it's cool to see known celebrities do voices in games (I thought Leonard Nimoy in Civ4 was a nice touch), but the best voice acting I've heard in games has always been some random nobody who was chosen to fit their character. More often than not, I think big celebrities are shoehorned into a part for their name, without regard for how they fit into the game.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The cruel truth about the game development industry is even if you have good graphics, good gameplay, a great storyline and writing, there is still a chance that your game will flop, you will lose your publisher and with that your studio. A hit driven industry is always cruel to some games, none more so than psychonauts [steampowered.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have u seen farmville?
"Gamers" arent the only ones who play games.
--
Free Light Codec Pack [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
To be honest, most of the gamers in that mindset are moving to the consoles, and I really don't have a problem with that. I have been enjoying the recent round of indy-style games immensely, and hope the trend continue.
Some of my favourite, non-graphically intense recent games:
For 3d games, Half-Life 2's Source engine is the sweet spot. From then on, graphics have been good enough, and what makes a game "good" is the gameplay.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? Hmm, I thought I heard something about some small games called Starcraft II and World of Warcraft. Respectively cost a gazzillion dollars to make and maintain, but doesn't have really fancy graphics. Oh, guess what: It both sells like cupcakes.
So your premise is flawed and is caused by the paradigm that indeed 'all' gamers want realistic graphics. Which is clearly not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bout time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gamers will not play a game with anything less than brilliant graphics.
Nintendo would probably beg to differ with you, but they're too busy rolling in piles of cash.
A game can be visually compelling without being photorealistic or whatever, it's just that photorealism is easier to buy than creativity. In most cases, this leads to rather predictable decisions by game producers, especially given that they're waging rather large up-front budgets against possible payoffs several years down the road.
The truly tragic part here is that making the product visually compelling through artistic means rather than through uber-high polygon counts will be compelling more or less forever, while the high polygon count game will necessarily be using technology that is several years old by the time it gets to market. It's a losing game which only works at all because you're competing against other companies with the same problems which are making the same mistakes.
So it's not really that gamers won't accept anything else. Yeah, it does have its uses as a selling point. But it's more about market dynamics than gamer preferences.
Re: (Score:2)
How many shit £20 party games can they sell before people stop buying them?
And the shit pop-star branded games with 20 minutes playability? It's beginning to cost me more to sell them on eBay than they're worth. Even the eBayers have stopped taking a punt when I offer free postage. The games are truely shit.
People are not happy with Nintendo. They are pissed off with buying extra hardware for every game. They are pis
Re:Bout time... (Score:4, Insightful)
You might be right if it was Mario 2010 (now with updated stats and rosters!) but Nintendo does do a good job make them different but still fun. It does seem like they're jumping more and more into similar sequels though. I guess the same could be said of Super Mario Bros 1, 2, & 3 but the upgrades between them as well as the differences more than made up for the platforming, brick breaking, and goomba bopping.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also got a couple of 4/5 JRPGs, which is more than I can say for the other two consoles, which are filled with soulless JRPGs that have promise for a couple hours then just get worse and worse the more you play. That really surprised me--I've got a PS3 (and used to have a 360) and thought maybe I just didn't like JRPGs any more, until I got a Wii (mostly as another Netflix device and to play Gamecube games, intially).
Granted, it's only a couple; all the good JRPGs are on handhelds this generation, it
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but come one, the Wii graphics look like something out of last century. Even the casual gamers know that.
Nothing fancy is needed for their cartoon-style games, sure, but being able to output a High Def signal and have a bit anti-aliasing would work wonders.
Re: (Score:2)
Nintendo would probably beg to differ with you, but they're too busy rolling in piles of cash.
The koreans would agree with Nintendo, but they're too busy worshipping at the altar of Starcraft.
Re: (Score:2)
I think gamers that are spending thousands of dollars for equipment are the minority here. I think the gaming industry is in a bubble for quite some time now. Overpriced games, DRM madness and so called "m
Re: (Score:2)
Now even Slashdot gives me right. Not about the bubble, but about my first part.
More Devs Going Indie, To Gamers' Benefit http://games.slashdot.org/story/10/08/25/0525212/More-Devs-Going-Indie-To-Gamers-Benefit [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The thousands and more games for IPhone and soon for Android.
How many of those actually make real money? The top ten probably do, but what about the rest?
Re: (Score:2)
I know the developers of fingerzilla (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fingerzilla/id351733272?mt=8). They made money off of being the #1 game on the app store for a single day. At that rate, you can have 365 indie firms profitable each year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very true. There are two sides to PC gaming: On one hand, we have the indies who actually value the PC platform. DRM is minimal to none, and the game is about playability than anything else. No, they won't have the insane poly count a big name title has, but they have the gameplay and the game is well debugged so it won't randomly crash on startup, or just blue-screen people's machines because of brain dead DX calls. Some companies actually use OpenGL so their works can run on operating systems other t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If a game has sucky graphics and gets gutted in reviews then gamers who otherwise would have enjoyed it won't even give it the time of day.
Nethack doesn't count because it's got a cult following much like Zork. New games can't exactly piggy-back on nostalgia.
There is no room in the market for diamonds in the rough that get outshone in reviews by polished turds.
Re: (Score:2)
Gamers who would give it the time of day won't be relying on reviewers. They may see what other players are saying about it but not professional reviewers.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, I think Dragon Age: Origins did pretty well in reviews, irrespective of the bad graphics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, reality seems to state otherwise, time and again, when people make statements like this.
While it is not a requirement to pay for a game such as, for example, Dwarf Fortress, it seems that people will quite gladly donate enough money to keep it going, and allow the developer of said game to live entirely off of those donations. In effect, they are paying for that game. Some of them are even paying more for that game than they would be for any other game except for an MMO.
There is also the fact that
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
counterpoint: ps2 had the best games of all the systems (you could even say be
Re:Bout time... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.minecraft.net/ [minecraft.net]
74290 purchases.
Huurrrrr.
APB, Fallen Earth... (Score:5, Interesting)
I also wanted to give Fallen Earth a chance. Oh, well.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, it did have a free 5-hour demo.
Re: (Score:2)
...which is about as long as it took me to complete the whole Modern Warfare 2 single player campaign.
Re:APB, Fallen Earth... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am also continually mystified by the refusal of developers to port even a single MMO to a console. Every developer is spending a fortune to make the PC-only WoW-killer and losing their shirts when it inevitably either fails or flounders. Meanwhile, not a single modern MMO has been developed for a console (and modern consoles have more than adequate hardware to handle it). Considering how many console-only or console-primary gamers that are out there, that seems like a downright bizarre oversight. Everyone is treading the same well-worn path as everyone else and ignoring the one blindingly obvious path that no one has ever went down.
I know a lot of people say that MMO's are somehow impossible to do on a console. But I remember when people used to say that about FPS's and RTS's too.
Re: (Score:2)
I used to play WoW, quite a bit actually, until I decided there were much better things to do with my life. In WoW each of my high level end-game characters had complex skill rotations and keyboard bindings. Looking back on that and thinking about trying to do that with a console controller makes me wonder how feasible it is. In WoW there were players known as "clickers" who used the mouse to execute all their skills
Final Fantasy XIV will be on PS3 (Score:2)
Though for the most part that was a fighting game that's areas were hard coded on disk. As mentioned in the subject line the PS3 will be getting Final Fantasy XIV which is an MMO. The PS3 can support all types of MMOs where Xbox360 is pretty much limited to a Phantasy Star Online type game that are very static. The Xbox360 limitation comes from Microsoft restrictions on what they allow on their console. One, which I believ
Re: (Score:2)
I think you overrate complexity. If WoW had hundreds of skills and required four keyboards to operate, it would be much more complicated, but it wouldn't make it more sophisticated or enjoyable. Most of these skills are pretty much the same thing anyway, they only exist to give the player a sense of progression so they keep paying subs. My warlock must have about half a dozen damage over time spells, and I don't think the game would lose anything if I only had one.
Most classes could be boiled down to three
Re: (Score:2)
My warlock must have about half a dozen damage over time spells, and I don't think the game would lose anything if I only had one.
Most classes could be boiled down to three or four abilities which would be easily played on a controller without losing any element of tactics and skill.
Keeping decent uptime on five dots is far more involved than keeping one dot up. In much the same way that juggling 5 balls is more difficult than juggling one ball.
I suppose you could argue that it's needless complexity and doesn't add anything the the gameplay. But judging by the second sentence you seem to be implying that it is no more difficult, which is inaccurate.
Re: (Score:2)
Chess must really be an easy game then if my bishop can only go in four directions.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument was "If we remove 80% of possible abilities this won't reduce the element of skill".
Do you think that chess would be no less complex if your bishop could only move in one direction?
Wrong. Enter Final Fantasy Online (Score:2)
I am also continually mystified by the refusal of developers to port even a single MMO to a console
Though you added conditions after that line like "MODERN" and it came out on a console a year before going PC, we see your point painfully... let Wikipedia grant you some joy [wikipedia.org]:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, anyone in beta (NDA lifted) can testify that it's designed around a controller, not a mouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
possible, and I hope so (Score:5, Insightful)
It's possible game budgets have overextended, and I personally would welcome a move towards lower-budget games: these really huge budgets are somewhat stifling for innovation, because there is very little risk you can afford to take with a $50m+ game. If you made ten $5m games out of that money, you could try out some more interesting things, and you'd also have smaller teams that can inherently move a little more nimbly (it's very hard to steer a ship the size of the current AAA dev teams, and changing anything requires heroics).
Nonetheless, I'm not sure one big-budget failure is enough evidence of a turnaround. The film industry has had a few large-budget films that failed so badly they bankrupted studios [wikipedia.org] also, but pundits' predictions that those films marked a peak in film budgets all proved to be wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In the US (since you mentioned the IRS) you are taxed on net income (more or less) not gross receipts. Paying the IRS would be the least of their concerns.
You are mostly correct though. Given that GameStop and Amazon will get 1/3->1/2 of that $50, EA would have to sell 2m copies, probably more. Continue to pare away at the amount of money coming in and you'll wind up in a place that "SRS gamrz" can't buy the studios out of. There simply aren't enough of them.
Re: (Score:2)
And, since you mentioned retail markup... I think it's going to be *really* interesting to watch how Blizzard does with their model for Starcraft 2, where they are doing significant sales via download, letting them keep 100% of the purchase price.
Of course there are 2 angles to that: 1) studios make a shitload more money 2) studios can lower their prices on games because there is no longer a need for a now-useless middleman. Who wants to take odds against the studios attempting #1?
Re: (Score:2)
And, since you mentioned retail markup... I think it's going to be *really* interesting to watch how Blizzard does with their model for Starcraft 2, where they are doing significant sales via download, letting them keep 100% of the purchase price.
Of course there are 2 angles to that: 1) studios make a shitload more money 2) studios can lower their prices on games because there is no longer a need for a now-useless middleman. Who wants to take odds against the studios attempting #1?
Given that Starcraft 2 retailed for $60, which is $10-20 more than the average AAA PC game, I think it's quite clear that they are going with #1.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bear in mind there's also money flowing the other way...you don't think the studio's put in those big nvidia logo's and other advertising just because they felt like it, right? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
All I know is you might want to lay low, lest George Lucas discovers your username...
Re: (Score:2)
Given that GameStop and Amazon will get 1/3->1/2 of that $50, EA would have to sell 2m copies, probably more.
I think you are overestimating the retail markups on games almost by an order of magnitude. Retailers don't make a lot of money on brand new games (which is why Gamestop as a company is doing well -- they have a huge head start on the used game market). I wouldn't be surprised if the markup is around 10% at most. However, the markup on used games is often 100-200% or more. Gamestop, for example, will buy a relatively new game from you for $10-20 and then sell the game right back at about $5 less than re
There's only so much worth spending (Score:2)
I like big budget games because they can have cool visuals, full spoken dialogue and so on. However once you've hit that point, you have pretty much peaked. There isn't a point in spending money on other things.
In particular I think some games make the mistake of spending money on big name actors. I really don't care, I'd much prefer a good voice actor, and there are many, to having money wasted on an actor because they are a big name.
I also think you are right that smaller titles can be a benefit too, so l
Re: (Score:2)
This rises an interesting question: is voice synthesis nowadays good enough to handle most of the dialogue? Most voice actors are pretty bad, sometimes hilariously so, so I'd imagine that a computer reading a script - perhaps with some markup cues for emotional state and such - would do just as well, if not better.
This would cut development costs for dialogy-heavy games a lot, and as a bonus also make modding a lot e
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't there yet (Score:3, Informative)
The state of the art I've seen is Yamaha's Vocaloid. However it only really can handle singing (for various reasons that's easier than speaking) and it still isn't great. Also it takes a lot of programming (in the MIDI sense, not the C++ sense) to make it sound right. Well that means having a skilled individual spend a lot of time which costs money and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
I like big budget games because they can have cool visuals, full spoken dialogue and so on. However once you've hit that point, you have pretty much peaked. There isn't a point in spending money on other things.
Agreed, big budget games generally don't spend any money on gameplay/balance, testing, or creative ideas. Minor disagreement in that they do blow a lot of money on marketing (TV commercials for my mom to watch?)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that a temporary decline in game budgets marks a permanent decline. Rather I think it likely marks a re-aligning of resources within the industry. We'll still see games like Modern Warfare get ridiculous budgets and those budgets will continue to climb. However, I think most developers are starting to come to terms with the fact that there's only room for so many Modern Warfare level games in the industry, and that sometimes it's better to set your sights a bit lower. So I don't think the
Re: (Score:2)
If you made ten $5m games out of that money, you could try out some more interesting things
Hint: I worked in the game industry when games cost less than 1/100 of $5m, and I coded games during 20 years, so I saw the progression about games being more and more expensive.
The problem is that nobody is willing to invest $5m for a "small" game, because they don't earn enough money in the end.
There is a big delusion about videogames: videogames earn more money than movies.
It's probably true, but I dare to say that only a few games are earning a lot of money, and these are only big titles, or big compani
It couldn't be (Score:3, Insightful)
Nosire! Of course not. It's probably due to evil software pirates.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that appears a bit greedy.
For games with a recurring subscription fee, it seems smarter to make getting in cheap. Like CCP did with EVE Online:
IIRC purchasing the game was 20 Euros, including the first month. Not too bad. So I got in, found I liked the game and stayed (and payed) for a few years.
There is also a growing trend of "free to play" MMOs, where you only pay for in-game advantages like faster leveling or special items. That is an even more consequent version of making the entry threshold low.
Re: (Score:2)
You only pay USD$5 to "activate" an account. (I guess they do 5 Euros as well?). You also pay for the first month's subscription.
After that initial activation, it's only the monthly fee from there. All future expansions are free.
That's how MMOs should be done.
Except for Madden! (Score:2)
Good old EA "If it's not Madden, it's a waste of money and we'll shut it down eventually" Games.
I stopped listening to anything they said years ago.
Doubt it... (Score:2)
... MMO's are definitely an area I doubt will ever have a "peak budget" as huge markets like asia and india have serious economies of scale.
My rules for buying games (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the advent of games-for-show instead of games-for-fun, I have certain rules for buying games. These will probably explain why huge development budgets are a waste of money and why indie games are increasingly occupying more of my hard drive. It'll also explain specifically why APB died a death, because it was one of the games I looked at in the last few months.
1) No subscription. If I buy a game, I buy it. I don't rent games - never have, never will. I may borrow them from friends. I may have to (at some point) pay in installments to "own" the game, but when I do that's more a financial arrangement than an ongoing subscription. I've never played WoW, or any other MMO, because of this.
2) Demo. I do not play a game that I don't know *exactly* how it plays. I do not pre-order games, either. Some FPS's are vomit-inducing to me because of the motion (for some reason, Duke Nukem 3D was like that, but almost no other game). Some games *don't* let me change the controls to something I can actually get on with, or that works comfortably on my laptop. Some games do not play well despite looking nice (I *cannot* get on with DogFighter because the control system is just so horrendously out-of-tune with how I want the aircraft to move - thus the game is unplayable to me). If you don't offer me a demo, the only other options open to me are: playing a friend's version, playing a pirate version, or not buying the game until it's incredibly cheap and therefore worth the risk.
3) Value. I don't pay for any game that I won't get value back for. Asking £50 for a game is ludicrous unless I get hundreds of hours out of it. They are £6.99 games on my hard drive that have hundreds of hours of gameplay from me - you have to compete with that. For some reason, this seems to operate on a bell-curve... very cheap games are usually shit value, very expensive games are usually shit value, with the peak being at about £10 or so. If your game is too expensive, I *will* wait until it's cheaper - I don't mind playing games that are several years old so long as they work. If it never gets cheaper, it never gets bought.
4) System requirements. If I need a PC greater than the one I have, I won't look at the game. I don't buy PC's to fit the games, I buy games to fit my PC. There is no excuse any more for slow-running games on modern dual-core processors with Gb's of RAM available to them. Dogfighter CRAWLED on my PC and to get it to run smoothly required me to put it into 800x600 with no texture detail - it looked like a version of F29 Retaliator from my DOS days, without the fun, and with broken textures everywhere - and still my PC struggled (in fact, I loaded up F29 Retaliator in DOSBox soon after and had much more enjoyment out of it). If Tom Clancy's HAWX can work fine on my PC without me changing any options, Dogfighter should as well. If you require Windows Vista or 7, that's me done too. There's no reason for that. If you require a particular Service Pack, I will be suspicious and want to play the demo to be sure that you're just fibbing - most games run fine on SP2 even if they demand SP3 for example. If you require gobs of disk space, that's probably the biggest killer because my hard drive space and bandwidth is my most precious commodity.
5) DRM. If I can't play my friend's copy on my computer to see how it runs on my machine, that breaks Rule Number 2 above. If I can't play a legit version or demo on another PC, then I won't pirate it - I just won't buy it. However, if I do decide your game is good enough to make it onto my machine, a good way to kill Rule Number 3 is to reduce its value by making it a hassle to install / uninstall, making it require Internet access even just for "activation", making it unremoveable, limiting my installs artificially, making it impossible to backup to media, etc. Pirate versions and cracks will solve this for games I do buy but if I have to do that, you have a serious customer service problem. It's like me buying a car a
Re: (Score:2)
Some FPS's are vomit-inducing to me because of the motion (for some reason, Duke Nukem 3D was like that, but almost no other game).
turn down/off the view-bob, if you can. Duke3D had some seriously rolling view-bob.
Re: (Score:2)
4) System requirements. If I need a PC greater than the one I have, I won't look at the game. I don't buy PC's to fit the games, I buy games to fit my PC. There is no excuse any more for slow-running games on modern dual-core processors with Gb's of RAM available to them. Dogfighter CRAWLED on my PC and to get it to run smoothly required me to put it into 800x600 with no texture detail - it looked like a version of F29 Retaliator from my DOS days, without the fun, and with broken textures everywhere - and still my PC struggled (in fact, I loaded up F29 Retaliator in DOSBox soon after and had much more enjoyment out of it). If Tom Clancy's HAWX can work fine on my PC without me changing any options, Dogfighter should as well. If you require Windows Vista or 7, that's me done too. There's no reason for that. If you require a particular Service Pack, I will be suspicious and want to play the demo to be sure that you're just fibbing - most games run fine on SP2 even if they demand SP3 for example. If you require gobs of disk space, that's probably the biggest killer because my hard drive space and bandwidth is my most precious commodity.
I agree with most of that. Except the service pack level (I presume you mean SPs for Windows XP?).
Unless you have some really important application that refuses to run on SP3, it is a good idea to run the latest service pack. SP2 recently went out of support and does not get security patches anymore. And surfing the net with unpatched Windows is not so good, as I found out myself some years ago.
I even had the latest SP for Win2000, but forgot to install the post-SP patches =>Hello MSBlast...
Too many games put graphics before gameplay (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if the graphics are good enough that you can read the (made up) names on the dog tags of the enemy soldiers through the scope of your sniper rifle. If the gameplay is crap, people wont buy it (at least once genuine reviews start appearing showing how crap the gameplay is rather than paid "fluff pieces")
The fact that demos no longer exist for many titles (on PC anyway) is also hurting things as people cant try games before they buy (and so they pirate the game to see if its any good and onc
APB, and the 100M number (Score:2)
100 millions where invested in the company.
the company has produced 1 mmo and about 60% of another one.
so you can say about 60M where invested in it.
now you can buy RTW for 4M, and get 1 MMO and half. *hint*hint*hint*
cut thier advert budgets maybe? (Score:2)
Of course it's peaked.. they've learned they can saturate TV and Radio, and other media, with a slew of ads for their products... They can't very well push thier stuff MORE then they are, so they've reached the top.
Maybe if they took some of that Prime Time ad-slot money and put it back into making a decent game, they'd get a better return?.. ok.. probably not..
APB was a flop anyway. (Score:2)
- APB cost over $100m in investment capital. That's a warning sign right there.
- APB has been in development for five years. No-one I know had heard of it until it popped up on Steam pre-orders.
- APB gets bad reviews on user sites.
- APB *didn't* get bad reviews in magazines, etc. because of a review embargo (until a week AFTER release) that stopped people publishing reviews - this arguably killed the game's publicity.
- APB changed over 5 years from being originally planned for the XBox and ending up being
Game Development (Score:4, Insightful)
So the game companies are beginning to realize that, although they are a game company and hire a lot of young guys who get into programming because they took some video game design courses, they still have be a functioning business to survive...interesting!
I tell my kids that video game development is a good entry into software development because the two should be indistinguishable. Writing code for WoW shouldn't really be much different than writing code for Microsoft Office. The problem I've noticed is people that choose video game development don't think they are in the business of making software and thus don't follow the established business rules that work for any type of software.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming there'll be a next generation, of course, which is a pretty huge assumption for this very reason and a number of others.
I predict that the next revolution in gaming will come from AI-directed procedural generation of content on the fly; not only does it lower development costs a lot, but it'll also allow truly open-ended gameworlds.
Re: (Score:2)
I predict that the next revolution in gaming will come from AI-directed procedural generation of content on the fly
That is probably correct, as far as the use of procedural generation goes. I'm not so sure if it will always be on the fly, however. Maybe we will see a generation of games that say "start me now and wait five hours while I build the game world". Or the developer studio will do the generating inhouse and just ship a stack of DVDs.
Either way, the makes of game consoles might need to upgrade their memory sizes a lot to handle the resulting flood of data ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
CEO making $75,000 a year? I'm a tech-writer/instructional designer and I get paid more than that.
I don't that the guy who writes the user manual and develops the story line for the tutorial (me) should make more than the guy in charge of everybody, sorry.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Further analysis (was:Translation) (Score:2)
Rank and file employees are now expected to work more unpaid overtime to "deliver more value" for the share holders.