EA's pay to win future

  • Guest, it's time once again for the hotly contested and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and fill out your bracket!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Once again, only you can decide!

Sean_sl

shitlord
4,735
11
1. Witcher 2. It cost less than $10M to make and that includes the development of an entirely new engine. Pretty sure not one person has ever said anything about shitty textures or bad graphics in relation to that game, considering that it can still make even the most powerful PCs today struggle when all the bells and whistles are turned on.
Yeah, the Witcher 2 is absolutely gorgeous on both PCs and consoles. The 10 million cost is pretty amazing compared to what other Western developers spend, especially considering how much content is in the game. I'm guessing that there are some really bad practices and inefficient stuff driving up game costs and who knows what kind of shenanigans with American management salaries. Not to mention the absurd 50 million dollar marketing campaigns.

The next generation should actually help bring costs down, despite some people like EA saying that game costs will skyrocket. Take-Two actually said that they think games will cost less to make. Both of the upcoming consoles being X86 architecture is going to be a huge boon when it comes to porting and QA, especially if the X720 gets as close to the PS4 specs as possible. Not having to do a ton of work in scaling stuff down and forcing it through the pathetic RAM and slow busses should help too. High resolution textures won't be a big deal to produce, since artists have already been producing them that way to begin with and then just compressing them.

There's not actually anything about the systems (or at least the PS4 so far) that indicates that games will magically be insanely more expensive to produce compared to the current generation.
 

Cor_sl

shitlord
487
0
Sure, but it's still going to be agoodsuccess, just not a "holy shit" success.
Right, which is what I said when I said the 3ds will be a 'tepid success', at best.

Nintendo's not even remotely in danger of doing poorly and has a shitload of money.
Nintendo is doing poorly. Their share price, which has fallen to Gamecube era levels, is proof of this -http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?...TO.BE;range=my.

Like I said, they still have the time and resources to turn things around. They need new blood running the company, though. Iwata has to go.

Their hardware numbers may fall abitfor handhelds, but their core software still sells amazingly well. To think that they are in any danger of disappearing or dying out is absurd.
They will be around - they just won't be the tour-de-force that they were last generation.

The worst case scenario for Nintendo is that they pander to their existing Nintendo fanbase. The question is: will they be happy with this? Will their shareholders?

The DS was also never about capturing the casual market either; it was about having an amazing game library. Good software sold that system and good software will sell the 3DS. The 3DS started out poorly due to bad pricing and it's recovering from that.
Brain Training and Brain Training 2 sold, combined, over 30 million copies. Nintendogs sold over 25 million. The touch generations games sold millions. Casual puzzle games sold millions.

These games were targeted and designed specifically for casual gamers. Remember those TV ads showing middle aged mums playing games on their DS's? They sold the DS to those types of gamers. Those gamers have left the Nintendo ecosystem behind and they likely won't be coming back. The 3ds sequels to those games will sell a fraction of the numbers of their DS predecessors.

The Wii U is looking to be a complete failure in contrast and I don't think them dropping out of the console business is out of the question. Nintendo putting all of their energy into their handheld division wouldn't be surprising.
Which is fine, assuming Nintendo and its shareholders are happy with being a small niche company that caters to a small niche audience with very little growth potential.

---

Two things:

1. Witcher 2. It cost less than $10M to make and that includes the development of an entirely new engine. Pretty sure not one person has ever said anything about shitty textures or bad graphics in relation to that game, considering that it can still make even the most powerful PCs today struggle when all the bells and whistles are turned on.
Cd project red were smart. They knew in advance that they wouldn't have the budget and manpower available to them that the big developers would so they created efficient development tools for their programmers and artists to use. They also benefitted by working like a lean startup. Less managers to run things poorly. And, I imagine, they had a much smaller marketing budget to work with, too. They're an example of how game dev should be done.

You also can't ignore the fact that they benefited from being based in Poland where salaries for programmers/artists etc. are significantly lower than what they are in the western world. That helps a LOT.

Edit - I think this article is relevant here;http://www.warhorsestudios.cz/index....entry=blog_007

(Interestingly, when I was in Beijing recently, I met a bunch of western game developers working at game development houses over there. While they earned approximately 1/3rd of what they used to in the western world, their quality of living was much better. Increasing numbers of companies seem to be focusing on outsourcing development abroad in a bid to reduce costs.)

The first Gears of War cost Epic $10 million to make. The third Gears of War cost them around $30 million to make. That's a huge increase in development costs in a relatively short amount of time.

2. People who use the word "entitled" in political discussions are a magical combination of pretentious and retarded. People who use it when talking about fucking videogames are infinitely worse.
Thanks!

Look - I think a lot of complaints about pricing by gamers are fuelled by a lack of knowledge of the industry. It's in dire straits right now and, by all accounts, it doesn't look like things will change massively any time soon.

Games are cheaper now than ever before yet people still complain about how expensive and overpriced they are.

If entitled isn't the right word to use, what is?
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
I remember the 90's and PC gaming. The thing about those games was that, yes they were more expensive, but you didn't buy very many per year. They were developed with the idea in mind that you'd be playing this game for months. Or at least a month.

That's changed a lot with tech getting so much better. If you looked at the estimated lifespan of the title now vs. then it would probably be a more accurate reflection than just the pricetag.

Sure, Civ(1,2,3) were expensive. But you knew you were gonna be playing that thing for a year. Now you rent a game at blockbuster and beat it over the weekend. I'm not complaining about that. That's fine. I'd pay 90 bucks for Civ6, I'd pay a hundred bucks for "DA3: We promise this one isn't a cashgrab" edition or "Fallout 4: Fuck you in the eye with mutant zombie alien radscorpions" Edition.

Much less willing to do that for the newest iteration of an action movie where you point at where he shoots. I see nothing "spoiled" or "entitled" about the viewpoint. The developers can't have it both ways either. They're producing a different type of game than they used to. Their games cost more, and last less. So it's kinda fucked up.

Not that I'm advocating for a return to EGA graphics. I mean, jesus. the 90's saw more than it's fair share of shitty games WITH shitty graphics as well.
 

Zaphid

Trakanon Raider
5,862
294
I think the market has already changed for PC, depending on how indie friendly will Ps4 be, we might see one of the titans fall, simply because most of the hardcore audience has no need to play a game with budgets comparable to countries. Major developers are too big to keep up with the market and they can't cut down the overhead costs. I mean, how much has Dota 2, LoL, Minecraft, Mark of the Ninja, FTL, cost? Those games aren't made by hundreds of people... Games need more creative freedom and they aren't getting it at major distributors, look how much money are people throwing at guys who went with "Remember those games that rank in your top 10?, gives us some money and we will have a crack at it again." I'm still baffled how many people don't understand that hiring more people/throwing money at projects doesn't necessarily make it happen faster or the outcome better.

Europe has had quite a few "big" games done by relatively small teams - Gothic, Divine Divinity, Mafia, Serious Sam, Witcher 2...
 

Caeden

Silver Baronet of the Realm
7,340
11,820
Call of Duty and Madden are not a case study for the entire industry and every publisher and developer. Most of them arenotlike that. See my post above, last year was fucking amazing for new IPs, new ideas, and old IPs going in new directions. Anyone who spouts the "everything is the same every year" bullshit doesn't actually play shit for video games and isextremelyignorant.
I get that there have been great games on consoles lately. That said, they usually aren't the big sellers right? Looking through my family amd friends about every guy owns at least a 360 or a ps3, but me and one other kid are the only ones that own beyond sports games and FPS of the Month.

My point is if consoles died, those great games would still be there for us on PC and probably get near the same sells.

My point was simply about who owns the vast majority of consoles.
 

Caliane

Golden Baronet of the Realm
14,425
9,802
Witcher 2 really was only $10m?
Where are you getting that number? That is pretty remarkably low.


Looking at a neogaf thread right now about Crysis 3. "triple Crysis 1 budget" Crysis 1 was $22m. So around $66m. Fucking crazy.
 

Caliane

Golden Baronet of the Realm
14,425
9,802
I think some companies need to get better control of development costs. I know they rise, but to some extent you get some economies of scale. Is it a case of everyone spending money a la Bioware for SWTOR? Should we not be stagnated to some degree? Voice, HD, etc? Seems that cost should be highest at the start with new hardware gen then drop considerably. I admit I'm not a programmer, but I did work in developing mechanical technology components and that's how it went for us.

That said, do people not remember the costs of SNES carts?!? Some were fucking high and the $19.99 market didn't really fucking exist. $79.99 is probably a great price for some games with inflation. Just be judicious and don't buy shit or have some fucking patience for the price to drop.
A significant part of that cost was the ram. there is a reason we swapped off carts. 10c CD's and DVD's vs $40 of ram/chips


Another aspect people overlook in the comparisons then and now is both increased overall sales, and increased competition.
The increased sales aspect is what has kept the pricing at 50-60.

Increased competition has seemingly been entirely overlooked by a large portion of the industry. Although, that is exactly what the F2P "revolution" is addressing.
If a person spends 30/month on games on average. Its generally an all or nothing. F2P/a la cart divides it up. Three different games might get 10/month from that 1 guy, that would have previously only given to 1 game.
So now, being that Single AAA #1 game that gets all the cash, while everyone else gets nothing. Its not as important. You can now focus on specific elements that might attract players. Being #1 in that old model was EVERYTHING. So more and more cash and advertising was getting dumped in to make sure your game was #1 for those 3 months post release. And you only had 3 months before your game was forgotten. and then next big thing is out.

F2P is really better for then AND us the consumer. We can vote with our wallets quite literally. Look at Diablo3 and PoE. Tricked into spending the money for D3. (man, I want that back.) While PoE, could try it. play it, and spend as much as I wanted on it. Lol, Dota2, HoN. Etc. Again, I like LoL best, and it got my money.
We spend on money on which game we like most, not which tricked us into buying it with the best marketing campaign. And the Devs also don't get paid by Metacritic benchmarks, or any bullshit like that. Again, they make more money the better the game is.

Granted there is the danger of the skinnerbox... Look at puzzles and dragons thread. Game is just build on, gambling for rewards.
 

Sean_sl

shitlord
4,735
11
I get that there have been great games on consoles lately. That said, they usually aren't the big sellers right?
They actually were. Assassin's Creed 3 sold over 12 million copies, a huge success. Far Cry 3 has sold 4.5 million (released in December) and Ubisoft said that's much higher than expected. Both games took huge deviations from their formulas. The Walking Dead game has sold more than 8.5 million episodes. Journey broke PSN sales records. Dragon's Dogma sold a million units in a month, amazing for a brand new Capcom RPG, and they're expanding the franchise. All of the new IPs and sequels that took risks did great.

And no, if consoles died not everyone who played those games would still be around. That's such an asinine statement. Consoles make up the bulk of all games sales, no matter the genre.
 

Seananigans

Honorary Shit-PhD
<Gold Donor>
11,777
28,480
What you consider a risk isn't what most people would consider a risk, apparently.
 

Caeden

Silver Baronet of the Realm
7,340
11,820
Other than Journey, I'm not sure I'd call any of those a risk. A risk to me is Shadows of the Colossus. Neither AC3 or FC3 took that level of risk.

I do admit those sales are pretty awesome though.

Oh well, at this point maybe game devs do need to "work smarter". I hate that cliche.
 

Caliane

Golden Baronet of the Realm
14,425
9,802
you seem to be moving the bar.

Why does a great game need to be a risk?