Video Game News and Miscellany

[figmentPez]

That's distribution costs, though. I imagine on the development side, FF6 was significantly cheaper to produce. Art and music assets and various engines alone were probably created in-house and at a fraction of the cost. Plus, no IP licensing fees.

You cannot dismiss distribution costs with a handwave like that, because publishers couldn't. Games being on cartridges (and even distributing CDs used to be a hell of a lot more expensive than it is now) mean that production costs were inherent to making a game, period. Even smaller carts cost a considerable amount of money, and there were a lot of trade-offs made to fit even FF6 and Chrono Trigger onto the massive carts they were on. Making carts was not optional. It was a huge investment that had to be made, and one that did not scale well. Even games that were relative flops like Mirror's Edge probably still made a significant amount because they could be sold at $5 during sales. That's not an insignificant fallback.

I don't know enough about how developing a game engine worked in the SNES days worked to know if you can just dismiss the cost of developing it "in-house", but that does seem suspicious to me. I thought being able to license an engine was a cost advantage. I know there are advantages to developing an engine specifically for a game, but cost is not one of them.

As for music, some of the most iconic video game music of all time was written for SNES RPGs, and it took a lot of time and effort to create on such limited hardware. I fail to see how having a programmer spend time to not only write music, but figure out how to get the system to play that music, fit it on the cart, etc. is somehow cheaper than being able to hire a musician to write and record music with little worry about the capability of the system to be able to reproduce anything they record. Same goes for art.

And IP liscencing? REALLY? That's optional. There are a lot of AAA games that are their own IP. Arguably, an IP is a marketing cost, and there were plenty of licensed games in the SNES era. If licensing fees have gone up, that's only because the market is bigger, and companies stand to get more for investing more. If they don't think the IP is worth the brand recognition, they can make a different game.

And, with all that said, I have to ask again: If this sort of AAA game is more expensive than gamers are willing to honestly pay for, do they need to be made at all?

 

[fade]

Well, I don't speak from inexperience. I develop for a living. I can tell you how much libraries can cost from the software I write on a daily basis. They save you time, not money. I can also tell you from experience the difference between producing sprite animation and something 3D, even with those libs is like the difference between first aid and open body surgery.

 

[figmentPez]

And I still counter that manufacturing costs may have gone down, but production costs have skyrocketed. Every one of those logos at the beginning of your favorite AAA game requires a massively expensive licensing fee that's probably per-unit. Not to mention all the smaller lego brick libraries that don't get fancy above-title billing. The cost of art assets don't even approach the 8 bit sprites from 1985. Separate art teams for characters, landscapes and FX. The foley, the score, the actors. The developer teams and marketing teams are massive (and they're probably getting screwed the most--devs in that industry have zero job security). A AAA game is now a superset of a movie production, and we know how much those cost.

From what I've heard, sometimes game developers have to pay to not have the logo show up before their game, but that's just a technicality.

I've never heard indie developers complain about engine licensing fees, or art creation costs. (I've heard them complain about voice acting costs, but we all know that the bigger developers have been screwing them over, so the AAA industry hasn't been paying their fair share there, yet.) Somehow they're able to make beautiful, fun games that manage to make money.

See my last post: If AAA games are too expensive to make, why make them at all?

 

[SpecialKO]

I wasn't saying nothing else has changed, I was saying that since manufacturing and distribution costs have decreased to near-zero, the profit curve vs units sold is exponentially higher than it was.

Manufacturing and distribution was never really in the same ballpark as the actual development costs. That famous image we've all seen from years ago that breaks down where your $60 bucks goes with manufacturing and distribution costing a little over a third of that is after development costs. That's not nothing, that's still a half-again jump in per-unit revenue from a digital sale versus a physical sale, but a 50% jump per unit isn't that much when dev costs and marketing have spiraled like they have and big titles that aren't in the top 5 are selling fewer units because there are so many games out there (as well as games-as-a-service). Furthermore, while 74% of US game sales are digital now, that includes mobile. Knocking out mobile will probably push that down to around 50/50 for non-mobile titles. The digital windfall is not quite as big as folks imagine.

 

[GasBandit]

And I still counter that manufacturing costs may have gone down, but production costs have skyrocketed.... A AAA game is now a superset of a movie production, and we know how much those cost.

We're not denying that, we're saying it isn't what gets to decide what the price point is - what the market will bear is. Hence, the "AAA games must cost $200 mil to develop" mindset is self defeating. Joe consumer doesn't care how much dev costs are, he's got a budget and if you price yourself out of it, that's your mistake, not gamers being greedy.

I mean, unless you want to be the VG Dev equivalent of McLaren and only ship 3k units a year, but those units are all astonomically expensive, I guess. But that hasn't worked out too well most times it's been tried in the gaming market.[DOUBLEPOST=1511897679,1511897565][/DOUBLEPOST]

Knocking out mobile will probably push that down to around 50/50 for non-mobile titles. The digital windfall is not quite as big as folks imagine.

If that's the case, then it's a failure on the part of those not making the move to digital, and they deserve their losses.

 

[figmentPez]

Well, I don't speak from inexperience. I develop for a living. I can tell you how much libraries can cost from the software I write on a daily basis. They save you time, not money. I can also tell you from experience the difference between producing sprite animation and something 3D, even with those libs is like the difference between first aid and open body surgery.

Oh, I see you're talking about the difference between producing 3D assets compared to 2D assets, and the increasing complexity of game art in general. Not the difference between doing them in-house and licensing them. I suppose that's fair. I know it took a lot more work to to 2D work then than it does now, but I'll admit that 3D now is probably more difficult than 2D then.

So... how are the indies doing it? There are a fair number of indie developers making games in 3D.

 

[AshburnerX]

I wasn't saying nothing else has changed, I was saying that since manufacturing and distribution costs have decreased to near-zero, the profit curve vs units sold is exponentially higher than it was. Super Mario 3 sold 7 million copies in the US and was the highest selling unbundled NES game ever. Now Eidos considers 5 million copies of Tomb Raider to be a failure. Probably because of the ridiculous budgets you describe.

I agree that the lesson to be taken away here is to be smaller and leaner, because as you say - the justifiable cost of a game is not based on the expense of developing it, but on what the market will bear - and the market clearly will not bear >$60 price points, aside from a few whales.

It really seems to me that marketing costs need to drop as well. If you need a 25-50 mil marketing spectacle to sell your game, you've already lost, especially when something like Dark Souls (a moderately budgeted, medium teir title) sold millions on what effectively amounts to word of month.

As what was brought up before, the real issue is that games studies generally operate in high cost of living areas and thus need to provide higher than average wages so their employees can match a living wage., as well as buying/leasing office space in some of the most expensive places in the world. But half the charm of the entertainment industry is you get to live and work somewhere nice; I sure as fuck wouldn't want to work at a game company in Detroit, MI or Atlanta, GA if I didn't already live in one of those places, even if my wages were worth more there and I got to work on big titles.

Then again, maybe if the shareholders backed the fuck off, maybe they would need to do exploitative shit to appease them.

 

[fade]

We're not denying that, we're saying it isn't what gets to decide what the price point is - what the market will bear is. Hence, the "AAA games must cost $200 mil to develop" mindset is self defeating. Joe consumer doesn't care how much dev costs are, he's got a budget and if you price yourself out of it, that's your mistake, not gamers being greedy.

But.... that's kind of my whole point. The market won't bear either. They don't want to pay the numerical value, but they also won't pay for a title that matches the numerical value. It's a bit of a catch-22.

 

[SpecialKO]

I've never heard indie developers complain about engine licensing fees, or art creation costs. (I've heard them complain about voice acting costs, but we all know that the bigger developers have been screwing them over, so the AAA industry hasn't been paying their fair share there, yet.) Somehow they're able to make beautiful, fun games that manage to make money.

Colloquially, the "they" in your last sentence is maybe 1 in 20 indie developers, probably fewer. And the ones who really make money are much, much, much fewer.

 

[figmentPez]

The digital windfall is not quite as big as folks imagine.

Comparing Xbox One to Xbox, maybe (I'm still pretty sure manufacturing costs and shipping have dropped significantly, even since then). But comparing 1985 production costs for cartridges only, to modern production costs for discs and digitital distrubtion? There is absolutely no comparison.

 

[fade]

So... how are the indies doing it? There are a fair number of indie developers making games in 3D.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not in defense of the big guys. I'm not a fan of corporate hogwash. But.. it's a bit tough to compare to indies. I'm sure the indies are better at finding cost-cutting because they have to. But then, consider that the reason why there are cheaper paths is because the big bads laid the foundation and opened the doors. Old engines go open source, Apple supports OpenGL, etc. It's the same problem I have with Stallman and his GNU philosophy. Free is great, but without AT&T and Bell, there would be no POSIX, and thus no GNU.

 

[SpecialKO]

If that's the case, then it's a failure on the part of those not making the move to digital, and they deserve their losses.

That's not really on the publishers, that's more that a ton of console gamers still prefer to buy into the trade-in economy.

 

[GasBandit]

As what was brought up before, the real issue is that games studies generally operate in high cost of living areas and thus need to provide higher than average wages so their employees can match a living wage., as well as buying/leasing office space in some of the most expensive places in the world. But half the charm of the entertainment industry is you get to live and work somewhere nice; I sure as fuck wouldn't want to work at a game company in Detroit, MI or Atlanta, GA if I didn't already live in one of those places, even if my wages were worth more there and I got to work on big titles.

Heh, ironic that one of the games that takes up all my time these days, KF2, proudly bears the "Made In Georgia" opening logo that is on so much media these days (Georgia has MASSIVE tax breaks and such for media companies that base themselves there and pimp the state out).

But yeah, part of the problem is everyone in the tech sector these days seems to think they need to live in Silicon Valley - which is a highfalootin' way of saying San Francisco, one of the most expensive and pretentious places to live and work in the entirety of the United States. There are plenty of nice places to live or base a company that cost a third as much.

But.... that's kind of my whole point. The market won't bear either. They don't want to pay the numerical value, but they also won't pay for a title that matches the numerical value. It's a bit of a catch-22.

The market clearly will bear something. People still buy games for $60 all the time - they get unhappy when those $60 games try to turn into $150 games on the sly, though. So clearly there IS an acceptable price point. The job of the devs and publishers is to reach that price point, not try to raise it through chicanery, fraud, and subterfuge.[DOUBLEPOST=1511898459,1511898228][/DOUBLEPOST]

That's not really on the publishers, that's more that a ton of console gamers still prefer to buy into the trade-in economy.

All the more reason to drop the hoes and adzes, and come in from the fields, peasants.

Although, in interesting news, some european courts have determined that digital distributors must allow second hand sales... a sign of things to come?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2012/jul/05/eu-used-digital-games-market

 

[SpecialKO]

Comparing Xbox One to Xbox, maybe (I'm still pretty sure manufacturing costs and shipping have dropped significantly, even since then). But comparing 1985 production costs for cartridges only, to modern production costs for discs and digitital distrubtion? There is absolutely no comparison.

They also sold in aggregate far fewer cartridges in 1985, which also sold in the US at $70. This extra profit that you're thinking the game industry is keeping instead of giving back to the consumer really isn't there, except in the sense that the lower cost of discs and then full digital helped them scale their games to bigger and bigger projects.

The digital revenue that EA and the likes of which are crowing about now when they talk to investors is from MTX and DLC. FIFA Ultimate Team is practically single-handedly responsible for EA's revenue numbers.

 

[fade]

I kind of regret starting this. I don't have enough passion to keep it up. I buy my games when they hit the $5 usually, so my market will bear a pack of playing cards.

 

[figmentPez]

They also sold in aggregate far fewer cartridges in 1985, which also sold in the US at $70. This extra profit that you're thinking the game industry is keeping instead of giving back to the consumer really isn't there, except in the sense that the lower cost of discs and then full digital helped them scale their games to bigger and bigger projects.

The digital revenue that EA and the likes of which are crowing about now when they talk to investors is from MTX and DLC. FIFA Ultimate Team is practically single-handedly responsible for EA's revenue numbers.

I never said I thought they were keeping the money. I was merely pointing out exactly what you just said. The investment costs that once had to go to phsyical product have now gone to game development.

I don't doubt that making AAA games is an expensive, and at least somewhat risky, venture. However, no business venture should seek to exploit it's customers, period. There is no justification for the type of loot boxes found in SWBF2 and other games. If games "need" that to be profitable, they shouldn't be made at all, PERIOD.

 

[GasBandit]

I kind of regret starting this. I don't have enough passion to keep it up. I buy my games when they hit the $5 usually, so my market will bear a pack of playing cards.

And, assuming you mean like on Steam Sales and such, that's still more money for the dev/publisher than is going on in the physical media "trade-in" market that SpecialKO brings up. The digital distribution means that rather than buying the game used for 5-10 bucks and the dev not seeing a dime, the price comes down over time similarly but every cent still goes to the dev. Of course, as I posted, if Europe has their way, that might change as well.

 

[SpecialKO]

All the more reason to drop the hoes and adzes, and come in from the fields, peasants.

That's part of it, but it's also how so much of the US/EU PC game sales market comes from Steam event sales. AAA devs/pubs don't like relying on Steam because Steam user culture is heavily weighted towards holding on for the sales, and while smart people at devs/pubs know that people who buy at Steam-discount prices weren't going to buy at $60, not being able to rely on Steam until you drop the price to $30 or less is too much uncertainty for public companies. Console digital buyers are the only group that can be relied to pay the full tilt.

And as long as real wages are stagnant, the trade-in economy isn't changing if everything else remains equal.

Although, in interesting news, some european courts have determined that digital distributors must allow second hand sales... a sign of things to come?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2012/jul/05/eu-used-digital-games-market

That's going to be an interesting one to execute on, but publishers were going to need to leap on that grenade regardless, what with all the cryptotoken-based trading economies trying to establish themselves. Better that the publishers/platforms figure out how to make that work themselves than random start-ups who behave like banks with less oversight.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Ninja Theory got tired of dealing with publishers and their shareholders dictating what had to go into games, and decided to go out on their own. Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice was released this year (and was one of my top 10 games of the year) without any s season passes, without any dlc or loot boxes, and retails brand new at $30, and has been successful enough to prove their theory that a AAA style game can be made without all the other BS if the devs are willing. They even produced a pretty interesting documentary on how it was done, and the careful budgeting that went into making an absolutely beautiful game for relatively little budget.

 

[SpecialKO]

I love Hellblade and the studio development philosophy that went into it is exactly what we need to see more of. What's better, is that while Ninja Theory is technically independent, their model for Hellblade is one that AAA-class devs could actually do - let the game be funded from the company's own AAA-residuals warchest and keep the team very lean working on a game that says a lot without needing to add too many features. "AA" might be a better description than "indie" in their case.

 

[PatrThom]

Plus when you have a team of only a dozen or so people, it’s significantly more likely that those people actually CARE ABOUT THE GAME.

—Patrick

 

[mikerc]

Although, in interesting news, some european courts have determined that digital distributors must allow second hand sales... a sign of things to come?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2012/jul/05/eu-used-digital-games-market

Considering this "news" is 5 years old & there are still no second hand digital sales...probably not.

 

[AshburnerX]

Ninja Theory got tired of dealing with publishers and their shareholders dictating what had to go into games, and decided to go out on their own. Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice was released this year (and was one of my top 10 games of the year) without any s season passes, without any dlc or loot boxes, and retails brand new at $30, and has been successful enough to prove their theory that a AAA style game can be made without all the other BS if the devs are willing. They even produced a pretty interesting documentary on how it was done, and the careful budgeting that went into making an absolutely beautiful game for relatively little budget.

It's worth noting that 3 months out, the game is finally making money. That means any future sales are pure profit and they can discount as much as they want. I full expect Hellblade to go 20 or even 15 bucks during the Winter Sale because of this.

 

[Officer_Charon]

Ninja Theory got tired of dealing with publishers and their shareholders dictating what had to go into games, and decided to go out on their own. Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice was released this year (and was one of my top 10 games of the year) without any s season passes, without any dlc or loot boxes, and retails brand new at $30, and has been successful enough to prove their theory that a AAA style game can be made without all the other BS if the devs are willing. They even produced a pretty interesting documentary on how it was done, and the careful budgeting that went into making an absolutely beautiful game for relatively little budget.

I watched a playthrough of this on The Mighty Jingles' channel - the whole concept is ridiculously fascinating to me... having had to deal with a LARGE number of consumers, the mental health aspects of the game rang very true to me. The amount of work and research that they've done on this shows, and it might have to be acquired at some point in the not too distant future.

 

[SpecialKO]

I watched a playthrough of this on The Mighty Jingles' channel - the whole concept is ridiculously fascinating to me... having had to deal with a LARGE number of consumers, the mental health aspects of the game rang very true to me. The amount of work and research that they've done on this shows, and it might have to be acquired at some point in the not too distant future.

A word of warning that are my only critiques (and very mild, at that): the controls are very limited and punch-out-paper-bag feeling, like stripped-down, less precise Dark Souls, but it fits with the atmosphere they’re going far. Furthermore, the overall game gets real railroady, particularly with certain puzzles that require to stand in a very exacting orientation to complete them. Again, it fits the theme, and I think both of these things are deliberate, but you need to be able to roll with it.

 

[Ravenpoe]

A word of warning that are my only critiques (and very mild, at that): the controls are very limited and punch-out-paper-bag feeling, like stripped-down, less precise Dark Souls, but it fits with the atmosphere they’re going far. Furthermore, the overall game gets real railroady, particularly with certain puzzles that require to stand in a very exacting orientation to complete them. Again, it fits the theme, and I think both of these things are deliberate, but you need to be able to roll with it.

I found the combat to be very precise and fun, once you learn what to look for, and it's sparse enough that it doesn't wear out it's welcome. It does what combat is supposed to, start with you feeling overwhelmed and becoming a badass by the end. There are even some hidden game mechanics that I won't spoil that reminded me a lot of a tale of two brothers

 

[GasBandit]

EA Loses $3.1 Billion in Shareholder Value over Star Wars Battlefront 2

 

[PatrThom]

EA Loses $3.1 Billion in Shareholder Value over Star Wars Battlefront 2

EA, to shareholders: "Well, here's a nice mess you've gotten me into!"

--Patrick

 

[Hailey Knight]

EA Loses $3.1 Billion in Shareholder Value over Star Wars Battlefront 2

Okay, NOW I believe something will change.

 

[Dei]

Well, I know when *someone* will cave to buying a Switch now.

 

[bhamv3]

If you, like me, enjoy getting wet, then you may be interested to know that Subnautica's v1.0 release date has been pushed back again, this time to January 23. For those of you keeping score, this would be at least the fourth time it's been pushed back, with the total delay now exceeding one year. (It was originally meant to be released in January 2017)

Though I, personally, am completely fine with this, because I think delaying a game's release to ensure the end product is good is a perfectly cromulent practice. Plus I know the devs aren't just sitting around twiddling their thumbs, they release regular updates and progress reports, both via online channels like their forums, and through the experimental beta branch of the game on Steam.

 

[PatrThom]

If you, like me, enjoy getting wet

...and going deep.

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

If you, like me, enjoy getting wet, then you may be interest to know that Subnautica's v1.0 release date has been pushed back again, this time to January 23. For those of you keeping score, this would be at least the fourth time it's been pushed back, with the total delay now exceeding one year. (It was originally meant to be released in January 2017)

Though I, personally, am completely fine with this, because I think delaying a game's release to ensure the end product is good is a perfectly cromulent practice. Plus I know the devs aren't just sitting around twiddling their thumbs, they release regular updates and progress reports, both via online channels like their forums, and through the experimental beta branch of the game on Steam.

I mean, given that the game is early access and has been available to play for years, the 1.0 version being "release" is kind of academic at this point.

Granted, it'd be nice to have a full, functioning game, but I don't expect that out of 1.0 either

I'm still too mad about the Cyclops nerf to give it another try yet, though

 

[bhamv3]

...and going deep.

--Patrick

Damn, I missed that glaring opportunity, didn't I.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Well, I know when *someone* will cave to buying a Switch now.

Ooooooooh there's my fix.

I still need to play Shin Megami Tensei: Apocalypse on 3DS though. I keep forgetting that came out.