You get more stuff if more people preorder. That's awesome.
Or they could just give everyone who pre-purchased all the stuff that's in the first two tiers (the third is a separate game), seeing as how it has already been created and implemented.
I'm filing it in the "dumb idea" cabinet.
It's an interesting experiment to incentivize preorders for a game in a niche genre. If it gets people to pull their friends in for a preorder, it's a win for everyone.
Not to mention that the preorder bonuses involved mean that Firaxis can guarantee they're releasing profitable preorder items. There's no guesswork involved, because they know exactly where the threshold is for preorders in order to maintain a good profit margin while still giving things away. Plus, since when is the potential of giving away something like Civ 5 for free with a preorder a "dumb idea"? Firaxis does things this way and there's no debating whether or not the tactic would've been beneficial; games aren't actually free to make, so they can't just randomly give away great free stuff without being assured they'll make more than they give away.
This idea is basically the epitome of having your cake and eating it too, for both the devs and the consumers.
It sounds like a bad idea to me because the pessimist in me is saying "I get jacked out of content because nobody else decided to preorder".
I am not a fan of the whole preorder bonus shit we've currently got going on, but at least it requires my active participation and is mostly all on me. If I want the bonus level/character/weapons, then I have to go preorder the game at XXXX retailer. With this new system, I preorder the game, and now I have to sit and hope enough people do the same, otherwise I get nothing. You're basically putting the opportunity to get the bonus completely out of my hands. And that just sounds like a bad idea to me.
edit: This just popped into my head. It reminds me of that Vic Ireland kickstarter a few months back. Where they announced they were going to port the game over regardless, but the kickstarter was for added benefits, like extensive bug tests and maybe VA acting and stuff. Essentially a superior game. Except that read to me as "Donate to this kickstarter, or instead of the cool version we have planned, you just get the tard version".
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Am I old, or does anyone else remember David Crane? He was one of the hotshot programmers for Atari who chafed under all the corporate restrictions and formed Activision in order to make more creative games (oh, the modern irony). Anyway, he's best known for Pitfall, and he wanted to make a sequel. So, he turned to Kickstarter, and, well...
Convinced that the world wanted him to "go back to the jungle" and make another game like Pitfall!, Crane put together a small, independent team, drafted up a partial design for a new 2D platformer that brings to mind the old days but utilizes modern day technology (it's being made in Unity), and launched a Kickstarter campaign seeking $900,000.
It's not going well. With only 8 days to go, the game has drawn just over $21,000 in funding, and has caused quite a stir among critics.
"Everyone turned against me as soon as they saw [the price]," Crane says.
Commenters complained that Crane's asking fee is too high for a game that hasn't even been properly prototyped yet -- something Crane is quick to point out is intentional, as he's hoping to get his backers involved directly in the design process.
"They look at my project and say, you're asking way too much money. And I say, do you have any idea how much it takes to make a game?" he asks.
Crane's vision is for backers fund what he specifies as "professional" development -- a high quality game by a seasoned designer with an established fanbase, something a little more high shelf than the lower-cost indie games he'd been seeing.
"I had people telling me that I was ruining Kickstarter for indie developers by asking for that amount of money," he says.
"I've proven that I can make games that are very marketable. So I choose to do larger, professional development projects rather than little tiny things just to get myself published."
Crane blames the lack of enthusiasm for his campaign on what he sees as a lack of vision among his critics, saying that while there are a lot of different views as to what the strengths of the platform are, it seems limiting when it comes to higher budget productions.
"It's just amazing how there is no vision of what Kickstarter is supposed to be," he says. "People won't let go of what they think it is."
I know we're not supposed to talk about Kickstarters just because they're Kickstarters, but I find it very interesting that an industry vet decided to go big because, well, he was an industry vet and get shut down because of the high price.
Wasteland 2 also was a vet asking for $900k so I'm not sure that is why Pitfall was shot down. That said, a million is a lot of money on Kickstarter and you better have a great proposal if that's what you are going to ask for.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
It comes down to expectations being fickle and not necessarily grounded in actual man-months, but $900k seems easier to imagine with a big open western-style RPG vs... some sort of Pitfall sequel.
See, up-ports get people really excited about your platform and get them interested in purchasing the hardware.
Down-ports just make people go:
"Bwuh? I have the superior version already!"
That is not the reaction you want to face from your prospective audience.
Ayup!
So in response to that SCEA made companies change a significant portion of the game for the PSP. So what did the companies that got by this do? Just add an extra character or three or a poorly done new level so the only companies who complied with it were ones releasing the same game on an inferior platform games while this same rule turned away games people would actually like to play from the PSX era like Tales of Eternia and BoF III!
See, up-ports get people really excited about your platform and get them interested in purchasing the hardware.
Down-ports just make people go:
"Bwuh? I have the superior version already!"
That is not the reaction you want to face from your prospective audience.
Ayup!
So in response to that SCEA made companies change a significant portion of the game for the PSP. So what did the companies that got by this do? Just add an extra character or three or a poorly done new level so the only companies who complied with it were ones releasing the same game on an inferior platform games while this same rule turned away games people would actually like to play from the PSX era like Tales of Eternia and BoF III!
Luckily they dropped that rule later in the PSP's life. Not that it did a lot of good.
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
HAIL HYDRA
0
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
You get more stuff if more people preorder. That's awesome.
Or they could just give everyone who pre-purchased all the stuff that's in the first two tiers (the third is a separate game), seeing as how it has already been created and implemented.
I'm filing it in the "dumb idea" cabinet.
It's an interesting experiment to incentivize preorders for a game in a niche genre. If it gets people to pull their friends in for a preorder, it's a win for everyone.
Not to mention that the preorder bonuses involved mean that Firaxis can guarantee they're releasing profitable preorder items. There's no guesswork involved, because they know exactly where the threshold is for preorders in order to maintain a good profit margin while still giving things away. Plus, since when is the potential of giving away something like Civ 5 for free with a preorder a "dumb idea"? Firaxis does things this way and there's no debating whether or not the tactic would've been beneficial; games aren't actually free to make, so they can't just randomly give away great free stuff without being assured they'll make more than they give away.
This idea is basically the epitome of having your cake and eating it too, for both the devs and the consumers.
It sounds like a bad idea to me because the pessimist in me is saying "I get jacked out of content because nobody else decided to preorder".
I am not a fan of the whole preorder bonus shit we've currently got going on, but at least it requires my active participation and is mostly all on me. If I want the bonus level/character/weapons, then I have to go preorder the game at XXXX retailer. With this new system, I preorder the game, and now I have to sit and hope enough people do the same, otherwise I get nothing. You're basically putting the opportunity to get the bonus completely out of my hands. And that just sounds like a bad idea to me.
edit: This just popped into my head. It reminds me of that Vic Ireland kickstarter a few months back. Where they announced they were going to port the game over regardless, but the kickstarter was for added benefits, like extensive bug tests and maybe VA acting and stuff. Essentially a superior game. Except that read to me as "Donate to this kickstarter, or instead of the cool version we have planned, you just get the tard version".
To me, it looks like a good way to show people that enough preorders will also net them a free copy of Civ 5, which is the only thing really relevant in this case. The first set of stuff was always going to get unlocked anyway, so that's your usual preorder bonus stuff. I couldn't care less about the hats, but they're a mild incentive to get people to spread the word. But Civ 5 for free? That means being sure that enough preorders are in place that offering that as a preorder bonus won't be a loss of money. Basically, it's Firaxis giving a free, great game away for no other reason than another great game has a lot of preorders.
Firaxis is starting out with the base game, then giving a free bonus because more people bought the game, then giving another bonus because more people bought the game, and then giving a third awesome bonus simply because a lot of people bought that game. And Civ 5 is a full game, not just random bonus items, so giving that away means actual costs involved. Other people buying things is getting me free stuff and who could object to that?
You get more stuff if more people preorder. That's awesome.
Or they could just give everyone who pre-purchased all the stuff that's in the first two tiers (the third is a separate game), seeing as how it has already been created and implemented.
I'm filing it in the "dumb idea" cabinet.
It's an interesting experiment to incentivize preorders for a game in a niche genre. If it gets people to pull their friends in for a preorder, it's a win for everyone.
Not to mention that the preorder bonuses involved mean that Firaxis can guarantee they're releasing profitable preorder items. There's no guesswork involved, because they know exactly where the threshold is for preorders in order to maintain a good profit margin while still giving things away. Plus, since when is the potential of giving away something like Civ 5 for free with a preorder a "dumb idea"? Firaxis does things this way and there's no debating whether or not the tactic would've been beneficial; games aren't actually free to make, so they can't just randomly give away great free stuff without being assured they'll make more than they give away.
This idea is basically the epitome of having your cake and eating it too, for both the devs and the consumers.
It sounds like a bad idea to me because the pessimist in me is saying "I get jacked out of content because nobody else decided to preorder".
I am not a fan of the whole preorder bonus shit we've currently got going on, but at least it requires my active participation and is mostly all on me. If I want the bonus level/character/weapons, then I have to go preorder the game at XXXX retailer. With this new system, I preorder the game, and now I have to sit and hope enough people do the same, otherwise I get nothing. You're basically putting the opportunity to get the bonus completely out of my hands. And that just sounds like a bad idea to me.
edit: This just popped into my head. It reminds me of that Vic Ireland kickstarter a few months back. Where they announced they were going to port the game over regardless, but the kickstarter was for added benefits, like extensive bug tests and maybe VA acting and stuff. Essentially a superior game. Except that read to me as "Donate to this kickstarter, or instead of the cool version we have planned, you just get the tard version".
To me, it looks like a good way to show people that enough preorders will also net them a free copy of Civ 5, which is the only thing really relevant in this case. The first set of stuff was always going to get unlocked anyway, so that's your usual preorder bonus stuff. I couldn't care less about the hats, but they're a mild incentive to get people to spread the word. But Civ 5 for free? That means being sure that enough preorders are in place that offering that as a preorder bonus won't be a loss of money. Basically, it's Firaxis giving a free, great game away for no other reason than another great game has a lot of preorders.
Firaxis is starting out with the base game, then giving a free bonus because more people bought the game, then giving another bonus because more people bought the game, and then giving a third awesome bonus simply because a lot of people bought that game. And Civ 5 is a full game, not just random bonus items, so giving that away means actual costs involved. Other people buying things is getting me free stuff and who could object to that?
So then consider the reaction that will happen if the game doesn't get enough preorders. "Oh, we could have given you Civilization V! But not enough people preordered, so no cake for you."
You don't dangle the carrot in front of me, but then tell me that it's up to everybody else whether or not I get it. Because in the event that it doesn't work out, I'm just going to be pissed off at you for dangling it in the first place. Getting my hopes up and then letting me down doesn't sound like a very good business strategy.
If nothing else, they get points back for not actually trying this with anything substantial. You can make the argument that the first tier was just a PR stunt and they were always going to release it. After that it's useless cosmetic shit for TF2 and a completely separate game. The game itself is wholly unaffected. But picture if those rewards were different. Like a new weapon pack and additional MP levels. Not enough people preordered, so you don't get your promised level pack. Better luck next time!
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Getting mad at them for not making enough money that they could afford to give you a game for free is silly.
I just think the overall idea is junk. And like I said, at least it's just some random game.
The point stands though. If it doesn't go through, now not only am I annoyed you bothered to get my hopes up, I'm also annoyed that it's your* fault I don't get it. That's not really the right mindset you want to foster for a bonus.
*By your I mean the collective customer base who didn't preorder the game.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
The better way to do it, from a customer service standpoint, is don't announce you will give an extra whatever if they preorder so much, and just give it as a "yay go you guys" if they do.
But that isn't going to drive sales, and goodwill is hard to value on quarterly reports, so that's not going to happen.
0
Brainiac 8Don't call me Shirley...Registered Userregular
Remember the NPDs and how Nintendo said that Kingdom Hearts: Tripple D edition sold over 180K, turns out they didn't count the Mark of Mastery Edition:
“[Nintendo’s data] does not include the Mark of Mastery edition. It does increase the 180K number significantly. It pushes the number well beyond 200k.”
Bethesda hasn't yet decided whether it will support Wii U, the publisher's PR and marketing VP Pete Hines has suggested, adding that the advent of a new generation "comes at a price".
Speaking in the latest issue of MCV, Hines said that Bethesda's "approach has been to put our games out on all of the platforms that will support them.
"So far the Wii hasn't fitted into that. Whether Wii U does down the road is TBD."
Nintendo has seemingly struggled to find third-party support for Wii U. Yesterday, VideoGamer.com revealed that Ubisoft had put its Wii U version of Ghost Recon Online on hold.
But regardless of whether Bethesda decides to support Wii U or not, the publisher thinks that "there is still plenty [it is] able to do" on the current generation of consoles.
"I don't think the current generation of consoles are holding us back," Hines continued. There is still plenty that we are able to do visually, technically and from a story-telling standpoint. And there's this huge built-in audience now".
Hines thinks that the jump to next-generation consoles could lead to "problems", however.
"For me the problems with new consoles are two-fold," he added. "The developers are trying to hit a moving technical target, because the platforms are being built. A new console doesn't just show up a year before launch and is exactly what it will be when it comes out.
"It moves and iterates along the way. And introducing something like that to games that are in development is always a bit tricky. And that is obviously an element of risk."
Hines is also concerned that the relatively few amount of people who jump onto next-generation consoles initially will "divide your audience".
"The second point is that your install base always starts at zero," he continued. "Then it comes out and suddenly a certain number of people buy it but it won't be the same number as the current gen. So you have divided your audience.
"It's then a case of: Are we just making it for the next gen? Or next gen and current gen? And how many people from the current gen that I'm targeting have moved over to the next gen? It does complicate things a little bit.
"Obviously the changes they are going to make technologically, in terms of the things we will be able to do, are exciting. But it comes at a price."
Nintendo Console Codes
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
Bethesda hasn't yet decided whether it will support Wii U, the publisher's PR and marketing VP Pete Hines has suggested, adding that the advent of a new generation "comes at a price".
Speaking in the latest issue of MCV, Hines said that Bethesda's "approach has been to put our games out on all of the platforms that will support them.
"So far the Wii hasn't fitted into that. Whether Wii U does down the road is TBD."
Nintendo has seemingly struggled to find third-party support for Wii U. Yesterday, VideoGamer.com revealed that Ubisoft had put its Wii U version of Ghost Recon Online on hold.
But regardless of whether Bethesda decides to support Wii U or not, the publisher thinks that "there is still plenty [it is] able to do" on the current generation of consoles.
"I don't think the current generation of consoles are holding us back," Hines continued. There is still plenty that we are able to do visually, technically and from a story-telling standpoint. And there's this huge built-in audience now".
Hines thinks that the jump to next-generation consoles could lead to "problems", however.
"For me the problems with new consoles are two-fold," he added. "The developers are trying to hit a moving technical target, because the platforms are being built. A new console doesn't just show up a year before launch and is exactly what it will be when it comes out.
"It moves and iterates along the way. And introducing something like that to games that are in development is always a bit tricky. And that is obviously an element of risk."
Hines is also concerned that the relatively few amount of people who jump onto next-generation consoles initially will "divide your audience".
"The second point is that your install base always starts at zero," he continued. "Then it comes out and suddenly a certain number of people buy it but it won't be the same number as the current gen. So you have divided your audience.
"It's then a case of: Are we just making it for the next gen? Or next gen and current gen? And how many people from the current gen that I'm targeting have moved over to the next gen? It does complicate things a little bit.
"Obviously the changes they are going to make technologically, in terms of the things we will be able to do, are exciting. But it comes at a price."
I'm sure the fact that Nintendo doesn't really do patches also has a slight effect on their decision. Can you imagine Bethesda having to get their game right on the first go?
I kid of course. But still... heh.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
I'm getting the feeling most companies are eyeballing the coming "next generation" with a good mix of apathy and fear. Nobody is excited.
What are EA and Activision's positions on it? If anyone would have a plan in place to deal with new consoles, it would be those two, but I don't get the feeling they're that into the idea either.
I wonder if more than a few devs hope sony and microsoft quietly push their plans back however many years it takes the economy to catch up. Which won't happen of course, but I wonder how many.
0
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Bethesda hasn't yet decided whether it will support Wii U, the publisher's PR and marketing VP Pete Hines has suggested, adding that the advent of a new generation "comes at a price".
Speaking in the latest issue of MCV, Hines said that Bethesda's "approach has been to put our games out on all of the platforms that will support them.
"So far the Wii hasn't fitted into that. Whether Wii U does down the road is TBD."
Nintendo has seemingly struggled to find third-party support for Wii U. Yesterday, VideoGamer.com revealed that Ubisoft had put its Wii U version of Ghost Recon Online on hold.
But regardless of whether Bethesda decides to support Wii U or not, the publisher thinks that "there is still plenty [it is] able to do" on the current generation of consoles.
"I don't think the current generation of consoles are holding us back," Hines continued. There is still plenty that we are able to do visually, technically and from a story-telling standpoint. And there's this huge built-in audience now".
Hines thinks that the jump to next-generation consoles could lead to "problems", however.
"For me the problems with new consoles are two-fold," he added. "The developers are trying to hit a moving technical target, because the platforms are being built. A new console doesn't just show up a year before launch and is exactly what it will be when it comes out.
"It moves and iterates along the way. And introducing something like that to games that are in development is always a bit tricky. And that is obviously an element of risk."
Hines is also concerned that the relatively few amount of people who jump onto next-generation consoles initially will "divide your audience".
"The second point is that your install base always starts at zero," he continued. "Then it comes out and suddenly a certain number of people buy it but it won't be the same number as the current gen. So you have divided your audience.
"It's then a case of: Are we just making it for the next gen? Or next gen and current gen? And how many people from the current gen that I'm targeting have moved over to the next gen? It does complicate things a little bit.
"Obviously the changes they are going to make technologically, in terms of the things we will be able to do, are exciting. But it comes at a price."
I like this and hate this. Let me start with the positive. I think it's pretty great that a developer - and a pretty major one at that - has stepped forward to say, "How do you expect us to develop for the next gen when it's still being built?" It always bothered me when EA or Activision or whoever else say, "WE'RE ALREADY DEVELOPING FOR NEXT GEN!" like some flaccid attempt to garner hype. If they are developing, they're working on hypotheticals, and when the actual devkits are available and hardware is set, now they play the game of going through all the work developed and restructuring it to work properly, as well as cutting back or - worse - building up graphic / processing assets that were wrongly estimated. It's a waste of time and money. So Bethesda saying it's safer to play to what's here and now? Well done. That's smart.
Algertman's vitriol aside, there is a point regarding Bethesda's buggy engine. Building a game on it for a non-existent platform is something that even Bethesda realizes is dumb.
Now, the part of this that I hate is that he doesn't elaborate on why the Wii U isn't getting Bethesda support (yet). There's two veiled reasons behind this, and it could be both. The first is that people may be thinking Nintendo's success the last ten years was a fluke of some sort and they don't want to "waste" time and money developing for an "underperforming" piece of hardware (which is funny and ironic considering Sony's performance and reputation). The other reason, which is probably more likely, is, "bad graphics." Wii U matches current gen but doesn't take things to the next gen. And for developers to treat graphics as everything holy irritates me. Then again, this is Bethesda, who since Oblivion has been beholden to the expectation of producing super-graphics-games. That it's expected wholly of them is stupid, and that they play to that expectation is doubly stupid.
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Really...if I was to honestly dissect the article this is what I get.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
More likely it's just they're in a sweet spot right now, and of the people that *might* benefit from a generational leap, they aren't on the list.
Better to wait until a new console has an install base. It's not like people are all of a sudden going to stop buying for 360/PS3/PC because a new nintendo came out. Unless you are reasonably sure it's going to be a smash hit, trying to get in at launch can backfire horribly. You either become one of those games that sell like hotcakes regardless of quality, or people forget you exist.
In an age where one outright big-budget flop craters a whole studio, all-or-nothing are not the kind of bets you want to be involved in.
The problem with this wait and see approach 3rd party developers love to take on Nintendo hardware is that the result will always be the same. It doesn't really matter if the Wii U ends up being a big hit because by the time we know that there's an install base there won't be an audience for Bethesda's games on that system. If they actually cared to get on board right at the start they might help establish the Wii U as a platform that also has their kinds of games. But they won't and things will never change.
Really...if I was to honestly dissect the article this is what I get.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
I got that too. Even if they could get a base on the WiiU, would it be worth it? What happens if the other new systems are much more powerful, as they were last gen. Obviously Bethesda is going to focus on the already large base they have on them + PC. In that case Bethesda has spent needless time and money working with a system they're then going to ignore. Unless people really want another Morrowind for the Xbox or the Wii CoD games.
I read the news a bit earlier. I've got a "2 sides of the coin" feeling going on, much like Henroid. It's logical and astute reasoning for a publisher to wait and see if a platform is viable before devoting resources which they cannot earn back, whether it be porting or developing new games entirely.
Of course, that goes out the window when you figure many publishers are going to probably be there Day-and-Date on the next Xbox.
EDIT: As to the question of whether it's worth it or not... uh, yeah, it should be. This is where I shake my head sometimes at publishers. You bring your titles to the platform in order to build up a healthy base for the next 5-6 years, because that's where your focus will have to be. Opportunity doesn't knock twice.
V Faction on
Nintendo Network ID: V-Faction | XBL: V Faction | Steam | 3DS: 3136 - 6603 - 1330 PokemonWhite Friend Code: 0046-2121-0723/White2 Friend Code: 0519-5126-2990
"Did ya hear the one about the mussel that wanted to purchase Valve? Seems like the bivalve had a juicy offer on the table but the company flat-out refused and decided to immediately clam up!"
That's the trick though, isn't it? You judge whether to take the plunge based on who else is going in with you.
And maybe I'm not frequenting the right places but the only game I know being developed that I care about at all is that zombie one. And I'm not going to buy a system just for that. And that one isn't even a launch title is it? It's being released in the first year, but not at launch.
Unless the launch window has reaaaaaaally gotten stretched. (which I'd make an argument it has, at least as far as PR has gone)
Ubisoft must have wizards working for them, then. They seem to have the knowledge and foresight that many don't, unafraid to release their biggest holiday release, about 3 exlusives (I think, maybe more), and go HAM into launch support. Except Farcry, still waiting on that. Constrast that with others who aren't even ready to bring out games that are releasing next year (i.e. not even done with the games) and it's almost crazy.
Nintendo Network ID: V-Faction | XBL: V Faction | Steam | 3DS: 3136 - 6603 - 1330 PokemonWhite Friend Code: 0046-2121-0723/White2 Friend Code: 0519-5126-2990
"Did ya hear the one about the mussel that wanted to purchase Valve? Seems like the bivalve had a juicy offer on the table but the company flat-out refused and decided to immediately clam up!"
Wasn't aware of that, I literally follow zero things they do as far as actual games. Nothing against the company itself, they just don't release things that fit my tastes.
But that is interesting to hear. Maybe they know something everyone else doesn't?
Ubisoft know that no matter the system, they can make bank on lanuch day by owning a large percentage of the games initially available.
edit: yeah, the term "launch window" now appears to mean up to six months from launch. Infact, have we even gotten all the "launch window" games for Vita yet?
Ubisoft know that no matter the system, they can make bank on lanuch day by owning a large percentage of the games initially available.
edit: yeah, the term "launch window" now appears to mean up to six months from launch. Infact, have we even gotten all the "launch window" games for Vita yet?
I don't think people got any of the Vita games. [/Vita joke]
As you can see below, it's a cycle that has produced more dollars pledged to the Games category each month ($7 million) after Double Fine than the previous three years combined ($4 million):
While 47% of board game projects have been successfully funded, just 23% of video game projects have been. Video Game projects raise more money — the average successfully funded video game raises $96,000 — but more Board & Card Game projects are funded, though often on a smaller scale.
There are graphs and such so go take a look.
Has anyone hear anything about what inspired Double Fine to try Kickstarter?
Also, I wonder if any publishers are data mining Kickstarter for customer research.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Really...if I was to honestly dissect the article this is what I get.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
I got that too. Even if they could get a base on the WiiU, would it be worth it? What happens if the other new systems are much more powerful, as they were last gen. Obviously Bethesda is going to focus on the already large base they have on them + PC. In that case Bethesda has spent needless time and money working with a system they're then going to ignore. Unless people really want another Morrowind for the Xbox or the Wii CoD games.
At this point in time Bethesda or any publisher for that matter has the same base on the next MS and Sony systems as they do on the WiiU. That is to say none.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Ubisoft know that no matter the system, they can make bank on lanuch day by owning a large percentage of the games initially available.
edit: yeah, the term "launch window" now appears to mean up to six months from launch. Infact, have we even gotten all the "launch window" games for Vita yet?
It meant that with the 360 as well. Oblivion and Ghost Recon were "launch window" titles.
Posts
It sounds like a bad idea to me because the pessimist in me is saying "I get jacked out of content because nobody else decided to preorder".
I am not a fan of the whole preorder bonus shit we've currently got going on, but at least it requires my active participation and is mostly all on me. If I want the bonus level/character/weapons, then I have to go preorder the game at XXXX retailer. With this new system, I preorder the game, and now I have to sit and hope enough people do the same, otherwise I get nothing. You're basically putting the opportunity to get the bonus completely out of my hands. And that just sounds like a bad idea to me.
edit: This just popped into my head. It reminds me of that Vic Ireland kickstarter a few months back. Where they announced they were going to port the game over regardless, but the kickstarter was for added benefits, like extensive bug tests and maybe VA acting and stuff. Essentially a superior game. Except that read to me as "Donate to this kickstarter, or instead of the cool version we have planned, you just get the tard version".
Wasteland 2 also was a vet asking for $900k so I'm not sure that is why Pitfall was shot down. That said, a million is a lot of money on Kickstarter and you better have a great proposal if that's what you are going to ask for.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Ayup!
So in response to that SCEA made companies change a significant portion of the game for the PSP. So what did the companies that got by this do? Just add an extra character or three or a poorly done new level so the only companies who complied with it were ones releasing the same game on an inferior platform games while this same rule turned away games people would actually like to play from the PSX era like Tales of Eternia and BoF III!
Luckily they dropped that rule later in the PSP's life. Not that it did a lot of good.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
To me, it looks like a good way to show people that enough preorders will also net them a free copy of Civ 5, which is the only thing really relevant in this case. The first set of stuff was always going to get unlocked anyway, so that's your usual preorder bonus stuff. I couldn't care less about the hats, but they're a mild incentive to get people to spread the word. But Civ 5 for free? That means being sure that enough preorders are in place that offering that as a preorder bonus won't be a loss of money. Basically, it's Firaxis giving a free, great game away for no other reason than another great game has a lot of preorders.
Firaxis is starting out with the base game, then giving a free bonus because more people bought the game, then giving another bonus because more people bought the game, and then giving a third awesome bonus simply because a lot of people bought that game. And Civ 5 is a full game, not just random bonus items, so giving that away means actual costs involved. Other people buying things is getting me free stuff and who could object to that?
So then consider the reaction that will happen if the game doesn't get enough preorders. "Oh, we could have given you Civilization V! But not enough people preordered, so no cake for you."
You don't dangle the carrot in front of me, but then tell me that it's up to everybody else whether or not I get it. Because in the event that it doesn't work out, I'm just going to be pissed off at you for dangling it in the first place. Getting my hopes up and then letting me down doesn't sound like a very good business strategy.
If nothing else, they get points back for not actually trying this with anything substantial. You can make the argument that the first tier was just a PR stunt and they were always going to release it. After that it's useless cosmetic shit for TF2 and a completely separate game. The game itself is wholly unaffected. But picture if those rewards were different. Like a new weapon pack and additional MP levels. Not enough people preordered, so you don't get your promised level pack. Better luck next time!
I just think the overall idea is junk. And like I said, at least it's just some random game.
The point stands though. If it doesn't go through, now not only am I annoyed you bothered to get my hopes up, I'm also annoyed that it's your* fault I don't get it. That's not really the right mindset you want to foster for a bonus.
*By your I mean the collective customer base who didn't preorder the game.
But that isn't going to drive sales, and goodwill is hard to value on quarterly reports, so that's not going to happen.
http://www.siliconera.com/2012/09/07/actually-kingdom-hearts-3d-sold-over-200000-copies-in-the-u-s/
Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
PSN - Brainiac_8
Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
Add me!
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I'm sure the fact that Nintendo doesn't really do patches also has a slight effect on their decision. Can you imagine Bethesda having to get their game right on the first go?
I kid of course. But still... heh.
Yeah, nobody should care about the company that has put out some of the best selling games in the last few years. Nobody at all...
Bethesda deciding to support the platform would be huge for the Wii U, though it wouldn't exactly be back-breaking if they don't.
New tech makes things easier, not harder (especially when the old tech in question is the PS3 which is notoriously hard to program for).
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
Expect, no. Hope, yes.
This Bethesda you are talking about.
Basically this, yeah.
What are EA and Activision's positions on it? If anyone would have a plan in place to deal with new consoles, it would be those two, but I don't get the feeling they're that into the idea either.
I wonder if more than a few devs hope sony and microsoft quietly push their plans back however many years it takes the economy to catch up. Which won't happen of course, but I wonder how many.
I like this and hate this. Let me start with the positive. I think it's pretty great that a developer - and a pretty major one at that - has stepped forward to say, "How do you expect us to develop for the next gen when it's still being built?" It always bothered me when EA or Activision or whoever else say, "WE'RE ALREADY DEVELOPING FOR NEXT GEN!" like some flaccid attempt to garner hype. If they are developing, they're working on hypotheticals, and when the actual devkits are available and hardware is set, now they play the game of going through all the work developed and restructuring it to work properly, as well as cutting back or - worse - building up graphic / processing assets that were wrongly estimated. It's a waste of time and money. So Bethesda saying it's safer to play to what's here and now? Well done. That's smart.
Algertman's vitriol aside, there is a point regarding Bethesda's buggy engine. Building a game on it for a non-existent platform is something that even Bethesda realizes is dumb.
Now, the part of this that I hate is that he doesn't elaborate on why the Wii U isn't getting Bethesda support (yet). There's two veiled reasons behind this, and it could be both. The first is that people may be thinking Nintendo's success the last ten years was a fluke of some sort and they don't want to "waste" time and money developing for an "underperforming" piece of hardware (which is funny and ironic considering Sony's performance and reputation). The other reason, which is probably more likely, is, "bad graphics." Wii U matches current gen but doesn't take things to the next gen. And for developers to treat graphics as everything holy irritates me. Then again, this is Bethesda, who since Oblivion has been beholden to the expectation of producing super-graphics-games. That it's expected wholly of them is stupid, and that they play to that expectation is doubly stupid.
"We're going to keep developing for the 360/PS3 right now and wait to see how the system specs for the new Xbox/Playstation turn out."
Better to wait until a new console has an install base. It's not like people are all of a sudden going to stop buying for 360/PS3/PC because a new nintendo came out. Unless you are reasonably sure it's going to be a smash hit, trying to get in at launch can backfire horribly. You either become one of those games that sell like hotcakes regardless of quality, or people forget you exist.
In an age where one outright big-budget flop craters a whole studio, all-or-nothing are not the kind of bets you want to be involved in.
Mega Man: Roll's fashion designer.
"Oh well I guess nobody is interested in Mega Man anymore, shelve the IP again!"
I got that too. Even if they could get a base on the WiiU, would it be worth it? What happens if the other new systems are much more powerful, as they were last gen. Obviously Bethesda is going to focus on the already large base they have on them + PC. In that case Bethesda has spent needless time and money working with a system they're then going to ignore. Unless people really want another Morrowind for the Xbox or the Wii CoD games.
Of course, that goes out the window when you figure many publishers are going to probably be there Day-and-Date on the next Xbox.
EDIT: As to the question of whether it's worth it or not... uh, yeah, it should be. This is where I shake my head sometimes at publishers. You bring your titles to the platform in order to build up a healthy base for the next 5-6 years, because that's where your focus will have to be. Opportunity doesn't knock twice.
Pokemon White Friend Code: 0046-2121-0723/White 2 Friend Code: 0519-5126-2990
"Did ya hear the one about the mussel that wanted to purchase Valve? Seems like the bivalve had a juicy offer on the table but the company flat-out refused and decided to immediately clam up!"
And maybe I'm not frequenting the right places but the only game I know being developed that I care about at all is that zombie one. And I'm not going to buy a system just for that. And that one isn't even a launch title is it? It's being released in the first year, but not at launch.
Unless the launch window has reaaaaaaally gotten stretched. (which I'd make an argument it has, at least as far as PR has gone)
Pokemon White Friend Code: 0046-2121-0723/White 2 Friend Code: 0519-5126-2990
"Did ya hear the one about the mussel that wanted to purchase Valve? Seems like the bivalve had a juicy offer on the table but the company flat-out refused and decided to immediately clam up!"
But that is interesting to hear. Maybe they know something everyone else doesn't?
edit: yeah, the term "launch window" now appears to mean up to six months from launch. Infact, have we even gotten all the "launch window" games for Vita yet?
I don't think people got any of the Vita games. [/Vita joke]
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Some teasing:
There are graphs and such so go take a look.
Has anyone hear anything about what inspired Double Fine to try Kickstarter?
Also, I wonder if any publishers are data mining Kickstarter for customer research.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
At this point in time Bethesda or any publisher for that matter has the same base on the next MS and Sony systems as they do on the WiiU. That is to say none.
It meant that with the 360 as well. Oblivion and Ghost Recon were "launch window" titles.