Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Telltale] Tales from the Borderlands - Ep.3 "Catch a Ride" out now!

11011121315

Posts

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    People need to get used to the idea of passing more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    Especially since the amount of money it takes to make an AAA game has skyrocketed since $60 was first put in place.

    Because pricing has as much or more to do with psychology as it does with a rational cost-to-effort ratio. The audience for people who will spend $100 on a boardgame is minuscule compared to the average AAA title audience, so you have to price it at a level that feels "fair" to the mass audience.

    In a world where $15 a month can buy access to millions of hours of movies, TV, and music, $60 for a 20-40 hour block of content is a big ask. Games are already the most expensive mass entertainment option, excepting vacation destinations and event tickets. That's why games are so heavy into DLC, multiplayer, and games as a service these days - the market is already soft for a single player game at the current price point.

    That's not something the industry can just push through, which is why the price has remained stable for so long.

    shoeboxjeddycB557
  • shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    People need to get used to the idea of passing more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    Especially since the amount of money it takes to make an AAA game has skyrocketed since $60 was first put in place.

    Because pricing has as much or more to do with psychology as it does with a rational cost-to-effort ratio. The audience for people who will spend $100 on a boardgame is minuscule compared to the average AAA title audience, so you have to price it at a level that feels "fair" to the mass audience.

    In a world where $15 a month can buy access to millions of hours of movies, TV, and music, $60 for a 20-40 hour block of content is a big ask. Games are already the most expensive mass entertainment option, excepting vacation destinations and event tickets. That's why games are so heavy into DLC, multiplayer, and games as a service these days - the market is already soft for a single player game at the current price point.

    That's not something the industry can just push through, which is why the price has remained stable for so long.

    People understand that concert tickets can cost $50-$2000, depending on the act. This is established. They will NOT understand why Madden costs $80 this year when it cost $60 for a decade and this version doesn't seem $20 better all the sudden.

    cB557KoopahTroopahPhillishere
  • Jeep-EepJeep-Eep Registered User regular


    Jim's autopsy of the situation. Notably called out is how their workers were treated, along with a labour JQ to come.

    jdarksun
  • KorrorKorror Registered User regular
    I would also like to mention that crunch time is not a universal thing across the game industry. I've been in the industry (mostly in mobile gaming) for 9 years at 5 different places and I've only had 1 month of crunch time. It really depends on the company and if you have deadlines that you can't control. Most of the time it's a 9-5 job like everywhere else.

    Battlenet ID: NullPointer
    Hahnsoo1
  • BigityBigity Lubbock, TXRegistered User regular
    Axen wrote: »
    People need to get used to the idea of paying more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    They are used to that idea. $60 is a starter price routinely one upped by season passes and DLC and micro transactions.

    Now if only those obscene profits were actually passed down to the Devs.

    Which a Union could help with!

    Or better agreements. Which is harder to do as a small studio as well.

    76561198017303226.png
    Axen
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    People need to get used to the idea of paying more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    They are used to that idea. $60 is a starter price routinely one upped by season passes and DLC and micro transactions.

    Raising the base price from $60 USD to something higher would make things even worse for developers and studios than they are now. A large number of people don't pay $60 USD for the base product because they wait for a sale or standard retailer post-launch price cut before buying the game, and a portion of the season passes, DLC and MTX things cover that lost profit within quarters. Though a base MSRP increase isn't really applicable to TWD because full seasons of their games ran ~$29.99 USD. I don't think even the collections went over $50 USD. But people buying games at base MSRP is pretty fickle:

    This game didn't get 99.9% on metacritic. Wait for sale.

    This game has bugs. Wait for sale.

    This game has a season pass, microtransactions, DLC and/or microtransactions. Wait for sale.

    This game is episodic and when it gets finished it'll get packaged together anyway. Wait for that release.

    This game that is not selling for $60 isn't worth its price for [subjective reason here]. Wait for sale.

    I can't afford to buy a $60 game. Wait for sale.

    Does this mean that you should blindly throw your money at full-priced games to keep the machine going, especially if you can't afford it? Well, that's your money and your decision (note: you really shouldn't buy games full price if you can't afford them). But gaming is a business and poor/weak sales will kill it, the same as any other...

    tastydonuts on
    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
    BloodySloth
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    People need to get used to the idea of paying more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    They are used to that idea. $60 is a starter price routinely one upped by season passes and DLC and micro transactions.

    Raising the base price from $60 USD to something higher would make things even worse for developers and studios than they are now. A large number of people don't pay $60 USD for the base product because they wait for a sale or standard retailer post-launch price cut before buying the game, and a portion of the season passes, DLC and MTX things cover that lost profit within quarters. Though a base MSRP increase isn't really applicable to TWD because full seasons of their games ran ~$29.99 USD. I don't think even the collections went over $50 USD. But people buying games at base MSRP is pretty fickle:

    This game didn't get 99.9% on metacritic. Wait for sale.

    This game has bugs. Wait for sale.

    This game has a season pass, microtransactions, DLC and/or microtransactions. Wait for sale.

    This game is episodic and when it gets finished it'll get packaged together anyway. Wait for that release.

    This game that is not selling for $60 isn't worth its price for [subjective reason here]. Wait for sale.

    I can't afford to buy a $60 game. Wait for sale.

    Does this mean that should you blindly throw your money at full-priced games to keep the machine going, especially if you can't afford it? Well, that's your money and your decision (note: you really shouldn't buy games full price if you can't afford them). But gaming is a business and poor/weak sales will kill it, the same as any other...

    I'm curious about how well games do in Canada vs. the US. Basically, say that a game sells 2,000,000 copies in the US at $59.99. That same game will generally be $79.99 here in Canada. Ignoring demographics and just looking at total populations, the US has 325 million people and Canada has 36 million people, so to be a comparable success in Canada the game would need to sell about 221,000 copies. If it does sell about that many copies in Canada, that indicates that people are probably willing to pay the higher price, and if it sells fewer copies it probably says something about just how elastic prices are for video games.

    Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    So let's not talk about cost of product without talking about... the cost of production. In this case, Telltale's mismanagement lead to hiring too many people too fast and operating too many projects at once. If they'd hired sensibly and started projects just as sensibly, costs they would've needed to cover would've been much lower.

    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
    MegaMekVeagle
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    People need to get used to the idea of paying more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    They are used to that idea. $60 is a starter price routinely one upped by season passes and DLC and micro transactions.

    Raising the base price from $60 USD to something higher would make things even worse for developers and studios than they are now. A large number of people don't pay $60 USD for the base product because they wait for a sale or standard retailer post-launch price cut before buying the game, and a portion of the season passes, DLC and MTX things cover that lost profit within quarters. Though a base MSRP increase isn't really applicable to TWD because full seasons of their games ran ~$29.99 USD. I don't think even the collections went over $50 USD. But people buying games at base MSRP is pretty fickle:

    This game didn't get 99.9% on metacritic. Wait for sale.

    This game has bugs. Wait for sale.

    This game has a season pass, microtransactions, DLC and/or microtransactions. Wait for sale.

    This game is episodic and when it gets finished it'll get packaged together anyway. Wait for that release.

    This game that is not selling for $60 isn't worth its price for [subjective reason here]. Wait for sale.

    I can't afford to buy a $60 game. Wait for sale.

    Does this mean that should you blindly throw your money at full-priced games to keep the machine going, especially if you can't afford it? Well, that's your money and your decision (note: you really shouldn't buy games full price if you can't afford them). But gaming is a business and poor/weak sales will kill it, the same as any other...

    I'm curious about how well games do in Canada vs. the US. Basically, say that a game sells 2,000,000 copies in the US at $59.99. That same game will generally be $79.99 here in Canada. Ignoring demographics and just looking at total populations, the US has 325 million people and Canada has 36 million people, so to be a comparable success in Canada the game would need to sell about 221,000 copies. If it does sell about that many copies in Canada, that indicates that people are probably willing to pay the higher price, and if it sells fewer copies it probably says something about just how elastic prices are for video games.

    I think certain consumers are willing to pay X amount of mark-up over American prices because they are used to it across the board. On the other side of the pond, you have the incredibly frequency of prices in dollars equaling the price in pounds - £60 for a game is a huge markup, but it is also the arbitrary number Americans have settled on as fair and UK citizens are used to paying the $=£ price markup.

  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    People need to get used to the idea of paying more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    They are used to that idea. $60 is a starter price routinely one upped by season passes and DLC and micro transactions.

    Raising the base price from $60 USD to something higher would make things even worse for developers and studios than they are now. A large number of people don't pay $60 USD for the base product because they wait for a sale or standard retailer post-launch price cut before buying the game, and a portion of the season passes, DLC and MTX things cover that lost profit within quarters. Though a base MSRP increase isn't really applicable to TWD because full seasons of their games ran ~$29.99 USD. I don't think even the collections went over $50 USD. But people buying games at base MSRP is pretty fickle:

    This game didn't get 99.9% on metacritic. Wait for sale.

    This game has bugs. Wait for sale.

    This game has a season pass, microtransactions, DLC and/or microtransactions. Wait for sale.

    This game is episodic and when it gets finished it'll get packaged together anyway. Wait for that release.

    This game that is not selling for $60 isn't worth its price for [subjective reason here]. Wait for sale.

    I can't afford to buy a $60 game. Wait for sale.

    Does this mean that should you blindly throw your money at full-priced games to keep the machine going, especially if you can't afford it? Well, that's your money and your decision (note: you really shouldn't buy games full price if you can't afford them). But gaming is a business and poor/weak sales will kill it, the same as any other...

    I'm curious about how well games do in Canada vs. the US. Basically, say that a game sells 2,000,000 copies in the US at $59.99. That same game will generally be $79.99 here in Canada. Ignoring demographics and just looking at total populations, the US has 325 million people and Canada has 36 million people, so to be a comparable success in Canada the game would need to sell about 221,000 copies. If it does sell about that many copies in Canada, that indicates that people are probably willing to pay the higher price, and if it sells fewer copies it probably says something about just how elastic prices are for video games.

    I think certain consumers are willing to pay X amount of mark-up over American prices because they are used to it across the board. On the other side of the pond, you have the incredibly frequency of prices in dollars equaling the price in pounds - £60 for a game is a huge markup, but it is also the arbitrary number Americans have settled on as fair and UK citizens are used to paying the $=£ price markup.

    And American consumers couldn't get used to higher prices?

    Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
    jdarksun
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    People need to get used to the idea of paying more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    They are used to that idea. $60 is a starter price routinely one upped by season passes and DLC and micro transactions.

    Raising the base price from $60 USD to something higher would make things even worse for developers and studios than they are now. A large number of people don't pay $60 USD for the base product because they wait for a sale or standard retailer post-launch price cut before buying the game, and a portion of the season passes, DLC and MTX things cover that lost profit within quarters. Though a base MSRP increase isn't really applicable to TWD because full seasons of their games ran ~$29.99 USD. I don't think even the collections went over $50 USD. But people buying games at base MSRP is pretty fickle:

    This game didn't get 99.9% on metacritic. Wait for sale.

    This game has bugs. Wait for sale.

    This game has a season pass, microtransactions, DLC and/or microtransactions. Wait for sale.

    This game is episodic and when it gets finished it'll get packaged together anyway. Wait for that release.

    This game that is not selling for $60 isn't worth its price for [subjective reason here]. Wait for sale.

    I can't afford to buy a $60 game. Wait for sale.

    Does this mean that should you blindly throw your money at full-priced games to keep the machine going, especially if you can't afford it? Well, that's your money and your decision (note: you really shouldn't buy games full price if you can't afford them). But gaming is a business and poor/weak sales will kill it, the same as any other...

    I'm curious about how well games do in Canada vs. the US. Basically, say that a game sells 2,000,000 copies in the US at $59.99. That same game will generally be $79.99 here in Canada. Ignoring demographics and just looking at total populations, the US has 325 million people and Canada has 36 million people, so to be a comparable success in Canada the game would need to sell about 221,000 copies. If it does sell about that many copies in Canada, that indicates that people are probably willing to pay the higher price, and if it sells fewer copies it probably says something about just how elastic prices are for video games.

    I think certain consumers are willing to pay X amount of mark-up over American prices because they are used to it across the board. On the other side of the pond, you have the incredibly frequency of prices in dollars equaling the price in pounds - £60 for a game is a huge markup, but it is also the arbitrary number Americans have settled on as fair and UK citizens are used to paying the $=£ price markup.

    And American consumers couldn't get used to higher prices?

    Probably not. There are plenty of people out there already that find $60 to be prohibitively expensive.

    It's not really even their fault. US wages haven't really increased in 20+ years, but the cost of everything else has. Video games are a fun extravagance, but normal folks (ie: people not us :razz: ) really only buy maybe one or two full priced games a year.

    MegaMekPhillishereVeagle
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    When considering how expensive a game should be, one has to factor in the budget that the game had. There is honestly a lot of bloat in AAA game budgets that little to no effect on the quality of the finished product, and the budget bloat is not actually reflected in the people doing the majority of work on the game receiving any more compensation for their work.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    MegaMekGennenalyse RuebenVeagle
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When considering how expensive a game should be, one has to factor in the budget that the game had. There is honestly a lot of bloat in AAA game budgets that little to no effect on the quality of the finished product, and the budget bloat is not actually reflected in the people doing the majority of work on the game receiving any more compensation for their work.

    Oh man that reminds of an article from a Dev who talked about game budgets. He described how they'd often just get a budget that seemed to have been conjured from the ether as opposed to being based on the actual needs of the game. He mentioned how more than a few times they'd end up with way more money than they needed, but they had to spend it. As I recall that was in reference to how a lot of Day One DLC comes about.

    Axen on
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    People need to get used to the idea of paying more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    They are used to that idea. $60 is a starter price routinely one upped by season passes and DLC and micro transactions.

    Raising the base price from $60 USD to something higher would make things even worse for developers and studios than they are now. A large number of people don't pay $60 USD for the base product because they wait for a sale or standard retailer post-launch price cut before buying the game, and a portion of the season passes, DLC and MTX things cover that lost profit within quarters. Though a base MSRP increase isn't really applicable to TWD because full seasons of their games ran ~$29.99 USD. I don't think even the collections went over $50 USD. But people buying games at base MSRP is pretty fickle:

    This game didn't get 99.9% on metacritic. Wait for sale.

    This game has bugs. Wait for sale.

    This game has a season pass, microtransactions, DLC and/or microtransactions. Wait for sale.

    This game is episodic and when it gets finished it'll get packaged together anyway. Wait for that release.

    This game that is not selling for $60 isn't worth its price for [subjective reason here]. Wait for sale.

    I can't afford to buy a $60 game. Wait for sale.

    Does this mean that should you blindly throw your money at full-priced games to keep the machine going, especially if you can't afford it? Well, that's your money and your decision (note: you really shouldn't buy games full price if you can't afford them). But gaming is a business and poor/weak sales will kill it, the same as any other...

    I'm curious about how well games do in Canada vs. the US. Basically, say that a game sells 2,000,000 copies in the US at $59.99. That same game will generally be $79.99 here in Canada. Ignoring demographics and just looking at total populations, the US has 325 million people and Canada has 36 million people, so to be a comparable success in Canada the game would need to sell about 221,000 copies. If it does sell about that many copies in Canada, that indicates that people are probably willing to pay the higher price, and if it sells fewer copies it probably says something about just how elastic prices are for video games.

    I think certain consumers are willing to pay X amount of mark-up over American prices because they are used to it across the board. On the other side of the pond, you have the incredibly frequency of prices in dollars equaling the price in pounds - £60 for a game is a huge markup, but it is also the arbitrary number Americans have settled on as fair and UK citizens are used to paying the $=£ price markup.

    And American consumers couldn't get used to higher prices?

    The USD is one the three major global currencies (as far as trades, the Euro and Yen are the other two). In a situation where the MSRP (or value) of a game goes from $60 USD to $80 USD. That would push the price up there as well. It probably wouldn't 1:1 in pounds... but it would go up everywhere to reflect its new value in USD.

    tastydonuts on
    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    When considering how expensive a game should be, one has to factor in the budget that the game had. There is honestly a lot of bloat in AAA game budgets that little to no effect on the quality of the finished product, and the budget bloat is not actually reflected in the people doing the majority of work on the game receiving any more compensation for their work.

    Yeah Resident Evil 6 has 3 campaigns PLUS a bonus campaign. Did it sell as well as three different games? The Witcher 3 dev has admitted they wildly overdid how many quests are in the game. Marketing forced the addition of a competitive multiplayer mode into Dead Space 2 that drew approximately 0 players. How much did the development of that cost?

    AAA Devs spend more money than ever before but it's supposed to be a given that this spend is wisely invested. Is it though?

    shoeboxjeddy on
    MegaMek
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    Axen wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    Shadowhope wrote: »
    People need to get used to the idea of paying more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    They are used to that idea. $60 is a starter price routinely one upped by season passes and DLC and micro transactions.

    Raising the base price from $60 USD to something higher would make things even worse for developers and studios than they are now. A large number of people don't pay $60 USD for the base product because they wait for a sale or standard retailer post-launch price cut before buying the game, and a portion of the season passes, DLC and MTX things cover that lost profit within quarters. Though a base MSRP increase isn't really applicable to TWD because full seasons of their games ran ~$29.99 USD. I don't think even the collections went over $50 USD. But people buying games at base MSRP is pretty fickle:

    This game didn't get 99.9% on metacritic. Wait for sale.

    This game has bugs. Wait for sale.

    This game has a season pass, microtransactions, DLC and/or microtransactions. Wait for sale.

    This game is episodic and when it gets finished it'll get packaged together anyway. Wait for that release.

    This game that is not selling for $60 isn't worth its price for [subjective reason here]. Wait for sale.

    I can't afford to buy a $60 game. Wait for sale.

    Does this mean that should you blindly throw your money at full-priced games to keep the machine going, especially if you can't afford it? Well, that's your money and your decision (note: you really shouldn't buy games full price if you can't afford them). But gaming is a business and poor/weak sales will kill it, the same as any other...

    I'm curious about how well games do in Canada vs. the US. Basically, say that a game sells 2,000,000 copies in the US at $59.99. That same game will generally be $79.99 here in Canada. Ignoring demographics and just looking at total populations, the US has 325 million people and Canada has 36 million people, so to be a comparable success in Canada the game would need to sell about 221,000 copies. If it does sell about that many copies in Canada, that indicates that people are probably willing to pay the higher price, and if it sells fewer copies it probably says something about just how elastic prices are for video games.

    I think certain consumers are willing to pay X amount of mark-up over American prices because they are used to it across the board. On the other side of the pond, you have the incredibly frequency of prices in dollars equaling the price in pounds - £60 for a game is a huge markup, but it is also the arbitrary number Americans have settled on as fair and UK citizens are used to paying the $=£ price markup.

    And American consumers couldn't get used to higher prices?

    Probably not. There are plenty of people out there already that find $60 to be prohibitively expensive.

    It's not really even their fault. US wages haven't really increased in 20+ years, but the cost of everything else has. Video games are a fun extravagance, but normal folks (ie: people not us :razz: ) really only buy maybe one or two full priced games a year.

    There are plenty of people in Canada that find $80 to be prohibitively expensive. Our wages haven't gone up any faster than American wages. That's why I suggested that it would be interesting to see how well a game sells in Canada vs. the US. People would certainly be grumpy if the new game cost went up, but my suspicion is that it wouldn't have a huge impact on sales numbers. I don't think that Americans are special snowflakes that would quit buying games because the cost went up.

    Dinosaurs were made up by the CIA to discourage time travel.
  • LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    I will admit that specifically with Telltale games, I was a sale-waiter. I found $29.99 for a complete season to be too high, considering how little actual gameplay there was in their games.

    I'm not trying to downplay the work of the talented writers, artists, and voice actors that put their heart and soul into those games. Far from it. The storytelling was grand.

    But for me, gameplay comes above all else, and good gameplay can carry me even when there's a shoddy story. (I'm not calling any of Telltale's games shoddy. I'm talking about other games). I find that for my own personal taste, the inverse of that is definitely not true. A good story cannot carry shoddy gameplay.

    So what that tells me about Telltale games is that while I adore the writing, storytelling, and art that goes into them, the highly simplistic gameplay is not enough for me to want to spend full price on one of their products. I'm the kind of person that would wait for the deep sales on their games. I'd say even 50% is most of the time too high for the value I personally place on those games (because of the gameplay). And again, I'm definitely not trying to disparage the work that is there. I adore Telltale's games. But without rich gameplay, I just don't put as much value in the product. Because at that point I'm basically just paying for a story. (Or in this case, an interactive storybook).

    And when you weigh the dollar per dollar value of seeing a story, the value is pretty low on these games. (For me).

    I game because of the gameplay. I stick to the genres I like because of the gameplay. And Telltale's games fell outside of that range for me. I didn't often play them, and none of them were ever a day 1 purchase for me. They were the kind of thing I would fit into my super huge backlog as in-between games, in-between larger projects.

    Grove
  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular
    People need to get used to the idea of paying more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    The moral state of the industry is such that I would be happy to pay $20-30 more if it meant devs, programmers, artists, etc. didn't essentially have to be debt slaves.

    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
  • shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    People need to get used to the idea of paying more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    The moral state of the industry is such that I would be happy to pay $20-30 more if it meant devs, programmers, artists, etc. didn't essentially have to be debt slaves.

    But what would happen instead is they'd lay off a bunch of people and give all the execs raises for making so much profit.

    klemming
  • HenroidHenroid Radio Demon Internet HellRegistered User regular
    There's an update. Outside companies are talking to Telltale about finishing up The Walking Dead for them. Meanwhile, a lot of employees are still laid off and not getting any sort of severance pay.

    Centrism is just the cowardly way to be a bigot w/o being explicit about it.
    American politics isn't 4D chess, it's just if you give a shit about other people or not.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Yeah so that would seem like the people who fucked up will get paid and everyone else will get a thank you letter.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    VeaglemcdermottDragkoniasUnluckyZilla360TomantaKoopahTroopah
  • Road BlockRoad Block Registered User regular
    To their credit, I think Telltales $5 an episode effective price was quite fair. I do think they fell into the steam sale trap though. I mean I first picked up The walking dead, two episodes into the season for half price. And while that probably got them a lot of business early on, between that and the sheer number of releases it really discouraged buying at full price.

    Also I just wanted to point out how bonkers 300+ staff is. Valve has 360 and they're richer than god.

    KoopahTroopahBloodySloth
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    It's a little scary to find out that no game past TWD was ever a profit. It means all their games reviewed favorably, had favorable word of mouth... and either nobody was buying them, or their profit margins were erased by the expensive IP's they were licensing. But whatever the case (probably a little of both), management just kept trudging ahead with nary a bit of course correction and ignored the pretty obvious iceberg in their path.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
    SageinaRageUnluckyjdarksun
  • Road BlockRoad Block Registered User regular
    That's the other thing, for years Telltale got by selling moderately successful simple and humourous throwbacks to traditional adventure games. But they couldn't survive an actual success.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    Road Block wrote: »
    That's the other thing, for years Telltale got by selling moderately successful simple and humourous throwbacks to traditional adventure games. But they couldn't survive an actual success.

    When the inevitable lawsuits hit, I predict I will be totally shocked if it is revealed that Telltale's books weren't 100 percent on the up and up.

    Phillishere on
    ShadowhopeBigity
  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular
    People need to get used to the idea of paying more for their games, too.

    I never understood how people are willing to dropped $80, $90, $100+ on a boardgame but spending more then $60 on a videogame is sacraliege.

    The moral state of the industry is such that I would be happy to pay $20-30 more if it meant devs, programmers, artists, etc. didn't essentially have to be debt slaves.

    But what would happen instead is they'd lay off a bunch of people and give all the execs raises for making so much profit.

    Not if there were strong unions and/or guilds.

    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
  • DrezDrez Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    I just saw the worst take; someone putting forward the idea that the employees should work for free to finish The Walking Dead. Their citation? "Mod makers do this all the time."

    Gamers™ really don't deserve video games sometimes, I think.

    It's called a "sense of entitlement."

    I don't mean to generalize, but I think that's where a lot of issues in "gamer culture" (vomit at even using that phrase) stem from.

  • frandelgearslipfrandelgearslip 457670Registered User regular
    It's a little scary to find out that no game past TWD was ever a profit. It means all their games reviewed favorably, had favorable word of mouth... and either nobody was buying them, or their profit margins were erased by the expensive IP's they were licensing. But whatever the case (probably a little of both), management just kept trudging ahead with nary a bit of course correction and ignored the pretty obvious iceberg in their path.

    Nobody was buying them:

    84j5mwb918vz.png
    y65vgd3fw4d0.png

  • cB557cB557 voOOP Registered User regular
    I wonder how Minecraft made a profit but TFTB didn't even though the latter had over twice as many sales.

    Tits! Tits! Tits! Tits! Tits! Tits!
    KoopahTroopahjdarksun
  • frandelgearslipfrandelgearslip 457670Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    cB557 wrote: »
    I wonder how Minecraft made a profit but TFTB didn't even though the latter had over twice as many sales.

    These are only steam sales, so it is possible that Minecraft story mode sold abnormally large amounts on other platforms such as Android, IOS, etc.

    edit: Or they could be including the netflix deal.

    frandelgearslip on
  • Road BlockRoad Block Registered User regular
    I garuntee Minecraft Story Mode sold gangbusters on mobile. Different audiance.

    A bit surprised Tales from the borderlands outsold Game of Thrones. But I guess Tales probably got more sales post release on account of good word of mouth.

    I'm honestly not sure how you can do that badly with a Batman license.

    Zilla360KoopahTroopahjdarksun
  • klemmingklemming Registered User regular
    The first Batman was a good story but a buggy mess, I was going to avoid all their games on principle after that until I got multiple reassurances that they'd cleaned up a little, and then I only got them on sale.

    As for game costs, I wonder if anyone would dare putting out a Developers Edition at $10 more, and explicitly say that the extra money will be split amongst the 50-odd programmers/artists/etc who worked on the game?

    Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
  • Zilla360Zilla360 21st Century. |She/Her| Surreal. Immersive. Earth.Registered User regular
    I really liked both of their Batman games. Surprising to discover I was in the minority on that.

    Skidzilla360.jpg | NH844lc.png | GACSALB.jpg My Blog | Gravatar | PSN | 72INGtl.jpg | HkSlskT.png
    BloodsheedDark Raven X
  • furlionfurlion Riskbreaker Lea MondeRegistered User regular
    I heard how buggy the games were and only bought them after they had been out awhile, typically on sale. This is my policy on most games, and given how many of them are buggy as hell at release I stand by it. If developers want me to buy a game new at full price it needs to be the real game not the beta/QA edition.

    Having said that I really enjoyed TWD season 1,wolf among us, and tales.

    sig.gif Gamertag: KL Retribution
    PSN:Furlion
  • KoopahTroopahKoopahTroopah The koopas, the troopas. Philadelphia, PARegistered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    There's an update. Outside companies are talking to Telltale about finishing up The Walking Dead for them. Meanwhile, a lot of employees are still laid off and not getting any sort of severance pay.
    https://twitter .com/telltalegames/status/1044370808657915905

    This is both good and bad. I don't want to pay the managers, I want to pay the workers, but I also want to finish this damn story that I have spent 5+ years being invested in. Especially since TWDFS is like, an actual improvement both engine and gameplay wise. TWDFS is what Season 2 or ANF SHOULD have been IMO.

    ?username=KoopahTroopah&theme=light

    Steam - Battle.net - Koopah089 - PSN/Xbox - 1639-6388-9968/KoopahTroopah - Switch
    BigityDark Raven X
  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular
    The money paid for any games that were forthcoming is already gone. They will work with potential partners to cover the costs of finishing what’s left, meaning they will pay a small group of overworked people a pittance so management can walk away with something in their pockets.

    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
    KoopahTroopahPreacherdispatch.o
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    The money paid for any games that were forthcoming is already gone. They will work with potential partners to cover the costs of finishing what’s left, meaning they will pay a small group of overworked people a pittance so management can walk away with something in their pockets.

    Especially since at this point, some of the staff might have landed other gigs. And some more might say "fuck this" and not want to come back.

    Though given how Telltale works, it's possible the other episodes are feature/story locked, and all it would take is just getting what was planned up and running. Though if there's still lingering, last-minute story problems... ack.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Take care of your workers, then worry about finishing a game.

    No game is worth more than treating the people who make those games like human beings.

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    GoodKingJayIIIjdarksunTomantaBloodsheedJohnny Chopsockydispatch.o
  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    The money paid for any games that were forthcoming is already gone. They will work with potential partners to cover the costs of finishing what’s left, meaning they will pay a small group of overworked people a pittance so management can walk away with something in their pockets.

    Especially since at this point, some of the staff might have landed other gigs. And some more might say "fuck this" and not want to come back.

    Though given how Telltale works, it's possible the other episodes are feature/story locked, and all it would take is just getting what was planned up and running. Though if there's still lingering, last-minute story problems... ack.

    I sincerely hope every single one of their former employees tells them to fuck off. I understand extenuating circumstances may not give people that luxury (and it IS a luxury) but it’s been suspected that Telltale treated their employees like dirt before all this went down, and now they’ve confirmed it to the public. They don’t deserve to finish a game and earn a profit, let alone break even.

    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited September 2018
    as someone who is not in a management position, i will say that a lot of this vitriol directed at management in general seems misplaced to me.

    in telltale's specific situation, hiring people a week before declaring bankruptcy is despicable. treating people like cogs who can be overworked until new ones can be found is miserable (and against the law). there are no excuses for this.

    but honestly, lots of times, without management, projects and ideas never get anywhere. wasn't penny arcade kind of a mess before that asian dude stepped in and cleaned everything up with good business management? i don't know for sure, but i bet penny arcade would have never become the awesome site it is now without good management. management is as important a piece of the puzzle as development. bad development leads to bad games. bad management leads to no games.

    in this case was it bad management that lead to telltale's downfall? maybe? or maybe it was just that no one bought the games? or maybe the games were buggy and incomplete (bad developers)?

    probably a little bit of everything.

    Ketherial on
Sign In or Register to comment.