I didn't buy Crysis or UT3 because even though I more-than passed the min requirements, I just didn't pass them 'enough' that the games would run smoothly. The comments I read on Crysis at launch that 'even high end PCs cannot run the game with all the bells-and-whistles on' doesn't instill a sense of trust in my that the devs even gave 2-shits about lower-end machines (not 'lower-end' in general, just closer to what they've said is the minimum requirements).
I don't follow that reasoning. It might not run well on highest settings because they left some things open for future machines, so that there would be something to justify the purchase of the next generation of video cards and other hardware. You don't want your graphics heavy games like Crysis or Half Life 2 to max out on hardware that was available at the time of release, and I don't really think it speaks to the performance at lower settings at all.
I can see what you're saying, but this would only be reasonable if Cryis was going to be the last FPS ever made - but there's always going to be someone else putting out another 'big name' FPS in 6 more months that will push graphics even harder. To me, the planning for 'future' hardware is trying to sell to a market that doesn't exist (yet), over one that does. This is a setup for lower sales.
In other words, it's like every FPS is trying hard to be the next 'benchmark' game like Quake 3 was, or Half Life 2 is; the game referenced forever and ever when new hardware is released.
Well, I think a lot of companies are looking at engine licensing when they do this. Quake 3's engine was used in a ton of games (a somewhat modified version was still in use for CoD4) and obviously the Source Engine has been the bee's knees for this generation of PC Gaming.
The problem is that there's a chance your company's engine might not take off from your tech demo/game and then all that money has gone to waste: see also Doom 3. That engine was used on, what, Doom 3, Quake 4, and Prey? (All three of which looked nearly identical, by the way). I can't imagine they did that well with it.
Honestly, I think Half Life 2 scaled pretty well at the time of its release. It looked decent and still had a playable framerate even on the Intel integrated GFX chipset on the laptop I owned then.
I didn't buy Crysis or UT3 because even though I more-than passed the min requirements, I just didn't pass them 'enough' that the games would run smoothly. The comments I read on Crysis at launch that 'even high end PCs cannot run the game with all the bells-and-whistles on' doesn't instill a sense of trust in my that the devs even gave 2-shits about lower-end machines (not 'lower-end' in general, just closer to what they've said is the minimum requirements).
I don't follow that reasoning. It might not run well on highest settings because they left some things open for future machines, so that there would be something to justify the purchase of the next generation of video cards and other hardware. You don't want your graphics heavy games like Crysis or Half Life 2 to max out on hardware that was available at the time of release, and I don't really think it speaks to the performance at lower settings at all.
I can see what you're saying, but this would only be reasonable if Cryis was going to be the last FPS ever made - but there's always going to be someone else putting out another 'big name' FPS in 6 more months that will push graphics even harder. To me, the planning for 'future' hardware is trying to sell to a market that doesn't exist (yet), over one that does. This is a setup for lower sales.
In other words, it's like every FPS is trying hard to be the next 'benchmark' game like Quake 3 was, or Half Life 2 is; the game referenced forever and ever when new hardware is released.
Well, I think a lot of companies are looking at engine licensing when they do this. Quake 3's engine was used in a ton of games (a somewhat modified version was still in use for CoD4) and obviously the Source Engine has been the bee's knees for this generation of PC Gaming.
The problem is that there's a chance your company's engine might not take off from your tech demo/game and then all that money has gone to waste: see also Doom 3. That engine was used on, what, Doom 3, Quake 4, and Prey? (All three of which looked nearly identical, by the way). I can't imagine they did that well with it.
Yeah, that's certainly true. But with any business venture you make there is a certain amount of risk.
If your engine becomes popular, you'll be raking in cash. If it flops, well, it flops. But the payoff is big enough that companies are still willing to take the risk, which says something.
KrunkMcGrunk on
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited February 2008
I don't think PC gaming is doomed. In fact I think PC gaming will be around for a long time because some games would either not translate well to consoles or are so niche that there would not be much of a market outside of the PC.
I will say that I think PC gaming is not a prestigious (hell that might not even be the right word) as it used to be or as I remember it being. It seemed like years ago a lot of the games for PC just could not be done on consoles at all. Now with consoles including HDDs, internet connectivity, and fancy graphics it seems the reason for these games being on the PC has vanished.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
That's because the line between PC and console has become increasingly more arbitrary. At this point, one of them doesn't come standard with a mouse an keyboard, and that's about it.
And dev's and others are being completely naive if they think piracy isn't going to become a problem on consoles. The federali's just did a major nationwide raid on console modders, in the end it appears the final result was pretty sad, but this is just the beginning as I see it.
The numbers for this are not as robust, but piracy also has the effect of helping game sales. This isn't from any quantitative data or anything but experience with friends says that freelancer flew under our radar until one of us played it, then we were addicted and each bought a copy.
Its would be virtually impossible to come up with raw data on piracy's effect on computer sales. Someone also mentioned it best when they commented that PC' games feel like they are bootlegged anyway, the manuals are not nearly as impressive as they used to be (for the games I have bought). Also in a lot of PC games I have received so many game breaking bugs, many many many times more then I have ever received on a console version. Not shipping a product that is playable also really hurts sales.
That is, except for crysis, which seems to fall into the problem of everyone demandign that it run at maximum settings on 1080p w/ 60 fps when those settings aren't even designed for modern hardware
Hey, guess what happens to sales figures when you release a game that "isn't designed for modern hardware"?
You make one of the top selling PC games of 2007?
I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but Crysis didn't even make the top ten among PC games.
edit: for those who don't want to click on a link, the list goes like this: WoW, WoW, The Sims, COD4, C&C3, SimCity, The Sims, The Sims, AoE3, and The Sims.
Crysis failed to crack the list top ten PC games of 2007 at US retail, but still managed to quickly reach million-seller status on a worldwide basis, according to EA.
Extreme example, but proves the point well enough. (bad format choice)
I thought the Dreamcast died to to a combination of complete domination from the PS2, lack of sales, and total mismanagement from Sega themselves? You know, everything except piracy.
Which is exactly the discussion going on. Dreamcast piracy was there, but in no way was it the cause of its downfall at all.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
What some of you seem to be forgetting about Crysis is that it's a game built on top of a license-able engine, which is why they built it to last a couple years. If anything the game was an example, "look what our engine can do!". Personally I loved it.
I also have UT3, and it was my main motivation for building my new pc. Unfortunately the game is a mere shadow of its past incarnations, both singleplayer and multiplayer. I've spent maybe 3 hours playing it, but I can't tear myself away from TF2.
They can blame piracy if they want, that's fine by me, they've run out of good game ideas so frankly I won't miss them.
Extreme example, but proves the point well enough. (bad format choice)
I thought the Dreamcast died to to a combination of complete domination from the PS2, lack of sales, and total mismanagement from Sega themselves? You know, everything except piracy.
Which is exactly the discussion going on. Dreamcast piracy was there, but in no way was it the cause of its downfall at all.
the dreamcast failed because people looked at it and thought "wait a minute..these are the same fuckers that sold me on the 32x, sega cd and saturn, they aren't tricking me again"
Extreme example, but proves the point well enough. (bad format choice)
I thought the Dreamcast died to to a combination of complete domination from the PS2, lack of sales, and total mismanagement from Sega themselves? You know, everything except piracy.
Which is exactly the discussion going on. Dreamcast piracy was there, but in no way was it the cause of its downfall at all.
I wasn't saying that it was it's downfall. It certainly doesn't/didn't help, and it's simply proving that on a home console, not a handheld, that piracy is prevalent.
Sega fucked up the Dreamcast. That's a well known fact.
Selling a million copies is the break-even point on most triple-A games.
Just sayin'.
Where did you get that number from?
At least from his earlier post, it appears he works in the industry. I don't find it that surprising for Triple A titles, but I also see it as one of the fundamental problems haunting the PC industry right now, I just don't think the consumer base is big enough anymore to support such massive expenses.
Selling a million copies is the break-even point on most triple-A games.
Just sayin'.
Where did you get that number from?
At least from his earlier post, it appears he works in the industry. I don't find it that surprising for Triple A titles, but I also see it as one of the fundamental problems haunting the PC industry right now, I just don't think the consumer base is big enough anymore to support such massive expenses.
I do work in the industry (programmer) but I got that particular number from a magazine article in OXM; Michael Pachter (that industry analyst guy) did a piece where he broke down where the $60 from a PS3/360 game sale goes. It's pretty interesting. If anyone's interested, it's the one with CoD4 on the cover.
IIRC a Sony rep also gave that figure for the PS3 ages ago.
I'll actually agree that costs for next gen titles are increasing. But I'll echo a lot of the people who've already said that those spiraling costs are ridiculous and need to be controlled. There is and should be room in the gaming world for smaller games with smaller audiences and smaller budgets. Having to sell a million means that either your game is a massive success, or a bust. No in-between, and frankly, that's crazy.
One thing keeps weirding me out though is that people keep saying that the PC is no longer a "mainstream" gaming machine. And I keep thinking "when was the PC ever a mainstream games machine?".
I mean seriously, PC gaming has always been niche compared to console gaming. Lower budgets, sold less units, to smaller fanbases. Aside from the odd mega-hit like the Sims, that's all it's ever been. About the closest I can think that it ever got to mainstream was probably around 1998/99 when you had Half-Life, Starcraft, and a bunch of other awesome titles come out in a short space of time. Before that maybe it was the Doom period, but again, I just view Doom as one of those freak occurrances.
I mean think about it, the primary purpose of the games console is to be a games machine. It focusses on that, and costs less to actually purchase. What's the purpose of the PC? Gaming is one of it's purposes. I would argue that it may not even be able to call it a mainstream purpose of the PC given the fact that the average store-bought PC is sold with no real capability of playing modern PC games (although if I'm honest, I feel that this is something that has gone very wrong with the PC industry in general, with particular reference to the graphics card industry, but that's for another thread. Suffice it to say I feel that both the hardware industry and the suppliers need to get their act together on this if they want to prevent the gaming market from stagnating and then potentially falling).
I think gaming's evolving, and the games market is getting bigger, which means mega-hit titles are getting some pretty major production costs. But with the games market getting bigger and the audience getting broader, there's still room for the niche market, probably now more than ever. What you need to do is make sure that your costs are regulated and that you market for a big enough potential market to make a profit.
I'll actually agree that costs for next gen titles are increasing. But I'll echo a lot of the people who've already said that those spiraling costs are ridiculous and need to be controlled. There is and should be room in the gaming world for smaller games with smaller audiences and smaller budgets. Having to sell a million means that either your game is a massive success, or a bust. No in-between, and frankly, that's crazy.
...
I think gaming's evolving, and the games market is getting bigger, which means mega-hit titles are getting some pretty major production costs. But with the games market getting bigger and the audience getting broader, there's still room for the niche market, probably now more than ever. What you need to do is make sure that your costs are regulated and that you market for a big enough potential market to make a profit.
There is already a market for smaller games- indie games like Sins of a Solar Empire (which is a runaway success by any measure), and stuff like Peggle. This thread is about guys like Chris Taylor, Peter Molyneux, Mark Rein, and CliffyB essentially jumping ship on the PC market because they can't make the kinds of games they want to make without getting a big piece of the console pie. Valve and Blizzard stay in business in large part by trading on their (well-deserved) reputations, made when development wasn't so expensive and the market wasn't so segmented. 15 years ago the biggest game machine was the PC; only since the PS1 era have consoles really gained ground.
Cutting costs is great and all but what you're really suggesting is slashing the salaries of developers, downsizing development studios, or shortening development time. In a well-run studio, there's no other way. Any one of these pushes quality downwards (and personally makes me ).
Selling a million copies is the break-even point on most triple-A games.
Just sayin'.
Where did you get that number from?
At least from his earlier post, it appears he works in the industry. I don't find it that surprising for Triple A titles, but I also see it as one of the fundamental problems haunting the PC industry right now, I just don't think the consumer base is big enough anymore to support such massive expenses.
I do work in the industry (programmer) but I got that particular number from a magazine article in OXM; Michael Pachter (that industry analyst guy) did a piece where he broke down where the $60 from a PS3/360 game sale goes. It's pretty interesting. If anyone's interested, it's the one with CoD4 on the cover.
I don't particularly think that's close to being true then, or he might have a slightly different definition of AAA title. I mean PS3 has only like 5 games that sold over 1 million copies, they can't all be financial disasters
The figure I go by was from a fairly frank interview with Scott "we suck" Millar, CEO of 3D Realms on the next-gen podcast and he was pretty open about the numbers on Prey. He basically said that for a (sorry, I can't use Triple A anymore, it sounds retarded) top title that once they'd hit 500-600,000 then they felt confident it would have done well enough to be greenlit for a sequel by the publisher. And prey had the same production budget as Gears of War, $10 million.
subedii: you may be thinking of the producer of MGS4, but Payton says he was misquoted on that.
A million sales to break even? That doesn't make any sense at all!
When you start looking at companies' sales projections for a lot of their 360/PS3 games, the numbers rarely are projected to sell above 800,000 let alone a million.
Why would you, as a company, greenlight a game that you expected to sell 800,000 if you had to sell 1M just to break even? It doesn't make any sense.
Because that's outright wrong.
Some big PS3/360 games have to sell a lot to break even, certainly. But I'm sure those are the rare exceptions rather than the rule.
The typical number thrown around for the 'break even point' in sales for 360/PS3 games is 500,000.
That number agrees with numbers we've gotten from Namco, and most publishers, in their financial reports, rarely put a game's projected sale about 1M. Unless it's been hyped to holy hell for 2 years.
The typical numbers we use for the average cost to dev/publish a 36/PS3 game is $15M. You''d have to spend roughly $30 million on a game to require a million in sales to be your break even point.
I'll actually agree that costs for next gen titles are increasing. But I'll echo a lot of the people who've already said that those spiraling costs are ridiculous and need to be controlled. There is and should be room in the gaming world for smaller games with smaller audiences and smaller budgets. Having to sell a million means that either your game is a massive success, or a bust. No in-between, and frankly, that's crazy.
...
I think gaming's evolving, and the games market is getting bigger, which means mega-hit titles are getting some pretty major production costs. But with the games market getting bigger and the audience getting broader, there's still room for the niche market, probably now more than ever. What you need to do is make sure that your costs are regulated and that you market for a big enough potential market to make a profit.
There is already a market for smaller games- indie games like Sins of a Solar Empire (which is a runaway success by any measure), and stuff like Peggle. This thread is about guys like Chris Taylor, Peter Molyneux, Mark Rein, and CliffyB essentially jumping ship on the PC market because they can't make the kinds of games they want to make without getting a big piece of the console pie. Valve and Blizzard stay in business in large part by trading on their (well-deserved) reputations, made when development wasn't so expensive and the market wasn't so segmented. 15 years ago the biggest game machine was the PC; only since the PS1 era have consoles really gained ground.
Cutting costs is great and all but what you're really suggesting is slashing the salaries of developers, downsizing development studios, or shortening development time. In a well-run studio, there's no other way. Any one of these pushes quality downwards (and personally makes me ).
I just want to chime in to say this is a great post. As much as I love the PC platform, these very capable developers aren't able to flourish there like they could by working with consoles because the sales just aren't coming.
If they don't manage to succeed in the console market, then they deserve to catch a little flak, but if they do, all the better for us consumers. I could see being pissed with this trend if these guys were actually making mega-hit games for the PC, but they haven't been on the mark at all, so who cares if they try something new? Nothing is at stake.
You can't really use 3D Realms (small studio) or Gears of War (lots of outsourcing, engine development costs not in production budget) as representative of the industry, nor can you use whether or not a publisher would greenlight a sequel as a metric for success. Sequels are generally cheaper to make than new IPs.
And as for PS3 only having like 5 million-sellers, I'd bet there are actually more than that. Reliable data is hard to get from Europe and Asia. And bear in mind that million-sales break-even mark is for bigtime releases, not every game ever. Most games don't need that many sales to tread water, but again- this thread is about the big names and big budgets.
We're talking atypical cases here, folks, not averages- more Halo 3, less Puzzle Quest.
Forbes broke down the percentages of a $60 game and where the revenue goes.
But for conservatism's sake, let's say that a publisher only receives $20 in revenue from each game sold. Let's also assume a game costs $15M to make.
$15M/$20 = 750k. That's still not anywhere near a million. That also assumes that publishers only receive $20 out of the sale of a $60 game. I'm sure they receive more than that, what with retailers getting less than $10 in profit and small fees going to the console manufacturer.
$15M/$30 is 500,000. 500,000 to break even - this correlates pretty much exactly with Namco's position. The $30 also agrees with Forbes' breakdown.
I'll actually agree that costs for next gen titles are increasing. But I'll echo a lot of the people who've already said that those spiraling costs are ridiculous and need to be controlled. There is and should be room in the gaming world for smaller games with smaller audiences and smaller budgets. Having to sell a million means that either your game is a massive success, or a bust. No in-between, and frankly, that's crazy.
...
I think gaming's evolving, and the games market is getting bigger, which means mega-hit titles are getting some pretty major production costs. But with the games market getting bigger and the audience getting broader, there's still room for the niche market, probably now more than ever. What you need to do is make sure that your costs are regulated and that you market for a big enough potential market to make a profit.
There is already a market for smaller games- indie games like Sins of a Solar Empire (which is a runaway success by any measure), and stuff like Peggle.
Indeed, I already said that this is and should be the case
This thread is about guys like Chris Taylor, Peter Molyneux, Mark Rein, and CliffyB essentially jumping ship on the PC market because they can't make the kinds of games they want to make without getting a big piece of the console pie. Valve and Blizzard stay in business in large part by trading on their (well-deserved) reputations, made when development wasn't so expensive and the market wasn't so segmented. 15 years ago the biggest game machine was the PC; only since the PS1 era have consoles really gained ground.
You see, I'm going to have to disagree there. I find it difficult to believe that the PC had a bigger gaming audience than the SNESS or the Mega-Drive for example. Heck, if you want to go back further, how about the days of the Atari?
Even if I were to accept that point, 15 years is still a long time ago.
As for Valve and Blizzard staying in business by trading on their names, I'd disagree there as well. Both have continued to make some utterly brilliant games, but more importantly, both have adapted their business models not only to adapt to the games market, but to actively shape it. Valve with Steam, Blizzard with WoW.
I mean, look at id software these days. They used to be pretty much an unstoppable company back around the late 90's. Now after a string of mediocre games, nobody really expects much of them. There's only so far you can go on a name alone. Meanwhile, companies like Stardock and Introversion are fast making a name for themselves by the titles that they develope and publish. Are they still small? Yes, especially Introversion. But with each release they're selling more, and (at least in the case of Stardock), likely to get bigger.
Cutting costs is great and all but what you're really suggesting is slashing the salaries of developers, downsizing development studios, or shortening development time. In a well-run studio, there's no other way. Any one of these pushes quality downwards (and personally makes me ).
Nope, possibly, and possibly.
What I'm suggesting is keeping the scope of your game small, and building and building up your company with your successes. Keep the scope small, the game small, and the costs small. You don't have to ship a big budget million seller right from the beginning.
Epic originally started off as Epic Megagames, a very small company making some fairly crappy shareware titles, eventually leading on to some fairly good shareware titles. Finally, they managed to release a couple of hits in the form of Epic Pinball and Jazz Jackrabit. They took the money they made from those titles, and pretty much plowed it all into the development of a game called "Unreal". The rest is pretty much history.
When I first saw the screenshots and previews for Unreal, I was more than a little flummoxed. How on EARTH did an indie developer like Epic Megagames suddenly move on from crappy and cheapo shareware games to this? It just blew my mind that they had managed that.
I'm not saying that the barrier to entry isn't high in the industry for making a blockbuster like Unreal. But you don't automatically have to start at Unreal either. Make a quality product, it doesn't have to be hugely ambitious, just a good product with plenty or word of mouth behind it to get it selling. This in itself is no mean feat, but being a startup in any industry was never an easy thing.
Hey if anyone still gives a shit about Chris Taylor he is on todays GFW Brodeo, GDC edition, along with Josh Mosqiera (lead designer of, among other things, fucking Homeworld and company of Heroes) from Relic.
Gonna be talking shop about RTS games, console version and all sorts of crap. Will be essential listening I guarantee.
You can't really use 3D Realms (small studio) or Gears of War (lots of outsourcing, engine development costs not in production budget) as representative of the industry, nor can you use whether or not a publisher would greenlight a sequel as a metric for success. Sequels are generally cheaper to make than new IPs.
And as for PS3 only having like 5 million-sellers, I'd bet there are actually more than that. Reliable data is hard to get from Europe and Asia. And bear in mind that million-sales break-even mark is for bigtime releases, not every game ever. Most games don't need that many sales to tread water, but again- this thread is about the big names and big budgets.
We're talking atypical cases here, folks, not averages- more Halo 3, less Puzzle Quest.
So, basically, I can't use real life examples of games with 10million dollar development costs, but I can use an analysts made up numbers? That makes sense.
Hey if anyone still gives a shit about Chris Taylor he is on todays GFW Brodeo, GDC edition, along with Josh Mosqiera (lead designer of, among other things, fucking Homeworld and company of Heroes) from Relic.
Gonna be talking shop about RTS games, console version and all sorts of crap. Will be essential listening I guarantee.
It'll be online in an hour or so I've heard.
Awesome. The interviews with Warren Spector and Paul Wedgewood were really good.
I know. The one yesterday with Spector and Wedgewood was so fucking great.
The thing though, I listened to the 1upyours GDC specials and they are missing the point of GDC completely.
You have these amazing developers on the show, I dont wanna hear fucking Garnett make jokes and talk about non game crap. I want in depth talk about the process of development.
Spector was retardedly knowledgable about the process and it was fascinating to listen to. The whole 'ideas are worthless' thing was so right. Just so right.
The one tonight will be brilliant.
The brodeo is such good commute listening, because it varies wildly between genuinely in depth analysis and accurate reporting of games, the opposite of 1upyours, and then will stray into tentacle rape dungeons in second life and ralphie griefing at a moments notice. hilariously funny, factually interesting.
The_Scarab on
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited February 2008
Gaming. She is a fickle Mistress.
You can have a large Dev house pour millions into making a completely fantastic & graphically impressive game only to have it not sell.
On the flip side you can have a small Indie Dev release a game that cost only thousands to make and end up with a run away smash hit.
There are no certainties.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
You can have a large Dev house pour millions into making a completely fantastic & graphically impressive game only to have it not sell.
On the flip side you can have a small Indie Dev release a game that cost only thousands to make and end up with a run away smash hit.
There are no certainties.
I agree that there are no complete certainties, but research has shown pretty easily that marketing is a huge factor in getting game sales.
The conclusion was basically:
A great game with great marketing sells really well. A bad game with great marketing sells pretty well.
A great game with little to no marketing sells poorly. A bad game with little to no marketing sells poorly.
And that pretty much rings true. Games like A's Creed which have been shoved down our throats at every media opportunity, it was practically a guaranteed success. Or capcom - they spent almost as much ($8 million) on marketing Lost Planet - and that game became their number 1 best selling 360 game (1.45M sales).
I know. The one yesterday with Spector and Wedgewood was so fucking great.
The thing though, I listened to the 1upyours GDC specials and they are missing the point of GDC completely.
You have these amazing developers on the show, I dont wanna hear fucking Garnett make jokes and talk about non game crap. I want in depth talk about the process of development.
Spector was retardedly knowledgable about the process and it was fascinating to listen to. The whole 'ideas are worthless' thing was so right. Just so right.
Yeah, that's really true. If it weren't for the fact that Warren had been continuously hammering on the point that it's the execution not the idea, I probably would've thought him really conceited for saying he'd thought up those other ideas before someone else did them.
It was also really funny how Paul went off on an aside as to how people keep approaching him to do their ideas and they get 50% of the profit.
Nah you're not simple. SupCom is pretty niche these days by RTS standards. It goes for large-scale strategy intsead of the lower level squad level management, but at the same time it's not as grandiose as something like the Total War series. I really enjoy it, mainly for the wall to wall warfare and the really awesome interface that allows you to manage everything really well.
I know. The one yesterday with Spector and Wedgewood was so fucking great.
The thing though, I listened to the 1upyours GDC specials and they are missing the point of GDC completely.
You have these amazing developers on the show, I dont wanna hear fucking Garnett make jokes and talk about non game crap. I want in depth talk about the process of development.
Spector was retardedly knowledgable about the process and it was fascinating to listen to. The whole 'ideas are worthless' thing was so right. Just so right.
Yeah, that's really true. If it weren't for the fact that Warren had been continuously hammering on the point that it's the execution not the idea, I probably would've thought him really conceited for saying he'd thought up those other ideas before someone else did them.
It was also really funny how Paul went off on an aside as to how people keep approaching him to do their ideas and they get 50% of the profit.
Nah you're not simple. SupCom is pretty niche these days by RTS standards. It goes for large-scale strategy intsead of the lower level squad level management, but at the same time it's not as grandiose as something like the Total War series. I really enjoy it, mainly for the wall to wall warfare and the really awesome interface that allows you to manage everything really well.
See I adore Total War, Company of Heroes, C&C and so on, but I just don't get SupCom. I don't know why, as I can see the potential for awesome, but it doesn't click with me. But perhaps it is the larger scale that puts me off more than anything. I should try it again someday, though.
I think the main reason I didnt like SupCom was that I played it 5 years ago when it was called Total Anihilation. It is so similar in fact that I get nostalgia playing it.
I think the main reason I didnt like SupCom was that I played it 5 years ago when it was called Total Anihilation. It is so similar in fact that I get nostalgia playing it.
I think that while all these guys are jumping ship, certain areas of PC gaming are doing pretty well. There is of course Steam, which is fantastic, and as far as RTS goes EA have actually done a fantastic job with the C&C series. Through the webcasting and the podcasts and the mini tv-shows they've launched for the C&C fanbase they've really built up a huge community all based around broadcasting your online matchups through the net, hoping it'll be picked up for one of the show highlight reels and whatnot. It's pretty cool, and even though C&C3 isn't a perfect continuation of the series they really did amazing things with it.
I think that PC gaming will always have something going for it, particularly as far as RTS gamers are concerned, as until the day comes where optionally using a KB/M on a console is standard there's just no way to make them work as well on them. The 360 version of C&C3 is okay, and a great alternative for console users, but the UI just makes half the stuff people do on the PC version impossible.
I think the main reason I didnt like SupCom was that I played it 5 years ago when it was called Total Anihilation. It is so similar in fact that I get nostalgia playing it.
You would think that he'd have learned to make the factions a little more different from each other this time around.
But I'll tell you, when I was playing the last mission of the UEF campaign it was just wall-to-wall warfare simultaneously organising land, sea and air strikes in defence of the Black Sun installation, and it pretty much enamoured me with the game.
Forged Alliance was more of the same, but they made things a bit cheesy in that half the time you get the "operation area expanded" message it means you're going to be attacked by a ridiculously large force in 30 seconds. Cheap way of doing things, and the new faction was still largely the same as the other three. I enjoyed the campaign, but I really wish the factions were more different.
Plus, despite being 5 years old, there's interace stuff that TA and Supcom have done that still haven't been implemented, especially with the allowance of unit and construction queing and ferry routes and things. Although I suppose that's more to do with the fact that in a game like TA or SupCom you're expected to field massive armies and bases with large maneuvers across the entire map space. In games like Company of Heroes, having a repeat unit construction queue would be pretty pointless.
* The number one Real-Time Strategy Game of all time, Gamespy 2004
* Best Game of All Time, PC Games 1998
* Gamer's Choice Award, Best Real-Time Strategy Game, PC Gamer
* 1998 Blister Award Winner, "Best Strategy Game of 1997", Electric Playground
* 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot
* Best Strategy Game of 1997, GameSpot
* Best Multiplayer Game 1997, GameSpot
* Best Music 1997 GameSpot
* Included in Gamespot's "Greatest Games of All Time" Feature
* 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards
* 1997 Best Strategy Game, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards
* 1997 Best War Game, Happy Puppy's Golden Fire Hydrant Award
* 1997 Best Strategy Game, PC Guru Magazine, Hungary
* Best RTS Game, GAME.EXE Magazine, Russia 1998
* Best Game of the Year 1997, PC Soulces, France
* Silver Trophy Award, PC Magazine Loisirs, France
* Top Game Award for Five Consecutive Months, PC Jeux France
* Best RTS Game 1997, Reader's Choice Award, PC Gamer Online
* Best Real-Time Strategy Game 1997, The Adrenaline Vault
* Best Strategy Game 1997, Reader's Award, Games Domain
* 1997 Game of the Year, CompuNews
* 1997 Best Sound/Music, GamePen
* Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamezilla.com
* Game of the Year, Game Review Central
* Best Real-Time Strategy Game of 1997, Ultra Game Players Magazine
* CG Choice Award, Computer Gaming World, 1998
* Best of the Best A+ Award, PC Games 1998
* Family PC Tested-Recommended, Family PC 1998
* Stamp of Approval, Computer Games Strategy Plus
* Editor's Choice Award 1997, Online Gaming Review
* Special Achievement in Music 1997, Online Gaming Review
* Best Game of the Year 1997, Honorable Mention, Online Gaming Review
* Best Game of 1997, Reader's Knockout Poll Award, Games Domain Review
* Best PC Game of 1997, Video Games Palace
* Gaming Product of the Year 1997, MeccaWorld
* Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamesmania
* Gold Player Top-Rated 5 Star Award, PC Games Germany
* Gold Award, PC Action Germany
* Top Rated 5 Star Award 1997, PC Gaming World UK
* Platin Award, PC Power
* Innovation in Gaming Award 1997, PC Review
* Editor's Choice Award, Game Worlds Network
* Editor's Choice Award, Gaming Age
* Editor's Choice Award 1997, All About Games
* Awesome! Award 1997, Game Briefs
* Killer Game Award 1997, The Cheater's Guild
* OGR Preferred Award, Online Gaming Review
* X-Picks Dazzler for 1997, Gamecenter
* Hot! 4 Star Award, GAMERZedge
* Hands-On Award, PC GamePro
* Editor's Pick Award 1997, GameSpot
* Buy Now! Award, San Francisco Guardian Plug & Play
* Star Player Award, Games Machine
* GamePower's 4-Lightning Bolt Award 1997
* GamePen's Best of E3 Award 1997
* Top 12 Games of Autumn, PC Games Europe
* Hot Property Award 1997, MeccaWorld
* The number one Real-Time Strategy Game of all time, Gamespy 2004
* Best Game of All Time, PC Games 1998
* Gamer's Choice Award, Best Real-Time Strategy Game, PC Gamer
* 1998 Blister Award Winner, "Best Strategy Game of 1997", Electric Playground
* 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot
* Best Strategy Game of 1997, GameSpot
* Best Multiplayer Game 1997, GameSpot
* Best Music 1997 GameSpot
* Included in Gamespot's "Greatest Games of All Time" Feature
* 1997 Game of the Year, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards
* 1997 Best Strategy Game, GameSpot Reader's Choice Awards
* 1997 Best War Game, Happy Puppy's Golden Fire Hydrant Award
* 1997 Best Strategy Game, PC Guru Magazine, Hungary
* Best RTS Game, GAME.EXE Magazine, Russia 1998
* Best Game of the Year 1997, PC Soulces, France
* Silver Trophy Award, PC Magazine Loisirs, France
* Top Game Award for Five Consecutive Months, PC Jeux France
* Best RTS Game 1997, Reader's Choice Award, PC Gamer Online
* Best Real-Time Strategy Game 1997, The Adrenaline Vault
* Best Strategy Game 1997, Reader's Award, Games Domain
* 1997 Game of the Year, CompuNews
* 1997 Best Sound/Music, GamePen
* Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamezilla.com
* Game of the Year, Game Review Central
* Best Real-Time Strategy Game of 1997, Ultra Game Players Magazine
* CG Choice Award, Computer Gaming World, 1998
* Best of the Best A+ Award, PC Games 1998
* Family PC Tested-Recommended, Family PC 1998
* Stamp of Approval, Computer Games Strategy Plus
* Editor's Choice Award 1997, Online Gaming Review
* Special Achievement in Music 1997, Online Gaming Review
* Best Game of the Year 1997, Honorable Mention, Online Gaming Review
* Best Game of 1997, Reader's Knockout Poll Award, Games Domain Review
* Best PC Game of 1997, Video Games Palace
* Gaming Product of the Year 1997, MeccaWorld
* Best Strategy Game of 1997, Gamesmania
* Gold Player Top-Rated 5 Star Award, PC Games Germany
* Gold Award, PC Action Germany
* Top Rated 5 Star Award 1997, PC Gaming World UK
* Platin Award, PC Power
* Innovation in Gaming Award 1997, PC Review
* Editor's Choice Award, Game Worlds Network
* Editor's Choice Award, Gaming Age
* Editor's Choice Award 1997, All About Games
* Awesome! Award 1997, Game Briefs
* Killer Game Award 1997, The Cheater's Guild
* OGR Preferred Award, Online Gaming Review
* X-Picks Dazzler for 1997, Gamecenter
* Hot! 4 Star Award, GAMERZedge
* Hands-On Award, PC GamePro
* Editor's Pick Award 1997, GameSpot
* Buy Now! Award, San Francisco Guardian Plug & Play
* Star Player Award, Games Machine
* GamePower's 4-Lightning Bolt Award 1997
* GamePen's Best of E3 Award 1997
* Top 12 Games of Autumn, PC Games Europe
* Hot Property Award 1997, MeccaWorld
Posts
The problem is that there's a chance your company's engine might not take off from your tech demo/game and then all that money has gone to waste: see also Doom 3. That engine was used on, what, Doom 3, Quake 4, and Prey? (All three of which looked nearly identical, by the way). I can't imagine they did that well with it.
Yeah, that's certainly true. But with any business venture you make there is a certain amount of risk.
If your engine becomes popular, you'll be raking in cash. If it flops, well, it flops. But the payoff is big enough that companies are still willing to take the risk, which says something.
I will say that I think PC gaming is not a prestigious (hell that might not even be the right word) as it used to be or as I remember it being. It seemed like years ago a lot of the games for PC just could not be done on consoles at all. Now with consoles including HDDs, internet connectivity, and fancy graphics it seems the reason for these games being on the PC has vanished.
And dev's and others are being completely naive if they think piracy isn't going to become a problem on consoles. The federali's just did a major nationwide raid on console modders, in the end it appears the final result was pretty sad, but this is just the beginning as I see it.
Extreme example, but proves the point well enough. (bad format choice)
Its would be virtually impossible to come up with raw data on piracy's effect on computer sales. Someone also mentioned it best when they commented that PC' games feel like they are bootlegged anyway, the manuals are not nearly as impressive as they used to be (for the games I have bought). Also in a lot of PC games I have received so many game breaking bugs, many many many times more then I have ever received on a console version. Not shipping a product that is playable also really hurts sales.
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8945&Itemid=2
Crysis failed to crack the list top ten PC games of 2007 at US retail, but still managed to quickly reach million-seller status on a worldwide basis, according to EA.
I thought the Dreamcast died to to a combination of complete domination from the PS2, lack of sales, and total mismanagement from Sega themselves? You know, everything except piracy.
Which is exactly the discussion going on. Dreamcast piracy was there, but in no way was it the cause of its downfall at all.
Just sayin'.
I also have UT3, and it was my main motivation for building my new pc. Unfortunately the game is a mere shadow of its past incarnations, both singleplayer and multiplayer. I've spent maybe 3 hours playing it, but I can't tear myself away from TF2.
They can blame piracy if they want, that's fine by me, they've run out of good game ideas so frankly I won't miss them.
Where did you get that number from?
I wasn't saying that it was it's downfall. It certainly doesn't/didn't help, and it's simply proving that on a home console, not a handheld, that piracy is prevalent.
Sega fucked up the Dreamcast. That's a well known fact.
At least from his earlier post, it appears he works in the industry. I don't find it that surprising for Triple A titles, but I also see it as one of the fundamental problems haunting the PC industry right now, I just don't think the consumer base is big enough anymore to support such massive expenses.
I do work in the industry (programmer) but I got that particular number from a magazine article in OXM; Michael Pachter (that industry analyst guy) did a piece where he broke down where the $60 from a PS3/360 game sale goes. It's pretty interesting. If anyone's interested, it's the one with CoD4 on the cover.
I'll actually agree that costs for next gen titles are increasing. But I'll echo a lot of the people who've already said that those spiraling costs are ridiculous and need to be controlled. There is and should be room in the gaming world for smaller games with smaller audiences and smaller budgets. Having to sell a million means that either your game is a massive success, or a bust. No in-between, and frankly, that's crazy.
One thing keeps weirding me out though is that people keep saying that the PC is no longer a "mainstream" gaming machine. And I keep thinking "when was the PC ever a mainstream games machine?".
I mean seriously, PC gaming has always been niche compared to console gaming. Lower budgets, sold less units, to smaller fanbases. Aside from the odd mega-hit like the Sims, that's all it's ever been. About the closest I can think that it ever got to mainstream was probably around 1998/99 when you had Half-Life, Starcraft, and a bunch of other awesome titles come out in a short space of time. Before that maybe it was the Doom period, but again, I just view Doom as one of those freak occurrances.
I mean think about it, the primary purpose of the games console is to be a games machine. It focusses on that, and costs less to actually purchase. What's the purpose of the PC? Gaming is one of it's purposes. I would argue that it may not even be able to call it a mainstream purpose of the PC given the fact that the average store-bought PC is sold with no real capability of playing modern PC games (although if I'm honest, I feel that this is something that has gone very wrong with the PC industry in general, with particular reference to the graphics card industry, but that's for another thread. Suffice it to say I feel that both the hardware industry and the suppliers need to get their act together on this if they want to prevent the gaming market from stagnating and then potentially falling).
I think gaming's evolving, and the games market is getting bigger, which means mega-hit titles are getting some pretty major production costs. But with the games market getting bigger and the audience getting broader, there's still room for the niche market, probably now more than ever. What you need to do is make sure that your costs are regulated and that you market for a big enough potential market to make a profit.
There is already a market for smaller games- indie games like Sins of a Solar Empire (which is a runaway success by any measure), and stuff like Peggle. This thread is about guys like Chris Taylor, Peter Molyneux, Mark Rein, and CliffyB essentially jumping ship on the PC market because they can't make the kinds of games they want to make without getting a big piece of the console pie. Valve and Blizzard stay in business in large part by trading on their (well-deserved) reputations, made when development wasn't so expensive and the market wasn't so segmented. 15 years ago the biggest game machine was the PC; only since the PS1 era have consoles really gained ground.
Cutting costs is great and all but what you're really suggesting is slashing the salaries of developers, downsizing development studios, or shortening development time. In a well-run studio, there's no other way. Any one of these pushes quality downwards (and personally makes me
I don't particularly think that's close to being true then, or he might have a slightly different definition of AAA title. I mean PS3 has only like 5 games that sold over 1 million copies, they can't all be financial disasters
The figure I go by was from a fairly frank interview with Scott "we suck" Millar, CEO of 3D Realms on the next-gen podcast and he was pretty open about the numbers on Prey. He basically said that for a (sorry, I can't use Triple A anymore, it sounds retarded) top title that once they'd hit 500-600,000 then they felt confident it would have done well enough to be greenlit for a sequel by the publisher. And prey had the same production budget as Gears of War, $10 million.
subedii: you may be thinking of the producer of MGS4, but Payton says he was misquoted on that.
When you start looking at companies' sales projections for a lot of their 360/PS3 games, the numbers rarely are projected to sell above 800,000 let alone a million.
Why would you, as a company, greenlight a game that you expected to sell 800,000 if you had to sell 1M just to break even? It doesn't make any sense.
Because that's outright wrong.
Some big PS3/360 games have to sell a lot to break even, certainly. But I'm sure those are the rare exceptions rather than the rule.
The typical number thrown around for the 'break even point' in sales for 360/PS3 games is 500,000.
That number agrees with numbers we've gotten from Namco, and most publishers, in their financial reports, rarely put a game's projected sale about 1M. Unless it's been hyped to holy hell for 2 years.
The typical numbers we use for the average cost to dev/publish a 36/PS3 game is $15M. You''d have to spend roughly $30 million on a game to require a million in sales to be your break even point.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
I just want to chime in to say this is a great post. As much as I love the PC platform, these very capable developers aren't able to flourish there like they could by working with consoles because the sales just aren't coming.
If they don't manage to succeed in the console market, then they deserve to catch a little flak, but if they do, all the better for us consumers. I could see being pissed with this trend if these guys were actually making mega-hit games for the PC, but they haven't been on the mark at all, so who cares if they try something new? Nothing is at stake.
And as for PS3 only having like 5 million-sellers, I'd bet there are actually more than that. Reliable data is hard to get from Europe and Asia. And bear in mind that million-sales break-even mark is for bigtime releases, not every game ever. Most games don't need that many sales to tread water, but again- this thread is about the big names and big budgets.
We're talking atypical cases here, folks, not averages- more Halo 3, less Puzzle Quest.
Forbes broke down the percentages of a $60 game and where the revenue goes.
But for conservatism's sake, let's say that a publisher only receives $20 in revenue from each game sold. Let's also assume a game costs $15M to make.
$15M/$20 = 750k. That's still not anywhere near a million. That also assumes that publishers only receive $20 out of the sale of a $60 game. I'm sure they receive more than that, what with retailers getting less than $10 in profit and small fees going to the console manufacturer.
$15M/$30 is 500,000. 500,000 to break even - this correlates pretty much exactly with Namco's position. The $30 also agrees with Forbes' breakdown.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Indeed, I already said that this is and should be the case
You see, I'm going to have to disagree there. I find it difficult to believe that the PC had a bigger gaming audience than the SNESS or the Mega-Drive for example. Heck, if you want to go back further, how about the days of the Atari?
Even if I were to accept that point, 15 years is still a long time ago.
As for Valve and Blizzard staying in business by trading on their names, I'd disagree there as well. Both have continued to make some utterly brilliant games, but more importantly, both have adapted their business models not only to adapt to the games market, but to actively shape it. Valve with Steam, Blizzard with WoW.
I mean, look at id software these days. They used to be pretty much an unstoppable company back around the late 90's. Now after a string of mediocre games, nobody really expects much of them. There's only so far you can go on a name alone. Meanwhile, companies like Stardock and Introversion are fast making a name for themselves by the titles that they develope and publish. Are they still small? Yes, especially Introversion. But with each release they're selling more, and (at least in the case of Stardock), likely to get bigger.
Nope, possibly, and possibly.
What I'm suggesting is keeping the scope of your game small, and building and building up your company with your successes. Keep the scope small, the game small, and the costs small. You don't have to ship a big budget million seller right from the beginning.
Epic originally started off as Epic Megagames, a very small company making some fairly crappy shareware titles, eventually leading on to some fairly good shareware titles. Finally, they managed to release a couple of hits in the form of Epic Pinball and Jazz Jackrabit. They took the money they made from those titles, and pretty much plowed it all into the development of a game called "Unreal". The rest is pretty much history.
When I first saw the screenshots and previews for Unreal, I was more than a little flummoxed. How on EARTH did an indie developer like Epic Megagames suddenly move on from crappy and cheapo shareware games to this? It just blew my mind that they had managed that.
I'm not saying that the barrier to entry isn't high in the industry for making a blockbuster like Unreal. But you don't automatically have to start at Unreal either. Make a quality product, it doesn't have to be hugely ambitious, just a good product with plenty or word of mouth behind it to get it selling. This in itself is no mean feat, but being a startup in any industry was never an easy thing.
Gonna be talking shop about RTS games, console version and all sorts of crap. Will be essential listening I guarantee.
It'll be online in an hour or so I've heard.
So, basically, I can't use real life examples of games with 10million dollar development costs, but I can use an analysts made up numbers? That makes sense.
Awesome. The interviews with Warren Spector and Paul Wedgewood were really good.
The Brodeo is the king of podcasts.
The thing though, I listened to the 1upyours GDC specials and they are missing the point of GDC completely.
You have these amazing developers on the show, I dont wanna hear fucking Garnett make jokes and talk about non game crap. I want in depth talk about the process of development.
Spector was retardedly knowledgable about the process and it was fascinating to listen to. The whole 'ideas are worthless' thing was so right. Just so right.
The one tonight will be brilliant.
The brodeo is such good commute listening, because it varies wildly between genuinely in depth analysis and accurate reporting of games, the opposite of 1upyours, and then will stray into tentacle rape dungeons in second life and ralphie griefing at a moments notice. hilariously funny, factually interesting.
You can have a large Dev house pour millions into making a completely fantastic & graphically impressive game only to have it not sell.
On the flip side you can have a small Indie Dev release a game that cost only thousands to make and end up with a run away smash hit.
There are no certainties.
I prefer C&C to SupCom, so.. maybe I'm simple or something.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
He made Total Anihilation. And Dungeon Siege among other things.
Then he made Sup Com.
If you dont know what Total Anihilation is, then play SupCom.
I agree that there are no complete certainties, but research has shown pretty easily that marketing is a huge factor in getting game sales.
The conclusion was basically:
A great game with great marketing sells really well. A bad game with great marketing sells pretty well.
A great game with little to no marketing sells poorly. A bad game with little to no marketing sells poorly.
And that pretty much rings true. Games like A's Creed which have been shoved down our throats at every media opportunity, it was practically a guaranteed success. Or capcom - they spent almost as much ($8 million) on marketing Lost Planet - and that game became their number 1 best selling 360 game (1.45M sales).
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
Yeah, that's really true. If it weren't for the fact that Warren had been continuously hammering on the point that it's the execution not the idea, I probably would've thought him really conceited for saying he'd thought up those other ideas before someone else did them.
It was also really funny how Paul went off on an aside as to how people keep approaching him to do their ideas and they get 50% of the profit.
@APZonerunner:
Nah you're not simple. SupCom is pretty niche these days by RTS standards. It goes for large-scale strategy intsead of the lower level squad level management, but at the same time it's not as grandiose as something like the Total War series. I really enjoy it, mainly for the wall to wall warfare and the really awesome interface that allows you to manage everything really well.
See I adore Total War, Company of Heroes, C&C and so on, but I just don't get SupCom. I don't know why, as I can see the potential for awesome, but it doesn't click with me. But perhaps it is the larger scale that puts me off more than anything. I should try it again someday, though.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
I think that PC gaming will always have something going for it, particularly as far as RTS gamers are concerned, as until the day comes where optionally using a KB/M on a console is standard there's just no way to make them work as well on them. The 360 version of C&C3 is okay, and a great alternative for console users, but the UI just makes half the stuff people do on the PC version impossible.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
You would think that he'd have learned to make the factions a little more different from each other this time around.
But I'll tell you, when I was playing the last mission of the UEF campaign it was just wall-to-wall warfare simultaneously organising land, sea and air strikes in defence of the Black Sun installation, and it pretty much enamoured me with the game.
Forged Alliance was more of the same, but they made things a bit cheesy in that half the time you get the "operation area expanded" message it means you're going to be attacked by a ridiculously large force in 30 seconds. Cheap way of doing things, and the new faction was still largely the same as the other three. I enjoyed the campaign, but I really wish the factions were more different.
Plus, despite being 5 years old, there's interace stuff that TA and Supcom have done that still haven't been implemented, especially with the allowance of unit and construction queing and ferry routes and things. Although I suppose that's more to do with the fact that in a game like TA or SupCom you're expected to field massive armies and bases with large maneuvers across the entire map space. In games like Company of Heroes, having a repeat unit construction queue would be pretty pointless.
Dude... no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_received_by_Total_Annihilation
Not a fucking chance.
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
Edit:
This cannot be botp'd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_received_by_Total_Annihilation