|
Carfax Report posted:On the subject of AAA development, let me toss out a big question. What's everyone's though on the sustainability of the current AAA industry? I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about from the industry standpoint, but from the standpoint of a consumer, the increasing trend of polarizing all games into "$60 AAA console-only/console-with-PC-backport titles" or "$.99 casual phone games/f2p browser games" is deeply troubling. The current explosion of indie studios producing high quality products is something that's starting to fill that growing gap, but I guess I'm not really "the typical consumer". It seems like thus far, the trend in the industry has been to respond to losses by hiking prices, which is by nature not sustainable. In my admittedly uninformed opinion, the question isn't so much "is it sustainable?" as much as "when will it reach the limit and what will happen when it does". hailthefish fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Aug 11, 2011 |
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Carfax Report posted:On the subject of AAA development, let me toss out a big question. What's everyone's though on the sustainability of the current AAA industry? I think you'd need to define AAA first. If I define AAA as being games that sell > 5M units across all platforms, I don't see that there is significantly less AAA console game development. You still have Halo, Madden, CoD, GTA, FF etc...
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 04:07
|
|
|
I think the $60 shrink-wrapped AAA title market is definitely shrinking, but I'd hesitate to say that big-budget AAA titles in general are shrinking. There are a number of factors that will make 8 and 9-figure budget titles continue to be viable in my opinion. Cutting retailers out of the equation, eliminating used game sales, new/supplemental business models like PDLC, freemium, ad revenue, and subscriptions. No doubt that mid and low-budget titles are where the major growth is/will be. But I'd say AAA revenue will grow as well, just slower and from a much bigger baseline.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
Shalinor posted:This, however, is hooey. $5 to $20 is doing famously on Steam, XBLA/PSN are on the rise (and set to explode next console generation), and so on. We're not finding the ROI on the XBLA/Steam/PSN titles that you're thinking about to be profitable enough. It might be great for small to medium studios and indies. Hughlander posted:I think you'd need to define AAA first. If I define AAA as being games that sell > 5M units across all platforms, I don't see that there is significantly less AAA console game development. You still have Halo, Madden, CoD, GTA, FF etc... I'm defining it from a budget perspective of $20MM and up. And you're naming franchises, which is fine, but we've seen a lot of new IP this generation bomb and it's been troubling. DancingMachine posted:I think the $60 shrink-wrapped AAA title market is definitely shrinking, but I'd hesitate to say that big-budget AAA titles in general are shrinking. There are a number of factors that will make 8 and 9-figure budget titles continue to be viable in my opinion. Cutting retailers out of the equation, eliminating used game sales, new/supplemental business models like PDLC, freemium, ad revenue, and subscriptions. You won't be able to cut retailers out of the equation unless you focus on PC. The console market is still tied to retail and will be as long as there is physical media involved. Our analysis has found that the only way to make a profit these days on console AAA is to focus on PDLC, which is crushing the ability to invest in AAA. hailthefish posted:It seems like thus far, the trend in the industry has been to respond to losses by hiking prices, which is by nature not sustainable. In my admittedly uninformed opinion, the question isn't so much "is it sustainable?" as much as "when will it reach the limit and what will happen when it does". That is the same question as whether it is sustainable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
Retailers won't get booted over night, in fact they won't be completely out of the picture ever. But their share of the pie is already shrinking, and I would be very surprised if it doesn't shrink dramatically in this next console rev. You know on further reflection I think maybe if you are defining "shrinking" as the number of titles in development, you are probably right that AAA console games are shrinking. I don't think AAA budget games broadly as a category are/will shrink in revenue or investment. DancingMachine fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
These quotes come from someone who founded a AAA studio whose console games defined an era, that everyone loves and looks up to, and is still operating today and winning many prestigious awards. quote:As a general statement, I do not believe that it is possible to start a AAA console game developer in 2010. There will not be a new team creating the next Call of Duty. That door is closed. If anything, the number of teams will shrink in the next 5 years, rather than expand. Having said that, there are incredible opportunities to be had. In the time it takes to make a sequel to Grand Theft Auto, Zynga went from zero to 100 million monthly active users and billions in valuation. quote:AAA is cutting edge. It is the games that push the envelope of technology. So in 1985, one guy could make the most technologically advanced game out there. Now, he can't make the main character alone. Carfax and others define AAA as a game project whose budget is greater than some amount of money, but that's a very loose definition and, strictly speaking, budget-defined "AAA" loses its meaning when applied to, for example, technologically advanced games that reuse assets or which are otherwise conservatively and effectively managed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
Well, I just sent my resume in for a Community Management position. Crossing my fingers. I've always been on the other side of the interview table (used to work for the gaming press)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 06:02
|
|
|
M4rk posted:Anyhow, anyone want to take a look at my LinkedIn profile and critique it? Second sentence in your summary should be all past tense: "Previously moderated and managed the internet's largest Aion community." Reads really weird the way you currently have it. Asking people to subscribe to a newsletter to see examples of your work is probably not going to score you any points either. You have that ad linked from your actual website, so you should probably change the LinkedIn link to the one used on your website. Speaking of which, on your website the first thing I read is this: "Designed this myself in one day over the span of a few hours. Didn’t know I could do that." I'd get rid of that, makes you sound really unsure of your skill set, which isn't exactly the first thing you want to present to possible new employers. Also get rid of the women and beer quote. You said you were reworking your site though so I will leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
Kitten Kisses posted:Second sentence in your summary should be all past tense: "Previously moderated and managed the internet's largest Aion community." Reads really weird the way you currently have it. 1. I'll fix the tense. (Edit: fixed now, hopefully.) 2. Examiner.com isn't a newsletter, it's a news site. I just write articles there from time to time, if I feel a game needs more press. EDIT: Oh, you meant the Casual Connect magazine ad. Well it's a free magazine, very good for folks who want to get into social and casual games. But yeah, you're right. Also I don't actually do ad design for a living, it's more of an example of my ability to pick up on just about anything and do it competently. Versatility/agility, I guess. 3. I just deleted a bunch of old stuff and that quote was the first thing I posted on tumblr a billion years ago. I still like it.  Again, thanks for taking a look. M4rk fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
Revenue = Quantity * Price. All companies have two methods of increasing revenues; quantity and price. (Note revenues are different than profits.) Prices in the big budget console space are effectively locked in the $50 to $60 range, unless you use bundling for low-cost add-ons and inflate the price via deluxe editions. These price locks are the result of three components: retailers requirements (retailers urge us to price high to increase their revenue share), first party requirements (first parties urge us to price high to increase their royalty), and creator's desires to not have price defined by the market. (There's a reason every movie is priced the same; as a customer, if you see one movie is $7 and another is $10, you will assume the content has less value.) We have seen a trend toward price deflation for titles that aren't hits; this is because many of the retailers are concerned over inventory control due to slow sales of many key titles in the last year. (The new games retail business is a business of packaged good turnover that hasn't changed in hundreds of years.) As a result, retailers have been slashing prices mere weeks after launch, which also hurts the publisher as they try to push second and third wave inventory. With price locked, the marketplace becomes a struggle for quantity. As publishers compete over gamers' wallets (which is actually a competition over their time), those customers in turn make decisions over content they are willing to spend money on. If you have four $60 titles in a month, a consumer may pick two at the most, making industry sales 50%. But if the big budget development shrank, you could start to see that ratio creep up as product becomes more limited. Product being limited is not a problem- it allows publishers to focus their resources on content and create a more polished product. I believe this trend is happening naturally, and the decline of big budget console titles will be a good thing overall. Once again, though, I am biased because I believe the console industry itself has about a decade left, and within a few years will begin to drop precipitously as smart televisions, smart phones, cloud and sandybridge/browser replace the need for an investment in gaming-only devices. The current ROI of game development will change drastically. We produce ROI on a game by discounting cash flows for games through a fixed development, marketing and overhead budget over time (4 years), release, and assume return based on expected sales and price of a title. Instead, I expect ROI to be the DCF over a variable game development time that is as long as the game's potential for play. Big budget games won't be released as final entities but grown, a sort of mix of how MMOs and social games operate, while development is persistent over the course of its lifetime. This doesn't mean the game has to be multiplayer or social, but rather that game creation itself will move toward a persistent development model. Episodic gaming and DLCs are the first steps toward this model within the limitations of the current ecosystem. The goal for publishers, particularly as relates to the cloud, is going to be using this model to get subscription revenues. We may be a decade away, but it's coming. Imagine turning on your television and seeing the EA channel, the same way that you get HBO. You pay to your cable provider or EA directly for it. You'll find the latest chapter of Dead Space out, but also have access to your back catalog of Dead Space chapters, Mass Effect Chapters, Madden matches, etc., which you'll be paying $10-20 a month for. Even though mass consumer application of this is a decade away, we'll start to movement to these new business models in half steps, because the current 4, 5, 6 year dev cycles of packaged content releases are choking the industry. Black Eagle posted:These quotes come from someone who founded a AAA studio whose console games defined an era, that everyone loves and looks up to, and is still operating today and winning many prestigious awards. Black Eagle posted:Carfax and others define AAA as a game project whose budget is greater than some amount of money, but that's a very loose definition and, strictly speaking, budget-defined "AAA" loses its meaning when applied to, for example, technologically advanced games that reuse assets or which are otherwise conservatively and effectively managed. The word AAA was vague in my original post and a poor choice. I should have written "Big Budget Title for console." Responding to your comments, though, reusing assets means what? If you mean something like a Dead Rising Case 0, which turned a profit, I would class that game as profit-padding DLC, because it's categorized within the ROI of Dead Rising 2's asset base. Conservative management of a console title's development may help bring it closer to the black, but other industry trends fight against its desire for profitability. For example, let's say we use Unreal instead of building a custom engine. Now the profit margin is shaved from 30% to 25%. That 25% needs to cover not only development, but marketing and overhead. It's not enough, hence the string of publisher losses in the last two years. Carfax Report fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 07:17
|
|
|
Carfax Report posted:While I appreciate the input and think its interesting, and it's great to have others' experience to draw on, I'd like to hear more of your own opinions drawn from your own work experience. Carfax Report posted:Responding to your comments, though, reusing assets means what? If you mean something like a Dead Rising Case 0, which turned a profit, I would class that game as profit-padding DLC, because it's categorized within the ROI of Dead Rising 2's asset base. Carfax Report posted:Conservative management of a console title's development may help bring it closer to the black, but other industry trends fight against its desire for profitability. For example, let's say we use Unreal instead of building a custom engine. Now the profit margin is shaved from 30% to 25%. That 25% needs to cover not only development, but marketing and overhead. It's not enough, hence the string of publisher losses in the last two years. Adraeus fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
Black Eagle posted:
It's great that you want to share other's insights. I'm not trying to insult you and you make a fair point, and I do apologize for any misunderstanding. Black Eagle posted:What is asset-and-technology reuse is illustrated by the difference between Fallout: New Vegas and Alpha Protocol. With the understanding that Bethesda Softworks isn't open with its financials and so making the comparison hypothetical, Fallout: New Vegas most likely cost less to produce than Fallout 3 because Obsidian Entertainment had the advantage of using prebuilt assets and technology. I agree that, in the case of Fallout 3 to New Vegas, sequels can have less dev time and cost if they reuse assets properly. We've become an industry of sequels, so this is coming true. Would you share my concern, then for the risks of new IP development? Black Eagle posted:The formula isn't that simple. Obsidian developed Alpha Protocol using Unreal Engine 3, but the studio didn't adequately account for the challenges of developing an RPG with that technology. Obsidian created levels, gameplay, and content before the systems were in place to use those assets. In Feargus Urquhart's words, "They could create levels that functioned, but they functioned for a game like Gears of War and not what we were ultimately trying to create." These setbacks obviously led to delays, higher costs, and more publisher interaction. Soon after release, Sega pulled the plug on any opportunity to extend Alpha Protocol or create a franchise. You're looking for a pattern in the overall picture, but you need to narrow in on the individual elements that affect the bottom line if you want to understand the why. I agree you need to understand individual elements, but does that disagree with the point about risk in game development being too high to sustain today's level of big budget console development? Carfax Report fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 08:55
|
|
|
I edited my post above yet again. Habits of a tweaker, sorry.Carfax Report posted:I agree that, in the case of Fallout 3 to New Vegas, sequels can have less dev time and cost if they reuse assets properly. We've become an industry of sequels, so this is coming true. I'm not sure what you mean by tying this thread with the risks of (or to?) new IP. New IP is always a gamble, but it's a necessary risk. When you don't risk new IP, you risk your company instead because markets are moving targets and your competitors won't be as content with your position. I don't think the franchise focus has negatively impacted the pursuit of original IP in general. If anything, creators have started thinking, "How can I turn my original IP into a series?" That's good business and it's certainly not bad for the fans. Carfax Report posted:It's a fair point that you need to understand individual elements, but does that disagree with the point about risk in game development being too high to sustain today's level of big budget console development?  The point of impact is the direct cost of the technology, but the rest of the crater represents the associated costs. The latest technology produces a large crater. You need a big budget to fill that crater. Here's the rub though: you don't need the latest technology to produce profitable properties. And you don't even need technology at all to achieve annoying alliterations! Back in 2006, Frank N. Magid & Associates developed a report for the MI6 Game Marketing Conference. I used that report to write a brief called "Value Innovation for Video Games" in which I charted the opportunities in games at the time, based on what consumers looked to the least to make purchase decisions. As expected, graphics seemed to be what consumers valued the most. That's what was self-reported as critical. Connectivity had very low demand. What we've seen today is that, no, connectivity actually has very high demand and the demand for top-tier graphics is much, much lower.  I found what I wrote way back then, so I think I can let that document conclude for me. (I don't have all of the charts though anymore. Sorry. The above chart actually looked more like the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram when I was done.) Black Eagle posted:Value Innovation for Video Games Here's Raph Koster's thoughts about my initial analysis (i.e., before I wrote the brief and made charts.) Across the document and link, you should note that I've mentioned public relations, IMC, and branding, which are all usually far less expensive and far more effective than advertising. "Slash the technology and advertising budgets and focus on everything else" would be my general recommendation. Adraeus fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 10:23
|
|
|
Black Eagle posted:I edited my post above yet again. Habits of a tweaker, sorry. No problem! quote:There was a short period during the early years where sequels and franchises were unheard of in the game industry; however, that was a very short period. This industry has been one of sequels and franchises since at least the early 1980s. Franchises are absolutely vital to the sustainability [i]and growth[/url] of developers and publishers alike. There are many "indie" developers who develop single-title games exclusively, and they're winning awards, but they're not growing beyond one- or two-man operations. It's true that this has been an industry of franchises and sequels for quite a long time. Let me clarify my point a bit better. You can reuse assets in sequels to drive down game cost and include those estimates in your business proposals for new IP; encouraging the growth of sequels to improve ROI. We both agree, you need original IP to keep your business sustainable. At the turn of the decade, you could develop a new IP at a lower profit margin and assume that the sequels would provide the fatter profits needed to pad margins. Starting a few years ago, and coming to crescendo in the last year or two, publishers are not looking at slimmer profit margins, they are actually taking losses on new IP on the hope that they would be successful in the future. Part of this risk was offset by subsidies from first parties; many have dissapeared for new IP. This risk has grown significantly. Lower or negative ROI turns into an aversion to risk, which in turn spurns more sequels and burn out of older IP, and overall worse conditions for publishers. quote:One topic that appears in many of my interviews is "technology vs. game design." In my opinion, technology drives budgets, not game design. If you're using the latest technology, you need to hire people that can make efficient use of that technology, or increase spending for training. Using the latest technology also means you need to spend more on hardware, software licenses, support, etc. I'm looking for a word, but it's on the tip-of-my-tongue. I'll use an analogy instead. I'll agree that sustainable technology drives budgets; what we commonly refer to as technological advancement in the games industry is a sustainable technology whereby faster cpus and gpus allowed for greater realism and thus need higher budgets. But I believe disruptive technology drives game design and creates innovation, allowing for new opportunities in market growth. The emergence of home consoles from arcades, then smartphones, then social networks was each a technological disruption that resulted in a new style of game design. Each one starts at a technological threshold below the other, but grows over time, the same way that console games looked worse than their arcade counterparts, and have now largely surpassed them. In turn, server-side (streaming) gaming, and 3D capable browser gaming that works cross-device are going to be new technological disruptions that allow for new styles of game design (e.g. the "television channel" example above.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 11:39
|
|
|
Shalinor, if you still need press releases, shoot me an email. I have all of them that I've received over the past several years (30+ per day). I'll send you some good ones and some bad ones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 12:18
|
|
|
Carfax Report posted:Starting a few years ago, and coming to crescendo in the last year or two, publishers are not looking at slimmer profit margins, they are actually taking losses on new IP on the hope that they would be successful in the future. Part of this risk was offset by subsidies from first parties; many have dissapeared for new IP. This risk has grown significantly. HBS Working Knowledge posted:Four experiments test the prediction that feelings of power lead individuals to discount advice received from both experts and novices. Carfax Report posted:I'll agree that sustainable technology drives budgets; what we commonly refer to as technological advancement in the games industry is a sustainable technology whereby faster cpus and gpus allowed for greater realism and thus need higher budgets. But I believe disruptive technology drives game design and creates innovation, allowing for new opportunities in market growth. The emergence of home consoles from arcades, then smartphones, then social networks was each a technological disruption that resulted in a new style of game design. Each one starts at a technological threshold below the other, but grows over time, the same way that console games looked worse than their arcade counterparts, and have now largely surpassed them. In turn, server-side (streaming) gaming, and 3D capable browser gaming that works cross-device are going to be new technological disruptions that allow for new styles of game design (e.g. the "television channel" example above.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 14:43
|
|
|
Carfax Report posted:We're not finding the ROI on the XBLA/Steam/PSN titles that you're thinking about to be profitable enough. It might be great for small to medium studios and indies. XBLA/PSN is still struggling, and is an edge case of sorts still. Most small studios are finding much better sales through Steam, but, XBLA/PSN is still a worthwhile target in addition to Steam. You can expect XBLA/PSN to be doing much better next generation. So yes, Steam (plus XBLA/PSN) especially is absolutely a viable target for small to mid-size developers - and that is the very point. Large-scale developers are shrinking, and small to mid-size developers are growing in prominence. Targeting a giant entity at that scale of dev isn't practical as of yet, and it may never be, but that's fine, the industry is just shifting. The question isn't "how can we make the current behemoths of development keep together," the question is: "where will those employees end up." Right now, the answer is small to mid-sized studios, as most of the behemoths break under their own weight. As a small studio owner, I find this to be perfectly fine, and a sort of return to the 90's of garage and small developers (which is awesome)... but, I can understand if you don't share my enthusiasm. Shalinor fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 14:50
|
|
|
Just to inject a little something into the discussion here, smaller developers are having trouble with XBLA and PSN for reasons that have nothing to do with price point: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36440/Interview_Jonathan_Blow__Xbox_Live_Arcade_A_Pain_In_The_Ass_For_Indies.php Steam and other PC digidistro is currently the way to go at that pricepoint and a lot of groups, us included, are seeing wild success in that arena. Heck, our recent release has been getting a bit of static in the review circuit (although word of mouth is fairly strong) and the project still shot past the break even point inside of a week and is now pulling in pure profit. I'm not quite sure what ROI Carfax is looking for (he works for a public company so it needs to be enough to bribe ~the shareholders~ into not hiring the mafia to murder them all) but from the perspective of a small independent studio, the ROI on titles in that arena and on PC digidistro is absolutely mad bonkers. It's turning the most successful into millionaires and even for those of us on the 'lower end' it's still turning into a substantial business. As far as AAA goes, as it's currently set up it's unsustainable for most developers. What needs to happen is that the cost of making those sorts of games needs to come down and reach a manageable level, but this is something people have been saying for years. Once the tools and tech cost less than the GDP of some third-world cities, what we currently consider AAA will be a bit more viable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
Black Eagle posted:I'm an entrepreneur. Risk is the air I breathe, so it's difficult for me to empathize with risk-averse managers. As you know, I talk with a lot of successful entrepreneurs and business leaders. With great success comes failure. If you're a reasonable person, you have to expect that you will fail one day, perhaps dismally. If you're better for it, then no other reasonable person will castigate you because they understand. They also understand that you have to spend money to make money, usually. If you avoid risk and avoid taking losses as a result of investing in new IP, I don't think you can reasonably say that you're doing your job. So, I see risk aversion as a leadership-management-communication problem more than anything else. (I'm going to assume you're not referring to me specifically, but rather are using a general 'you.') Of course, I'm sympathetic to your argument. That said, I think the arguments about risk aversion are difficult for large publishers because of the demands placed on them. I have responsibilities with the IR team for my company and follow the investor reports regularly (ironically, a former boss of mine from when I worked in equity research now covers our firm); we need to manage our risk otherwise be reamed by the short-term focused investor community. Smart entrepreneurs know to avoid these calls, but when you're in the thick of it, that's very difficult, and it leads otherwise sensible business models astray. One of the things I love about the Innovator's Dilemma book is that it explains that smart managers moving in the best interest of the company are often the ones who don't have the capability to take the risks and make the failures necessary for companies to transition properly at the points of disruptive technology, like we are at now. Shalinor posted:I think you're approaching this from the wrong angle, if that's your viewpoint. I'm not quite sure it's the wrong viewpoint; I would say it's an alternative viewpoint. But to be honest, I think we're in agreement. My original post was supposing that the current model of large publishers, with numerous investment in big budget titles, is not sustainable, and I think many of those developers are going to find themselves leaving those firms for new opportunities. (I don't think I've supported an opinion that the behemoth publishers need to stay together, though I have pointed out many of the issues that they are facing.) Admittedly, I chose the wrong word with saying AAA rather than "big budget console title" but if you reread my post from yesterday swapping that vocabulary, I think you'll see what I mean here. Now whether those new opportunities are a small to medium size studio focused on downloadable games, or into new studios that are going to focus around Google+ and the upcoming changes that HTML5 gaming is going to bring to the industry, is my question. I wonder whether we'll need games to be downloadable in 2 or 3 years; I think the changes are coming faster than most people anticipate. Carfax Report fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 16:23
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:Just to inject a little something into the discussion here, smaller developers are having trouble with XBLA and PSN for reasons that have nothing to do with price point: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/36440/Interview_Jonathan_Blow__Xbox_Live_Arcade_A_Pain_In_The_Ass_For_Indies.php Hey there! How you been? We should do a catch up call sometime. I think you hit the nail on the head here, and you're right about the big publisher ROI issues; the problem of growth is that each time you grow you need to exceed it, and after three decades, a couple million in sales is not enough. Question for you, though; you say that ROI on PC digidistro is good, but how much of that would you attribute to luck? How many losers are there for every winner?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 16:41
|
|
|
Carfax Report posted:Hey there! How you been? We should do a catch up call sometime. Now this, right here, I think, is a really good reason why I think game development should always remain a private endeavor and shouldn't be taken public. That's something I could harp on about for pages, but given that it's 1AM here in Japan I need to get the gently caress to bed.  Short of it is, though, if a game company reaches a point where a couple million goddamned sales isn't enough and that's due in no small part to shareholders, the component of that equation that's broken is obvious enough to me. Sure, not everyone can build a company from literally nothing like we or Valve did (Valve being, I think, another example of how staying 100% private can lead to completely off-the-chain success and power later on) but making what is, in the end, an artistic endeavor, with all the uncertainty that implies, beholden to men who care only for their own profits and have no true interest in your company strikes me as deeply unwise.quote:Question for you, though; you say that ROI on PC digidistro is good, but how much of that would you attribute to luck? How many losers are there for every winner? Hmmmm. Cliche as it might be, we would need to define what you mean by "winner". If we're talking Minecraft/Meatboy "developers become instant millionaires" success, then drat few, obviously. They're out there, but that level of success DOES depend on no small amount of luck in addition to prodigious skill in game-crafting and marketing. If we mean "a startup can pay for itself, establish a brand name and see some profit come in and grow organically to produce new products", then the list is far longer. Playdead, Supergiant (early reports indicate that Bastion is doing mad bank), the Terraria team, us and EGS (and with even a little luck we'll be adding Lizsoft to that pile), Gaslamp Games (the Dredmor devs), Zeboyd (Cthulhu Saves The World), Frictional, Dejobaan, Johnathan Blow's company... I could probably go on and on. There are losers, for sure, but a drat lot of people have found success with this model. With that definition, I'd hazard a guess that the "losers":"winners" ratio is 2:1 at worst; it's probably less, a lot less even.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 17:08
|
|
|
While I'm not privy to the business side of our company, from my perspective as an MMO designer I can't understand why anyone would attempt to use the AAA model that requires multiple millions of retail sales at $60 to make any profit at all. In mining terms, either you hit the mother lode every time you dig, or you lose too much money to stay in business. The Epic/iD/Crytek method is one way to go - make an amazing engine and a game that shows it off, then make profit off of engine licensing. Trouble is, there aren't that many companies that can make an amazing engine. Telltale Games' model of episodic content on the same technology in multiple franchises is also interesting. There's a very low barrier to entry for a TTG title, and the opportunity for people who REALLY like the content to pay a whole lot more than the average user. The "freemium" model for MMOs is spreading because it works, too. Free or low cost to try, competitive (usually subscription) pricing for the full experience, and tons and tons of extras for the "whales" to give you their money. Typing all that out, I think basically what I'm saying is that the shareware model is back. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
Tricky Ed posted:Typing all that out, I think basically what I'm saying is that the shareware model is back. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Damned right it is and I couldn't be happier. The Internet is built for it and there's a reason I'm committed to offering a demo of every game we work on if it's at all possible. Modern consumers want to be able to kick the tires of your game - legally - before they throw money at you, so you'd better be willing to let them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 17:22
|
|
|
Carfax Report posted:I'm not quite sure it's the wrong viewpoint; I would say it's an alternative viewpoint. But to be honest, I think we're in agreement. My original post was supposing that the current model of large publishers, with numerous investment in big budget titles, is not sustainable, and I think many of those developers are going to find themselves leaving those firms for new opportunities. (I don't think I've supported an opinion that the behemoth publishers need to stay together, though I have pointed out many of the issues that they are facing.) Admittedly, I chose the wrong word with saying AAA rather than "big budget console title" but if you reread my post from yesterday swapping that vocabulary, I think you'll see what I mean here. Larger studios necessarily target a wider consumer market, which these days is HTML5/F2P/iOS/etc. What we're seeing as a fracture in the AAA market is, at least in part, that there were a great many consumers buying in that market that were captive. Now, they're given the choice to play lower-investment casual games on their own terms, which it turns out is plenty of gaming for many of them. There will still be some core AAA studios, but most mid-tier developers will I think find themselves instead targeting web and mobile. Downloadables have proven themselves viable for niche, but they don't appear to scale well - they make a great choice for small developers, but I'm skeptical that large developers will ever be able to extract the kind of consistent profits they require.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 17:30
|
|
|
Two big interviews next week.  YOUR FINGERS! CROSS THEM FOR MEEEEE
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
typhus posted:Two big interviews next week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
In other news, I got an e-mail back from my contact at Riot (with a big thanks to Brackhar for reminding him about me) where he apologized for not responding for a while, stating that it was because since him and his fellow UI guys have been so busy on Dominion, he didn't want to reply without any feedback for me. But then it sorta "fell off (his) radar for a bit". Though with the way he used phases like, "I’ve been on the other side and I know it sucks" and "I’ll get you some actionable information asap. Don’t give up on me. =)" I do feel like the only thing separating me from this job is time. still somewhat relevant to the current conversation because Riot Games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
NextTime000 posted:In other news, I got an e-mail back from my contact at Riot (with a big thanks to Brackhar for reminding him about me) where he apologized for not responding for a while, stating that it was because since him and his fellow UI guys have been so busy on Dominion, he didn't want to reply without any feedback for me. But then it sorta "fell off (his) radar for a bit". Though with the way he used phases like, "I’ve been on the other side and I know it sucks" and "I’ll get you some actionable information asap. Don’t give up on me. =)" I do feel like the only thing separating me from this job is time. Hello fellow Riot applicant buddy.. That's where my community position I'm applying for is. We could be work buddies if all goes well 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
Riot said they were running out of desk space to take me on full time. I actually did some freelance for them too. However I am being flown out to Redwood Shores for an interview with a company I'm quite excited about!!!!  Being a professional Character Artist, here I come (hopefully!)
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 19:43
|
|
|
Fizzle posted:Hello fellow Riot applicant buddy.. That's where my community position I'm applying for is. We could be work buddies if all goes well
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 22:41
|
|
|
M4rk posted:Which community positions did you apply for? I'm in the same boat. Going to PAX? Not heading to PAX due to me being on the east coast and still holding a 9-5 job. I applied mainly for the Volunteer Program Manager position, but for any community position in general.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
I applied back at GDC, and have been in contact with my guy since March. so saying "it is just a matter of time" feels a bit like an ironic statement. I am going for an Associate Flash (and Flex/UI too I guess) Developer position
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
Fizzle posted:Not heading to PAX due to me being on the east coast and still holding a 9-5 job. I applied mainly for the Volunteer Program Manager position, but for any community position in general. I put in for pretty much an Community position too, but I saw the video-related positions and thought to myself "less people have probably applied for these, and I definitely know how to do that." So those were at the top of my list.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 23:18
|
|
|
M4rk posted:Yeah, I'm in Florida but I make plans every year to be at PAX. It's expensive, but totally worth it. Consider it next year! As indy gaming press, I try to do at least one show a year. It's been E3 since 1999 for me :P I don't make money doing what I do in the press side of things though, so it's hard justifying PAX as well 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Fizzle posted:As indy gaming press, I try to do at least one show a year. It's been E3 since 1999 for me :P
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Carfax Report posted:Of course, I'm sympathetic to your argument. That said, I think the arguments about risk aversion are difficult for large publishers because of the demands placed on them. I have responsibilities with the IR team for my company and follow the investor reports regularly (ironically, a former boss of mine from when I worked in equity research now covers our firm); we need to manage our risk otherwise be reamed by the short-term focused investor community. Smart entrepreneurs know to avoid these calls, but when you're in the thick of it, that's very difficult, and it leads otherwise sensible business models astray.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 02:14
|
|
|
Fizzle posted:As indy gaming press, I try to do at least one show a year. It's been E3 since 1999 for me :P As indy gaming press you will have much better luck at PAX than you will E3. Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:As indy gaming press you will have much better luck at PAX than you will E3. Seriously. There's sometimes a Kotaku or Joystiq employee, or some other large-ish game press site writer, but they're normally not loud and don't really stand out, unlike the press at other shows. I know that X-Play and other, more mainstream press outfits cover PAX, but I'm pretty sure they're given a different setup and breakdown area, or maybe they go back to hotel rooms to type up articles instead of associating with the indie folk. I don't know for sure, though. In any case, PAX is a much more laid-back and friendly affair than E3 appears to be, though I can't say for sure (since I've never been to E3, like I said above). Of course E3 is a bigger newsmaker, more announcements come from there, but PAX has its fair share too. Duke Nukem last year, for example.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 06:41
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:As indy gaming press you will have much better luck at PAX than you will E3. Seriously. thing is, I've been to E3 so many times that the PR people recognize me and treat me like one of the "big boys" so it's alright. But yeah. I plan on going to PAX next year, hopefully as someone on the other side of the industry though (I feel really good about my resume and qualifications for this position.. so we'll see)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Fizzle posted:thing is, I've been to E3 so many times that the PR people recognize me and treat me like one of the "big boys" so it's alright. But yeah. I plan on going to PAX next year, hopefully as someone on the other side of the industry though (I feel really good about my resume and qualifications for this position.. so we'll see) Thing is, they have different content. If you're an indie pub, and are covering indie games, you're going to have much more to talk about at E3. The seminars will be relevant, you'll be able to have much much more face time with the people you want, and you will frankly see more of your contacts because half of them will be going for fun anyway. M4rk posted:I think that is a pretty good assumption, especially when you look at the size and friendliness of the press room at PAX. Basically two small conference rooms with a couple small tables and one large one, free water, and small cages to lock equipment in. I've gotten and given plenty of business cards in that press room over the last three or so years. Pretty much everyone in there is indie press or fansites. Usually they don't differentiate. Kotaku, Xplay, Joystiq, Mashable, all those guys use the main press room (which has led to some great conversations with them.) It's the PR types that have hospitality suites back at the hotels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 06:52
|
|