Developers Not thrilled with Nextgen?
- Thread starter TheChefO
- Start date
Sigfried1977
Legend
Unfortunately you'd have to convince consumers about how more realistic doesn't necessarily mean better first. Let's face it: in the here and now you are not going to sell a damn copy of your not quite realistic looking title unless you are Nintendo.
upnorthsox said:
Id imagine they know basic supply/demand math
Well, that explains why Borderlands did so badly.
The most powerful platform currently available (the PC) is also home to an incredibly successful, vibrant, innovative and creative indie scene. They haven't been destroyed by the budgetary needs of high spec development and there's no reason to believe that would happen with high spec consoles either.
No time to read yet. Seems to be related to Brad Grenz's post and Jaffe's comment:
Us and the Game Industry – how indie games are the new counter-culture
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2012/mar/12/us-and-the-game-industry-feature
Us and the Game Industry – how indie games are the new counter-culture
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2012/mar/12/us-and-the-game-industry-feature
A platform having X amount of power doesn't mean every game made has to use all the power. The power of a system is an upper bound, not a lower bound. What's happened is that so far in gaming history, the amount of money the market was willing to spend vastly exceeded the amount of money producers could spend developing games (what would you even do with a $100m budget for an NES game?), so every increase in processing power meant producers would naturally move quickly to that upper boundary. That has been changing for a while now, and more and more developers are starting to catch on.
Imagine if all limits on processing power were gone. 1080p and 120fps are now a given in every game, but you wouldn't see games with trillion-dollar budgets in order to generate molecular-scale assets. Production costs would be limited by the market, the same way not every movie and TV show has the best acting, special effects, and sets.
Imagine if all limits on processing power were gone. 1080p and 120fps are now a given in every game, but you wouldn't see games with trillion-dollar budgets in order to generate molecular-scale assets. Production costs would be limited by the market, the same way not every movie and TV show has the best acting, special effects, and sets.
That's true, but clearly publishers have difficulty adjusting. This gen Wii was a target because it was 'cheaper to produce for'. Yet any game created on Wii could ahve been produced for the same cost on PS360, but rendered in higher quality to boot. However, presumably competition from AAA titles saw devs investing more effort and cost. On the flexibly-priced download services, publishers have been quite willing to invest less and sell at a lower price, so it seems to me that's what needs to be established with the physical distribution schemes too. Actually we had that back in the 80s with various low-cost publishers like Codemasters. It was a free market with freely set prices. clearly something went a little awry with consoles and that needs to be addressed.
Unless things gave changed since PS2 days a publisher can still make a $9.99 game. Sony (at least circa late PS2) has a sliding royalty scale, although the cheapest price point maybe more because of the Blu Ray.
Just for the most part it doesn't make a lot of sense to do it, last time I looked at figures the gain in sales at $9.99 didn't justify the reduction in price, except for titles that likely would not have sold well anyway.
Games for major publishers are about big hits, everything is opportunity cost, you want your best people building something that will sell X million copies not something out there on the edge that has a good chance of flopping.
I think a lot of the major publishers are going to have to go under or radically transform. They're not, as ERP pointed out, really made to make money on anything other than mega-hits, and their fixed costs as they currently exist are too high for low-end products to look like a good idea. So in other words, they're the soon-to-be-obsolete companies in a Christensen book. They're going to have to either transform or die, because in a world where Angry Birds gets 500 million downloads and AAA console game sales are declining, the old model as we knew it isn't going to be profitable much longer.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I think this may be the origin for MS wanting to eventually ditch the XBLA nomenclature as they move more towards digital distribution.
XBLA has a bit of an association with budget/indie titles. Hence it would be difficult to persuade someone to buy, say a 30 USD title from XBLA. And once you get to digital distribution without retail packaging costs or retail margin markups then the price boundaries start to blur between indie/budget/midrange/AAA.
I believe that once the console space moves fully to DD only or DD primary release, then lower budget middle of the road game developement starts to make a whole lot more sense than it does today.
Having to add on X cost for physical packaging and disks and Y costs for retailer margins and Z costs for shipping and handling and that mid-budget titles suddently doesn't have a lot of price room to differentiate from a high budget AAA title at retail. A 10 USD difference doesn't seem very appealing if it's 50 USD versus 60 USD. Especially if graphics are huge worlds apart.
Cut all that out, and suddenly 10 USD difference might look large if we use, for example, 25 USD midrange title versus 35 USD AAA title. And for the smaller studios with mid-range budgets, if the AAA titles still sell for 50-60 USD that gives them a whole lot of room for pricing while still likely getting more profit per title sold than they would have at retail.
Regards,
SB
Another advantage of digital distribution is dynamic pricing software. Prices can be updated without even doing anything to reflect market trends.
http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/when-the-consoles-die-what-comes-next
Developers and publishers had better watch out, because they could find themselves completely marginalized before they even realize it. Remember when RIM was important and li'l ol' Apple didn't even deserve to be in the same discussion as the gigantic Microsoft?
Yes. Although individual titles like Call of Duty are setting records, they're taking a bigger share of a declining overall market. There are some fascinating statistics in this GDC presentation.
http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/when-the-consoles-die-what-comes-next
Developers and publishers had better watch out, because they could find themselves completely marginalized before they even realize it. Remember when RIM was important and li'l ol' Apple didn't even deserve to be in the same discussion as the gigantic Microsoft?
So we went from "AAA franchise gaming sales declining" to "CoD setting records" and " declining overall market." AAA Franchises don't equal overall market.
So I have to ask, specifically, how does the current decline compare to the last 2 generations. Generations don't typically continue to increase sales indefinitely. Further, how do total dollars compare to 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 15 years ago?
So I have to ask, specifically, how does the current decline compare to the last 2 generations. Generations don't typically continue to increase sales indefinitely. Further, how do total dollars compare to 5 years ago? 10 years ago? 15 years ago?
COD does not equal all AAA games. At 5:40, he says AAA game sales are down around 25% in a UK market that's down 33% overall. Since there's no official definition of AAA, though, there will never be an official number. I guess if you define "AAA" as "Call of Duty," though, AAA sales have exploded since 2003!
However, I think it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to come up with a reasonable definition of "AAA" such that sales are up since 2009 if the overall market has shrunk by a full third.
You know you can use the arrow buttons to go from slide to slide, right? Look at the slide at 5:09. Previous generations show an initial burst of growth, then fairly flat sales until next-gen hits. There's never been anything like the 20% contraction in the market we've seen recently.
However, I think it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to come up with a reasonable definition of "AAA" such that sales are up since 2009 if the overall market has shrunk by a full third.
You know you can use the arrow buttons to go from slide to slide, right? Look at the slide at 5:09. Previous generations show an initial burst of growth, then fairly flat sales until next-gen hits. There's never been anything like the 20% contraction in the market we've seen recently.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That seems to be the oppostite of what you said. If AAA titles only declined 25% compared to the overall market then non-AAA titles could have had a similar or greater decline. Depending on if they are segregating AAA versus non-AAA by MSRP.
Regards,
SB
Regards,
SB
The slides are full of selective sampling... Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.
Context is everything. Major things to cover he readily omits from the slides. e.g. The dips in previous generations, the global recession that took hold in 2008, the elongated console life cycle this generation and how that fits into past patterns (which have dips btw), the choice to look at Sony's console profits from 2000 and not since 1994, the lack of "big picture" analysis e.g. the massive increase in the industry that his own slides show over the last 10 years, the role of Sony using its highly successful console line to accelerate mainstream adoption of Blu Ray, Microsoft general trend toward profitability (especially once the RRoD issue is considered they have a fairly strong upward trend in profits for the "division" which is not only an Xbox sinkhole), and so on and so forth.
That is not to deny that games are getting more expensive to make, the industry has become more hit-oriented, mobile and non-traditional platforms being used for gaming, the success of the Wii and a Nintendo-centric software model and the remainder of the console market heavily divide between Sony/MS creates a dilemma for publishers to maximize reach and minimize risk, and so forth. Further, what he doesn't analyze is how profitable and sustainable the new emerging formats are.
It is hard to argue "consoles are dieing" when this generation has sold more console than any previous generation and when titles like CoD are selling 10M+ every year.
A better presentation would have focused more on "social" and mobility as both competition for, and complimentary to, current models. It is a big deal when your phone is your Facebook, Twitter, and texting hub and you can game on it. That means you are taking a connected gaming device everywhere with you. Going from a $20/mo land line to a $50-$100 mobile plan obviously eats into discretionary spending. These things compete for people's money and mobile phones are quickly becoming a "necessity" for many. This is a challenge because of the "reach" factor a phone has over a dedicated device. So console makers have the hurdle of value *in certain markets*. Just like how the Wii leveraged something new and family friendly, and image of happiness and health, and Nintendo's Disney-like IP and it turned the industry sideways to a degree the industry faces similar challenges. But it has faced these over and over again. But treating the console industry as static would also be a mistake as the industry has seen the roll out of major innovations like Xbox Live, the influence on physical disk formats, and even recently the Kinect which is a huge success. So while the industry does have to face the issue of the more casual consumer (i.e. the ones who got a Wii because it was the device of the month and now want an iPad to play Angry Birds) these other markets aren't even close to competing at the software level that has a huge audience picking up the Madden, Halo, CoD, Gears, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, etc market.
Opinionated 2 cent is the home console market would also look healthier if there were fewer competitors. You have MS/Sony fighting essentially for the same market (which is quite large between the two) and, for Sony at least, really lost a grasp on the mainstream/casual/family market and Nintendo pretty much capturing that entire market but making absolutely zero headway in the remainder of the market (and now subsequently tanking in terms of the Wii). If I was the big publishers I would not be happy about the "Console" being effectively segregated along such lines, especially as 3rd parties are very much the 3rd wheel in the Nintendo ecosystem and the more expensive platforms they have to target two platforms. This fragmentation is something the phone market, Browser gaming market, and iPad market don't face to the same degree. The phone market may be segmented but it has 2 primary smart phone players and the "potential user" market is huge and the platforms are not pushed like the consoles in terms of budgets and technology and don't carry those expectations from consumers.
Context is everything. Major things to cover he readily omits from the slides. e.g. The dips in previous generations, the global recession that took hold in 2008, the elongated console life cycle this generation and how that fits into past patterns (which have dips btw), the choice to look at Sony's console profits from 2000 and not since 1994, the lack of "big picture" analysis e.g. the massive increase in the industry that his own slides show over the last 10 years, the role of Sony using its highly successful console line to accelerate mainstream adoption of Blu Ray, Microsoft general trend toward profitability (especially once the RRoD issue is considered they have a fairly strong upward trend in profits for the "division" which is not only an Xbox sinkhole), and so on and so forth.
That is not to deny that games are getting more expensive to make, the industry has become more hit-oriented, mobile and non-traditional platforms being used for gaming, the success of the Wii and a Nintendo-centric software model and the remainder of the console market heavily divide between Sony/MS creates a dilemma for publishers to maximize reach and minimize risk, and so forth. Further, what he doesn't analyze is how profitable and sustainable the new emerging formats are.
It is hard to argue "consoles are dieing" when this generation has sold more console than any previous generation and when titles like CoD are selling 10M+ every year.
A better presentation would have focused more on "social" and mobility as both competition for, and complimentary to, current models. It is a big deal when your phone is your Facebook, Twitter, and texting hub and you can game on it. That means you are taking a connected gaming device everywhere with you. Going from a $20/mo land line to a $50-$100 mobile plan obviously eats into discretionary spending. These things compete for people's money and mobile phones are quickly becoming a "necessity" for many. This is a challenge because of the "reach" factor a phone has over a dedicated device. So console makers have the hurdle of value *in certain markets*. Just like how the Wii leveraged something new and family friendly, and image of happiness and health, and Nintendo's Disney-like IP and it turned the industry sideways to a degree the industry faces similar challenges. But it has faced these over and over again. But treating the console industry as static would also be a mistake as the industry has seen the roll out of major innovations like Xbox Live, the influence on physical disk formats, and even recently the Kinect which is a huge success. So while the industry does have to face the issue of the more casual consumer (i.e. the ones who got a Wii because it was the device of the month and now want an iPad to play Angry Birds) these other markets aren't even close to competing at the software level that has a huge audience picking up the Madden, Halo, CoD, Gears, Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect, etc market.
Opinionated 2 cent is the home console market would also look healthier if there were fewer competitors. You have MS/Sony fighting essentially for the same market (which is quite large between the two) and, for Sony at least, really lost a grasp on the mainstream/casual/family market and Nintendo pretty much capturing that entire market but making absolutely zero headway in the remainder of the market (and now subsequently tanking in terms of the Wii). If I was the big publishers I would not be happy about the "Console" being effectively segregated along such lines, especially as 3rd parties are very much the 3rd wheel in the Nintendo ecosystem and the more expensive platforms they have to target two platforms. This fragmentation is something the phone market, Browser gaming market, and iPad market don't face to the same degree. The phone market may be segmented but it has 2 primary smart phone players and the "potential user" market is huge and the platforms are not pushed like the consoles in terms of budgets and technology and don't carry those expectations from consumers.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
