Is the game industry headed for failure?

Maybe it is more a statement that AAA gaming is an unsustainable business model. Personally, if AAA gaming went away, I wouldn't be crying much.
 
I went and read the other thread. While my topic. Is not that topic, that thread was hijacked to this topic so I could have posted there i suppose.

[quote name='TheLongshot']Maybe it is more a statement that AAA gaming is an unsustainable business model. Personally, if AAA gaming went away, I wouldn't be crying much.[/QUOTE]

I think people want AAA games but they're expensive. I think we just need a lot less AAA games. Not every game can try to be an AAA game. Gamers don't have the money. THQ's failure shows mid level games are a failure also. That means the industry will have to turn into piles of $20 low budget small games and a few huge AAA $60 games each year. Maybe this is why Pachter is predicting the coming gen to be the final gen for game consoles.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']THQ's failure shows mid level games are a failure also. [/QUOTE]

THQ fell because of poor management, not because of mid-level titles.
 
I'm guessing SE games probably have some of the most bloated budgets around due to poor management, which is why 3.4 million failed to meet expectations. I think the game's been in development since 2008, before SE bought Eidos, right?
 
It is going to take a publisher to figure out how to make high quality games with less of a budget. Think along the lines of someone making a video game version of District 9. All the bells and whistles that screams a big budget game but without the big budget.

As for if the gaming industry is heading for a fail? No. You'll see a lot less games, but the gaming industry is not going anywhere. There is still plenty of money to be made in gaming.
 
[quote name='elessar123']Didn't Bioshock Infinite cost $200 million? That's like an S rank, instead of AAA.[/QUOTE]

not a chance. That's like twice what people estimated GTA4 cost to make.
 
[quote name='elessar123']Didn't Bioshock Infinite cost $200 million? That's like an S rank, instead of AAA.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Ken Levine']"200 million for Infinite? Did someone send some checks to the wrong address?" via Twitter[/quote]

http://www.destructoid.com/ken-levine-denies-200-million-bioshock-infinite-budget-249339.phtml

So yeah....no don't believe everything you read.

Someone posted on Gamespot I believe that FF13 took 2 years to do 3 million and SE considered it a success.

FF13-2 took 16 months to sell that much and it was considered a success.

Tomb Raider had 6 weeks to sell that much and is considered a failure.

Long story short when it comes to SE's own games they don't consider them failures even though they took 10 times as long to sell the same amount of copies as Tomb Raider. Hypocrites. :roll:
 
[quote name='uncle5555']http://www.destructoid.com/ken-levine-denies-200-million-bioshock-infinite-budget-249339.phtml

So yeah....no don't believe everything you read.

Someone posted on Gamespot I believe that FF13 took 2 years to do 3 million and SE considered it a success.

FF13-2 took 16 months to sell that much and it was considered a success.

Tomb Raider had 6 weeks to sell that much and is considered a failure.

Long story short when it comes to SE's own games they don't consider them failures even though they took 10 times as long to sell the same amount of copies as Tomb Raider. Hypocrites. :roll:[/QUOTE]

But it is not just sales they are looking at. It is also based on userbase, development time, budget, marketing, and other things. Plus people who brought a game 12 months later are likely paying a lot less than the original MSRP.
 
I definitely think that mismanagement and stupid budgeting is more of the problem than AAA gaming itself. It's insane that Tomb Raider is considered a failure, I think SE just needs to change their expectations.
 
[quote name='Vap']Maybe they shouldn't waste their money on pointless MP that no one wanted to begin with.[/QUOTE]

But if you don't jam in pointless multi-player, then how can you have an online pass?

Unless, that is, you pull a Warner Bros (I'm looking at you Arkham City).
 
[quote name='TheLongshot']Maybe it is more a statement that AAA gaming is an unsustainable business model. Personally, if AAA gaming went away, I wouldn't be crying much.[/QUOTE]

Sure you would. Most of the funding from other projects comes from AAA titles. Not to even mention the fact that a publicly traded company needs to have a few successful AAA titles.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Sure you would. Most of the funding from other projects comes from AAA titles. Not to even mention the fact that a publicly traded company needs to have a few successful AAA titles.[/QUOTE]
That's not the case for indies and mid-tier independent publishers like Atlus who don't even make such games in the first place. That said, though I would be sad at the potential loss of a couple of franchises, I wouldn't miss AAA games in general much either.
 
I'd miss AAA games. The cream of the crop out of them are as good as it gets in gaming IMO.

I want top line graphics, voice acting, story, gameplay, controls etc. if I'm going to set aside the time to play through a game. Hard to bring all that together without a pretty sizable budget these days.

Indie and mid-tier publishers just can't pull off something on the scale of the Mass Effect games or Bioshock or Gears of War or Halo or Uncharted etc. which are the types of games that still have me gaming.

To me, the problem isn't those games its that too many publishers focus on every game reaching that level and aren't doing as great a job making cheaper games more targeted to the niche of hardcore gamers where they can make profits by selling fewer copies of games that cost them much less to make than the blockbuster titles.
 
I think next gen should be a bit different as development for all the consoles\PC will be fairly streamlined and easier to develop for as it sounds like everything will be mainly PC based. That should cut out some cost. In the case of Tomb Raider it has to be mismanagement. If you sell 3.4 million of anything you should be making a profit. Lame.
 
[quote name='dothog']It has to be. I heard Bioshock Infinite cost upwards of $300 million.[/QUOTE]

Levine said it cost $100 m to make, and another $100 m to market. I honestly can't imagine the game cost more than that. At $100 m, would be one of the most expensive games to develop.
 
[quote name='blueshinra']That's not the case for indies and mid-tier independent publishers like Atlus who don't even make such games in the first place. That said, though I would be sad at the potential loss of a couple of franchises, I wouldn't miss AAA games in general much either.[/QUOTE]

The industry needs AAA franchises (system movers) to generate interest, hype and media interest. If the big 3 are not selling tons of systems then there is very little reason for them to be in the business. Folks tend to forget how much money M$, Sony and Nintendo make from AAA franchises, not only the games themselves but the special edition consoles and accessories. If you don't see how the elimination of AAA titles hurts the industry then you can't see the forest for the trees.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='62t']But it is not just sales they are looking at. It is also based on userbase, development time, budget, marketing, and other things. Plus people who brought a game 12 months later are likely paying a lot less than the original MSRP.[/QUOTE]

That just plays into his point though. By that regard both FF games should be considered failures since most bought them cheap. TR on the other hand should be considered a raging success since it sold better than those in a month at full price vs. years.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']The industry needs AAA franchises (system movers) to generate interest, hype and media relevance. If the big 3 are not selling tons of systems then there is very little reason for them to be in the business. Folks tend to forget how much money M$, Sony and Nintendo make from AAA franchises, not only the games themselves but the special edition consoles and accessories. If you don't see how the elimination of AAA titles hurts the industry then you can't see the forest for the trees.[/QUOTE]
But... that's just console games. As with AAA games, it wouldn't bother me much if consoles as we know them went away. PC and mobile are outstanding platforms for a lot of gamers, both hardcore and casual. Nowadays, most of the AAA games in my household (and many, many others besides) are played on PC, usually via Steam; our 360 primarily serves as a glorified DVD player.

The best thing to happen to console games would be for them to all use a standard format. For starters, it would reduce development costs for multiplatform games, especially the big-budged ones. Realistically, though, I don't see it happening for a long time, if at all (main reason: Nintendo). In the meantime, stuff like the Steam Box and Ouya might shake things up. Time will tell.
 
The game industry is too large to fail at this point. It no longer depends on the success of a few large companies. MS, Sony and Nintendo could all go belly-up tomorrow and there would still be TONS of games being released from indie and mid-level developers on a ton of different devices.
 
[quote name='blueshinra']But... that's just console games. As with AAA games, it wouldn't bother me much if consoles as we know them went away. PC and mobile are outstanding platforms for a lot of gamers, both hardcore and casual. Nowadays, most of the AAA games in my household (and many, many others besides) are played on PC, usually via Steam; our 360 primarily serves as a glorified DVD player.

The best thing to happen to console games would be for them to all use a standard format. For starters, it would reduce development costs for multiplatform games, especially the big-budged ones. Realistically, though, I don't see it happening for a long time, if at all (main reason: Nintendo). In the meantime, stuff like the Steam Box and Ouya might shake things up. Time will tell.[/QUOTE]

The PC vs console argument greatly depends on your playing style. If you plan to do a lot of gaming with your friends or family (co-op) PC gaming is not ideal. Also, personally I spent a ton of time staring a computer screen while at work. So, I have no desire to do the same when I get home.

That said, I agree with Javery that the industry is simply too big to fail. I love AAA titles because more often than not they show off the best that gaming has to offer. Developers have to figure out how to better manage their costs or modify their business model to accommodate their rising costs... figure out how to get more money from us (consumers).
 
[quote name='kill3r7']The PC vs console argument greatly depends on your playing style. If you plan to do a lot of gaming with your friends or family (co-op) PC gaming is not ideal. Also, personally I spent a ton of time staring a computer screen while at work. So, I have no desire to do the same when I get home. [/QUOTE]

I'm in the market for a new computer and I've never played games on the PC before but a friend was telling me it is really easy to use Steam and a 360 controller on your HDTV in the living room. I would assume there are co-op and split screen multiplayer options.

I need to look into it a little bit because I don't know how it works but it sounds pretty cool - especially since a lot of PC games are outperforming consoles at this point in the current generation.

[quote name='kill3r7']That said, I agree with Javery that the industry is simply too big to fail. I love AAA titles because more often than not they show off the best that gaming has to offer. Developers have to figure out how to better manage their costs or modify their business model to accommodate their rising costs... figure out how to get more money from us (consumers).[/QUOTE]

I'm with you on the love for AAA games - my gaming time is limited so I tend to try to play the games that everyone raves about. I think companies are offsetting costs by releasing annual updates to popular franchises. I have to assume it costs WAY less to develop the next Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty or Madden than if you were trying a new IP from scratch or developing a game in a series once every 3-5 years ala Nintendo... it's a balancing act for sure.
 
[quote name='Javery']I'm in the market for a new computer and I've never played games on the PC before but a friend was telling me it is really easy to use Steam and a 360 controller on your HDTV in the living room. I would assume there are co-op and split screen multiplayer options.

I need to look into it a little bit because I don't know how it works but it sounds pretty cool - especially since a lot of PC games are outperforming consoles at this point in the current generation.[/QUOTE]

This sounds promising. I am going to need to look more into it.

EDIT: Big Picture (Steam) is how it is done. All you need is an HDMI cable (although I guess you can use a wireless service but I'm sure you will run into some signal degradation) running from your computer to the TV.
 
PC gaming holds no appeal to me at all. I don't want a PC in my living room adding further clutter and wires to my home theater, and I'm not going to sit at a desk to game after spending hours upon hours tied to the PC for work all week.

Mobile games have their place, but I'll never get the gaming experience on my iPhone or iPad that I can get playing a console with a nice controller hooked up to my 55" TV.

[quote name='Dezuria']I remember when games were just games. Who came up with this whole "AAA" game thing?[/QUOTE]

I've been gaming for roughly 25 years and the AAA moniker has been around as long as I can remember reading game magazines, and definitely since gaming forums popped up in the mid 90s on when the internet really took off.

From at least the SNES/Genesis era on there's always been bigger budget, super hyped games that even the less serious gamers were excited about and that's what people mean with the AAA label. It just carries more sway now that gaming is more main stream and there are so many people who only play big franchise games like Madden (and other EA sports titles), CoD etc. on top of the hardcores who play some of those plus a lot of smaller, more niche market type games.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']PC gaming holds no appeal to me at all. I don't want a PC in my living room adding further clutter and wires to my home theater, and I'm not going to sit at a desk to game after spending hours upon hours tied to the PC for work all week.

Mobile games have their place, but I'll never get the gaming experience on my iPhone or iPad that I can get playing a console with a nice controller hooked up to my 55" TV.

[/QUOTE]

With Steam Big Screen mode, what you essentially have is a console with more power. It really shouldn't require any more connections then your average console.
 
[quote name='GUNNM']Games are just getting too fucking expensive to make. We should go back to 8 bit for a while[/QUOTE]

That scott pilgram game should serve as proof that some 8bit style games can sell well.
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']With Steam Big Screen mode, what you essentially have is a console with more power. It really shouldn't require any more connections then your average console.[/QUOTE]

The current issue is that all 4 HDMI ports on my receiver are taken and my TV stand shelves are full.

Just moot for me. I'll get one console at most next gen--either the next X-box or PS4 depending on exclusives I want after a price drop or two--and that will be it. Well that and the 3DS I got recently.

I don't game enough to have multiple consoles anymore and doubt I'll ever care enough to hassle with a gaming PC. I don't care about having cutting edge graphics etc. I've always been fine having a console for 5+ years and never cared that PC games were pushing graphics further.

Maybe a steam box or something--but then you're basically just talking a console that happens to play PC games.
 
[quote name='Thomas96']That scott pilgram game should serve as proof that some 8bit style games can sell well.[/QUOTE]

well heres the problem with that and with the modern industry- DLC.

I liked the SP game alot, its fun and all. but I am not paying to access online multiplayer for it. DLC is really killing the idea of making a game and releasing it as a complete game to ride on its on merits. Its why games that are AAA titles are sent out and jacked up with bugs. Cash talks in the valley, and the way games are made and sent out is what is killing the industry. Not every goddamn game needs DLC, or "online multiplayer" (looking at you tomb raider) and I am sorry but DLC shouldn't be an extra multiplayer mode that if the game sat in development for 3 months longer couldve been included instead of piece-mealed out. But the games need to come out so whoever can make their money asap, and since some people just like throwing money at whatever comes out with "insert franchise name here", the industry will stop caring about relasing a quality product to begin with because it can always be improved on with Month 1 DLC or whatever.

I am old enough to remember waiting for a game to come out, and being more than satisfied with the final product (FFIII, Chrono Trigger amongst others. And I also remember when DLC was actually an expansion pack and not some garbage "bonus levels" for some lame excuse for mulitplayer. those days are long gone, and too bad for me:drool:

day one dlc will kill the industry as it stood last generation (which was awesome, so go ahead and think of some shit to talk on PS2. I'll wait).

But on the flipside (and back to the comment I quoted) Konami can add the Japanese Saturn levels to Castlevania SOTN and all will be right. There should be more games that great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top