Funny I remember when some games cost well over the $50 mark during the 90's. I think Final Fantasy 3 (6 in the series) for the SNES was a $100 or something. The first SNES Street Fighter II was like $75. Granted these prices were due to the amount of memory used in the carts. I think kids that grew up in the playstation CD games got spoiled with $50 games.
What's killing game development?
- Thread starter fathamburger
- Start date
A
Apossum
Guest
[quote name='Jon Rose']
What are you, 12? You are way too stupid to be acting this self-important.
You want me to explain to you exactly how a company bleeding money from the neck is not indicative of a sound business plan? You honestly need explained to you, in no uncertain terms, how throwing money at not one, but TWO generations of consoles -- back to back, no less -- might be less than safe?
You were incoherent at best in your first reply to me, which was pretty much apropos of nothing. Then you apparently expected me to add something to your bunch of nothing, then you get pissy about your "joke" en passant to taking my offhand comment seriously. Remember how numbnuts asked who derailed this thread? That'd pretty much be you.
[/QUOTE]
okay
stick, my first reply to you was meant to be somewhat light hearted-- that the "evidence" of the past 10 months or so since the Wii and PS3 were released is not going to be a great guide for a discussion about the industry. I personally feel people should look at the big picture. I think too many people have tunnel vision when analyzing the industry, usually to paint the picture of it dying (oh hay, game sales were up some 30-40% this spring.) backing up a step, you were replying to someone saying this gen would be fine despite current trends. Your reply seemed to imply something like the next great video game crash was upon us and I was responding to that.
so my first reply to you wasn't "of nothing" it was based on your implicating reply. If I misconstrued your message, then there's no need to be a complete cunt about it. You could actually get to theing argument instead of dancing around and attempting some weird, internet forum character assassination.
and yes, demanding a normal level of respect in a post directed at me makes me self-important, because it's good to have self-respect in situations where you need to deal with complete assholes. I mean, who's the 12 year old when I'm the one having to explain what the conversation was supposed to be about before your anger took over?
you've made it apparent that you can't discuss a simple subject without resorting to personal attacks, so please, just leave this site altogether. otherwise, you'll just become a target for people to get a rise out of. which is kinda fun to read.
actually, on second thought....yeah, you should stay.
What are you, 12? You are way too stupid to be acting this self-important.
You want me to explain to you exactly how a company bleeding money from the neck is not indicative of a sound business plan? You honestly need explained to you, in no uncertain terms, how throwing money at not one, but TWO generations of consoles -- back to back, no less -- might be less than safe?
You were incoherent at best in your first reply to me, which was pretty much apropos of nothing. Then you apparently expected me to add something to your bunch of nothing, then you get pissy about your "joke" en passant to taking my offhand comment seriously. Remember how numbnuts asked who derailed this thread? That'd pretty much be you.
[/QUOTE]
okay
stick, my first reply to you was meant to be somewhat light hearted-- that the "evidence" of the past 10 months or so since the Wii and PS3 were released is not going to be a great guide for a discussion about the industry. I personally feel people should look at the big picture. I think too many people have tunnel vision when analyzing the industry, usually to paint the picture of it dying (oh hay, game sales were up some 30-40% this spring.) backing up a step, you were replying to someone saying this gen would be fine despite current trends. Your reply seemed to imply something like the next great video game crash was upon us and I was responding to that. so my first reply to you wasn't "of nothing" it was based on your implicating reply. If I misconstrued your message, then there's no need to be a complete cunt about it. You could actually get to the
ing argument instead of dancing around and attempting some weird, internet forum character assassination. and yes, demanding a normal level of respect in a post directed at me makes me self-important, because it's good to have self-respect in situations where you need to deal with complete assholes. I mean, who's the 12 year old when I'm the one having to explain what the conversation was supposed to be about before your anger took over?
you've made it apparent that you can't discuss a simple subject without resorting to personal attacks, so please, just leave this site altogether. otherwise, you'll just become a target for people to get a rise out of. which is kinda fun to read.
actually, on second thought....yeah, you should stay.
[quote name='Chacrana']The first sentence didn't make much sense, either. And either way, you sound like an idiot... still. Haven't you noticed that nobody here likes you let alone takes you seriously?
You also seem fixated on the boobs in my signature since you've mentioned them twice now and you seem fixated on them like they're causing a problem for you. Perhaps you have bigger issues to work out than what's killing game development.[/quote]
Oh, don't i know it. I'd better be careful, or i might find myself holed up in a basement with nothing to do but crop pictures of cartoon tits and troll threads.
[quote name='Apossum']okaystick, my first reply to you was meant to be somewhat light hearted-- that the "evidence" of the past 10 months or so since the Wii and PS3 were released is not going to be a great guide for a discussion about the industry. I personally feel people should look at the big picture. I think too many people have tunnel vision when analyzing the industry, usually to paint the picture of it dying (oh hay, game sales were up some 30-40% this spring.) backing up a step, you were replying to someone saying this gen would be fine despite current trends. Your reply seemed to imply something like the next great video game crash was upon us and I was responding to that.[/quote]
Or it was implying that just saying "Oh, the industry is fine" with no supporting argument or evidence is every bit as useless as saying "Oh, the industry is doomed" with no supporting argument or evidence.
Really don't have the greatest track record with reading comprehension, do you?
You also seem fixated on the boobs in my signature since you've mentioned them twice now and you seem fixated on them like they're causing a problem for you. Perhaps you have bigger issues to work out than what's killing game development.[/quote]
Oh, don't i know it. I'd better be careful, or i might find myself holed up in a basement with nothing to do but crop pictures of cartoon tits and troll threads.
[quote name='Apossum']okay
stick, my first reply to you was meant to be somewhat light hearted-- that the "evidence" of the past 10 months or so since the Wii and PS3 were released is not going to be a great guide for a discussion about the industry. I personally feel people should look at the big picture. I think too many people have tunnel vision when analyzing the industry, usually to paint the picture of it dying (oh hay, game sales were up some 30-40% this spring.) backing up a step, you were replying to someone saying this gen would be fine despite current trends. Your reply seemed to imply something like the next great video game crash was upon us and I was responding to that.[/quote] Or it was implying that just saying "Oh, the industry is fine" with no supporting argument or evidence is every bit as useless as saying "Oh, the industry is doomed" with no supporting argument or evidence.
Really don't have the greatest track record with reading comprehension, do you?
"Internet form character assassination"? Jesus loser, fall apart much? For someone who claims to be so jokey and light-hearted about his comments, you sure do seem to have a penchant for going to pieces like a touchy little bitch.so my first reply to you wasn't "of nothing" it was based on your implicating reply. If I misconstrued your message, then there's no need to be a complete cunt about it. You could actually get to the
Read: you hurt me for pointing out my abject stupidity and i'm crying about it like an emo jackass since i'm on my bi-polar downswing, but i'm trying to pretend you're on the receiving end in a sad attempt to salvage my glass egoand yes, demanding a normal level of respect in a post directed at me makes me self-important, because it's good to have self-respect in situations where you need to deal with complete assholes. I mean, who's the 12 year old when I'm the one having to explain what the conversation was supposed to be about before your anger took over?
you've made it apparent that you can't discuss a simple subject without resorting to personal attacks, so please, just leave this site altogether. otherwise, you'll just become a target for people to get a rise out of. which is kinda fun to read.
actually, on second thought....yeah, you should stay.
[quote name='Jon Rose']Oh, don't i know it. I'd better be careful, or i might find myself holed up in a basement with nothing to do but crop pictures of cartoon tits and troll threads.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure about the cartoon tits part, but I think it's already too late for you on that last bit. What is it you're doing right now? I'm sure you can come up with some excuse for how you're justified because you're fighting a crusade against those heathens who don't see things your way, but the truth is that yes, you're trolling threads from your basement. Hell, probably not even your basement.
Oh, and more importantly -- you're still an idiot.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure about the cartoon tits part, but I think it's already too late for you on that last bit. What is it you're doing right now? I'm sure you can come up with some excuse for how you're justified because you're fighting a crusade against those heathens who don't see things your way, but the truth is that yes, you're trolling threads from your basement. Hell, probably not even your basement.
Oh, and more importantly -- you're still an idiot.
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
[quote name='Jon Rose']Oh, don't i know it. I'd better be careful, or i might find myself holed up in a basement with nothing to do but crop pictures of cartoon tits and troll threads.[/QUOTE]
Third times a charm.
Third times a charm.
[quote name='Brak']Third times a charm.[/QUOTE]
Guess he really was captivated. He'll refute it, no doubt. He'll probably claim to have never commented on the boobs or claim he only did it because he was soing offended that him and his alternative lifestyle aren't represented equally... or some bullshit.
Guess he really was captivated. He'll refute it, no doubt. He'll probably claim to have never commented on the boobs or claim he only did it because he was so
ing offended that him and his alternative lifestyle aren't represented equally... or some bullshit.
A
Apossum
Guest
[quote name='Jon Rose']Oh, don't i know it. I'd better be careful, or i might find myself holed up in a basement with nothing to do but crop pictures of cartoon tits and troll threads.
Or it was implying that just saying "Oh, the industry is fine" with no supporting argument or evidence is every bit as useless as saying "Oh, the industry is doomed" with no supporting argument or evidence.
Really don't have the greatest track record with reading comprehension, do you?
"Internet form character assassination"? Jesus loser, fall apart much? For someone who claims to be so jokey and light-hearted about his comments, you sure do seem to have a penchant for going to pieces like a touchy little bitch.
Read: you hurt me for pointing out my abject stupidity and i'm crying about it like an emo jackass since i'm on my bi-polar downswing, but i'm trying to pretend you're on the receiving end in a sad attempt to salvage my glass ego[/QUOTE]
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Or it was implying that just saying "Oh, the industry is fine" with no supporting argument or evidence is every bit as useless as saying "Oh, the industry is doomed" with no supporting argument or evidence.
Really don't have the greatest track record with reading comprehension, do you?
"Internet form character assassination"? Jesus loser, fall apart much? For someone who claims to be so jokey and light-hearted about his comments, you sure do seem to have a penchant for going to pieces like a touchy little bitch.
Read: you hurt me for pointing out my abject stupidity and i'm crying about it like an emo jackass since i'm on my bi-polar downswing, but i'm trying to pretend you're on the receiving end in a sad attempt to salvage my glass ego[/QUOTE]
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
V
Virtua
Guest
Where did this clown come from?
[quote name='Chacrana']Not sure about the cartoon tits part, but I think it's already too late for you on that last bit. What is it you're doing right now? I'm sure you can come up with some excuse for how you're justified because you're fighting a crusade against those heathens who don't see things your way, but the truth is that yes, you're trolling threads from your basement. Hell, probably not even your basement.
Oh, and more importantly -- you're still an idiot.[/quote]
Again, with the credit you've built up in this thread, it really hurts to have you call me an idiot. Really. I promise.
Oh, my excuse? Oh, right. I'm fascinated by how boldly you fit the stereotype of internet forum loser. I'm frankly kind of curious just how long you're going to go at this with the assumption that you're actually showing me up. Even as far as trolls go you're pretty lackluster.
But hey, you know, whatever keeps the other crybaby from having to deal with big bad ol' me by his lonesome, right?
Oh, and more importantly -- you're still an idiot.[/quote]
Again, with the credit you've built up in this thread, it really hurts to have you call me an idiot. Really. I promise.
Oh, my excuse? Oh, right. I'm fascinated by how boldly you fit the stereotype of internet forum loser. I'm frankly kind of curious just how long you're going to go at this with the assumption that you're actually showing me up. Even as far as trolls go you're pretty lackluster.
But hey, you know, whatever keeps the other crybaby from having to deal with big bad ol' me by his lonesome, right?
[quote name='Jon Rose']Again, with the credit you've built up in this thread, it really hurts to have you call me an idiot. Really. I promise.
Oh, my excuse? Oh, right. I'm fascinated by how boldly you fit the stereotype of internet forum loser. I'm frankly kind of curious just how long you're going to go at this with the assumption that you're actually showing me up. Even as far as trolls go you're pretty lackluster.
But hey, you know, whatever keeps the other crybaby from having to deal with big bad ol' me by his lonesome, right?[/QUOTE]
You're awfully defensive of yourself.
Oh, my excuse? Oh, right. I'm fascinated by how boldly you fit the stereotype of internet forum loser. I'm frankly kind of curious just how long you're going to go at this with the assumption that you're actually showing me up. Even as far as trolls go you're pretty lackluster.
But hey, you know, whatever keeps the other crybaby from having to deal with big bad ol' me by his lonesome, right?[/QUOTE]
You're awfully defensive of yourself.
D
Dick Tracy
Guest
[quote name='Jon Rose']I'm fascinated by how boldly you fit the stereotype of internet forum loser.[/QUOTE]
You should be more fascinated by how the kettle is, in fact, black.
You should be more fascinated by how the kettle is, in fact, black.
A
Apossum
Guest
[quote name='Brak']You should be more fascinated by how the kettle is, in fact, black.[/QUOTE]
maybe he's just a really cool guy who came to the forum to prey on losers? After all, winners can't interact normally with losers because their social skills are just so incredibly advanced. M I rite?
maybe he's just a really cool guy who came to the forum to prey on losers? After all, winners can't interact normally with losers because their social skills are just so incredibly advanced. M I rite?
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
Does anyone remember the good ole days when Super Nintendo cartridges cost $60? Counting for inflation, that has to be close to $100. Did the industry die because SNES cartridges were so expensive? No.
I kind of agree that the Wii is hurting gaming as we know it. It's great that it turns a profit and everyone wants one. But what does that do for us? It's the equivalent of a great band selling out and becoming superstars. There's always a disgruntled core group of fans that were there before the band got big. That's how I see myself. I grew up with the Atari and the Genesis. I yearn for the good ole' days of quality RPGs, solid platformers, and "ground breaking" fighting games. The thing is, the good ole days are over. We can either move on and find other hobbies or adjust to the new ways to game. The industry isn't dying, it's just mutating into something else. It's no longer an underground industry that catered to a small hardcore group of people. The industry "sold out" so it could make mad amounts of cash. This means formulaic games, licensed games, and more sequels.
I kind of agree that the Wii is hurting gaming as we know it. It's great that it turns a profit and everyone wants one. But what does that do for us? It's the equivalent of a great band selling out and becoming superstars. There's always a disgruntled core group of fans that were there before the band got big. That's how I see myself. I grew up with the Atari and the Genesis. I yearn for the good ole' days of quality RPGs, solid platformers, and "ground breaking" fighting games. The thing is, the good ole days are over. We can either move on and find other hobbies or adjust to the new ways to game. The industry isn't dying, it's just mutating into something else. It's no longer an underground industry that catered to a small hardcore group of people. The industry "sold out" so it could make mad amounts of cash. This means formulaic games, licensed games, and more sequels.
[quote name='depascal22']Does anyone remember the good ole days when Super Nintendo cartridges cost $60? Counting for inflation, that has to be close to $100. Did the industry die because SNES cartridges were so expensive? No.
I kind of agree that the Wii is hurting gaming as we know it. It's great that it turns a profit and everyone wants one. But what does that do for us? It's the equivalent of a great band selling out and becoming superstars. There's always a disgruntled core group of fans that were there before the band got big. That's how I see myself. I grew up with the Atari and the Genesis. I yearn for the good ole' days of quality RPGs, solid platformers, and "ground breaking" fighting games. The thing is, the good ole days are over. We can either move on and find other hobbies or adjust to the new ways to game. The industry isn't dying, it's just mutating into something else. It's no longer an underground industry that catered to a small hardcore group of people. The industry "sold out" so it could make mad amounts of cash. This means formulaic games, licensed games, and more sequels.[/QUOTE]
Hmm... yeah, I can see that being true. Although, I think Sony and MS are just as guilty of selling out as Nintendo is since... I've never seen as many formulaic, licensed games, sequels, and general garbage as I have on their systems.
I kind of agree that the Wii is hurting gaming as we know it. It's great that it turns a profit and everyone wants one. But what does that do for us? It's the equivalent of a great band selling out and becoming superstars. There's always a disgruntled core group of fans that were there before the band got big. That's how I see myself. I grew up with the Atari and the Genesis. I yearn for the good ole' days of quality RPGs, solid platformers, and "ground breaking" fighting games. The thing is, the good ole days are over. We can either move on and find other hobbies or adjust to the new ways to game. The industry isn't dying, it's just mutating into something else. It's no longer an underground industry that catered to a small hardcore group of people. The industry "sold out" so it could make mad amounts of cash. This means formulaic games, licensed games, and more sequels.[/QUOTE]
Hmm... yeah, I can see that being true. Although, I think Sony and MS are just as guilty of selling out as Nintendo is since... I've never seen as many formulaic, licensed games, sequels, and general garbage as I have on their systems.
MarioColbert
CAGiversary!
depascal22: your post reminds me of a great Simpsons quote where Grandpa Simpson says "I used to be with it, then they changed "it" and now I don't even know what's "it" anymore." I probably have butchered the quote in the process, but I've felt that way ever since Sierra got disbanded, and LucasArts basically put a lid on its adventure games division. I've felt that it was "over" back then. Somehow, it rebounds to be into something else, since last I checked fun can not be killed no matter how much some try.
The fun-killing is mentioned for a reason, because this thread is full of it. And I don't understand why it all began. The argument, from far away, seems to be NULL. The best bits come from certain someone's claims that there is evidence supporting the high degree of speculatory contemplative conjecture that dominates this thread. (Along with my redundantly reiterative repetition.) I'd like to point out that the article in question (Post Number One) is actually speculatory in nature.
Here are the projected numbers, as delivered to us by GameSpot on the 15th of September 2005. They expect the games to cost as much as Nine Million Dollars. And here, GameSpot claims that the Wii takes only a fraction of development costs, and mentions its similarity to GameCube. The issue is source: this isn't from the horse's mouth - Farrell is not as developer, as he admits. The lost cost for Wii development, however, got a bit more press, but that isn't the centerpiece here. GameDaily reported that the Wii cost was $5 to $8 million, while PS3 and 360 titles were in the range of $12 to $20 million. Yikes, that is an awful lot of money.
A bit more technical information can be found on a investment website called GameInvestor. If you want to talk numbers and what that means for company's good, this is a good read, especially if you're into European stock exchange. I'm just kidding, nobody should be into the European Stock Exchange, because their system is stupid, and by which I mean that my attempt to model it in MatLab yielded a mediocre B minus in my Math Modeling Class. Nonetheless, Games Investor Consulting, Ltd. mention a few nice things here.
So, quote time:
[quote name='GamesInvestor']
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-2]The development market in 2007
For cost and risk reasons, PS3 and Xbox 360 projects amongst independent developers remain few and far between - most publishers have handed such projects to their own internal studios to allows them to better control and amortise the initial R&D costs. However, demand for PS2, handheld and Wii development (despite it being a "next-gen" platform, development costs for the Wii are more in line with current gen, i.e. PS2 development) remains strong and this is providing a greater degree of market buoyancy than has been experienced since 1999.[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]Snap, as they say in all those hip and/or hop videos! PS2 and Wii provide a greater degree of market buoyancy..... than they did in 1999.
Then, of course, there's Gamasutra. And here's what it had to say: (source)
[quote name='Gamasutra']http://www.screendigest.com/reports/07nextgencons/readmore/view.html[/quote]
Holy shit! Did MarioColbert just pull of a link within a link, making recursive property quite real in this very thread? I did. I did, indeed.
The shitty thing about that link, is that I can not get access to it - you have to PAY. You can "sample" the pdf of the report - I suppose you do want to make sure that it is written in English, and not Mandarin, and that they used the good old black-on-white color scheme in their pdf, and not yellow on orange, since the latter may be less readable to some users. The only thing it mentions in the "key findings" bit is: "The cost of making games has increased markedly in the next generation, as a consequence the importance of first party publishing has increased while third parties seek strategies to mitigate now precipitous levels of risk"
Therefore, I want us all to agree on the following:
Game development is more costly now for all of the current consoles.
It has been widely reported that the development costs for Nintendo Wii are dramatically lower than development of XBOX360 and PS3 titles.
With current conditions for video game development, it is more profitable, and therefore more likely for the developers to develop for the Wii, considering lesser risks. As Costic pointed out here:
[quote name='Costic']Why is Wii so attractive? According to Sebastian, the answer's simply in the economics: "Based on the typical front-line retail price for Wii titles, we estimate that publishers need to sell approximately 300,000 units per title to break even. Specifically, using $49 front-line software pricing, the wholesale price is about 80% off retail, or $39. Third-party software publishers pay royalties and disk and packaging costs of approximately $9, with license and distribution fees costing another $7 to $9, leaving a contribution profit of $22 to $23. Assuming development and marketing expenses of about $7.5 million, we reach the estimated break-even unit total.
That's by contrast to a predicted break-even point of 600,000 for PS3/XBox 360 titles.[/quote]
And after you feel so good that our assessment has been right all along, let me shit on your parade in terms of ALL OF THE ABOVE:
[quote name='Costic']In reality, when you come down to it, the real thing publishers look at when deciding what to develop for is simply user base plus tie ratio--that is, how many boxes each manufacturer ships, and how many titles the average user buys for that box. This, and not a putative cost advantage for Wii over other platforms, is what's working in Wii's favor at the moment--it's selling better than its competitors. And while historically the tie ratio for GameCube was lower than for PS 2 and the original Xbox, this was largely due to the paucity of third-party games for GameCube--and the fact that many GameCube buyers were buying it as their second platform specifically to play Nintendo titles, and tended to play crossplatform games on their primary device. I expect there will be a flood of third-party games for Wii, that the advantage PS 2 and Xbox had over GameCube in this regard will not be true for the current generation: the tie ratios will look much more similar.[/quote]
And I come back to the original statement that I've made in this thread. Cheap Ass Motherers, such as myself, are not paying enough money that current development practices cost and therefore make it harder for developers (whose "risk" increase follows the development cost - therefore drastic, according to a couple of those links above) to make their money back.
It's easy to point out that development itself needs a better system. However, there is not a single source or evidence, supporting the plausability of your claim, Jon Rose. You've offered to this thread nothing more than a "wouldn't it be cool if..." idea. Apart from that, you've let your cool self descend to petty bickerings with Apossum and Charcana. I don't believe that you think them to be idiots for a second, since no sane human being would ever dedicate more than 10 posts (forgive my rough estimate) to discredit persons who never, in fact, attacked your original point.
The first rule of the internet is that sticks and stones could break your bones, but ascii nevers hurts thee. The second rule, however, is that you're not the best in anything online. And as there are "High Scores" for all online titles that display more time "wasted" than you would care to attempt, there are also persons who are much better at belitteling others' intelligence than you are. This isn't a warning, it's advice, and I'm certain most people here would agree that it's good one. I trust you're smart enough to connect all the dots and marvel at my pretty picture.
The fun-killing is mentioned for a reason, because this thread is full of it. And I don't understand why it all began. The argument, from far away, seems to be NULL. The best bits come from certain someone's claims that there is evidence supporting the high degree of speculatory contemplative conjecture that dominates this thread. (Along with my redundantly reiterative repetition.) I'd like to point out that the article in question (Post Number One) is actually speculatory in nature.
Here are the projected numbers, as delivered to us by GameSpot on the 15th of September 2005. They expect the games to cost as much as Nine Million Dollars. And here, GameSpot claims that the Wii takes only a fraction of development costs, and mentions its similarity to GameCube. The issue is source: this isn't from the horse's mouth - Farrell is not as developer, as he admits. The lost cost for Wii development, however, got a bit more press, but that isn't the centerpiece here. GameDaily reported that the Wii cost was $5 to $8 million, while PS3 and 360 titles were in the range of $12 to $20 million. Yikes, that is an awful lot of money.
A bit more technical information can be found on a investment website called GameInvestor. If you want to talk numbers and what that means for company's good, this is a good read, especially if you're into European stock exchange. I'm just kidding, nobody should be into the European Stock Exchange, because their system is stupid, and by which I mean that my attempt to model it in MatLab yielded a mediocre B minus in my Math Modeling Class. Nonetheless, Games Investor Consulting, Ltd. mention a few nice things here.
So, quote time:
[quote name='GamesInvestor']
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-2]The development market in 2007
For cost and risk reasons, PS3 and Xbox 360 projects amongst independent developers remain few and far between - most publishers have handed such projects to their own internal studios to allows them to better control and amortise the initial R&D costs. However, demand for PS2, handheld and Wii development (despite it being a "next-gen" platform, development costs for the Wii are more in line with current gen, i.e. PS2 development) remains strong and this is providing a greater degree of market buoyancy than has been experienced since 1999.[/SIZE][/FONT][/quote][FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]Snap, as they say in all those hip and/or hop videos! PS2 and Wii provide a greater degree of market buoyancy..... than they did in 1999.
Then, of course, there's Gamasutra. And here's what it had to say: (source)
[quote name='Gamasutra']http://www.screendigest.com/reports/07nextgencons/readmore/view.html[/quote]
Holy shit! Did MarioColbert just pull of a link within a link, making recursive property quite real in this very thread? I did. I did, indeed.
The shitty thing about that link, is that I can not get access to it - you have to PAY. You can "sample" the pdf of the report - I suppose you do want to make sure that it is written in English, and not Mandarin, and that they used the good old black-on-white color scheme in their pdf, and not yellow on orange, since the latter may be less readable to some users. The only thing it mentions in the "key findings" bit is: "The cost of making games has increased markedly in the next generation, as a consequence the importance of first party publishing has increased while third parties seek strategies to mitigate now precipitous levels of risk"
Therefore, I want us all to agree on the following:
Game development is more costly now for all of the current consoles.
It has been widely reported that the development costs for Nintendo Wii are dramatically lower than development of XBOX360 and PS3 titles.
With current conditions for video game development, it is more profitable, and therefore more likely for the developers to develop for the Wii, considering lesser risks. As Costic pointed out here:
[quote name='Costic']Why is Wii so attractive? According to Sebastian, the answer's simply in the economics: "Based on the typical front-line retail price for Wii titles, we estimate that publishers need to sell approximately 300,000 units per title to break even. Specifically, using $49 front-line software pricing, the wholesale price is about 80% off retail, or $39. Third-party software publishers pay royalties and disk and packaging costs of approximately $9, with license and distribution fees costing another $7 to $9, leaving a contribution profit of $22 to $23. Assuming development and marketing expenses of about $7.5 million, we reach the estimated break-even unit total.
That's by contrast to a predicted break-even point of 600,000 for PS3/XBox 360 titles.[/quote]
And after you feel so good that our assessment has been right all along, let me shit on your parade in terms of ALL OF THE ABOVE:
[quote name='Costic']In reality, when you come down to it, the real thing publishers look at when deciding what to develop for is simply user base plus tie ratio--that is, how many boxes each manufacturer ships, and how many titles the average user buys for that box. This, and not a putative cost advantage for Wii over other platforms, is what's working in Wii's favor at the moment--it's selling better than its competitors. And while historically the tie ratio for GameCube was lower than for PS 2 and the original Xbox, this was largely due to the paucity of third-party games for GameCube--and the fact that many GameCube buyers were buying it as their second platform specifically to play Nintendo titles, and tended to play crossplatform games on their primary device. I expect there will be a flood of third-party games for Wii, that the advantage PS 2 and Xbox had over GameCube in this regard will not be true for the current generation: the tie ratios will look much more similar.[/quote]
And I come back to the original statement that I've made in this thread. Cheap Ass Mother
ers, such as myself, are not paying enough money that current development practices cost and therefore make it harder for developers (whose "risk" increase follows the development cost - therefore drastic, according to a couple of those links above) to make their money back.It's easy to point out that development itself needs a better system. However, there is not a single source or evidence, supporting the plausability of your claim, Jon Rose. You've offered to this thread nothing more than a "wouldn't it be cool if..." idea. Apart from that, you've let your cool self descend to petty bickerings with Apossum and Charcana. I don't believe that you think them to be idiots for a second, since no sane human being would ever dedicate more than 10 posts (forgive my rough estimate) to discredit persons who never, in fact, attacked your original point.
The first rule of the internet is that sticks and stones could break your bones, but ascii nevers hurts thee. The second rule, however, is that you're not the best in anything online. And as there are "High Scores" for all online titles that display more time "wasted" than you would care to attempt, there are also persons who are much better at belitteling others' intelligence than you are. This isn't a warning, it's advice, and I'm certain most people here would agree that it's good one. I trust you're smart enough to connect all the dots and marvel at my pretty picture.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
So we're bad for gaming......I'm so confused. I don't know if we really hurt the industry. Yes, most of us shun paying $60 out of pocket but that's not the only facet of the argument. Many of us also flip cheap games into credit so we can buy games when they first release. This counts as a sale even though money didn't exchange hands. This is happening enough to almost offset the people waiting out for the first or second price drops. So, our cheap ass ways help and hurt the industry. Don't forget, word of the mouth here is very strong. Lurkers might see threads and notice the buzz about certain titles. Hell, wait a week and a couple people will tell you what the game is all about and if it's worth the cash. I think developers love these kinds of sites. They love any site that gives them free buzz.
So what killed game development? Richard Pryor said, "I ain't dead, motherer!". This applies to the game industry. It might never die. More and more people are playing games. As much as I hate to say it, Nintendo has tapped the vein of the gaming public. They want mini games with colorful (but standard def) graphics, and easy controls. Competition is good but don't make it too serious. Developers are simply making what sells. Are they catering to the hardcore gamer? No, but why do that? They never buy a damn game at full price anyway. Like any business, they've got to cater to the paying customers that pay full price for their games.
So what killed game development? Richard Pryor said, "I ain't dead, mother
er!". This applies to the game industry. It might never die. More and more people are playing games. As much as I hate to say it, Nintendo has tapped the vein of the gaming public. They want mini games with colorful (but standard def) graphics, and easy controls. Competition is good but don't make it too serious. Developers are simply making what sells. Are they catering to the hardcore gamer? No, but why do that? They never buy a damn game at full price anyway. Like any business, they've got to cater to the paying customers that pay full price for their games.[quote name='MarioColbert']The best bits come from certain someone's claims that there is evidence supporting the high degree of speculatory contemplative conjecture that dominates this thread.[/quote]
Oh? Who brought up that notion? Must've missed that.
I guess we'll start slow since you somehow managed to miss this in that wonderful show of links (one from Costikyan - very... quaint), but this may be a slight hint that what i brought up might just be at question within the industry.
http://www.igda.org/articles/codonell_global.php
Beyond that, there was common knowledge based on what developers themselves have mostly been saying for the past 5 years. Welcome to the conversation; try not to trip over yourself.
At this point, i do believe them to be complete morons. One can do nothing but regurgitate everything i peg him for and act like he got in a clever burn, and the other one actually accused me of "internet forum character assassination". Tends to do things for one's perception of them.
And, for those keeping up (or pretending to), not addressing my original point was pretty much the entire problem.
Oh? Who brought up that notion? Must've missed that.
I guess we'll start slow since you somehow managed to miss this in that wonderful show of links (one from Costikyan - very... quaint), but this may be a slight hint that what i brought up might just be at question within the industry.
http://www.igda.org/articles/codonell_global.php
Beyond that, there was common knowledge based on what developers themselves have mostly been saying for the past 5 years. Welcome to the conversation; try not to trip over yourself.
At this point, i do believe them to be complete morons. One can do nothing but regurgitate everything i peg him for and act like he got in a clever burn, and the other one actually accused me of "internet forum character assassination". Tends to do things for one's perception of them.
And, for those keeping up (or pretending to), not addressing my original point was pretty much the entire problem.
MarioColbert
CAGiversary!
What took you so long to post that link? Great article (appears to be, at least), but I'm busy until Monday to get into beef of things. Thanks, bookmarked.
And I didn't argue against whether or not improved development practices are necessary. In fact, I have no credibility to either agree or disagree with your post. The only claim I made towards you was that you didn't give me a source. Unless I havepoop sources to throw at you, I usually say nothing.
And depascal22: I'm not saying that CAGs have much (or any) economic impact, necesesarily. I have no numbers regarding "cheap ass motherers causing a dent in the industry's pockets." I said nothing profound, really: if everyone acted as we do, it's be shitty times for "the industry" at large.
And I didn't argue against whether or not improved development practices are necessary. In fact, I have no credibility to either agree or disagree with your post. The only claim I made towards you was that you didn't give me a source. Unless I have
And depascal22: I'm not saying that CAGs have much (or any) economic impact, necesesarily. I have no numbers regarding "cheap ass mother
ers causing a dent in the industry's pockets." I said nothing profound, really: if everyone acted as we do, it's be shitty times for "the industry" at large.[quote name='MarioColbert']What took you so long to post that link?[/quote]
Two guesses.
Particularly of interest is the article from The Escapist, which is linked to from that. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_40/243-Friction-Costs
That's fine.
Two guesses.
Particularly of interest is the article from The Escapist, which is linked to from that. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_40/243-Friction-Costs
That's fine.
bread's done