Topic: Cost and risk in the games industry

[idolminds]

Sounds like a professional article title, don't it? Since scott pointed out a downward trend in our posting habit, I'm going to post shit we can talk about. And this is the first.

I was sitting here reading some stuff, and read a few posts on a forum about piracy and the cost of games. Ignoring the piracy for a moment, it got me thinking about the costs and risks in this industry.

You first have the costs of developing the game. This is usually high, so developers team up with a publisher to help fun it. This is risky for both parties. What if the game fails? Not just a bad game, but even a good game that the public ignores? Okami, Psychonauts, and others have had this trouble. Theres not much you can do to predict the outcome other than trying to pick "safe" games to make. Create something thats already proven popular. This is bad because sometimes its those original ideas prove to be really fun.

Now you've got your games made and the costs and risks are still there, but its on a different group: the gamers. A new game is $40-60, and you run the risk of getting either a bad game or just a game you don't happen to like. We have it a bit easier. There are a lot of reviews to read, forums are full of people experiences with the game, and if you're really lucky there will be a demo for you to try. We can lower our risks by a lot, but we've still all bought games we didn't like. With store return policies on games being exchange only on open games (or jack shit for PC games)..."losing" ~$50 is still a possibility. This is why I very rarely buy a game brand new at full price unless I *know* its going to be something I want to play. I'm just "gun shy" on buying some unknown.

So whats the point? Uh...I don't know. Maybe its something to think about with anti-piracy. Sure there are lots of people that pirate games simply because they don't have to pay for them. That makes sense: the risk and cost are both zero. They have nothing to lose and gain everything. Perhaps there should be more demos. Perhaps games should be cheaper. You won't be able to reach zero, but the closer you get the more secure people will be when buying and will be more likely to buy. Perfect example for me was Geometry Wars on Steam. As you know, I'm not the biggest Steam fan and don't buy from them if it is at all possible. Geometry Wars went on sale the first week for some astonishingly cheap price of $3. Even though I didn't end up playing GW all that much, I didn't care. Even if Steam stopped working for me (my risk, and hey thats actually happened!) I don't feel totally ripped off (about GW. I have a beef about all my other shit still). It was only $3, and they got me to bite.

I wonder how UT3 would have done if it launched at $30.

[MysterD]

I don't know if UT3 would've done much better at $30. I mean, as great as it is, many reviewers and those that bought it felt that UT3 was basically UT 2004 with snazzier graphics and a lot of maps.

Once that vibe got out, I think gamers who ain't played it will wait for the bargain bin. I could be wrong, though....maybe gamers would've jumped for UT3 at $30....?

[Ghandi]

It's interesting to think about how all games aren't created from an equal standpoint. Some games have a bigger budget, some have a better development team, etc. Obviously the developers of some games know that the game isn't a AAA title, but if the budget for the game was only half that of some of the bigger games, they only need to sell half as many games in order to get a profit. But then advertising comes into play - some games are shitty as hell but sell because they are advertised really well. I'd be willing to bet that only a small percentage of gamers thoroughly read reviews before picking up a game. And the lower end of the market probably thrives on those gamers.

Of course, all this is coming out of my ass - I don't really have a clue. But it sounds right.

[scottws]

Well I don't have much to comment on here other than the ongoing financial strains of mid-life are taking their toll on my gaming life.  I honestly can't remember the last game I bought without using gift cards.  Whereas at one time almost my entire monthly income (however meager) was disposable, now while my monthly income is higher, a far smaller amount is disposable and there are actually important things I need to save up for.

I have noticed that I've really balked at the new $60 price of 360 and PS3 games.  I've bought only five 360 games and sold three of them on eBay.  I'm finding myself actually more interested in the Wii version of multiplatform games for the $10 savings.  Part of this is simply because I don't have an HDTV so the graphical upgrades of the other versions are lost on me, but really it is mostly that extra ten bucks.

But there is no question games are a huge risk for studios and publishers these days.  Developers are often on a short leash and it seems like lately they fold left and right as their over-ambitious games fail commercially.

It is a shame though, how commercial the industry has become.  It used to be so creative.  But the skyrocketing development cost and pressure to succeed has caused the industry to follow the path idol talked about:  safe games.  Sequels.  Prequels.  Remakes or reimaginings of old games.  Spinoffs featuring well-known characters or settings.  I mean there are still creative games in the main games industry such as Okami and Spore but it seems that for the most part publishers don't want to take the risk

It's actually really nice to see XBLA and Steam cultivating a bit of a resurgent indy game industry.  I actually find myself having a blast playing some of those games on XBLA like Heavy Weapon and Assault Heros.  I probably come back more to XBLA games than I do to "blockbusters" like GTA4.  There's definitely a market there for technologically simpler $10 - $15 games.

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, the nice things that have come out of this are all the cool "little" games on XBLA/PSN that come in at a nice low price point, and also... lots of derivative, stupid games means lots of derivative, stupid games I don't have to waste my money on.  There was a time when I bought practically everything, but now there's a lot less out there worth buying.

Actually, that's not true.  There's less in ratio simply because lots more games are being made.  There's probably still the same number of quality titles out there.  But if all games were at the same general quality levels as the mid nineties to the early 2000s... I'd be hopelessly screwed.

What I want to know is what happened to shareware?  It pisses me off that that had to die.  Getting an episode for free, then getting more stuff if you paid for it... I loved that.  Even just really good demos... most of the ones we get now blow.  The first episode of Doom was the best thing ever, and the first 7 levels of Descent were super kickass as well.  I miss those days.

[idolminds]

Thats a good point. And on that same note, I think a lot of demos fail at their jobs. They pull out a level or two of the full game and let you play it. By the end of the demo, very rarely are you excited about the game. You think "Oh, so the full game is going to be more of that. Huh." At least, thats my reaction to 90% of demos.

Demos need to grab you. At the end they should leave you wanting more! "I want to see what happens next! I want to see what other cool weapons there are! I want to see what awesome new levels are ahead!" Stuff like that. Thats all easier said than done, but I think demos are just sort of thrown together without much thought into what they are showing.

[Quemaqua]

Yeah.  I don't know what the magic was with those older games, but think about Doom and Descent.  I guess the first episode of the former and demo section of the latter was about 7 levels or so apiece, and by the end of those, I was fucking rabid to play more.  I'd have torn my legs off if it meant I could get them faster.  I just had to have them!  So few demos manage that now, because they're either way too limited, or they show the shortcomings of the game too well, or make you realize the game isn't going to have much variety.

I think in a lot of ways, we've been taking steps backward from that time period.  There was something so immediate and necessary about those games, where a lot of stuff today just seems bloated and I don't care if I play it or not.  I don't feel like I'm missing anything special the way I did back then.

[Ghandi]

How many people as a whole really buy a game based upon the demo? You have to realize that a lot of the people on these boards aren't really representative of the larger, more mindless gaming market. Give them a neat commercial with some cool graphics and they eat it up.

[scottws]

Thats a good point. And on that same note, I think a lot of demos fail at their jobs. They pull out a level or two of the full game and let you play it. By the end of the demo, very rarely are you excited about the game. You think "Oh, so the full game is going to be more of that. Huh." At least, thats my reaction to 90% of demos.

Demos need to grab you. At the end they should leave you wanting more! "I want to see what happens next! I want to see what other cool weapons there are! I want to see what awesome new levels are ahead!" Stuff like that. Thats all easier said than done, but I think demos are just sort of thrown together without much thought into what they are showing.

The F.E.A.R. demo did that.  That demo was amazing.  I was actually sad that one of the creepier/cooler parts of that demo wasn't in the full game.

But yeah, demos seem to be hit or miss.  The RtCW MP demo sold me on that game, which was interesting because I'd never played online FPS multiplayer before.  Some demos can kill any enthusiasm I had for a game.  There was some Russian RTS that came out a few years ago that people seemed excited about a bit and I played the demo and thought it was lame.

[Cobra951]

I was involved in game development, both individually and as part of a small company.  Both experiences started out with tremendous excitement, only to end in a huge letdown.  Both times the problem was money, or the eventual lack of it.  My Atari 800 arcade game got a lot of praise from the editor of ANTIC magazine.  Commercially, it went nowhere.  Good lessons learned then about how essential the business side of games development is.  As part of a talented group a dozen years later, I did work on the original Everquest engine, which Sony never gave us credit for.  We worked on Return to Krondor, mostly its 3D models.  I worked with one other guy on a port of Descent for the original Nvidia card, under the Sega umbrella then.  It was technically a disaster, because they gave us time for a port when we needed time for a rewrite.  That early card could not deal with triangles, only quads, and the Descent source dealt strictly with triangles.  We worked on a game based on this novel from the ground up, and that never saw the light of day commercially.  The bottom fell out of the enterprise, as well as from the distributor.

This business has always been extremely volatile.  Things are is such a constant state of flux that it's like trying to walk on spinning barrels.  I don't envy anyone who is in this business without a strong safety net or backup plans.  I do admire the few who actually rise to success with excellent games, conquering all the hurdles, particularly the financial ones.

I'm not surprised that the business has consolidated to such a degree, and continues to do so.  Very few small concerns like id Software can survive on their own, so few that it's my feeling talent is not the only reason.  Getting the right breaks at the right time played a significant part.  That's where the risk really lies, assuming those involved are otherwise competent.  So much can go wrong because of the mentioned flux.  There is so much out of their control.

[Quemaqua]

You know, I never really asked about your game-making history, Cobra.  That all fascinates me.  I remember Return to Krondor, though only vaguely.  I didn't really play it since I was exiting my Sierra phase at the time, though I think I may own a copy somewhere that I got from a friend.

Damn shame you didn't get more out of Lord of the Orb.  That game should have taken off... it's easily one of the best Atari games I've played, and I do mean that.  I haven't played a metric ton of Atari games, but I've played a pretty good number of the heavy-hitters, and I say with sincerity that your game bests a lot of them.

[gpw11]

We worked on Return to Krondor,

I think someone on Something Awful said this was one of the best games ever. Abandonware now, right?

[MysterD]

I think someone on Something Awful said this was one of the best games ever. Abandonware now, right?

Maybe GOG will have it joins its club, once it launches??
That would be sweet, to have lots of great classics join their club.

As much as I don't care for Steam, it's nice to see some of the older out-of-print games get thrown up their to pay-to-download-to-play.

[scottws]

I was with Que around the time of Return to Krondor.  I played the heck out of tons of Sierra games before that but that game came out around the time our Tandy 1000HX wasn't really much of a viable gaming machine anymore.