Originally Posted by CowBlazed Hey Lurks, did you ever think for a second that maybe the publishers are wrong?
My God, only all the freaking time. Are you perchance mistaking me trying to correct some misconceptions about the role of publishers with being a publishing industry apologist? Can't we be just a little more complex than that?
Quote:
Why should all they care about is the first month or 2 of sales? This isn't the movie industry where the movies is only in theatres for a few weeks, this is a game release and people aren't going to be buying multiple games every month.
Rock and a hard place. If I explain this to you that makes me some kind of publisher whore and you'll go and reply completely misunderstanding anything I said and attack me on some sort of tangent?
Well, since I haven't had the will to live completely beaten from my body I'll give it a go anyway.
If you look at sales charts for games they essentially drop down to something like 3 digits of units sold a week after the peak unless there's a good reason such as being a platform hero title or an unusually long-period seller such as, for example on the PC, Football Manager. What this means is that for most games, almost all of them in fact, the absolute lion's share of the revenue that comes from them ends up coming in from the first weeks on sale. There's also a cost in recouping your investment later on down the line. $10 in one year is not worth $10 now. The longer it takes to get back your money, the more money you need to get back to break even. It's worth the interest it cost to front the money or rather the expectation that you can use that revenue at least as effectively as investing elsewhere.
It's all generally factored into the business plan when publishing a game. Including the eventual progress of the game to budget, bundles and so forth. Publishers also make developers shoulder some of this risk in that if the game sells well in the full price release then game developers often, but not always, will see some back-slice action on that. Employees get bonuses, that sort of thing. The guys who made the games. If it drags out to a worst case nearing break-even point, the only money the game developer will see is the money they were advanced to make the game in the first place.
Quote:
I'm a student in game design myself and hope to soon be in the industry, and let me tell you I haven't met one person that works in the industry that actually likes their publishers, not one. Why?
Mostly true but there are some good publishers. I quite like THQ and Activision. Oh and, interestingly, Microsoft's games publishing business too.
Quote:
Because what do the publishers demand? More of the same constantly, every game pitch has to be backed up with other simmilar games that have done well financialy (ie sold in the first months) and creative ideas that would set them apart are constantly being cut and thrown out for mainstream ones. This watering down of all games not just PC games as a whole is a big problem.
That's a generalisation but sadly I'd have to agree. However even EA takes substantial risks, they just make sure that only a percentage of their business is 'risky'. But sure that happens.
Quote:
I also love how you say you bought all those games and don't even get around to playing them. Yea because thats how your real consumer does things right? Buy a bunch of big titles for the full release price of $60+ so that you can not even get around to playing half of them.
I never said a real consumer does. Exactly why do you read anything I say and just elaborate out some world view that has nothing to do with my point? To clarify for you I do this with my group of friends because we all expect to play the games. Hell, even at the lan party that we buy the damn games for. The fact I haven't quite gotten around to playing 5 games in less than two months, well I'm sorry. I'm clearly just an idiot for buying 5 fan-bloody-tastic PC games.
Quote:
I rarely buy games at their full retail price or near their release dates, because I just can't justify spending that much money on a game very often. When I do, you bet its going to be a game packed with value. The last 2 games I've bought for full retail price are Orange Box and Oblivion.
I can't remember what the grand total is for those games but I reckon I spent more money on booze that weekend anyway. It's all about perspective. You're a skint student, I'm not.
My point in saying that was that it's something I do with my friends just to try keep us on the straight and narrow and not pirate those games when we can easily afford them. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Alright with you sunshine?
Quote:
Real people buy games on their own terms, not on what the industry wants them to do.
Bugger me, that's why I can read this through my hands. I'm not real! Someone call the doctor, no the vicar. Anyone!
Seriously, if you do want to work in the industry as a game designer but you've already decided all publishers are Evil and that games don't need to sell up front? Really setting yourself up for an enjoyable and profitable career eh? :)
Originally Posted by Cthippo I doubt we'll ever see "Mario & Sonic at the Olympics" (#1) or "DR KAWASHIMA'S BRAIN TRAINING" (#5) or NEW SUPER MARIO BROS. (#8) as Bit's GOTY. Sure, some of us may play them when we have a few mates over, but they are not serious games. I don't think anyone here is going to pass up up a copy of Crysis or SupCom to get "BIG BRAIN ACADEMY: WII DEGREE" (#13).
Why not? I enjoy computer gaming, but I have no interest in Crysis. As a matter of fact, I did just that; I passed up Crysis and got Big Brain Academy instead. My wife and I have a blast playing against each other. Why does Crysis necessarily count any more than an interactive Wii game?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthippo These games represent not competition so much as an enirely new market that did not exist 5 years ago.
I would say the fact that Nintendo has tapped into that new market has made them pretty competitive. Are PC game sales declining? I don't know. I won't argue that point one way or the other. However, I do think the idea of "computer games" has shifted from the tired stereotype of geeks pulling all-night LAN parties, fragging each other in graphics-laden FPS titles, to a new paradigm of casual and party-type games, such as Guitar Hero, Dance Dance Revolution, (insert sports game), and any number of Wii titles. The normal, "big" titles are still there (Crysis, et al), but more and more attention is being drawn to the alternative, "lighter" games. My wife loves computer gaming, but she doesn't have the skill to take on something as heavy at Crysis or SupCom. I tried to get her to play Warcraft 3, but she didn't like the fact that war was the only way to win. She likes the fact that Age of Mythology allows you to focus entirely on defense and win via economics. And I can't count the number of Yahoo! Games she's downloaded. I have to admit, some of them are kind of fun, and others are downright addictive. I know I've spent hours on Bookworm.
I think I've started rambling. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, like so many other things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Or maybe I'm just rambling.
Originally Posted by Cthippo These games represent not competition so much as an enirely new market that did not exist 5 years ago.
Oh yes, I agree with your analysis but it's not incompatible with anything I've said. The UK in particular is an incredibly growth region for console game. I felt it would have muddied the issue a little further to state the poor PC game sales in relation to a booming console market. There's lots of ways of saying it. Massive reduction in market share etc. The point is that unit sales of the biggest and best PC games released during peak season are either the same (for the very top titles) or fractionally down (for everything else) on last year's PC games sales. While the games industry as a whole experiences substantial growth.
Games are getting more expensive to make. So overall it makes the business case for PC gaming weaker in the context of the above.
Quote:
I think your views represent those of the industry. You're putting out huge blockbuster games that cost millions upon millions to make, and when they don't sell millions upon millions of copies like they did in the past you assume people aren't buying them because they are pirating them.
I don't have the same views as the industry, far from it. I'm trying to explain the mechanics of the industry in the face of what I perceive to be unjustified denials. On the last point, as I've said before you have a choice. a) PC gamers aren't buying even good pc games because they have such high standards. b) PC gamers are pirating the games instead. I'm not advocating an industry approach but there's clear evidence to suggest that piracy plays a major role.
I'm baffled what evidence anyone has that piracy doesn't play a role? Can someone, anyone, explain to me what basis that is rather than the fact they would quite like if it didn't because they don't like publishers and publishers don't like piracy.
Quote:
To some extent that may be true, but have you considered the possibility that people aren't buying them because they don't want them? Or perhaps that they don't want them on the terms that you are offering them (oppressive copy protection, in-game ads, $50 plus pricetags)? I think the industry as a whole has forgotten that people have a choice, and they they can choose to not play games until somthing they actually want comes along.
Covered this plenty. The big one is that price doesn't appear to be a major factor. The games don't sell when they go cheap either. SupCom:FA went cheap almost immediately and the very next week after release was patched to have protection removed. Did it rally? No. It's being outsold by garbage like C&C 3 and WIC although they're not selling very much at all either. What possibly reason is there not to buy that wonderful game? You tell me?
Best money i spent in 2007 that was.
Quote:
Lets take a look at ... So, we have a bit over 3 million for WOW, 1.5 million for the Sims, and under a million for everything else combined, all of which were sequels. Granted there are somewhat different distribution models at work here, but I think this shows a shifting customer interest away from "more of the same" to new technologies that are incompatible with the industry's old business model.
Heh, on the contrary I look at that and what I see is a list DOMINATED by people wanting more of the same. Every single thing and you're saying consumer interest is *away* from that? Are you looking at the same list? Or do you mean to suggest that people bought less of those games because they were more of the same? I'm confused.
There are original games around. Where are they on the list? If you look at games charts from the PC gaming hey-day, it was rammed with original games. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but really when it comes down to it, people buy stuff that's familiar. I guess you're all immediately going to take that as me having the view that originality is bad and all these sequels etc are just peachy...
I Have to comment --- Brett's photo - every dang column - he looks so sad.... like his best girl just dumped him for his best friend. Those sad puppy eyes....... I hereby request officially that Brett get a new photo done for the column - no more sad eyes........ please.
Originally Posted by Lurks I don't have the same views as the industry, far from it. I'm trying to explain the mechanics of the industry in the face of what I perceive to be unjustified denials. On the last point, as I've said before you have a choice. a) PC gamers aren't buying even good pc games because they have such high standards. b) PC gamers are pirating the games instead. I'm not advocating an industry approach but there's clear evidence to suggest that piracy plays a major role.
I'm baffled what evidence anyone has that piracy doesn't play a role? Can someone, anyone, explain to me what basis that is rather than the fact they would quite like if it didn't because they don't like publishers and publishers don't like piracy.
Fair enough. I wasn't sure where your explination ended and your opinion began.
Here's my take on it, for what it's worth. I agree, lots of people pirate games, so lets stipulate that for the sake of arguement. What I disagree on is the relevance of this fact. Many in the industry assume that piracy represents lost sales. I think that piracy represents sales that never would have been. If you could flip some magic switch tomorrow and end piracy I donn't think that there would be a sudden surge of game sales. The people who used to pirate games wouldn't suddenly go out and buy them, they would simply go without or find a new pasttime. In fact, I think there would actually be a small decrease in long term sales. There is a lot of admittedly anecdotal evidence that people pirate games to try before they buy them. I think piracy falls into the same category as taxes. Sure, it's a problem, but somthing as an irrelevant one because even if you solved it, things would not improve. Such is my opinion, feel free to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurks There are original games around. Where are they on the list? If you look at games charts from the PC gaming hey-day, it was rammed with original games. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but really when it comes down to it, people buy stuff that's familiar. I guess you're all immediately going to take that as me having the view that originality is bad and all these sequels etc are just peachy...
To be honest, I did wonder about that looking at the list. I also question the list because we know Crysis went Platnum in that time and numerous sources have reported the Orange box selling extremly well, yet neither were mentioned. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Perhaps those of us who want high quality, innvative games are in fact only a vocal minority. If so, then it doesn't matter what we do, but i hope the publishers don't complain when we take our money elsewhere.
I'm by no means an official representative of Bit, but as a member of the peanut gallery I would like to encourage you to write an article for Bit on how the industry works and the role and realities as seen by the publishers. This is a debate that affects all of us and I think I speak for many here when I say I would like to hear other perspecives.
Edit: Speaking of which, I'd be interested to get your thoughts on Valve opening up steam to pretty much all comers as far as deverlopers are concerned.
Originally Posted by Cthippo Edit: Speaking of which, I'd be interested to get your thoughts on Valve opening up steam to pretty much all comers as far as deverlopers are concerned.
This is quite interesting actually but they're not entirely just opening up Steam to anyone who wants to flog a game on it, I think. Or at least it doesn't imply they're doing that from what I've read. It's actually a kind of business focused middleware-esque solution which they're selling.
This offers to take care of:
* Release day authorisation: Eg game you buy is encrypted and only works on release day. Very effective.
* Patch distribution
* Online match making for multiplayer
* Voice communications
* Steam community features
* Some development tools for testing and debugging
But I think if you want to sell your game on Steam you ultimately have to negotiate that with Valve. I'm not sure they'll just let any old game appear. Maybe they will? At any rate Valve have a soft spot for indy devs anyway, remember how they pushed Darwinia and and Uplink from Introversion? So I doubt they'd have a problem putting on a decent game.
So broadly I'd welcome it. The PC *really* needs a common interface for digital distribution, just like Xbox Live Arcade because it's not a big enough market to support many really. The only problem you have is that you need to get the guys who own the common interface to agree to put your game up. It's not easy getting on Xbox Live Arcade. If Valve become less choosy, I guess indys risk having their games lost in Steam somewhere. I've already seen that really. You know, Steam pushes the latest and greatest AAA thing going because, presumably, there's money changing hands. Probably little incentive to push smaller stuff. But then again... they did that with Peggle.
So broadly I'd say it's great. SteamWorks looks genuinely useful particularly as a great tool to combat piracy. Valve's encryption stuff really works well and completely solves the issue of leaked games in manufacturing getting out to crackers before stuff is even released.
One thing I don't know, and I'm inclined to try find out, is how Steam is received in Germany. Germany is one of the few places in the world that PC gaming is really doing well. Be very interesting to know the German view on digital distribution in general. My gut feeling is that many of the games they like (more sophisticated sim games etc) just aren't normally found on digital distribution anyway.
Sorry to be picky, but the person to whom the "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" quote should be correctly attributed to is Benjamin Disraeli, British PM.
Originally Posted by trellick Sorry to be picky, but the person to whom the "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" quote should be correctly attributed to is Benjamin Disraeli, British PM.
Hi and welcome to the forums.
You are correct that the phrase was originally coined by Benjamin Disraeli, but the phrase was popularised in the US by Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) and that's more than likely where Brett first heard the saying (being a US citizen). :)
Originally Posted by trellick Sorry to be picky, but the person to whom the "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics" quote should be correctly attributed to is Benjamin Disraeli, British PM.
Wow! The things I never knew. I researched the quote via a few avenues, and never saw that! Likely it's who truly 'popularised' it - Twain had it in one of his books, so I figure that's probably why the mislabeling. It's probably a lot like "oh what tangled webs," which is so often attributed to Shakespeare when it was actually Sir Walter Scott.
I agree with a lot of what you said. Some of the greatest games ever made were created by a couple people. In fact i'd say over 90% of them.
I am one of the few PC gamers for life i think. Crysis did go platinum with a million sold. I'd like for information on that statistic but I'm happy that many people were able to experience that game regardless.
I think one of the reasons PC games are on the down is the lifespan of old games though to. I know people who still play Counterstrike and thats it, as well as Baldurs Gate 2, and Neverwinter Nights and are happy with that and the MODs availible that are out there and keep getting made.
Comments 51 to 63 of 63
My God, only all the freaking time. Are you perchance mistaking me trying to correct some misconceptions about the role of publishers with being a publishing industry apologist? Can't we be just a little more complex than that?
Rock and a hard place. If I explain this to you that makes me some kind of publisher whore and you'll go and reply completely misunderstanding anything I said and attack me on some sort of tangent?
Well, since I haven't had the will to live completely beaten from my body I'll give it a go anyway.
If you look at sales charts for games they essentially drop down to something like 3 digits of units sold a week after the peak unless there's a good reason such as being a platform hero title or an unusually long-period seller such as, for example on the PC, Football Manager. What this means is that for most games, almost all of them in fact, the absolute lion's share of the revenue that comes from them ends up coming in from the first weeks on sale. There's also a cost in recouping your investment later on down the line. $10 in one year is not worth $10 now. The longer it takes to get back your money, the more money you need to get back to break even. It's worth the interest it cost to front the money or rather the expectation that you can use that revenue at least as effectively as investing elsewhere.
It's all generally factored into the business plan when publishing a game. Including the eventual progress of the game to budget, bundles and so forth. Publishers also make developers shoulder some of this risk in that if the game sells well in the full price release then game developers often, but not always, will see some back-slice action on that. Employees get bonuses, that sort of thing. The guys who made the games. If it drags out to a worst case nearing break-even point, the only money the game developer will see is the money they were advanced to make the game in the first place.
Mostly true but there are some good publishers. I quite like THQ and Activision. Oh and, interestingly, Microsoft's games publishing business too.
That's a generalisation but sadly I'd have to agree. However even EA takes substantial risks, they just make sure that only a percentage of their business is 'risky'. But sure that happens.
I never said a real consumer does. Exactly why do you read anything I say and just elaborate out some world view that has nothing to do with my point? To clarify for you I do this with my group of friends because we all expect to play the games. Hell, even at the lan party that we buy the damn games for. The fact I haven't quite gotten around to playing 5 games in less than two months, well I'm sorry. I'm clearly just an idiot for buying 5 fan-bloody-tastic PC games.
I can't remember what the grand total is for those games but I reckon I spent more money on booze that weekend anyway. It's all about perspective. You're a skint student, I'm not.
My point in saying that was that it's something I do with my friends just to try keep us on the straight and narrow and not pirate those games when we can easily afford them. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Alright with you sunshine?
Bugger me, that's why I can read this through my hands. I'm not real! Someone call the doctor, no the vicar. Anyone!
Seriously, if you do want to work in the industry as a game designer but you've already decided all publishers are Evil and that games don't need to sell up front? Really setting yourself up for an enjoyable and profitable career eh? :)
I think I've started rambling. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, like so many other things in life, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Or maybe I'm just rambling.
-monkey
Oh yes, I agree with your analysis but it's not incompatible with anything I've said. The UK in particular is an incredibly growth region for console game. I felt it would have muddied the issue a little further to state the poor PC game sales in relation to a booming console market. There's lots of ways of saying it. Massive reduction in market share etc. The point is that unit sales of the biggest and best PC games released during peak season are either the same (for the very top titles) or fractionally down (for everything else) on last year's PC games sales. While the games industry as a whole experiences substantial growth.
Games are getting more expensive to make. So overall it makes the business case for PC gaming weaker in the context of the above.
I don't have the same views as the industry, far from it. I'm trying to explain the mechanics of the industry in the face of what I perceive to be unjustified denials. On the last point, as I've said before you have a choice. a) PC gamers aren't buying even good pc games because they have such high standards. b) PC gamers are pirating the games instead. I'm not advocating an industry approach but there's clear evidence to suggest that piracy plays a major role.
I'm baffled what evidence anyone has that piracy doesn't play a role? Can someone, anyone, explain to me what basis that is rather than the fact they would quite like if it didn't because they don't like publishers and publishers don't like piracy.
Covered this plenty. The big one is that price doesn't appear to be a major factor. The games don't sell when they go cheap either. SupCom:FA went cheap almost immediately and the very next week after release was patched to have protection removed. Did it rally? No. It's being outsold by garbage like C&C 3 and WIC although they're not selling very much at all either. What possibly reason is there not to buy that wonderful game? You tell me?
Best money i spent in 2007 that was.
Heh, on the contrary I look at that and what I see is a list DOMINATED by people wanting more of the same. Every single thing and you're saying consumer interest is *away* from that? Are you looking at the same list? Or do you mean to suggest that people bought less of those games because they were more of the same? I'm confused.
There are original games around. Where are they on the list? If you look at games charts from the PC gaming hey-day, it was rammed with original games. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but really when it comes down to it, people buy stuff that's familiar. I guess you're all immediately going to take that as me having the view that originality is bad and all these sequels etc are just peachy...
Fair enough. I wasn't sure where your explination ended and your opinion began.
Here's my take on it, for what it's worth. I agree, lots of people pirate games, so lets stipulate that for the sake of arguement. What I disagree on is the relevance of this fact. Many in the industry assume that piracy represents lost sales. I think that piracy represents sales that never would have been. If you could flip some magic switch tomorrow and end piracy I donn't think that there would be a sudden surge of game sales. The people who used to pirate games wouldn't suddenly go out and buy them, they would simply go without or find a new pasttime. In fact, I think there would actually be a small decrease in long term sales. There is a lot of admittedly anecdotal evidence that people pirate games to try before they buy them. I think piracy falls into the same category as taxes. Sure, it's a problem, but somthing as an irrelevant one because even if you solved it, things would not improve. Such is my opinion, feel free to disagree.
To be honest, I did wonder about that looking at the list. I also question the list because we know Crysis went Platnum in that time and numerous sources have reported the Orange box selling extremly well, yet neither were mentioned. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Perhaps those of us who want high quality, innvative games are in fact only a vocal minority. If so, then it doesn't matter what we do, but i hope the publishers don't complain when we take our money elsewhere.
I'm by no means an official representative of Bit, but as a member of the peanut gallery I would like to encourage you to write an article for Bit on how the industry works and the role and realities as seen by the publishers. This is a debate that affects all of us and I think I speak for many here when I say I would like to hear other perspecives.
Edit: Speaking of which, I'd be interested to get your thoughts on Valve opening up steam to pretty much all comers as far as deverlopers are concerned.
Turn-based-strategy will always be best with a mouse and I can't see how something like X3 would fair in a console environment.
This is quite interesting actually but they're not entirely just opening up Steam to anyone who wants to flog a game on it, I think. Or at least it doesn't imply they're doing that from what I've read. It's actually a kind of business focused middleware-esque solution which they're selling.
This offers to take care of:
* Release day authorisation: Eg game you buy is encrypted and only works on release day. Very effective.
* Patch distribution
* Online match making for multiplayer
* Voice communications
* Steam community features
* Some development tools for testing and debugging
But I think if you want to sell your game on Steam you ultimately have to negotiate that with Valve. I'm not sure they'll just let any old game appear. Maybe they will? At any rate Valve have a soft spot for indy devs anyway, remember how they pushed Darwinia and and Uplink from Introversion? So I doubt they'd have a problem putting on a decent game.
So broadly I'd welcome it. The PC *really* needs a common interface for digital distribution, just like Xbox Live Arcade because it's not a big enough market to support many really. The only problem you have is that you need to get the guys who own the common interface to agree to put your game up. It's not easy getting on Xbox Live Arcade. If Valve become less choosy, I guess indys risk having their games lost in Steam somewhere. I've already seen that really. You know, Steam pushes the latest and greatest AAA thing going because, presumably, there's money changing hands. Probably little incentive to push smaller stuff. But then again... they did that with Peggle.
So broadly I'd say it's great. SteamWorks looks genuinely useful particularly as a great tool to combat piracy. Valve's encryption stuff really works well and completely solves the issue of leaked games in manufacturing getting out to crackers before stuff is even released.
One thing I don't know, and I'm inclined to try find out, is how Steam is received in Germany. Germany is one of the few places in the world that PC gaming is really doing well. Be very interesting to know the German view on digital distribution in general. My gut feeling is that many of the games they like (more sophisticated sim games etc) just aren't normally found on digital distribution anyway.
Hi and welcome to the forums.
You are correct that the phrase was originally coined by Benjamin Disraeli, but the phrase was popularised in the US by Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) and that's more than likely where Brett first heard the saying (being a US citizen). :)
Ah well, live and learn - sorry about that!
I am one of the few PC gamers for life i think. Crysis did go platinum with a million sold. I'd like for information on that statistic but I'm happy that many people were able to experience that game regardless.
I think one of the reasons PC games are on the down is the lifespan of old games though to. I know people who still play Counterstrike and thats it, as well as Baldurs Gate 2, and Neverwinter Nights and are happy with that and the MODs availible that are out there and keep getting made.