|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 15:55:20 GMT
Okay, please understand that I'm speaking as a gamer, not as an industry rep. By buying games and either not finishing them or "complaining" that you don't have enough time, you are pushing for shorter games though. Perhaps not intentionally, but that is the result. 22cans is a prime example of using such game statistics to further game development - don't you guys use analytics to find out what content gets played the most, and what isn't? To find out what is popular and what isn't, to find out what people go through fast and what lasts players longer? The industry at large does the same. And as a result, games are made shorter because the majority of the audience doesn't actually FINISH them before moving on to the next title. Given that I'm the type that always 100%s every game they play and so avoids IMHO overly lengthy (but still very popular) games like Skyrim, Borderlands and Fallout 3, I don't really see myself as part of the problem. If it's my user profile being used for analytics, all anyone would see is somebody trying to complete all the content a given game has to offer. I just wish there were fewer repetitive design choices (e.g. cut & paste mission types or an over-abundance of pointless collectibles) so I could 100% my games more quickly and move on to the next. You claim the cost of development has gone up? Really now? Then how come all those precious small titles you mention (Monument Valley being among those) don't cost millions? Yes, very much so for console games and especially in the AAA space. As I said, a PSOne game would cost less than $10M USD, now it's over $40M USD. Thankfully, due to digital downloads there's now a plethora of other experiences available that were previously only available as shareware, from XBLA all the way through to the indie scene and mobile games, that don't incur the same high costs of production. Just because the big hitters are throwing more and more money at the problem, doesn't seem to help them create better games. I agree. Not to mention a large amount of that money goes into corporate overhead and marketing - NOT into the actual game. The costs I refer to above relate to development, not marketing or operations. While marketing budgets have inflated for sure, that doesn't take away from the fact AAA console games cost more to make now for a variety of reasons given in the articles I linked to above. Not to mention, comparing it to "say a movie" is like comparing apples to oranges - they are drastically different products. You may quantify your entertainment value and go "Hey, I'm still doing better than if I went to the movies" - but the reality is they're not the same. They're comparable only in terms of money spent in return for hours of entertainment received. By that metric, AAA videogames are still good value-for-money by comparison. If more money guaranteed better titles I'd say there'd be some merit there. But it doesn't... I agree. Again, your favorite sockpuppet "Monument Valley" proves differently. You don't need a massive investment to make a good game - in fact, if you focus blindly on the money you're more likely to make flaws in design. Resulting in a poor game that's not as fun to play. I agree. If the cost of a single episode of content is equivalent to that of a full game - perhaps you're doing something wrong... That's because the majority of the heavy lifting goes into that first episode - the engine, character design, modelling and rigging, world design, narrative design, establishing game mechanics, etc. etc. The subsequent episodes can just leverage what has already been built and lay on additional environment art and V/O on top. Your very own favorite titles are proof that all these multi-million dollar developments aren't necessarily the future when it comes to great games. Its these smaller ones that have motivated and invested developers and innovative design - NOT the multi-million-dollar factorylines that are producing the great games these days. I agree. All the big IP's and brands? Diluted, milked out cashcows... I disagree. I still love my modern AAA cinematic experiences, I also enjoy smaller games too. I very much enjoyed the most recent Tomb Raider and I'm looking forward to the new Batman: Arkham game. I also adore Sword & Sworcery EP. These things aren't mutually exclusive IMHO and I think there's euqal amounts of passion, dedication and enthusiasm in the creative teams behind both types of experience. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Nov 13, 2014 16:06:03 GMT
Well thats the point - for every Tomb Raider or Batman: Arkham there are a dozen Fifa's, CoD's and so on.
While they're not necessarily mutually exclusive and there are good examples within the bad.
At large there is a big trend of design serving management and profits, as opposed to the other way around.
There's a fine line between making a profit to continue developing, or making money for the sake of making money.
And what I observe with a lot of IP's and brands is that the money is flowing out of the industry resulting in diluted titles and cutting down on development.
I think there is a good reason why a lot of developers choose to set out and start on their own once they get the chance.
Its because the "traditional industry" no longer allows them to follow their dreams and passions - but instead wants to force them into this mould instead.
Again, its not black and white - but its a distinctive pattern.
By acknowledging this pattern you don't deny the quality of a Batman: Arkham, GTA V or Europa Universalis IV.
Mind you, with regards to episodic content - isn't the whole point to spread those costs?
Unless you exclusively release episodes 1 and stop the process after that...
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 16:21:26 GMT
Well thats the point - for every Tomb Raider or Batman: Arkham there are a dozen Fifa's, CoD's and so on. While they're not necessarily mutually exclusive and there are good examples within the bad. I wouldn't put FIFA in the same category as CoD. While I don't play sports games, as a bystander I'm impressed by how much new content and functionality FIFA in particular manages to squeeze into each yearly update. It can't be easy when you're essentially making the same game over and over (football is football is football, after all), plus there's plenty opf [people willing to part with cash on an annual basis on it for whatever reason. CoD's a different matter and that's been reflected in the increased sales for Battlefield at CoD's expense. At large there is a big trend of design serving management and profits, as opposed to the other way around. There's a fine line between making a profit to continue developing, or making money for the sake of making money. And what I observe with a lot of IP's and brands is that the money is flowing out of the industry resulting in diluted titles and cutting down on development. That is a trend that goes way beyond videogames I'm afraid and I agree it's abhorrent. I think there is a good reason why a lot of developers choose to set out and start on their own once they get the chance. Its because the "traditional industry" no longer allows them to follow their dreams and passions - but instead wants to force them into this mould instead. I wouldn't put any devs up on a pedestal, indie or otherwise. Everyone has bills to pay and it's actually very rare a designer is lucky enough to choose what they get to work on. Mostly, people are hired to fill a role on a particular project - again, that goes beyond videogame designers, too. Again, its not black and white - but its a distinctive pattern. By acknowledging this pattern you don't deny the quality of a Batman: Arkham, GTA V or Europa Universalis IV. I don't disagree. I just think the issue is more complex than you're making out, as evinced by the articles I linked to in my previous post. Mind you, with regards to episodic content - isn't the whole point to spread those costs? Unless you exclusively release episodes 1 and stop the process after that... That's the idea, but it doesn't always work out that way.... Everybody wanted episodic gaming to be the new holy grail and solve the immense problem of spiralling AAA console game development costs, however inevitably you end up banking on your first episode being a big enough hit to recoup the costs of development and fund development of further episodes. The secret that TellTale figured out was to make great licensed games, that way you can garner enough attention for your first episode to carry on making future ones. It's a shame really, I'd have loved it if Alan Wake had been episodic for example, or Assassin's Creed for that matter. However the industry is very insular and one spectacular failure can put off any further developments in a particular field for several years, if not decades. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Nov 13, 2014 16:40:01 GMT
Thats definitely true - and ideally that should be something the industry should move away from.
However that also ties into the way the industry works.
Unless you can bring in a bunch of cash *AND* a fanbase to begin with - you're reliant on your investors/stock holders.
Which means that ultimately you're developing to recoup money first and not to create a good game first.
I wouldn't claim that there is some secret formula. There are good and bad decisions in each project aswell as each concept.
Yet taking that step back - when you see publishers or investors claim that *genre X* isn't popular enough or wouldn't sell enough or when titles are kept locked away on their island (be it because of localization or because of platform restrictions) you also cut off a lot of potential.
Everyone wants to get their slice of the pie and everyone wants their slice to be the biggest. With so much emphasis on increased profits.
Its no wonder that the actual quality of content is dropping. Focusing on reproducing what works, rather than looking at new options.
As to which Godus is no different. Peter claims he wants to innovate, but looking at Godus there is no innovation, its a repeat of existing mechanics and concepts - merely applied to a different genre.
The single bit of innovation part of the pitch was the idea to get mobile and PC functioning together through multiplayer - which is the very element that isn't working out.
The rest of the game? Shallow, generic, focused purely on making money.
Yes - you have to pay the bills. No, you're not gonna make much money if your game is poorly made.
Your reference towards Tell Tale studio's reveals part of the secret. "that way you can garner enough attention for your first episode"
Now perhaps I'm wrong here - but I believe that the key to this going forward will be a combination of good (and sometimes innovative) design combined with good development, and then joined with community interaction.
Finding the right people, get them interested in your concept and them keep them interested through updates.
Not hyping them up with falsehoods or ideal images - but facts, stay grounded. Don't overpromise, stay realistic.
This day and age you don't need to spend a ton to reach a wide audience, especially not at first.
By employing your community, your fans and your players, you get a better (and cheaper) way to spread the word.
Is that easy? No, there are dozens, if not hundreds of others that attempt to do the same - but there are MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of people to reach out to that can assist you. And if your idea is sound there's bound to be a few that are interested.
From there on its a matter of keeping the ball rolling.
The times are changing, and the old ways no longer work aswell as they once did.
And I for one won't be satisfied with taking in the slops left behind by some corporate investor that couldn't care less where his money came from.
Quality and value for money is where the future is at for me. Be it 1~5 hour games, or 40~60+ hour games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 16:51:04 GMT
I believe that the key to this going forward will be a combination of good (and sometimes innovative) design combined with good development, and then joined with community interaction. Finding the right people, get them interested in your concept and them keep them interested through updates. Not hyping them up with falsehoods or ideal images - but facts, stay grounded. Don't overpromise, stay realistic. This day and age you don't need to spend a ton to reach a wide audience, especially not at first. By employing your community, your fans and your players, you get a better (and cheaper) way to spread the word. Is that easy? No, there are dozens, if not hundreds of others that attempt to do the same - but there are MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of people to reach out to that can assist you. And if your idea is sound there's bound to be a few that are interested. From there on its a matter of keeping the ball rolling. I couldn't agree more, in fact that's exactly what I did for Nosgoth's pre-reveal community hands-on event and throughout the game's Closed Alpha, leading to some pretty spectacular results. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Nov 13, 2014 16:55:26 GMT
Ofcourse, to do that, you need to (as an industry entity or development/publishing studio) let go of the old ways.
Something that a lot of these bigger studio's don't like. Transparancy and being open with your business?
You crazy?!
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 17:02:20 GMT
Ofcourse, to do that, you need to (as an industry entity or development/publishing studio) let go of the old ways. Something that a lot of these bigger studio's don't like. Transparancy and being open with your business? You crazy?! Making games in an open and transparent environment would seem to be laudable at first, but then the stark reality of the Sausage Factory cliché comes to the fore. "People like sausages, but no one wants to see how they're made!" |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Nov 13, 2014 17:12:39 GMT
I wouldn't say that 'nobody' wants to know how they're made.
Just that the widespread mainstream audience doesn't want to know or doesn't care.
They just want to get their fine sausage on their plate without hassle.
To that regard, it seems that people have having issues with kickstarter/early access - seeing it as "getting the game early" or "getting the game discounted".
Aswell as developers seeing it as "getting money early" but not having to deliver results earlier or faster/changing their methods.
Both sides have to learn to live with the new system. The player/consumer has to learn a bit of patiences and come to understand/quantify development.
Meanwhile the developer/creator has to understand that if you work in such an environment, you're going to have to make choices differently and show results more readily.
Which I guess means that not every sausage is necessarily suitable for this model - but at the same time if you want to reach that critical point where people are interested/enthousiastic about your game you will need to get people on board as early as possible.
And that means showing some of the darker and more ugly sides of the process.
While not everyone will want to see how your sausages are made - if you want to get people to promote your sausages for you before the sausage is finalized, you'll have to have something edible to show for your efforts. You can't wait untill the experimental phase is over only to discover that your target audience actually doesn't like green coloured marshmellow flavoured sausages. (Even though your research told you that the colour green and the marshmellows are very popular these days.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Nov 13, 2014 17:13:58 GMT
Ofcourse, to do that, you need to (as an industry entity or development/publishing studio) let go of the old ways. Something that a lot of these bigger studio's don't like. Transparancy and being open with your business? You crazy?! Making games in an open and transparent environment would seem to be laudable at first, but then the stark reality of the Sausage Factory cliché comes to the fore. "People like sausages, but no one wants to see how they're made!" Lord Ba'al hates sausages, not sure, but pretty sure knowing how they are made has little to do with that. I have seen them made, it won't stop me from eating a GOOD sausage, not a crappy one will end up in the bin everytime. |
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Nov 13, 2014 17:14:23 GMT
The whole point for many backers was that we DID want to see how the game was made.
|
|
|
|
Post by engarde on Nov 13, 2014 17:15:02 GMT
People who actually like sausages, know how they are made.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 17:19:39 GMT
The whole point for many backers was that we DID want to see how the game was made. I don't disagree, not even slightly... it's just that often you won't like what you find, as evidenced by our weekly dev updates showing a lack of progress in the development of the PC version of the game. In any event, I actually agree with you - that's certainly how I've run communications for the community's I've co-ordinated before (see the Nosgoth links above by way of example) and will aim to do so in the future, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Nov 13, 2014 17:25:32 GMT
It's a shame really, I'd have loved it if Alan Wake had been episodic for example, or Assassin's Creed for that matter. However the industry is very insular and one spectacular failure can put off any further developments in a particular field for several years, if not decades. Hrm...I'd love to see some market analysis on the money made from 4 episode packs of series compared to the whole collection, or, more appropriately here, the money made from individual episodes compared to the full collection. I know I for one get put off by episodic games because I sometimes find it difficult to discern whether or not I'm getting the full package or not, because I don't see much benefit in buying episode by episode. This is the reason every time I think about grabbing The Walking Dead, I have to pause, think, is this the full first season or am I about to screw myself over? Add in some side-content like 400 days or whatever, and I'm going...Is that essential? Is that just some bogus side-stuff? Episodic gaming is a mess to market, and it's no wonder it didn't take off. The more you make a consumer have to navigate your marketing to get what they want, the less and less likely they are to bother with going through with it. I look at preorder bonus content and season pass nonsense the same way, which is to say I mostly ignore it unless it's clearly defined, because it's too much garbage to bother thinking about when the reality is, I just want a good, solid game that hasn't been carved out and sold into bits and pieces. However, having said that, Guild Wars 2 is tackling episodic gaming in a very clever way that hopefully can work for other games too. If you're aware of the content's release and availability and get over to it within a week/two weeks, you get it for free. If you miss it, well, then you have to buy it, but it's relatively cheap, I think I calculated (think it was like...$3-5? maybe less?). Frankly I think that's the way to approach this more than what other games have tried, simply because it's easier to sift through and if you're attentive, hey, free stuff. To some degree, I'm in the same boat as preferring shorter experiences/less repetitive experiences in games, because most of a game's length isn't in the fun, it's in the dull grind or tedious segments, buut I'm not into paying to get past it since I know it's all artificial obstructions (same reason I wouldn't ever pay to get past Godus' timers, for instance). I'd much prefer designers make a bunch of small, but deep and enjoyable games than make a bunch of big, but shallow and tedious games (e.g. Assassin's Creed/Grand Theft Auto/etc.). Bastion and Transistor are great examples of the former, by the way. I can't, unfortunately, think of too many indie games that fit the latter due to the nature of them though. |
|
|
|
Post by engarde on Nov 13, 2014 17:29:54 GMT
Have you started including details in the dev updates, I must be missing them.
Seriously are you still suggesting that a sentence telling me you are doing jira equates to evidence of anything aside from not really giving any useful details?
In any case always referring backers to the steam forums is becoming old.
Why bother with the 22cans forums if every new shiny, belated, posting just says discuss it here on steam...
|
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 17:35:35 GMT
In any case always referring backers to the steam forums is becoming old. Why bother with the 22cans forums if every new shiny, belated, posting just says discuss it here on steam... Truth be told, I think our official forums are largely irrelevant and if there wasn't a KS pledge attached to them, I'd have closed them down. I'd much prefer to have dialogue with our PC players via the Steam forums, our mobile players via Facebook and Twitter, and everybody at once via Reddit and YouTube. |
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Nov 13, 2014 17:45:32 GMT
In any case always referring backers to the steam forums is becoming old. Why bother with the 22cans forums if every new shiny, belated, posting just says discuss it here on steam... Truth be told, I think our official forums are largely irrelevant and if there wasn't a KS pledge attached to them, I'd have closed them down. I'd much prefer to have dialogue with our PC players via the Steam forums, our mobile players via Facebook and Twitter, and everybody at once via Reddit and YouTube. The interesting part is, you could do more with them, but that all depends on their reach to community members and popularity of the title...Even then, seems like often times official forums are reduced to little more than community driven tech support or something. Either way, it's apparent that regardless of the popularity from mobile or what have you, forums don't reach enough to draw in consistent chatter. |
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 17:47:15 GMT
I just think it's better practice to go to where the community hang out naturally already, rather than trying to get them to change their habits and come to a bespoke destination.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Nov 13, 2014 17:49:20 GMT
I just think it's better practice to go to where the community hang out naturally already, rather than trying to get them to change their habits and come to a bespoke destination. Yeah. If you don't create that place from the start, you're really never gonna catch up, so gotta make do with what's already been formed. |
|
|
|
Post by Monkeythumbz on Nov 13, 2014 17:53:32 GMT
I just think it's better practice to go to where the community hang out naturally already, rather than trying to get them to change their habits and come to a bespoke destination. Yeah. If you don't create that place from the start, you're really never gonna catch up, so gotta make do with what's already been formed. ...which is one of the reasons why I came to ProBoards in my first couple of weeks on the job here. As you say, our official forums are only useful as a device for providing limited tech support, but there isn't a unique community there, not like we've built on Facebook and, more collaboratively, on Reddit. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Nov 13, 2014 17:53:57 GMT
That definitely ties into it aswell. (Reply to Gmr Leon a few posts above) With so many different development types and developers doing things differently. It becomes hard to see what is what. That is why the PC community (in regards to Godus) replied so vehemently against the mobile and freemium focus. Not because all mobile games and all free-to-play games are necessarily bad - but because so many of them are, or at the very least suffer under their restraints/restrictions through poor judgement. Something that 'we' were proven correct in as time went on. I also feel 'cheated' by a studio when I "loyally" buy their titles on day 1, and buy their DLC when it comes out. Only to see others get a complete package with a discount at the end of the cycle. Its no wonder more and more people are opting to go for the sales and discount route rather than buying on release. The benefits of waiting are starting to outweigh the benefits of being an early supporter. Even something like pre-order exclusives are turning into "early access" to DLC. To be clear - my rational side knows that by opting to support early I add my 'voice' to support the title. Less early sales means that there isn't enough visible interest and its more likely that a title gets dropped. Enough people opt out of early support and instead of a collection bundle after 12 months, and a sequel after that - the title will get dropped because of lack of attention/interest. But my emotional side feels that I'm being cheated - that a latecoming gets rewarded for waiting. Similarly, with examples like "The Wolf Among Us" having a hard time meeting release dates and a plethora of Early Access titles doing poorly. Aswell as 'side-content' such as the 400-days DLC for TWD - it becomes hard to justify each purchase. As there is no guarantee of quality. There are SO MANY different methods at work and so many different releases. It becomes hard to sift through and find the gems. Which is something that we *all* end up playing a part in finding the solution. Consumers need to be more clear in what they want or like (rather than this passive 'meh' attitude in accepting half-assed garbage) and developers need to be more clear in what they are creating (to prevent miscommunications such as Godus). It by no means its an easy thing. And everyone has their own quality requirements. I see Gmr Leon saying that Assassin's Creed and GTA are shallow and tedious - while I agree that AC has taken a turn for the worse, I personally have enjoyed every GTA title to date. To me the balance between story and freedom is just right. And the sandbox nature of the world makes it a playground. The same can be said of both the Elder Scrolls series aswell as Fallout. Meanwhile others will value the competative multiplayer of MOBA's or online shooters. And there's no easy way to quantify those against one another. Yet with the industry being profit driven rather than quality driven - that is EXACTLY what is being attempted. If we take a look at Assassin's Creed for example - I think that if they had taken the full development of AC: III or AC: IV Then taken that engine, world and story and made it episodical, that that would serve the game very well. It would serve to create a better and less 'drawn out' story, since there is more time to focus on the details and quality. While at the same time serving to ensure an affordable title. Assuming that each episode was well priced in terms of content and quality. The conundrum being ofcourse - you don't know beforehand what you're buying... You don't know if the "end result" will be worth it. And you can't trust on the 'good nature' of the developer to ensure that quality since there's a financial backer holding his hand up for profits. I once read an article in which they posed that if Borderlands had been a free-to-play title, whether it would've been a success. Literally taking borderlands as is - but rather than a single fee upfront, you would pay for the ingame currency (eridium) to get access to improved weapon drop chance and other boosters or unlocks. The conclusion was that most players would not trust them to keep the droprates fair (EVEN if they did not alter the droprates) and paranoia would make people suspect that there was foul play if you didn't get the item you wanted. Psychological conditioning at its best. Its the same (but reversed) theory that is applied to mobile gaming and big (holiday/steam) sales. On the one side you have "Its only $x, what the heck." And on the other side you have "Its only $x, it can't be good quality!" To translate this to a different real-world scenario. There was a furniture store here in the netherlands that did a test once. They had two identical luxury chairs on display, one had a pricetag of €200, the other was €350. On day one they had people test them out and behold, the €350 one "was more comfortable". Overnight they switched the tags and on day two the €350 one again "was more comfortable". Its crazy how many people let themselves be fooled consistently by such psychological trickery. |
|
By buying games and either not finishing them or "complaining" that you don't have enough time, you are pushing for shorter games though. Perhaps not intentionally, but that is the result.
