Are games too big/expensive/time consuming?

[RockyRan]

http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/502?ch=1

http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/502?ch=1

Today's Bonus Round over at GT definitely got me thinking about how so many game devs are under the misguided assumption that everything they make has to be a huge, epic game with tons of content packed in at $60. Just look at the video and hear the studio honchos saying they're so stressed that they have to go big or go home. My question to them is: do you really?

Wouldn't it be nice to have game devs scale back the games, budget, and pricing? I think that would solve a lot of problems, both for developers and consumers. For consumers, it will provide a way of getting through games faster and more efficiently, not feeling that they have to bog themselves down on a single, lengthy game for weeks or even months at a time as they play epic RPGs or multiplayer for 200+ hours. They also don't have to pay $60 for every single new release, even for the games that have a lot of content but isn't anything particularly compelling enough to pay for that price. For developers, if they make smaller-sized games they no longer feel like they have to justify the $60 price tag and thus don't have to spend so much money and effort cramming all kind of content into a game that frankly a lot of people aren't even going to see. They'll be able to make smaller, more focused, less spread-thin games in smaller intervals (they won't have to spend 6 years making a magnum opus). In a way, it's what Double Fine is doing right now with small downloadable games, but I'm thinking scaling it up a little bit toward cheap $20 retail titles. They'll get a bigger volume of sales from the cheaper price point, be able to get more games out the door, and they'll get more frequent sales as people get done with the smaller games faster and buy other ones quicker.

Of course, I think the industry still has plenty of space for the magnum-opus epic titles, but honestly, I think the industry has it all wrong. Epic masterpeice games aren't a requirement, and they aren't the only types of games these big studios can make. Edited March 7, 2011 by Deanb
added link

[TheMightyEthan]

I would like to contribute, but I think you basically covered it.

 

Just pretend I quoted you and then added "This."

[Mercurial]

Not much else to say about it really.

[CorgiShinobi]

You could think so, but haven't you ran into anyone before where they argue the opposite? Video comments, blogs, and other gamer sites have had these comments before. It's nice to have small games, but at the same time there are those that want a more filling experience. The crowd that wants to spend hours upon hours in an enriching story, or to be able to replay a game again.

 

Really, length always seems to be on the chopping block when it comes to reviews, or general opinion.

 

I mean, as gamers, gaming is our hobby, and so I would find it rare for someone to argue your stance: that games are too time consuming, or simply too big. We are submitting ourselves to this after all. I guess you could see this as ordering at a restaurant, where the food is so good, but they give you large portion.

 

I think every single consumer can agree with pricing, as at one point we've all felt like we've spent more than we should have on a certain game.

 

Still, I would hardly look directly at the industry and say, "Look at what you're doing to us!" Some want it short and sweet, or others want to grind and spend their week devoted to a single game. I've got a friend who is still playing LittleBigPlanet, whereas I've gone through three games this year. He's got 100% in the game, and that takes a lot of time and effort, but most importantly, a love of the game. Not that creepy kind of love, but the infatuation you might get with something so good.

 

I think that's what (or at least should) hardworking developers strive for, to make the most desirable game. It doesn't always need to have a big wow factor, but something to draw you in and keep you entertained.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Atomsk88

[TheMightyEthan]

Length is on the chopping block because they always charge $60, and people want to be sure they're getting their money's worth. What RockyRyan is saying is that more games should be smaller, but also cost less. Also, he explicitly says that not every game needs to be smaller, but just that by the same token not every game needs to be enormous.

[CorgiShinobi]

Length is on the chopping block because they always charge $60, and people want to be sure they're getting their money's worth. What RockyRyan is saying is that more games should be smaller, but also cost less. Also, he explicitly says that not every game needs to be smaller, but just that by the same token not every game needs to be enormous.

Yeah, I get that.

 

I'm just adding to the discussion other than, "I agree." Since we have the constant $60, length is correlated to the price, but we also have story. You know, the thing within the game.

 

I'm sure we've all played games where we wanted more of a series simply because of the plot/story. Likewise, I'm sure we've all played a game with a terrible story that we just wanted to rush through. Both those games could be the same length, but the difference is how we perceived the quality.

 

It's not really an equation where "simple = short" and "complex = long."

 

Rather than refining, there does seem to be that "Just make it bigger, because that's better" mentality. I'm just saying, we can't point the finger in exactly one direction. The assumption could be a misinterpretation of when consumer reaction consists of "I wish there was more," or "Dang it, why'd it have to end?"

[Strangelove]

I myself have always preffered 8-15 hour games. The good ones like dead space and resident evil 4 are so replayable that they pretty much equate to a fallout or dragon age game. At least in my mind.

Fallout 3 and stuff like that is great, but i have to feel a certain way to play them.

 

Shorter games are just always more polished in every way: gameplay, graphics, story, voiceacting, etc. The greatest games in the last 15 years are between 8-15 hours.

[CorgiShinobi]

If I could add one more thing, before the hounds of hell spit fire, I'm not sure development planning goes by a "time" criteria. At least it really shouldn't...

 

Like, it's more so how much content you want to add. Is it a type of game where you can replay it, or you can go on various side quests? Since Strange mentioned it, we could look at Fallout 3, or even New Vegas. There are hours worth of content in the game, but it's dependent on you. I'm sure Fallout 3 could be a 15 hour game if you directly went along the main quest. Yet, you have so much more offered to you, and you're passing up 90% of the game if you go that route.

 

With work and school, it took me almost a week to get through one play of Dead Space 2. Great experience, but I would say the entire amount was 12 hours since I obviously used checkpoints a bit much. Replayed for trophies, and so I spent a few more days playing. Didn't touch multiplayer and still haven't. DLC got three more hours out of me, but again, I went along with it because I had the time.

 

LittleBigPlanet, as I've said, is a great example of simple, but extensive hours. Media Molecule merely created the tools you use for creation, and offered some of their levels for a story. The "Story" doesn't take that long to finish, but there are millions of user created levels, and nearly countless hours in Creation Mode because it's all you (fueled by your imagination)!

[peteer01]

Does anyone know what a game publisher has to pay to Microsoft and/or Sony when they release a disc game with a reduced MSRP? For example, SSFIV was sold for $40 instead of $60, but do Sony and Microsoft still take the same amount per disc? That might explain why people want to sell $60 games (with more expensive special editions on top of that) instead of $40 games, if they're actually getting less than 2/3rds of the revenue when selling games for 2/3rds of the price...

[RockyRan]

Does anyone know what a game publisher has to pay to Microsoft and/or Sony when they release a disc game with a reduced MSRP? For example, SSFIV was sold for $40 instead of $60, but do Sony and Microsoft still take the same amount per disc? That might explain why people want to sell $60 games (with more expensive special editions on top of that) instead of $40 games, if they're actually getting less than 2/3rds of the revenue when selling games for 2/3rds of the price...

 

I hadn't thought of that. My guess is that it's based on a percentage of revenue, but who knows? Maybe MS/Sony are a little more greedy and charge per unit shipped, no matter what price tag the game has on it.

[R__]

It depends on if you have a job or not. If you're unemployed, games are not long enough. If you are employed, they are way too long.

[staySICK]

I'm fine with paying 50 - 60 for longer games (Fallout, Dragon Age, etc), but I agree that I'd love to see a more flexible pricing line; 30-40 for some of the mid-level games, instead of the staunch %60 price point.

 

This is also something cliffyb touched on when he declared "middle class" games dead.

 

additional reading:

 

http://www.destructoid.com/defending-the-middle-class-game-195661.phtml

[excel_excel]

Lenght is such a different thing though for games supporting multiplayer. Other than that I agree. But games are going down fairly fast in price these days. Dead Space 2 was half price nearly 3 weeks after release.

[Johnny]

I think most games should be MUCH shorter than they currently are.

I'd rather have played only about half the levels of bulletstorm, to use a recent example, because half of them felt like padding.

[Thursday Next]

Does anyone know what a game publisher has to pay to Microsoft and/or Sony when they release a disc game with a reduced MSRP? For example, SSFIV was sold for $40 instead of $60, but do Sony and Microsoft still take the same amount per disc? That might explain why people want to sell $60 games (with more expensive special editions on top of that) instead of $40 games, if they're actually getting less than 2/3rds of the revenue when selling games for 2/3rds of the price...

 

It's royalty based. Around 1/4 - 1/3 of the trade price. Obviously varies by publisher and by title.

[RockyRan]

I think most games should be MUCH shorter than they currently are.

I'd rather have played only about half the levels of bulletstorm, to use a recent example, because half of them felt like padding.

 

If what the guys over at that Bonus Round thingy (which I tried to link to and fail miserably ) is any indication, it's probably being padded to justify a $60 release. Through the whole video they're like "OMG IT'S SO STRESSFUL COMPETING AGAINST OTHER COMPANIES JAMMING SO MUCH CONTENT INTO A $60 GAME", which is why I ask "then don't?" I don't know why nobody's thinking of just scaling back budget and price tag. It's not as simple, but they could at least try it once.

[CorgiShinobi]

Well, back in the 5th generation, we did have varying prices. I'm not aware of what the criteria for pricing the individual games was though...

 

I remember LEGO Racer being a good $30 game, but of course we had ones like Superman 64 that went for $60!

[deanb]

Portal is a good example of sort of wat they were talking about and the model that's a pretty good idea. Especially for new IPs.

It was a cheap title, lasted roughly 6hours, bit more if you did the challenge rooms or got some mods. Cost either free with OB (pretty much) or £20 (I think) on it's own. Game went on to win multiple GOTY's and now has an upcoming full fledged sequel with more things build on the base concept and co-op tossed in and priced like a regular release.

So yeah the model is there, it's worked (helped Portal was pretty good), it gets franchises out and testing the water for a low price and the consumer is buying a cheaper game (or part of another game) and getting exposure to it.

 

Or make a cheap game, build it up with DLC if the game suits it and folks re receptive to the game. That's more a kind of episodic model. You buy the game in stages. Maybe a bit of like how Fable 2 was sold as well. I assume that didn't go to plan (was put into action well after the main release though)

 

Just to sum up my stance rather quickly (picture says a thousand words)

 

 

 

(btw 7 of the games on there... I had once pirated* . And one on long term loan from housemate)

 

I'm a fan of cheap games.And these days cheap games are on par with their quality. Sometimes exceeding. I'd say some of the cheap games kick ass on many games publisher attempt to sell for £40. I don't go in expecting world class voice acting. high-res graphics or tight game mechanics. But generally they are pretty good. And through these indie titles they can go on to make something bigger. And generally if it goes tits up then it's not a huge loss on most of these. Whereas AAA games if it goes tits up that can close the studio and cancel other games to be greenlit.

Rather than making places like Ubisoft Montreal, factories for churning out high cost, potentially high risk, AAA games, publishers should divert some of that funding and resources on setting up or funding smaller studios working on smaller games. Make them in smaller maybe rural areas, thus giving you access to a much larger talent pool across the globe too. Sure it won't knock out huge profits, but overall you get to churn out a bunch of IP's cheaply, maybe suck dry the ones that do well, and they can work out to be a good cash flow, a sort of constant drip. Heck you might be the next MC and get 1.5million guys buying it (more copies than most 7th gen games for 10's of Smillions make). And for the average cost of a game at $28million you could comfortably fund about 30 or so of these studios with pretty damn good budgets. And if a handful fuck up then it's no overall loss as if that one $28million game went tits up.

I'd say the advantages far outweigh any potential downsides (that's diverting cash from a game that may make a few hundred million...may.)

You can put out a new game on average once every fortnight. Then have your main studios do games once a month (on average) that maybe last longer or with long term playability, these small games as snacks in between. Rather than waiting and gambling on next months game only.

 

 

The market is there for these games. Steam is constantly showing that (check the top 10 then realise that for every copy of Cod Blops sold for £40, magicka below/above it has to sell 5.) Iwata even had a huge speech on how the markets moving to cheaper games (though we're talking the 99p stuff, and he was a bit upset on that) I reckon many folks here would be open to it as well.

Just a case of a publisher realising the opportunities and taking the leap.

 

@Peter: You'd have to ask Thursday but I believe it's a percentage based thing than a set cost. On physical games set cost is stuff like disc production, shipping and returns. That will set a minimum price since a game in a PS3 case sold for £40 will still cost the same to deliver to the store as the one for £5.

http://latimesblogs....video-game.html

Worth a looksy. The big chunk isn't profit. What part of that is profit depends on if the game is $100million GTAIV or $27million L4D2. So there's a large variable there. Your next big chunk is to the shop, and so you need to convince them to accept a bit less there. Thing is the game still takes up the same shelf space. Maybe if you can point out more units will be moved then they might do it.

Anywho on console royalty as fixed or a percentage, pretty much every other platform seems to be a percentage. 25% cut on UDK, 30% cut on apple Apps, 5% cut on Web Store apps. etc. I'd guess console follows same thing.

 

 

The middle class thing CliffyB touched upon was harsh but oh so fucking true. I think now there's only a handful of developers will touch movie games, they're pretty much out the window. If a games not going to be near COD then it doesn't get greenlit. If it's not COD it doesn't get sold. And part of that is at pricing it for $60 it's putting itself up on the same pedestal as AAA games. It's like Vickys Cafe selling their stuff the same price as some fancy Michelin star restaurant. You're pretty much shooting yourself in the foot there.

 

And I guess nevermind on the "Ask Thursday part"

 

Yeah johnny as Rocky said, it's probably just padding. Some insane thought process of the developers on trying to make a $40 game a $60 one.

 

 

*more than 7 if you include the contents of bundles

 

 

edit: It's too big to fit on News Feed and kinda of approraite for here:

http://nohighscores.com/node/182

"Shorter is Sometimes Better- The 10 Hour Campaign versus The Illusion of Content"And ties with what Johnny said too.