-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bonus Round: State of the Industry
- Thread starter SolidSnakex
- Start date
ksamedi said:
This is a great point.
There will be a Mercenaries 3 and, if I have anything to do with it, there will be a Mercenaries 10,
It seems like EA's business strategy 99% of the time, is to ride a franchise into inevitable collapse, and milk the cow for all it's worth. From a business standpoint, there is nothing wrong with wanting the most money possible, but in the long run, it feels like they directly contribute to consumer burnout.
In terms of games they develop from the ground up, someone correct me, but don't most of their really interesting titles come from independent developers that they purchase? I remember growing up, wanting to work on Westwood Studios games, because I loved them so much. Then EA purchased them, and they became a Command and Conquer factory until they closed the studio down a few years later :\
Many of their titles seem knee jerk reactionary to other successful products already on the market (Dante's Inferno)
Not that I want to see them fail, but it would be nice if they could get a little more long-term vision.
It is interesting to see how companies like Valve and Nintendo, who both have game designers at the top of the corporate structure compare both financially and in their capacity to deliver new groundbreaking titles, to EA where the top brass is from more of a marketing/business background.
Rapping Granny
Banned
Jason Rubin should have his own podcast.
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
would it be a one man show? seriously once he starts talking theres no interrupting!Rapping Granny said:
templeusox
Banned
I really disagree with Rubin in this case.
Sorry, not feeling Rubin there. Paying for prestige? Farmville =/= MW2. Free to play only works with games that are available to the masses(ala Farmville).
Simple monthly subscription model(ala WoW) for big games like MW might work, but paying for competitive advantage? Not going to happen. And yes, people look at WoW goldfarming as cheating. "Lifes not fair"...that's right, but people will avoid unfair things when they can.
Not to mention he ignored single player games. Model for single player games is going to stay as it is. Base price + some DLC.
Pachter was able to put it together better. It will be a combo of many things.
Hate to say it, but I agreed with Satterfield ,for the most part, for once. Rubin came off as pretentious imo.
Simple monthly subscription model(ala WoW) for big games like MW might work, but paying for competitive advantage? Not going to happen. And yes, people look at WoW goldfarming as cheating. "Lifes not fair"...that's right, but people will avoid unfair things when they can.
Not to mention he ignored single player games. Model for single player games is going to stay as it is. Base price + some DLC.
Pachter was able to put it together better. It will be a combo of many things.
Hate to say it, but I agreed with Satterfield ,for the most part, for once. Rubin came off as pretentious imo.
DidntKnowJack
Member
Ok, just watched the 2nd part. I can't say I agree with much of what J. Rubin said in much of that segment. He's approaching it from a business stand point, and I can see where it looks appealing to game publishers, but as a gamer....holy shit do I not want that to be the standard. Are we really using "Farmville" as a model for most hard core games?
God damn. If games went that way, I'd just end up buying less games. I don't want any part of that nonsense. Letting people pay to up the level of their characters day one? Yeah, let's bork Call of Duty online even more than it is now.
God damn. If games went that way, I'd just end up buying less games. I don't want any part of that nonsense. Letting people pay to up the level of their characters day one? Yeah, let's bork Call of Duty online even more than it is now.
TurtleSnatcher
Member
Jason Rubin sounded like the long lost child of Bobby Kotick hahha.
DevelopmentArrested
Banned
Rubin's ideology is shitty and again what does Shatterfield add other than talking about MW2? Thank goodness for the Pach attack and his hilarious posts.
fucking hate hate hate hate hate the idea of microtransactions! had to lol when he kept mentioning farmville, yeah caus your can really compare that crap to a full featured hardcore game, no gamer paying $60 now is playing that sh!t and paying money for it ffs.
As far as im concerned its bad enough with dlc as it is, let alone them screwing us over again by start microtransactioning everything.
As far as im concerned its bad enough with dlc as it is, let alone them screwing us over again by start microtransactioning everything.
DidntKnowJack
Member
Everytime someone mentions a game like Farmville and tries to apply it to actual games I want to play, it just drives me insane.
Keep your casual games out of my hardcore, game publishers. It's like trying to fit what works with Disney movie marketing to pornographic film distribution. That shit ain't the same.
Keep your casual games out of my hardcore, game publishers. It's like trying to fit what works with Disney movie marketing to pornographic film distribution. That shit ain't the same.
So we can avoid it like a plague. Keighly was correct in saying that Rubin basically means pay money and get items faster than someone whom does not pay. He kept on saying no but did not have a rebuttal. I don't understand his comparison of a game like MW:2 to Farmville, they are completely different beasts.Rapping Granny said:
There was a stat for GTA IV where the majority of people did not touch the game after a couple hours according to the achievements they got. It means people would pay say an entrance fee of $20 and never pay anything after that since they will not play the game, R* sure would love that. R* would have to hope that there are people out there whom would play GTA IV for 100+ hours and somehow make up for the people whom do not play after say 5 hours.
I really did not understand what he was on about and am nothing less than a genius, would love someone to tell me what Rubin was babbling on about.
templeusox
Banned
The football analogy made no sense either.KingDizzi said:
FilosopherStoner
Member
Are Facebook games really making millions of dollars through micro transactions?
ZombieSupaStar
Member
FilosopherStoner said:
yep, koreans pioneered the idea tho.
DidntKnowJack
Member
They probably are, but these are different kinds of "gamers." They aren't shelling out for 10 - 12 titles a year like many of us are. The people who play Farmville play one or two games a year and just stick with them.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
DidntKnowJack said:
I play Farmville.
FilosopherStoner
Member
Man God said:
I'm scared.
Wow who the hell is the Jason guy, he is fucking awesome, really refreshing to listen to, and I love some of his ideas too. It would be a massive shift that I cant imagine happening, but it might benefit the industry big time if some of his ideas came to fruition.
Man they need to have him on more.
Man they need to have him on more.
DidntKnowJack
Member
ZombieSupaStar said:I play Farmville.
:lol
Well, I have to say I'm not all that familiar with Farmville, so yeah - I'm making a lot of assumptions here. Apologies if I'm mistaken regarding that game. But I was led to believe it was more of a casual type thing.
Most games currently experience a very quick price-cut after their release. What this tells us is that most games are currently overpriced, and if game prices continue to increase, price-cuts will become larger and happen quicker. I'm not sure how this can be good for publishers.
One way to avoid this is to simply price your games lower, and generate revenue through other methods: this is what Jason is suggesting, although I like how everyone is very much ignoring that this would mean that the "base" cost of a game would be cheaper.
I'm sure that Farmville has a very different demographic than CoD has. But you'd be wrong if this means that no CoD players could feasibly enjoy that game.
One way to avoid this is to simply price your games lower, and generate revenue through other methods: this is what Jason is suggesting, although I like how everyone is very much ignoring that this would mean that the "base" cost of a game would be cheaper.
DidntKnowJack said:
I'm sure that Farmville has a very different demographic than CoD has. But you'd be wrong if this means that no CoD players could feasibly enjoy that game.
SolidSnakex
Member
templeusox said:
Yeah that was an absolutely terrible comparison. I'm sure someone would've called him out but I guess they were just as confused as everyone else when he said that.
Anyway, I think that it's something that could work with lower cost games. There are already two MMO's available on the Japanese PSN that you can download and play for free but you can also buy items with real money. And you of course have Free Realms coming up. But I can't imagine it working with major titles.
Didn't EA try this with Battlefield Heroes?
It must not have supported itself because EA just changed the structure into a more extractive model.
I didn't understand the football analogy, and Pachter says why later: it's a two hour (three hour, four hour...) product that is fixed in length and outcome. Who is going to "stay" with that product for months and months?
It must not have supported itself because EA just changed the structure into a more extractive model.
I didn't understand the football analogy, and Pachter says why later: it's a two hour (three hour, four hour...) product that is fixed in length and outcome. Who is going to "stay" with that product for months and months?
Gully State
Member
I think there's validity in the idea that different games should have different business models. That's about it. Having every single game be driven by microtransaction is about as good as having every single game charge for a set price. It's smart that they're exploring different business models but it's stupid for them to think that a new homogenous business model would make them more money.
DidntKnowJack
Member
Let's also call this what it really is - a stepping stone to total digital distribution, which I'm also opposed to. I don't want to buy my games piecemeal. I want to "own" as much of these games as humanly possible, and I want to 'add on later' as little as possible. Because that add on shit is going to go away someday.
Now if they provided this piecemeal thing as an option, I'd be all for it. But you know that's not in the publishers best interest, and that's not how it's going to be.
Now if they provided this piecemeal thing as an option, I'd be all for it. But you know that's not in the publishers best interest, and that's not how it's going to be.
Okay, WTF, Jason. Goldmining is not "accepted as part of the system." Blizzard bans people who do this and they also don't allow selling of accounts. He's conflating fairness and equity, which I think is kind of strange considering he even jokes he drives a Ferrari. It's fair that he drives a Ferrari and I don't. He worked for it and he earned it. We're not equal. But it's fair.
It's not fair to let someone spend cash to have someone in China goldfarm. It's fair to let someone sit on their ass for hours and hours and hours (when, say, I could not because of outside commitments) and do repetitive garbage themselves.
He says that you're not paying people to "get through the level," but in an online shooter like CoD, I can't think of any closer analogy to "paying to get through the level" than paying for instant prestige.
I did not understand his examples at all. His point, I think, is correct, but has it actually been successful outside of facebook?
It's not fair to let someone spend cash to have someone in China goldfarm. It's fair to let someone sit on their ass for hours and hours and hours (when, say, I could not because of outside commitments) and do repetitive garbage themselves.
He says that you're not paying people to "get through the level," but in an online shooter like CoD, I can't think of any closer analogy to "paying to get through the level" than paying for instant prestige.
I did not understand his examples at all. His point, I think, is correct, but has it actually been successful outside of facebook?
rubin would love this song, PAY TO PLAAAAAAY
DidntKnowJack said:
Not necessarily. Applying Farmville to CoD, Activision might sell the game physically for $30 but offer different aspects, all of which would be perfectly accessible for free, for $X a piece.
Do you not see the advantage of buying games "piecemeal" as possibly allowing you to buy more?
Y2Kev said:
Tell that to those 30 million+ daily Farmville users.
StealthGoblin
Banned
As a gamer, I disagree with a lot Jason Rubin said in part two. I like the guy, but he's going to turn into Kotick if he continues with that mentality.
get2sammyb
Member
I can't believe I was rooting for Shane Satterfield. I'm not the biggest fan of the guy but I really wanted him to speak up against Rubin there, and he kinda did.
Portugeezer
Member
Second episode they were just arguing with one guy, lol.
qwerty2k said:
I'm not sure quite what differences in demographics would have to do with it. It seems to me that liking to buy things for as cheaply as possible, and also wanting to buy other things in order to save time, are pretty universal traits.
Y2Kev said:
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Could you please restate it?
The only reason why goldmining is banned on World of Warcraft, whereas, in effect, it is allowed on Farmville is because goldmining poses a direct threat to Blizzard's revenue model, while on Farmville the producers have essentially become the goldminers themselves; Farmville's model is goldmining.
StreetDisciple
Member
Really wish Garnett was here, I feel he would of called Jason out for his bullshit.
DidntKnowJack
Member
I don't mean to be glib here, but no. No, I don't. That's the rub. I'm also not a huge fan of dlc, though I admit I buy it from time to time.gerg said:
And like I said, as long as this is an option, that's fine. I'm cool with that. Though that's when things start to go to hell with the Call of Duty analogy. Paying to increase stats and all that.
gerg said:
How can you say you don't know what I mean? Your rationalization of why it is banned with one and not with the other perfectly addresses what I was saying. He suggested it's accepted as part of that [World of Warcraft's] system. Are you contesting this? I don't want to have to transcribe that part of the conversation. My point was that his statement is untrue. It is not accepted as part of the system.
rollingstart
Banned
The problem with Jason's logic is that he's trying to say one method used with one specific audience will work with every audience.