Support NeoGAF

[Yoboman]

The current model works for Call of Duty, I don't think it was the best example to use

But the free and then pay for the extras model is totally something I could see being useful for "new" games.

Of course all this seems to be working in the idea of an RPGísh, online game. The games that are struggling to be break out hits are singleplayer. So how does it work there?

 

[Linkified]

The problem is it costs too much to make a game, THAT's what making the industry unsustainable, there's a few solutions:

1) Find a way to make games cheaper, such as paying C/D-tier teams to make games instead of funding large A/B-tier teams with time and resources, like Activision is handing GH to Vicarious Vision, or like outsourcing part of the development to cheaper countries.

2) Find a way to charge more, whether through subscriptions or DLCs.

Ultimately the problem is that for the same amount of content, because of the level of detail HD game consoles are capable of these days, it simply takes more man-hours to make the same amount of content now as it did 5 years ago, the graphical advances HD consoles have made IS MAKING IT WORSE.

To add futher to you points you could take for example Ubisofts AC2 approach where a small section of each part were made at different studios to help with devlopment time and cost.

 

[NeoUltima]

Yeah well, thats where you and I disagree. We will see, but its been about 4 years now, and the shits horrible. I have seen nothing that leads me to believe the status quo with the exception of "lol make better games" is going to remain sustainable for a large portion of the industry. Essentially what Im getting from what you posted is "everything is fine" and it couldnt be farther from the truth IMO.

Nah, its not perfectly fine. But Rubin's "solution" is absolutely horrible.

I see four big issues(i'm sure theres more):
1) Used games
2) Rising Costs
3) Horribly Managed companies
4) Inappropriate games given the green light

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the current pricing structure. The problems lie elsewhere.

 

[Fakto]

Gosh, All the show I was waiting for someone to mention EVE Online coins/money system.

 

[Linkified]

Nah, its not perfectly fine. But Rubin's "solution" is absolutely horrible.

I see four big issues(i'm sure theres more):
1) Used games
2) Rising Costs
3) Horribly Managed companies
4) Inappropriate games given the green light

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the current pricing structure. The problems lie elsewhere.

See this is where Rubins model solves these problems:

1)All games are digital gets rid of used market.
2)Allows gamers with jobs access all the content - allows gamers to buy the whole product if they want to.
3) + 4) More time in preproduction means content not needed for the overall product can be ditched.

As long as the gamers are able to buy the full thing in one go but allow others to experience the first hour of content free and charge past that - or buy a level up pack for an rpg.

 

[Kittonwy]

The show isn't exactly a discussion of what should or could happen in the industry, because all these things are already happening. Games are farmed to third-party work-for-hire devs, games are farmed to cheaper lower tier internal devs, games are farmed to cheaper countries, gamers are getting nickeled and dimed, DLCs are basically a given, EA is selling in-game dollars and in-game items, and even early access to certain MP modes through early pre-orders before retailers have to discount to move inventory.

The industry is already slowly adapting and compensating, and consolidating, the biggest question is whether the industry would be foolish enough to let one of the console makers start next-gen and basically up the development costs to even less sustainable levels. THAT's the biggest threat to the industry.

 

[templeusox]

The problem is it costs too much to make a game, THAT's what making the industry unsustainable, there's a few solutions:

I'm still very agnostic on this point. I think publishers and investors are still short-sighted on how an extended console generation would work to off-set R&D costs down the line. I also think that the financial crisis which hit as this generation started to get its legs had a justifiably huge effect on how patient investors were with the bottom line.

I think there is just some back luck involved, but I don't think the HD generation had an unsustainable business model going in.

 

[Kittonwy]

Nah, its not perfectly fine. But Rubin's "solution" is absolutely horrible.

I see four big issues(i'm sure theres more):
1) Used games
2) Rising Costs
3) Horribly Managed companies
4) Inappropriate games given the green light

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the current pricing structure. The problems lie elsewhere.

Rubin identify the biggest problem in the industry back during the PS2 era when he correctly highlighted the astronomical increase in production costs associated with game development, and the industry has not done enough to address the problem, instead another round of consoles was launched and doubled/tripled already high development costs.

 

[Dan Yo]

Well as a gamer thats kind of to be expected, I dont think anyone misunderstood that the guys suggestions would be less friendly to us gamers than the current system.

I think the issue is, that Im starting to become more open to something a little less friendly to me, if it can stop all of the fucking studios from closing. A more long distance view if you will. I mean guys, this shit cant keep going on as is, the market will retract like a motherfucker and in the end fighting tooth and nail to keep the shit the same will bite us in the ass when all we have to play is derivative bullshit the studios deemed 'safe' and not risky. All this DLC fumbling about is just the studios trying to find a way to generate what they need to survive.

If you guys are going to bitch and moan about the possibility of next gen NOT taking as huge a graphical leap as this one did, and complain about the possibility of Sony and MS pulling a Wii, and demand that the games are longer and have more content without costing more in the vein of dlc, and complain about games jumping from 49.99 to 59.99 this gen. Then your going to have to be reasonable fucking adults and realize that the costs of making those games is going to increase substantially. You dont want to pay more, but that kinda creates a problem.....The studios have to be profitable to continue. So you had better open your mind to some of the least damaging compromises or GTFO, because gaming seems to be outgrowing the model its existed on in the past.

The pay to play model means a heck of a lot more studios will be closing. WoW's complete domination exists on the PC side because people are not willing to fork over fees for multiple games. Only one game wins with that model and in that case, it's WoW.

 

[Linkified]

The pay to play model means a heck of a lot more studios will be closing. WoW's complete domination exists on the PC side because people are not willing to fork over fees for multiple games. Only one game wins with that model and in that case, it's WoW.

I think you aren't quite getting it, Rubin's idea was you get the whole game free and say you want that snazzy new gun that will take the second boss down in 3 blasts you can pay your £4 to buy it. Obvisoly it has to be worked for other models for single player to get a reasonable revenue stream, but still not a subscription model per se - more of an enjoyment model

 

[Yoboman]

I've always thought the industry needs to grow to a point where it is easily attainable for free but with incentives to actually purchase it. One idea I had is where they can offer slices of the game available in timeslots, like on TV and they can play a portion each week for say half-hour, with advertisements sliding in and out, or buy the product itself (preferably just by clicking a few buttons).

I guess the idea is like demos, but I think demos have become a non-factor for those outside hardcore, to medium-hardcore market. I think they were a lot more relevant when you got them on the front of magazine covers

Something like OnLive seems to be a solution, if offered from a real company.

 

[sdornan]

I'm still very agnostic on this point. I think publishers and investors are still short-sighted on how an extended console generation would work to off-set R&D costs down the line. I also think that the financial crisis which hit as this generation started to get its legs had a justifiably huge effect on how patient investors were with the bottom line.

I think there is just some back luck involved, but I don't think the HD generation had an unsustainable business model going in.

I agree. If the current model is really so unsustainable, why are there more and more great games coming out year after year? Don't blame the business model for the studio closings, blame the economy.

I think publishers have realized that most of their profit is made by developing high-profile, high quality titles. They've realized that customers are much less willing to pay for crap. You can see this directly when you look at the way publishers have backtracked on their "saturate the Wii with shovel-ware approach."

I think this has already started to result in more, high-quality games. I keep hearing that there are fewer games being released this year than last year and the year before, but yet I see myself buying more games than ever before this quarter because there are so many high-quality titles in the pipeline.

Publishers have cut the fat, and while there are fewer games on the shelves overall, true, it's a blessing in disguise because there are so many more great ones.

 

[Linkified]

Another problem is all the annual sequels that come out if anything for something like Call of Duty there shouldn't really have any single player and just be the MP with them pumping map packs into and new modes over time for extra money, to be its own platform, like the way GH and RB were promised to be.

For Sports games they need the same platform on a platform scenario, weirdly Bioware and Dice are going for this concept.

 

[Dan Yo]

I think you aren't quite getting it, Rubin's idea was you get the whole game free and say you want that snazzy new gun that will take the second boss down in 3 blasts you can pay your £4 to buy it. Obvisoly it has to be worked for other models for single player to get a reasonable revenue stream, but still not a subscription model per se - more of an enjoyment model

I don't see how that would make things more profitable for developers. Release the game for free and then hope people will buy nicer guns and other bullshit? Exactly how much would items like that have to cost to get the consumer to effectively pay more than $60?

I doubt many people would pay even half that amount before they decide they're ready to move on to the next game.

 

[NeoUltima]

See this is where Rubins model solves these problems:

1)All games are digital gets rid of used market.
2)Allows gamers with jobs access all the content - allows gamers to buy the whole product if they want to.
3) + 4) More time in preproduction means content not needed for the overall product can be ditched.

As long as the gamers are able to buy the full thing in one go but allow others to experience the first hour of content free and charge past that - or buy a level up pack for an rpg.

I didn't hear him mention any of that. He was talking about free to play, and charging for extra things(etc, w/e). Basically removing the accomplishments out of games. If every game becomes free to play it will never work. Most people will just take the free, play it for a bit and quit. The amount of people who will spend $60 on dlc is slim. Had he just said he supported subscription based MW, than that it fine. But what he was talking about was kind of absurd. The model works for Farmville cause that game is available to hundreds of millions of people.

Not sure what you are saying there with 3+4...More time in preproduction means even more costs? idk you can't mean that.
And the bolded...that is kinda what a demo is isn't it? And that wouldn't work for most single player games. Maybe for something specifically designed with episodes in mind, like Monkey Island or Sonic 4. But for something like UC2, people want to buy the whole game. Certain multiplayer games it can work, but not to the extent Rubin seemed to be saying.

Rubin identify the biggest problem in the industry back during the PS2 era when he correctly highlighted the astronomical increase in production costs associated with game development, and the industry has not done enough to address the problem, instead another round of consoles was launched and doubled/tripled already high development costs.

That's nice. Lot's of people identified that problem. Doesn't change that what he said in the Bonus Round was just weird.

 

[Dan Yo]

I keep hearing that there are fewer games being released this year than last year and the year before, but yet I see myself buying more games than ever before this quarter because there are so many high-quality titles in the pipeline.

I'm with you there. I already own twice as many games this generation as I had in the last and my list of games to buy just keeps growing. Due in no small part to the fat trimming you speak of.

 

[ghst]

rubin really needs to take a look at the lagging sales of tired old franchises like "monopoly" and "chess", they could really use a little bit of his foresight. it would sure make things easier if i could just lay down a fiver and swap my pawn out for a queen from the off.

"is paying for a level 80 wow character cheating?"

uh....maybe you should ask blizzard.

 

[Y2Kev]

"is paying for a level 80 wow character cheating?"

uh....maybe you should ask blizzard.

Seriously :lol

I don't see how that would make things more profitable for developers. Release the game for free and then hope people will buy nicer guns and other bullshit? Exactly how much would items like that have to cost to get the consumer to effectively pay more than $60?

The idea is that you could potentially reach more customers. I just don't really see it for games that have high dev costs. Maybe it works for Farmville where the break even point is sufficiently low, but how many $3 dollar guns does EA have to sell to break even on Battlefield: BC2, which would surely reach a smaller segment of people than Farmville does.

EA turning Battlefield Heroes into an extractive nightmare should tell you how they felt about the performance of that model.

 

[Linkified]

I don't see how that would make things more profitable for developers. Release the game for free and then hope people will buy nicer guns and other bullshit? Exactly how much would items like that have to cost to get the consumer to effectively pay more than $60?

I doubt many people would pay even half that amount before they decide they're ready to move on to the next game.

Your misreading what I said:

Obvisoly it has to be worked for other models for single player

And theres the fact you got to get rid of the retailers cut to know how much money has to be to make a game profitable

Therefore you would need a first level free to entice people in then charge them either per level after that or a cheaper one time fee, as well as the extra stuff for people to buy. E.g. If game X has 10 levels you give first level away for free, buy levels individually after that lets say £4 per level put if you buy the rest at once its £30 so you get a saving as a consumer. And lets assume game X has some form of buying system like a god of war for new moves, you sell people the souls to be able to unlock them faster if needed.

 

[Lard]

Jason Rubin - "Micro transactions, DLC and subscriptions all need to happen"

He goes on and on about how gamers play $60 for endless amount of game and then neglects to talk about how more and more DLC is being included upfront when the game is released.

Does Rubin work for Namco?

Way to kill the industry Jason!

Pachter, as usual: "Exploit it and make a profit".

This is why we're heading to another game crash.

 

[Y2Kev]

Y If game X has 10 levels you give first level away for free, buy levels individually after that lets say £4 per level put if you buy the rest at once its £30 so you get a saving as a consumer.

Didn't we used to do this? Isn't this basically shareware? Why don't we do it anymore?

And lets assume game X has some form of buying system like a god of war for new moves, you sell people the souls to be able to unlock them faster if needed.

I don't even understand why people play games at this point anymore. In competitive games, I get why you'd do this-- you buy an edge over the other players (bullshit regardless of what Jason Rubin shouts at fucking Shane Satterfield). In a single player game, if you're going to just buy all the best moves, weapons, or items when you turn on the game, why play it? Why buy it?

I don't understand.

I think the solution to costs rising is to swallow the pill and make smaller scale games with smaller teams that cost less. This model is not sustainable, and you're only going to squeeze so much blood out of this stone.

 

[Bizzyb]

$60 entrance fee is really the best the Pubs can do right now with their games. Some people will play a game for a total of 5 hrs and NEVER touch it again. How exactly would that help a pay to play service?? Unless you are reaching MILLIONS of players and your game is INSANELY open-ended with literally TONS of replayability there is no way in hell Rubins idea could work, i.e. if it's not a web based casual game no way will it fly.

I'm really not sure where exactly he was trying to gop with his idea but it is fundamentally flawed and Shatterfiled actually made a good point for once, you start to mess with the psychology of the gamer with you throw in some kind of subscription fee. The money needed to play may completely turn the gamer off, and kill the potential of a gaming session. The average gamer does NOT want to make a decision about whether to play or not because they have to front up some cash first or renew a fee.

Terrible Terrible Idea.

 

[Lard]

There is no way in hell Rubins idea could work, i.e. if it's not a web based casual game no way will it fly.

I'm really not sure where exactly he was trying to go with his idea

He wants to make every game Farmville apparently.

 

[NeoUltima]

I don't think we should be focusing on what he said now that I think about it...I mean he was on the spot there. I'm sure he didn't have time to articulate what he really meant, so he ended up saying a bunch of silly things. You know how it is. He probably watches that video now and he's like, "oops did I say that? I meant to say..."

He really can't deeply believe Farmville model would work with CoD.

Than again his football analogy made no sense and that was something he seemed to have thought of in advance...

/shrug

 

[OutlawSamurai]

no way I would pay to play :|

 

[Johann]

Wow, that was a really lousy episode. Some of the worst since that episode with Ubisoft's Raymond and that 2K Boston forum manager.

The issue isn't price but rather content and how people consume that content. Very few developers see that games compete over time and content. A videogame is up against more than other similarly priced videogames. It's against very accessible forms of entertainment, such as books and television.

 

[Linkified]

Not sure what you are saying there with 3+4...More time in preproduction means even more costs? idk you can't mean that.
And the bolded...that is kinda what a demo is isn't it? And that wouldn't work for most single player games. Maybe for something specifically designed with episodes in mind, like Monkey Island or Sonic 4. But for something like UC2, people want to buy the whole game. Certain multiplayer games it can work, but not to the extent Rubin seemed to be saying.

Basically 3)+4) were referring to your points 3 and 4. My point about longer times in prepoduction would mean semi half assed features and the the like would be cut during that time than having it in full production where they might change there mind on how system X may operate and have to tweek it in this development time.

And the bolded could work they were trying that with Fable 2 for games on demand where they went and were cutting the game into chunks, with the first bit until you reached adulthood available for free. It would work better with linear structure - like your gears, uncharted, heavy rains and alan wakes of this world.

Well to be honest I would love to unlock everything in a game like cod4 to begin with - I think what Rubin meant was NOT TO buy a level 50 character with those things unlocked. But just an unlock key for those weapons so you'd be level one with all the good weapons toi begin with so you would have more fun.

 

[Linkified]

Didn't we used to do this? Isn't this basically shareware? Why don't we do it anymore?



I don't even understand why people play games at this point anymore. In competitive games, I get why you'd do this-- you buy an edge over the other players (bullshit regardless of what Jason Rubin shouts at fucking Shane Satterfield). In a single player game, if you're going to just buy all the best moves, weapons, or items when you turn on the game, why play it? Why buy it?

I don't understand.

I think the solution to costs rising is to swallow the pill and make smaller scale games with smaller teams that cost less. This model is not sustainable, and you're only going to squeeze so much blood out of this stone.

One could say someone like my dad who likes to play the odd occational game. He has his own business to run and only usually get about 30 minutes to play these long games - he would be the perfect candidate likes the gameplay but wants to get through it so he can experience most of the content.

And I really don't know why the games industry hasn't adopted shareware as part of the always connected generation of consoles.

 

[Dan Yo]

I know! All games should be free but supported by ads ..... like television! Surely games can't cost much more to produce than a season of 24.

I have solved the future of the industry. You all can go home now.

 

[HK-47]

I know! All games should be free but supported by ads ..... like television! Surely games can't cost much more to produce than a season of 24.

I have solved the future of the industry. You all can go home now.

Yes, ads in my games will surely not be annoying or intrusive. At least with TV I can buy on DVD to watch without ads.

 

[Linkified]

Yes, ads in my games will surely not be annoying or intrusive. At least with TV I can buy on DVD to watch without ads.

Pay 800 MSP and you can remove the adverts for Game X.

Lets say Halo 3 didn't have a reticule on screen and the whole game was free and you could buy the reticule how many players would buy it?

 

[Dan Yo]

Yes, ads in my games will surely not be annoying or intrusive. At least with TV I can buy on DVD to watch without ads.

Put 'em in between chapters/levels.

 

[HK-47]

Put 'em in between chapters/levels.

...so like TV.

 

[NeoUltima]

...

Thanks for clarifying. I still don't think it would work at all linear, story driven games though. And for the vast majority games it is inferior the current way of doing things(imho).

But just an unlock key for those weapons so you'd be level one with all the good weapons toi begin with so you would have more fun.

Didn't he explicitly say they could pay to prestige though? edit: maybe he doesn't really know what prestiging is though.

 

[DidntKnowJack]

Pay 800 MSP and you can remove the adverts for Game X.

Lets say Halo 3 didn't have a reticule on screen and the whole game was free and you could buy the reticule how many players would buy it?

If any, I mean ANY of those things become the norm in gaming, I'm out.

I'm so tired of hearing, "It's free. Don't you like getting things for free?" As if these saintly publishers would be doing us a service by releasing gutted games. Don't do me any favors. If you guys can't make games and make a profit at the same time, I'm not going to wring my hands and sob everytime one of your development houses go down. I've got as much compassion as the next guy, but there's a limit to the amount of bullshit I'll put up with.

The economy's in the dumpster, we get it. Things are bad all around. Game makers start doing this, and they'll be putting band aids on wounds that don't even exist. They aren't taking into account the people like me who will just stop and say, "Fuck this noise." And then they'll have to start all over again.

(Sorry, didn't mean to sound so angry. )

 

[Grooski]

Unsustainable economic model or super-competitive?

Look at how many games appear in each quarter window now. Q1 is being bombarded, Q2 and Q3 will have solid releases from all 3 and Q4 will be the usual blitz. It is a much more competitive market than it used to be.

The fact is that we are now enjoying a greater entertainment value in games for the dollar. The games coming out now (ignoring whether they are good gameplay) have far better graphics, sound, music and dub than any other gen.

This costs a crapload. Solution?

(a) raise the cost of the average game to $65-70. You sell fewer copies, but overall increase your revenue to offset.

(b) You go the EA route and you create fewer games (lower development costs) and make sure they are the highest quality you can produce. Back it with marketing (you hear me Nintendo??) and pick a decent release window. Pity they broke their own rule with Brutal Legend, Dante's Inferno and The Saboteur. Good but not slick enough to stand out.

(c) Episodic content and DLC. DLC serves a couple of purposes - to raise extra revenue from the sale instead of increasing the price of the game AND to try and limit the sale of used game copies. Both of these add revenue into the mix beyond what the initial sale adds.

Like it or lump it a mixture of all 3 will probably occur to sustain the industry. Should we bitch about it? Not unless we want to see more dev teams bite the bullet.

 

[NeoUltima]

(a) raise the cost of the average game to $65-70. You sell fewer copies, but overall increase your revenue to offset.

How do you know though? Do you have demand curves for typical video games? The current price of $60 is suppose to be the p*.

Just being picky I like the rest of your post

 

[wizword]

Rubin is wrong on the psychology. I find the elements of the badge, or the piece of farmville token to be really important to some gamers. There is this aspect of buying something for 3$s so you have something others don't have. Kids did this with neopets in which they bought certain limited edition prize so they will most likely do the same with other games. There is this aspect which 'if it is the cool thing to do', and 'limited edition' people want to buy some useless token just for that. Basically, makes the person who owns it 'better' than others.

The reason why people enjoy Farmville is because they view it as a competition. The bigger your farm, the cooler you are. And they will buy stuff in order to do this quicker.

 

[racerx]

extra revenue idea #1 - easy mode is for pay only
=================
-all games should only allow a 'hard mode'.
-If you want to play 'easy' or 'medium', and since playing it is a convenience, you should pay for DLC to unlock that mode.

extra revenue idea #2 - more ads in multiplayer games
==================
have full screen ads between games. I play Starcraft quite often and you only get exposed to ads, banner ads, when you are in the lobby. Every time a user plays a game or a series of 3-5 games, a full screen ad should pop up. To force a user to watch an ad, QTE button presses could show up randomly during the ads that ask for player input. Being successful, the game will then let the user play the game next or even give boosters or something.
-richer people could pay to have this disabled.

extra revenue idea #3. My Best idea, I think...ads already on disc
==================
-put more ad and commercials and other stuff on discs, especially blu-ray discs.
Game publishers really need to tap into this market. They could get ad revenue from other industries, like movies, tv shows, new clothing wear, new deodorant, new car, and new limited deals, new coupons etc..

Thus, when I put in Little Big Planet, there should be 4-5 trailers and commercials already on there that automatically get shown before I play the game the first time(just like dvd/bluray now). There could be a limited time deal for a coupon to try out the new sandwich at Carl's Jr. Have demos for other games from other publishers, have short clips of music from up and coming bands, etc...

cost reduction idea #1
==================
-share assets between games
-I don't work in the industry, so I don't know how much sharing already goes on, but publishers should each have their own database with all the textures, animations, arts stored to facilitate sharing.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Jason Rubin - "Micro transactions, DLC and subscriptions all need to happen"

He goes on and on about how gamers play $60 for endless amount of game and then neglects to talk about how more and more DLC is being included upfront when the game is released.

Does Rubin work for Namco?

Way to kill the industry Jason!

Pachter, as usual: "Exploit it and make a profit".

This is why we're heading to another game crash.

I'm just worried that this attitude is setting in; "DLC and Monetizations: Our Saviours!" and they haul another goat onto Ba'al's altar, obsidian dagger in hand.

If they look at stuff like Farmville and see it as mandatory as UI or music, are they expecting this to fix everything? The entire paradigm of the entire fucking industry goes to the West outside of PCs for the first time since the Crash of 83 and we have many successful development houses sloughing off personnel constantly, without any real control over their creative focus, and shuttering a very real possibility with any misshap? (Neversoft reference)

No, shoehorning in tchotchke buying where it hasn't proven successful is sure to save the day...

 

[Linkified]

The thing that screwed this generation up more than most is that games moved from that £40 to the £50 and you have idiots like the one in the link I'm about to post and idiots at BBC for not calling him a moron.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_10000000/newsid_10002900/10002915.stm

At first I was in shock, I mean it's always at the back of your head using pirate games you know there's that possibility but you haven't heard about it, there's been no warnings and you haven't heard it happen to anyone in the last two years.

Thats whats killing the industry and forcing publishers to do damn right anything to get money.

 

[Johann]

(a) raise the cost of the average game to $65-70. You sell fewer copies, but overall increase your revenue to offset.

Very few games keep their initial price and even less could succeed at higher prices. Many consumers wait for a price cut or buy the game used. I can imagine some Nintendo titles, a few Acitivision-Blizzard games, and Dragon Quest in Japan could. Otherwise, people would be less likely to take a risk on an unsure game with a premium price or place greater value on a used copy of that game.

(b) You go the EA route and you create fewer games (lower development costs) and make sure they are the highest quality you can produce. Back it with marketing (you hear me Nintendo??) and pick a decent release window. Pity they broke their own rule with Brutal Legend, Dante's Inferno and The Saboteur. Good but not slick enough to stand out.

EA has been creating a more more diverse portfolio since 2006. They gone into the red to make a variety of games at the highest quality possible.

Activision is the publisher who jettisoned unsure games and concentrated on the surefire hits and potential breakthrough hits.

(c) Episodic content and DLC. DLC serves a couple of purposes - to raise extra revenue from the sale instead of increasing the price of the game AND to try and limit the sale of used game copies. Both of these add revenue into the mix beyond what the initial sale adds.

Many publishers have attempted heavy DLC campaign. A few have been very successful milking their most fanatic consumers dry. However, there doesn't seem to be a correlation between DLC and. We've seen a lot of games with substantial DLC and pre-order bonuses and still end up with a strong used games market. For most people, getting through the single-player and a few hours in the multiplayer game of the month is enough. A special trinket or an extra dungeon won't change their minds if the core game doesn't entirely win them over.

 

[cuevas. PhD.]

I don't see how that would make things more profitable for developers. Release the game for free and then hope people will buy nicer guns and other bullshit? Exactly how much would items like that have to cost to get the consumer to effectively pay more than $60?

I doubt many people would pay even half that amount before they decide they're ready to move on to the next game.

I don't think it would work for single player games. I would just play ME2 for free and not pay for better armor and weapons because they would have to make it so you can finish the game without that stuff (according to what his idea was in the video of paying for getting stuff more easily).

 

[Deku]

Jason Rubin put himself into a difficult corner coming out strong for Microtransactions. When pressed he basically came up with a very particular scenario where gamers essentially pay a low entry fee than pay to access chunks of content.

I think that's the best we can hope for. If the micro-transactions model Rubin is advocating takes hold, companies are more than likely going to just make the same amount of content they are making now, or less, then charge more for it in aggrgate. Which is detrimental for the end user.
Actually, a lot of the same arguments happened when DLC was going to be this huge thing that revolutionizes 'current' gen gaming, and we've ended up with DLC being put on the list of things people can do without next-gen, with only a handful of games 'doing it right'.

The psychology of the gamer, and in the economic sense, price discrimination, model of pricing games is really an untested path. We've seen a similar and rather mediocre outcome with DLCs already.

Edit: Sony Online Entertainment has tried a variation of this idea with a subscription based on-line model before. They acquired a suite of low-tech games including Infantryzone in 2002, which at the time had been in Beta for a couple years, for free. The game was made by the team that made the ill-fated virgin on-line game Subspace.

Thinking they were offering a good deal, they even packaged in two other games, Tanaru and Cosmic Rift (a subspace clone) for a monthly $6 subscription. The game was still available to play for free, but the server kicked players off the battlefiled after a set time and their stats were not saved. The community largely ignored the other two games, and simply stopped playing. Infantryzone languished for the next several years until Sony finally lifted the pay to play service and made the games free.

 

[KAL2006]

3 ways to make more money on games

1. Destroy used, piracy and rental game market
To do this all they have to do is give people an incentive to buy the game brand, to do this they could have extra's (e.g a code to download new stuff, for example Mass Effect 2) for new copies of a game. So lets say for the new COD game, only new copies will have redeem codes for most of the games map packs for online play.

2. Nickel and dime with DLC
I think this is already happening, but hopefully the developers dont cut content that was suppossed to be there to begin with

3. Advertisements
Have ads, but don't make them too annoying or long

 

[NeoUltima]

Jason Rubin put himself into a difficult corner coming out strong for Microtransactions. When pressed he basically came up with a very particular scenario where gamers essentially pay a low entry fee than pay to access chunks of content.

I think that's the best we can hope for. If the microtransactions model Rubin is advocating takes hold, companies are more than likely going to just make the same amount of content they are making now, or less, then charge more for it. Which is detrimental for the end user.
Actually a lot of the same arguments happened when DLC was going to be this huge thing that revolutionizes 'current' gen gaming, and we've ended up with DLC being put on the list of things people can do without next-gen, with only a handful of games 'doing it right'.

In fact, nothing Rubin said is good for the consumer and potentially good for the industry if consumers simply stop playing. Pachter, not surprisingly, agreed with Rubin. For him, anything that allows the publisher to increase revenue is good 'for the industry'.

But the psychology of the gamer, and in the economic sense, price discrimination, model of pricing games is really an untested path. We've seen a similar and rather mediocre outcome with DLCs already.

Edit: Sony Online Entertainment has tried this sort of subscription based on-line model before. They acquired a suite of low-tech games including Infantryzone in 2002, which at the time had been in Beta for a couple years, for free. The game was made by the team that made the ill-fated virgin on-line game Subspace.

Thinking they were offering a good deal, they even packaged in two other games, Tanaru and Cosmic Rift (a subspace clone) for a monthly $6 subscription. The game was still available to play for free, but the server kicked players off the battlefiled after a set time and their stats are not saved if they don't have a subscription. The community largely ignored the other two games, and simply stopped playing. Infantryzone languished for the next several years until Sony finally lifted the pay to play service and made the games free.

Good post. I like to give props and quote good posts cause they always go unnoticed cause nobody can find anything to pick apart in them.

 

[QuadCore]

After watching this, it's like everyone that is supposed to be in the know clearly has no idea what is going on in today's market. They are all operating and thinking under the market of the old and not seeing anything clearly on this new market.

Every single insider, editorialists, or journalists that has spoken this generation has been 100% wrong. It's like Nintendo is the only company whom can clearly see what is going on. Apple is doing it right as well with cheap pick up and play games.

I really do hope there is another crash, it's starting to look that way with all these companies going out of business.

I have no sympathy for any developer, publisher, or whatever that contributes more and more to this and does not embrace change. Do or die. Darwinism.

 

[cuevas. PhD.]

3 ways to make more money on games

They are already trying these but I think the only one that will make the most money is advertising. In Burnout Paradise I didn't care about the ads and I would not mind having ads on the corner of the MW2 lobbies. The apps and games I get on my droid are not really affected by a small ad at the bottom. I don't see Bungie putting decals on master chief but advertising done right in games is a huge untapped market.

 

[Linkified]

They are already trying these but I think the only one that will make the most money is advertising. In Burnout Paradise I didn't care about the ads and I would not mind having ads on the corner of the MW2 lobbies. The apps and games I get on my droid are not really affected by a small ad at the bottom. I don't see Bungie putting decals on master chief but advertising done right in games is a huge untapped market.

I would rather see in some form of product placement. At the beginning of Uncharted 2 slam a BudLight logo on that beer, in a game like Alan Wake have him drink a cup of Nescafe. Something to give some realism to the world and get some money.

 

[Kittonwy]

I've always thought the industry needs to grow to a point where it is easily attainable for free but with incentives to actually purchase it. One idea I had is where they can offer slices of the game available in timeslots, like on TV and they can play a portion each week for say half-hour, with advertisements sliding in and out, or buy the product itself (preferably just by clicking a few buttons).

I guess the idea is like demos, but I think demos have become a non-factor for those outside hardcore, to medium-hardcore market. I think they were a lot more relevant when you got them on the front of magazine covers

Something like OnLive seems to be a solution, if offered from a real company.

The problem is that games themselves are not developed in that way, they're not developed episode by episode, which means you would have to develop the whole game and offer them by episodes and hope the consumers will buy the whole thing, bad idea because the costs are all up-front for the publishers.