Support NeoGAF

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

a lot of these "middle games" end up being so because their marketing and release timing (see: everyone moving to spring to escape CoD) hamstring them. a lot of these titles are absolutely AAA but they get fucked over.

that's different than "the other guys", which would still BARELY be a rental even if it had a huge marketing budget and amazing timing. you see a movie in 2 hours and it's over. you saw it. there goes $10. a game is $60 and typically takes days.

now, are there games that i decide to gamefly instead of buy? of course. LOTS of games. but it's primarily because of the lack of demos and the $60 asking price. if i liked it enough i'll hit the keep button (and have) but these days you just have to be careful. that's a big enough distinction to make the movie analogy way off, despite how much sense it may seem to make on the surface.

 

[Plywood]

I blame games costing $60 for the middle class being dead.

 

[ghst]

As a generalisation, retail would pay these guys a maximum of 40 per cent of what they made. So on a £29.99 game the publisher would receive about £12 (and on a sub-licensed deal, we would then only get about £4.25 of that) – minus return, write down and consignment costs.

When would we get that money? Well, payment would be by the end of the quarter.
So, let’s say £10 per unit sale goes to the publisher, £3 to the developer/sub-licensor, and it’s in your bank five months after the customer has paid out £30.

Compare that to the digital model. On a £29.99 sale, the digital partner will pay the publisher – or in many cases direct to the developer – 60-70* per cent, by the end of the month following the sale.

*Steam's cut is 30%.

there is hope, you just have to let go of your shiny pawn-able pieces of plastic. this comment doesn't even take into account the un-malleable logistical costs and restrictions associated with shipping to retail that send so many welterweight game devs to their graves. if you ever really give a rats ass about supporting a dev, buy their game through one of the myriad of open platform dd options available.

 

[Agyar]

You somehow miss the dozens of other examples you have been given?

What other examples? I cannot even determine the point you're trying to make here. Banging on about how great The Witcher and Steam are does not mean every retail-priced game on the shelf is turning a notable profit for the publishers and CliffyB is wrong.

The crux of this discussion is that there are a whole lot of games produced under a model that sends them to die on the shelf. The budgets are too big, the development time too long and the risk of under-performance too great for publishers to take that chance where they have other avenues to explore (smaller teams, faster development cycles, digital distribution etc.). Games like Lost Planet 2, Darksiders, Mirror's Edge, Brutal Legend and Enslaved all underperformed at retail and publishers are obviously wary of diving to approve sequels to these games or more new IPs when the risk is similarly high. As they become more risk adverse, more of these games won't be made or won't get sequels.

 

[Lostconfused]

*Steam's cut is 30%.

there is hope, you just have to let go of your shiny pawn-able pieces of plastic. this comment doesn't even take into account the un-malleable logistical costs and restrictions associated with shipping to retail that send so many welterweight game devs to their graves. if you ever really give a rats ass about supporting a dev, buy their game through one of the myriad of open platform dd options available.

Handy chart

All that shit on the right? Thats the money thats not going to the publisher and the developer. With DD, all of that cash makes into the hands that deserve it. Buy witcher 2 from GOG, then the full $50 makes into the hands of the devs.

Edit: Not to mention that this bypasses having to find a publisher to sell the game at retail, whatever contract that would get hoisted on the developer, how much money the publisher would bleed them for and leave the desicated corpse of the company lying in some hole.

 

[LJ11]

What insight.

 

[Freezie KO]

I blame games costing $60 for the middle class being dead.

Movies cost $8-12. $20 or less to own one on DVD or Blu Ray. This same garbage happens with them.

It's blockbusterization. It's not about "standing out" like Cliffy B says. It's the opposite. It leads to appeals to the mass market (i.e. the lowest common denominator) with minimal risk-taking. It's actually worse for movies since there's the indie scene (like XBLA, PSN, WiiWare, Steam, AppStore, etc) doesn't provide the same ROI for the big production costs of film.

 

[Fredescu]

One game bucking the trend hardly ruins the case he's making.

It's far from the only game, it just fits perfectly into the example you quoted.

The crux of this discussion is

That "the middle class is dead" is an overly simplistic statement, and incorrect when taken at face value. There are successful games at all budget levels, and they needn't be AAA or have no publisher backing at all to be profitable, which is his entire point. Pointing to recent releases and saying "see? these games are dead!" doesn't help matters either. It's true that big budget games that are mediocre in execution don't do too well, but I personally haven't noticed a marked decrease in these type of games coming out, and to me those games don't make up the entirety of what could be considered "middle class".

It sounds like a nice theory, but we know that mid budget games can be and frequently are profitable. Perhaps he makes some clarifications in the full talk that the article refers to, but since that's all we have to go off, the only reasonable conclusion is that he's wrong.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

What other examples? I cannot even determine the point you're trying to make here. Banging on about how great The Witcher and Steam are does not mean every retail-priced game on the shelf is turning a notable profit for the publishers and CliffyB is wrong.

So you ask for other examples and then use one in the same post? You made a claim that a single outlier is the sole substantiation refuting the article. You have been provided with a dozen or so recent titles that are firmly AA, that are successful and most of them receiving sequels. Showing that there is in fact a viable market for AA titles.

Now just because most big developers/publishers are butchering all titles that do not have AAA expectations is entirely irrelevant to there being a viable market for AA games. Can you determine my point now? You should also probably note the distinction between a AA title and a AAA title that fails due to sucking.

 

[AwRy108]

*Steam's cut is 30%.

there is hope, you just have to let go of your shiny pawn-able pieces of plastic. this comment doesn't even take into account the un-malleable logistical costs and restrictions associated with shipping to retail that send so many welterweight game devs to their graves. if you ever really give a rats ass about supporting a dev, buy their game through one of the myriad of open platform dd options available.

So games have been sold in retail outlets for 30 years, yet all of the sudden it's their fault that the "middle class" of games are dead? How about we blame the damned platform holders for being so quick to jump the gun into the next generation? Or how about we blame publishers who want multiplayer jammed into every game b/c they think it'll justify the $60 price tag.

I think more publishers need to look into some type of tiered pricing, even if it means "admitting" that their game is only "middle class" material--a hell of a lot more people would've purchased Enslaved around it's launch hype if it didn't cost $60. Rather, people just deciding to sit on the fence and wait for it to hit clearance bins and Gamely sales.

I agree with FREDESCU: CliffyB's statement is overly simplistic, but the debate he incites isn't so Black and White.

 

[chaostrophy]

disagrees.

Yep. They've perfected the art of using creative design to make AAA, highly noticeable games on a middle-class-game budget.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

It's far from the only game, it just fits perfectly into the example you quoted.


That "the middle class is dead" is an overly simplistic statement, and incorrect when taken at face value. There are successful games at all budget levels, and they needn't be AAA or have no publisher backing at all to be profitable, which is his entire point. Pointing to recent releases and saying "see? these games are dead!" doesn't help matters either. It's true that big budget games that are mediocre in execution don't do too well, but I personally haven't noticed a marked decrease in these type of games coming out, and to me those games don't make up the entirety of what could be considered "middle class".

It sounds like a nice theory, but we know that mid budget games can be and frequently are profitable. Perhaps he makes some clarifications in the full talk that the article refers to, but since that's all we have to go off, the only reasonable conclusion is that he's wrong.

+10 highfives

he is falling into the same misconception that many consumers have: if the game isn't selling millions then it must be a failure.

what i find to be a bigger tragedy is short/shitty/disappointing games selling millions and being considered AAA and successful. falling victim to bait and switch is something i hate with utmost passion but publishers are aware of this, and it's probably a big reason why these games with PLENTY of funding magically get no demo until after the game ships. wouldn't want people to see how much of a let down this hyped up games is, now would we...

but back to my original point- the sales numbers tell the publishers that THAT'S WHAT GAMERS WANT. same as everyone will be hyped for some movie, all go out and see it (raking in millions of box office sales) and even if they all thought it was shit, it made millions (for the box office) on the first week and is considered a blockbuster. it then receives tons of marketing and hype for the DVD release and the equally shit SEQUEL.

we will forever get mediocrity pooped out of the corporate machine.

 

[Agyar]

So you ask for other examples and then use one in the same post? You made a claim that a single outlier is the sole substantiation refuting the article. You have been provided with a dozen or so recent titles that are firmly AA, that are successful and most of them receiving sequels. Showing that there is in fact a viable market for AA titles.

Now just because most big developers/publishers are butchering all titles that do not have AAA expectations is entirely irrelevant to there being a viable market for AA games. Can you determine my point now? You should also probably note the distinction between a AA title and a AAA title that fails due to sucking.

Every single title I listed has been noted as under-performing at retail by their publishers. In what universe is that commercially viable? Most of those games are not receiving sequels or the prospect of those sequels has been put under a very dark cloud. If they aren't selling enough copies to meet the profit margins they expect from successful projects, it's not viable. In addition to these aforementioned games, there are hordes of titles that nobody will ever remember because they tanked critically and financially and given the nature of their release, probably cost their publishers a lot of money. Where is the market for Fracture, Dark Sector, Madworld, The Saboteur, Too Human or Bionic Commando? And that's just off the top of my head.

Talking about a distinction between "AA" and "AAA" titles and "AAA" that "sucked" is all nonsense. Big-budget games that cannot deliver acceptable profit margins not be made and as those budgets become larger, less and less projects become viable candidates for those expected profits.

That "the middle class is dead" is an overly simplistic statement, and incorrect when taken at face value. There are successful games at all budget levels, and they needn't be AAA or have no publisher backing at all to be profitable, which is his entire point. Pointing to recent releases and saying "see? these games are dead!" doesn't help matters either. It's true that big budget games that are mediocre in execution don't do too well, but I personally haven't noticed a marked decrease in these type of games coming out, and to me those games don't make up the entirety of what could be considered "middle class".

It sounds like a nice theory, but we know that mid budget games can be and frequently are profitable. Perhaps he makes some clarifications in the full talk that the article refers to, but since that's all we have to go off, the only reasonable conclusion is that he's wrong.

As I've said previously, finding other ways to produce successful games does not contradict what he said. Publishers are certainly finding these other methods of budgetting for, producing and distributing their releases and that's because they cannot continue to produce these underperforming big-budget titles. As more of these smaller, more flexible project are undertaken and proven to be successful financially, less big-budget/big-risk titles will be undertaken by publishers.

 

[cuyahoga]

Not seeing The Other Guys seems like a real loss for Cliffy - it's probably the type of movie he loves. Also, it's much better than Avatar.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Every single title I listed has been noted as under-performing at retail by their publishers. In what universe is that commercially viable?

In what universe does listing some games that failed to perform negate the AA titles that do extremely well?

Where is the market for Fracture, Dark Sector, Madworld, The Saboteur, Too Human or Bionic Commando? And that's just off the top of my head.

Where is the market for over hyped AAA titles that fail to perform because they suck? No idea, what does this have to do with anything?

Talking about a distinction between "AA" and "AAA" titles and "AAA" that "sucked" is all nonsense. Big-budget games that cannot deliver acceptable profit margins not be made and as those budgets become larger, less and less projects become viable candidates for those expected profits.

I cant really understand what this paragraph is supposed to mean. Do you understand the distinction between a AA budget and expectations and a AAA title budget and expectations that fails to perform?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

The Middle Class Game for non-Nintendo consoles is dead.

Fixed.

PC, Handhelds, Wii all have plenty of middle class games.

disagrees.

The fact that they've developed only ONE game so far this generation proves the point.

Yes Atlus waits more than other developers before they jump into the "next generation" but not this long. It was two years after all the previous gen consoles were released before Nocturne saw release. It's been nearly three and a half years for Catherine.

 

[Game Guru]

PC, Handhelds, Wii all have plenty of middle class games.

Agreed, you skip out from making middle class games on the ecosystems that can actually support them, and you end up with middle class games not selling. If publishers actually budgeted games properly, priced games accordingly, and released games on systems that would best support them, the gaming industry would not be having the problems they are now. Sadly, it is much too late now.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Game prices need to go down to give all games a chance.

One way to lower costs is digital distribution.

Games also need to have their prices based on what they offer. Short single player experience? 30 dollars. A long RPG? 50 dollars, A short XBLA game? 5-15 dollars A decent sized single player and plenty of multiplayer? 60 dollars.

 

[speculawyer]

Cliffy B reaches a conclusion that has been obvious for the past 4 years.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

It isn't game prices that are holding them back.

It's:

#1 Development Costs
#2 High Expectations

 

[Fredescu]

As I've said previously, finding other ways to produce successful games does not contradict what he said

It does because at no point does he specify a "method". You've made a narrow definition of "middle class game" based on an assumption and run with it.

 

[element]

It cost 13 million to make so it would be classed as an 'indie' movie

It also came under the banner of Fox Searchlight.

Black Swan was independently financed. Fox Searchlight acquired the distribution rights to the movie. The movie was financed by Cross Creek Pictures. An independent film typically means not funded by a major studio. It really has nothing to do with how much the film costs, but who pays for the movie. Harry Potter is NOT an independent film since it is developed by Warner Bros, but technically Star Wars IS since LucasFilms pays for it, which aren't attached to a studio)

he is falling into the same misconception that many consumers have: if the game isn't selling millions then it must be a failure.

But that is true, depending on your budget. Enslaved is a failure. Singularity is a failure. Mirror's Edge is a failure. Bionic Commando is a failure. TRON: Evolution is a failure.
These games will either break even or not turn a profit. While some of these games were not great, the developer and publisher expected them to at least break even.

No one made anyone increase budgets to unmanageable / unprofitable levels.

Actually budgets increased as team sizes increased. Unless you want PS1 graphics. Increased budgets needed to happen.

No one made them shorten games to 6hrs and expect consumers to be satisfied at high price points .

Because of the complexity to create the content, games needed to be shorter. This is where multiplayer has become the "key" feature, because it can provide unlimited replayablity.

No one made them try to go head to head with market leaders in over saturated genres where the chances were they were going to lose.

Publisher have attempted to distance themselves from strong competition and it still fail. Would you rather publisher only give you Madden and Call of Duty?

No one made them keep raising the overall price of products thru one use codes/unlock key dlc cheering for the 100dollar game all the way.

Publishers and developers shouldn't attempt to monetize in additional means?

No one made them force arbitrary prices on content that use to be free(platform holders) so they can nickel and dime everyone for everything.

What was free then is not free now. DLC or patches before were typically week long projects of one or two developers. Now you have entire 20 person teams providing DLC. Cost of goods/services goes up, price will increase.

No one made them force a 10dollar profit increase on their pc games just because they can to match their console price even tho theres no 10dollar platform fee.

The games that have increased price on the PC still sell extremely well, and it isn't across the board only select games have done this.

 

[TheExecutive]

It concerns me that he doesn't even seem to care :-/

Anyway, this depresses me a lot. Does anyone else get saddened by news like this?

From my understanding of what he means... No it doesnt sadden me. Games that try and do the status quo but can't make the grade with the big boys should be thrown under the bus. The indie game scene is as alive as ever with great, unique and interesting titles coming out. If all the studio has is to make a shitty COD clone then let them burn for it. Games like Valkyrie Chronicles, Folklore and Demons souls still come out and are great but not because they are middle class but because they are different. As long as there are studios that still take chances because they have a vision and want to share it this industry will continue to prosper. If he means that no other games should come out besides blockbusters he has been hanging around the MS campfire for way too long.

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

But that is true, depending on your budget. Enslaved is a failure. Singularity is a failure. Mirror's Edge is a failure. Bionic Commando is a failure. TRON: Evolution is a failure.
These games will either break even or not turn a profit. While some of these games were not great, the developer and publisher expected them to at least break even.

i understand the concept of making a profit on a title or not. but the terms failure and success have to be defined first. FINANCIAL success/failure? artistic or goal-oriented success/failure?

cliff failed to define what he meant by successful or a failure. he merely said that unless there is more value "it's doomed", which could mean anything really. it sounds like he is squarely talking about them getting big numbers, not specifically making a profit or not. so by "doomed" does he think people won't buy them anymore? i don't see the number of "middle" titles relenting anytime soon, so unless all these publishers are drooling and picking their noses it must mean that they weren't financially detrimental enough to their overall business to make them decide to stop making them altogether.

if anything, i find these titles to be made by some of the bravest people in the industry. they don't just make something that appeals to a list of check boxes that surveys and data mining has compiled for them. they make things that are more specialized, and those that like it love it and those that don't, or just shrug can rent it. they still stay afloat and keep making more. so hooray?

just don't see what he's talking about really. seems like he misunderstands his own thoughts, personally. it would make sense if he were to be talking about how to turn "middle games" into AAA multi-million sellers. but as i said, some just don't want to fall in line. (i'm in no way saying that there isn't such thing as flops though, and there most certainly are. they should be listening closely as to how they can improve.) but those that do pretty good, and are good rentals, and make their money back, who the fuck cares?

EDIT: i think that all sorts of "levels" of games should and CAN co-exist, but the publishers have to be accepting of this as well. assess what kind of game it's going to be, and fund/price it accordingly. $60 may be the "max" this gen but as we've seen it's by no means the minimum.

 

[Loxley]

I would recommend someone start up a thread about our favorite "middle class" games, but I know inevitably it would just be about people bitching whether or not the majority of the games being mentioned were "middle class".

That said, I'll always be there to support the middle-class games, assuming they're quality products of course. Games like Viking: Battle for Asgard, Singularity, RF: Guerrilla, The Club (RIP Bizarre ), The Saboteur, etc. Dunno why, but I'm always able to get a lot of enjoyment out of them.

 

[jhawk6]

I would recommend someone start up a thread about our favorite "middle class" games, but I know inevitably it would just be about people bitching whether or not the majority of the games being mentioned were "middle class".

That said, I'll always be there to support the middle-class games, assuming they're quality products of course. Games like Viking: Battle for Asgard, Singularity, RF: Guerrilla, The Club (RIP Bizarre ), The Saboteur, etc. Dunno why, but I'm always able to get a lot of enjoyment out of them.

Well said. I support the middle class too, let's fight the good fight

 

[Hexadecimalt]

Where the fuck did Cliffy B even pull this term "Middle Class Game" from? It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Freshmaker]

Where does Saw fit in this analogy?

It is a middling movie franchise, that sees great results...
.

Madden.

 

[Aaron]

Cliffy B reaches a conclusion that has been obvious for the past 4 years.

Finally realized Gears netcode sucks?

 

[element]

i understand the concept of making a profit on a title or not. but the terms failure and success have to be defined first. FINANCIAL success/failure? artistic or goal-oriented success/failure?

All financial. Mass market financials.

so by "doomed" does he think people won't buy them anymore? i don't see the number of "middle" titles relenting anytime soon

WHAT? People AREN'T buying those middle tier games. That is why you are seeing developers like Bizarre Creations close. That is why Enslaved probably won't get a sequel as it sold 400k units. These aren't bad games, the mass market just isn't showing the interest.

if anything, i find these titles to be made by some of the bravest people in the industry. they don't just make something that appeals to a list of check boxes that surveys and data mining has compiled for them. they make things that are more specialized, and those that like it love it and those that don't, or just shrug can rent it. they still stay afloat and keep making more. so hooray?

While I agree that some of these games are the ones actually taking risks to differentiate themselves from the huge games, games have shown that they really don't want different, at least at the mass market level (5+ million or more). And games that fall into that trap don't get sequels and they go work on something else, or they end up closing.

but those that do pretty good, and are good rentals, and make their money back, who the fuck cares?

They aren't making money, or at least not enough. Studios are forced to give up the ability to work on new ideas or close.

i think that all sorts of "levels" of games should and CAN co-exist, but the publishers have to be accepting of this as well. assess what kind of game it's going to be, and fund/price it accordingly. $60 may be the "max" this gen but as we've seen it's by no means the minimum.

In the perfect world, yes, that would be great if they can co-exist, but it just costs too damn much to make games now to compete in that mass market model. There is no way Monolith could make Condemned 3 in this type of market. If it was made on the cheap it would get trashed, if they attempted to go big budget, it would never sell enough to be profitable. I'm sure the budget for the new Silent Hill is very fixed, in the attempt to be profitable.

I think what we could see is more of these middle tier games move to free2play or other revenue models.

 

[sleepykyo]

Don't you mean Index Holdings?

Yeah, I've been wondering about this? Everyone keeps saying Atlus is fine, but didn't they get bought by Index Holdings, which was going to dissolve Atlus? Kind of like what happened with AQ Interactive started absorbing smaller developers.

edit: On topic, does anyone really disagree with Cliffy on this? Blur, Wolfenstein, Singularity and Timeshift were supposedly all decent games, but were completely overlooked.

 

[Lonewolf_92]

disagrees.

Pretty much what I was going to say. If your "Middle-class" game is a follow-the-leader but do nothing new in the genre type game (and we all could name over a dozen such titles) of course they're going to fail, but if you make a solid game, market it well, plan out your releases well, and cater to a niche genre that has a strong fanbase, you don't need to have a "AAA" or "event" release to be successful. Atlus, NIS America, and others have made that abundantly clear.

 

[Mindlog]

From reading various forums this was a small segment of Cliff's talk.
From listening to various podcasts stereotype certain segments of gaming journalism...
hm.

More drinks.

 

[jorma]

As i'm sure many others already noted, it's because they are trying to sell "middle class" titles at the same price as AAA-titles. I hope noone did a shitty car analogy yet though: It's like pricing a Skoda in the same range as a Mercedes and then wonder why barely anyone gets the Skoda.

 

[Grayman]

The budgets are a problem for these middle class games but some copying the 5 million plus sellers as closely as possible cannot be helping either.

If a game is not going to get pushed like COD or the closest ultra successful comparison then doing something different would help.

 

[element]

Atlus, NIS America, and others have made that abundantly clear.

So everyone should make super niche JRPGs if they aren't making Call of Duty 8? The games you are talking about need to sell 100k units to break even, have very little marketing, and probably aren't even carried in stores like Walmart.

You can't compare a game like Enslaved or Singularity to something like Catherine.

The budgets are a problem for these middle class games but some copying the 5 million plus sellers as closely as possible cannot be helping either.

If a game is not going to get pushed like COD or the closest ultra successful comparison then doing something different would help.

The problem is you really can't make those middle tier games cheap enough to reduce the risk. If you went too cheap, then you are going to get a game that just can't complete, example Soldier of Fortune: Payback.
This doesn't even get into the new IP argument, which publishers are scared to greenlight anything now, as selling a new IP has almost become impossible.

 

[tiff]

So everyone should make super niche JRPGs if they aren't making Call of Duty 8? The games you are talking about need to sell 100k units to break even, have very little marketing, and probably aren't even carried in stores like Walmart.

You can't compare a game like Enslaved or Singularity to something like Catherine.

Servicing niche fanbases with games that don't need to sell a ludicrous amount in order to turn a profit seems to be a better idea than pumping out failure after failure, yes.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

the middle class $60 game is dead

VARIABLE PRICING FOR GOD SAKES!!

Exactly. Blur & Splitsecond at $40 makes a lot more sense considering Red Dead was around the corner.

 

[szaromir]

So everyone should make super niche JRPGs if they aren't making Call of Duty 8? The games you are talking about need to sell 100k units to break even, have very little marketing, and probably aren't even carried in stores like Walmart.

You can't compare a game like Enslaved or Singularity to something like Catherine.

Enslaved isn't a mid-budget game. It's AAA all the way through, except from consumer demand maybe. Something like Dead to Rights series is mid-class game. Making mid-class game in a genre where there's a lot of AAA games just doesn't make sense since the consumer has all these great alternatives. But most genres don't have as many hitters and you can make an interesting proposition to gamers with a reasonable budget.

 

[Drkirby]

Yeah, I've been wondering about this? Everyone keeps saying Atlus is fine, but didn't they get bought by Index Holdings, which was going to dissolve Atlus? Kind of like what happened with AQ Interactive started absorbing smaller developers..

Uh, no. Index holding was always Atlus' parent company, so they didn't get bought out. There wasn't a given reason for them being incorporated into the parent company, but it was likely just for book keeping reasons.

 

[bloodydrake]

Game prices need to go down to give all games a chance.

One way to lower costs is digital distribution.

I agree.
But the problem is every opportunity to save for the consumer is gobbled up and turned into an increased revenue for most of these big publishers.
Why should that saving be passed on to consumers when they can just absorb that, and make 3x the profit per unit?

Then later they can complain "well shits expensive and hard to make that's why things cost so much"
They've done it to themselves they just can't help it. Its corporate greed unfettered.
Then when it falls apart due to their own shortsightedness they turn around and look for every reason to not be accountable for there own mistakes.

 

[farnham]

cliffy B : the gaming industry means the HD platforms

 

[CecilRousso]

Quotes like that shows that Epic has been away from the PC for quite a while.

 

[Metal B]

Aren't Games like Wii Sports, New Super Mario Wii, Mario Kart Wii, Professor Layton, etc pretty much Middle-Class-Games? There not AAA Title, but also no Indie-Titel. I know Nintendo is always the exception, but they are still great games with a low price, low development cost and good advertisement.

 

[AwRy108]

Exactly. Blur & Splitsecond at $40 makes a lot more sense considering Red Dead was around the corner.

Agreed. Publishers need to stop cramming multiplayer into their titles to try and justify the $60 price-point.

 

[obonicus]

Thinking about it, it's kind of weird that what Cliffy says goes against all the 'we have got to stop spending so much goddamned money making games' talks we've been seeing lately. In those, the AAA game is doomed, because if you're gonna be crushed by CoD you're better off spending less money to do it.

 

[neorej]

the middle class $60 game is dead

VARIABLE PRICING FOR GOD SAKES!!

This. If you're serving a $5 shake, it better be a good fucking shake.

 

[bloodydrake]

Actually budgets increased as team sizes increased. Unless you want PS1 graphics. Increased budgets needed to happen.

Not managing there budgets and production costs were their own faults..and please spare me the ps1 rhetoric, we had engines like HL2 out in 2004 that still look great today.

Because of the complexity to create the content, games needed to be shorter. This is where multiplayer has become the "key" feature, because it can provide unlimited replayablity.

Again they did that to themselves..plenty of great games have good meaty single player campaigns that didn't require multiplayer.. Abysmal team leadership and Project leadership/vision isn't the consumers fault..its the devs fault,the publishers paying 10's of millions for flash over substance was there own fault.

Publisher have attempted to distance themselves from strong competition and it still fail. Would you rather publisher only give you Madden and Call of Duty?

Well if they can't do anything but sure do that..someone else will fill in the vacuum.
Just like all these European RPG's have been doing ..

Publishers and developers shouldn't attempt to monetize in additional means?
What was free then is not free now. DLC or patches before were typically week long projects of one or two developers.
Now you have entire 20 person teams providing DLC. Cost of goods/services goes up, price will increase.

No they shouldn't..unless like other snake oil salesmen you never want a repeat customer.
How can you even suggest that some of this crap dlc and PATCHES shouldn't be free?
I'm not talking about addon quality DLC that requires teams to work months i'm talking about all the gimmie shit that should be free like skins,wallpaper,avatar costums ect.

The games that have increased price on the PC still sell extremely well, and it isn't across the board only select games have done this.

EA has bumped up just about every game they have by 10$ for no other reason then ..shrug why not.
So for a platform that has no used market..no rental market..Digital distro that increases the Publishers Profits per unit about 3x..they still need to try and kick the consumer in the nuts when they go to buy there fix.


see people resent being taken advantage of..and tho they might grumble an go along for now, just like a kicked dog ..they don't like you for it.

So I'll reiterate. They've done this to themselves, its their own fault,they create their own problem.

 

[megalowho]

Is Bulletstorm a middle-class game?

Going by Cliff's rental metric, it is for me.

Middle class games should be conceived from the ground up to retail for less than $60. I'd like to read a postmortem where this was the case, regardless of whether the game was a success or failure. Instead of throwing marketing money around pulling stunts like Homefront's red balloons or Bulletstorm's press packages of meat in order to give a game the appearance of big deal, just price the thing at $30-$50. Such an easier pill to swallow, especially for the dreaded "New IP" that scares publishers so much. It's one of the big reasons I've been playing and buying a lot more PC games as this generation wears on.

 

[Fallen_Hero]

No.

Spoiler

I prefer Level-5 myself.