Happy Thanksgiving!
John and I hope all of you have a wonderful Thanksgiving this week, and get to spend some quality time with family and friends who you may not see on a regular basis.Be sure to check the first comment on this post for Timothy's email mentioned in Episode #094. It was too long for us to read on the show (we're trying really hard to hit that one-hour mark for you guys) so it's being posted here instead.
Don't get killed trying to get Mario Galaxy from Circuit City on Black Friday!
-Phil
4 Comments On This Post:
Dear John and Phil,
Tuesday, November 20, 2007 at 9:14:00 AM CSTThis was an episode that I rather enjoyed. I have some rather deep thoughts subject and my two cents on the subject are as thus:
This is quite an interesting topic, one I have developed a thesis on since listening to the episode. It may seem games have only recently begun the practice of trying to glean every cent possible from the consumer, but it’s always been that way. In the past, the only way to outsell the competition and to make a real profit on games was to make them very high quality or better than everything else out there (it is also important to note that games were a much smaller risk factor in the past). But, with the advent of dynamic in-game advertising and microtransactions, the developers aren't forced to make a game they are unable to make. The video game industry is a business and its goal is to make money and it always has been; it's just more apparent to the consumer now.
The average consumer only has so much money they’re willing to spend on games so the games must compete for this money and they do this by trying to be better than the rest of the games out there, or something the customer would rather buy instead of something else. There used to be greater emphasis on the quality of the game because that was the main determining factor in whether the game would sell well or not. There is even more competition in today's marketplace so the developer has to work even harder to earn the consumer's dollars and games cost more to make with all the licensing for engines like Unreal Engine 3 and stuff like that. So the developer has more to lose by making a flop than they used to and as such they usually try to minimize risk.
The reputation of the developer has a lot to do with the sales of a game because in general, the better the reputation, the better the sales. If the customer has experience with the developer in the past they'll know what to expect, good or bad. Not all game developers are of the same caliber, EA couldn't produce the same quality game as someone like Bungie or Nintendo’s EAD group because it does not have the same skills and dedication in its employees. Because games are generally the same price, the developer that doesn’t have the same skills as another has to make up that potentially lost money somewhere, and that somewhere is in game ads and microtransactions. So, in essence those alternate money making schemes are to guarantee that the developer will make a decent return on the title and allow said developer to take greater risks. A first party Nintendo game is guaranteed good sales for the fact it is a first party Nintendo game because Nintendo's internal development groups have a good reputation because they have and do make good games. Most studios don't have that kind of insurance because they don't have as good of a reputation so they can't be sure that they'll have a good return on the game they make so they will want to be sure that they'll still make some money, a.k.a. ads and microtransactions.
Making videogames is a business for modern console game companies (the big three) so they will do all in their power to make money, that is their ultimate goal and it always has been and will continue to be. How they make that money is where the difference lies. Nintendo took a risk following the Blue Ocean Strategy and it payed off big time with the DS and Wii, while Microsoft, with its large cash reserves can afford to take risks and go after the traditional game audience with the Xbox and Sony merely branched off into another sector of home electronics. I applaud Nintendo's current success because it is all they have, both Sony and Microsoft can make money in different ways, but Nintendo completely relies on its game production (why it always sells at a profit) for revenue. Why they make games has not changed, it's how they do it that has changed drastically.
So that's my thoughts on the subject, good show all around and I do like the one hour time, it's long enough but not too long.
With Super-Fly Regards,
Timothy Roy Sundberg
P.S. I had to retype that whole essay thing because my computer froze up in the middle of it the first time :-( .
P.P.S. Feel free to abridge this e-mail.
My thought is the more Inside The Console the better. One hour, two hours, whatever it takes.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 10:14:00 PM CST-Travis J
Nice email, Tim. I didn't listen to the episode yet, but you've got some good thoughts there. It's interesting that as the development cost for games has skyrocketed, the overall review scores for many of the "AAA" titles have also been increasing. My evidence for this is anecdotal at best, but consider the scores of games like Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Crysis, Halo 3...games that have costed millions of dollars and turned out very well, all with no in-game ads (that I am aware of, at any rate). The Wii's small development cost has ensured a deluge of crappy games without as many advertisements, and no microtransactions to speak of.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 10:20:00 PM CSTThese companies are in business to make money, and that's fine. It's just nice when they can put out quality products in doing so.
By the way, it was good to see both of you this past weekend. :)
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 10:20:00 PM CSTPost a Comment