On Gaming Business Practices

[hat]

It seems to me that gaming has been going backwards as time rolls on. Back in the day, you used to pay your $50 or $60, whatever, if you bought the game full price, and you got all of the game. You had the ability to modify the game in any way you want, from introducing new maps all the way up to a total conversion that radically changed the game (see Future VS Fantasy for Quake, Desert Combat for BF1942 just to name some off the top of my head). You could host your own server and be in complete control of it. Later on, the developers might release a fair amount additional content for the game, and it used to be called an expansion pack. Something like Road to Rome or Secret Weapons of WWII for BF1942, or Resurrection of Evil for Doom 3.

These days, you spend $60 on a game, and only get access to some of the game. Unless you pre-order and spend extra money, or spend even more extra money the first day, you won't get access to "bonus content", or Day 1 DLC. Mods, be they simple maps or total conversions, are not allowed to exist because the company producing the game wants to sell you a few maps for an insane price (at least to me, someone who has downloaded hundreds of user made maps for other games, for the grand total of $0.00). Games that have some type of progression system allow you to spend extra money to the point where you can totally unlock all the high end gear the first time you play. You cannot run your own server, you must rely on the company producing the game to run the server. Dedicated servers may not even exist at all. This list by no means applies to every game created today, but all these things have happened to games collectively.

Two questions exist in my mind. First question: where do you stand, gamer? Should games go back to the old days where you just bought the game and you got complete control over it? Are you okay with microtransactions that could allow a level 1 player the same gear in game only naturally accessible to a level 100 player?

Second question: an argument has been made to me that game companies have to run the way they do today in order to continue to stay in business and provide support for the game they created, because paying $60 for a game and getting the entire game like we did in the old days doesn't cut it anymore, because it costs more to make the games they make today than it did in those days. What do you say to this argument?

 

[P4-630]

Should games go back to the old days where you just bought the game and you got complete control over it?

I'd prefer that yes.

because it costs more to make the games they make today than it did in those days.

I think they make enough money already to develop new even greater games, even if we could buy the complete game for 60EU/$, there always be gamers to buy the games, they are just milking.

 

[Vya Domus]

What happened with gaming was inevitable and it's the same with any other branch of the entertainment industry.

The title of your thread sums up everything quite nicely : "On Gaming Business Practices" Key word : Business. There is no question whether or not games should go back to the way they used to be because they most definitely wont (AAA titles). Although there still are games being made the way they used to , they're called indie games.

 

[IceScreamer]

Personally, I will refrain from buying any game that has the so called loot-boxes in it. That crap belongs in free2play games, and those were the test bed for this practice. Cosmetics for money, annoying but sure, go for it, but any form of boosters, gear, or speeding up of progress is a no-go for me.
And if the game is intentionally butchered just so they can add the parts of it later for a fee then that game can rot and fail as far as I'm concerned.

 

[MyTechAddiction]

Nowadays more then ever there is a huge selection of games both old and new, AAA or indie, at various prices.However most people flock to the next clone of Call of Battle front Creed Auto theft Mario.

 

[hat]

For my own understanding, I have no choice but to play devil's advocate here.

I think they make enough money already to develop new even greater games, even if we could buy the complete game for 60EU/$, there always be gamers to buy the games, they are just milking.

True big publishers, like EA, make a ton of money. But they put out a ton of games, too. With the rising cost of development, and inflation, is $60 for these games really going to cut it if they don't milk the franchise?

What happened with gaming was inevitable and it's the same with any other branch of the entertainment industry.

The title of your thread sums up everything quite nicely : "On Gaming Business Practices" Key word : Business. There is no question whether or not games should go back to the way they used to be because they most definitely wont (AAA titles). Although there still are games being made the way they used to , they're called indie games.

Of course business is business. Businesses exist to make money. Personally, I only see EA backing down on the new Star Wars game because there was such a huge backlash over it. On the second part of your comment, indie games are great for being made the old way, but look at the quality of the game. 7 days to die is made by one such small team, yet the game has been in alpha forever and it's riddled with bugs. They still work on the game, of course, but progress is slow. If EA was behind it, the game would function better, and would be ready for a full release faster, but it would likely be a giant mess like the latest titles with some amount of the stuff being discussed in this thread.

Personally, I will refrain from buying any game that has the so called loot-boxes in it. That crap belongs in free2play games, and those were the test bed for this practice. Cosmetics for money, annoying but sure, go for it, but any form of boosters, gear, or speeding up of progress is a no-go for me.
And if the game is intentionally butchered just so they can add the parts of it later for a fee then that game can rot and fail as far as I'm concerned.

Pay to win, they call that. That part of it honestly isn't a big problem for me. It really doesn't detract from my gameplay. It's portions of the game being locked away behind a paywall I have a problem with (pre order "bonus" content, shitty map packs you have to pay for, day 1 DLC, that sort of thing). Not being able to do with the game as you wish is also a big part of it for me (not being able to host my own server, community made maps and mods). It's like you're not getting the entire game for your money.

Nowadays more then ever there is a huge selection of games both old and new, AAA or indie, at various prices.However most people flock to the next clone of Call of Battle front Creed Auto theft Mario.

Well, that's sort of a different discussion. Somewhat on topic is the idea that AAA developers can make better games than indie developers because they have way more support. Unfortunately, that support, the AAA publishers, are running things in such a way that makes many people view them as bloodsucking parasites.

 

[Vya Domus]

On the second part of your comment, indie games are great for being made the old way, but look at the quality of the game. 7 days to die is made by one such small team, yet the game has been in alpha forever and it's riddled with bugs.

Well we forget that this how games used to be made , by a bunch of guys with little experience and next to no budget. And we forget just how many of these games used to be horrible. The truth is the average quality of a game went up significantly.

There is just no way things will go back the way they used to be and maintain the quality we got used to. When a publisher invests 100 million dollars they are going make it 100% damn sure that they'll get a profit from it.

 

[kurosagi01]

Complete different generations really, look at when first Tomb raider was developed vs indie developers today,i believe there was only 6 people working on the game?
The other factor i think is how much the internet is used these days which gives businesses the "excuse" to be able to sell bits of games as "additional/expansion/DLC/season pass" at a later date. I don't have problem with this but if the download is only 1mb like how Capcom did with Resident evil 5 with their expansion pack then that i have problem with and their other previous fighting game titles.

 

[RCoon]

It's the same with everything. TV packages, Pharma, Mobile Phone contracts. People suddenly realised how much potential cash you could make from the games industry, and so a tonne of investors flocked to it with nothing in mind other than the growth of the business and potential money to be made. They have subsequently spent the last decade figuring just how far they're able to push customers until they're at a critical tipping point of losing growth in order to maximise profits. Shareholders and investors are very fleeting people. They'll come in, buy up cheap, relentlessly push for growth and profit, and then when the going gets tough they'll sell up at a profit and move elsewhere. They lose nothing, while the industry reels from the experience and has to build back up again.

The gaming industry was once very similar to the music industry, and has followed similar progression. It started off as independent, revolutionary, and widely enjoyed by everyone. Then publishers came in and started separating customers direct access to artists(developers). They took a cut, built up such a huge image for themselves that artsists felt like they had to join the conglomerate, and then subsequently stretched the industry to its limits. Control was partially wrested from them and people started going indie again, enjoying the freedom and while not making as much money, they're making it and dealing with happier and more loyal customers.

Shareholders and investors are a problem in every industry, because they have zero vested interest in a business besides profit, and they are generally self serving. Publishers aren't bad per se, it's when they sell their souls for investment that it becomes an issue.

Second question: an argument has been made to me that game companies have to run the way they do today in order to continue to stay in business and provide support for the game they created, because paying $60 for a game and getting the entire game like we did in the old days doesn't cut it anymore, because it costs more to make the games they make today than it did in those days. What do you say to this argument?

This is a blatant lie used by publishers to justify microtransactions and masses of DLC and season passes. They can and do make a profit on games at the $60 price point when they hit reasonable sales targets. If they do not, they are are bad at budgeting or their game sucked. They just want a slice of those whales. Hellblade is a AAA title priced at nearly half the so-called AAA price point, made masses of profit, looks gorgeous and was a labour of love for far longer than most AAA series-based games.

Grinding Gear Games' Path of Exile remains in profit. They churn out DLC and patches all year round since the game's launch. It's all free. They only charge for literally pointless cosmetic items like changing your helmet into a skull, your portal looks a bit fancier, or you get wings. They sell supportor packs, again, with cosmetics that have no affect on the game. How is it possible for a F2P title to make a profit when they sell nothing but worthless cosmetic items? Because it's a good game and people like to give them money. They don't even include loot crates, or a sub-currency you can buy for real money to then get a chance at cosmetics. They don't do that because it's a devious practice designed to make you more easily part with your money.

 

[FireFox]

Should games go back to the old days where you just bought the game and you got complete control over it?

I'd prefer that yes.

+1

Are you okay with microtransactions that could allow a level 1 player the same gear in game only naturally accessible to a level 100 player?

Disagree.

 

[StrayKAT]

It was inevitable, as more and more outsiders ran the industry. They're just doing what all garden variety salesman and marketing grads do. I could rant about how they're some of the biggest scum on earth, but that goes without saying.

In any case, I'd love it to go back to the old days, of course. But not by sacrificing AAA quality games. I have no idea how it can be done. Indie can already bypass all of this, but they also don't elevate the industry technically, in many ways. And some of that is loathesome in it's own right (indie is sometimes synonymous with pretentious hipster junk).

 

[_UV_]

I'm going to build 2 dedicated rigs to play old games from DOS/W98/WXP era, have a good stockpile of bought CDs and "junk" hardware. Leveling and grind: all i seen in past 5-7 years is what developers want you to dedicate ALL your time for a very little progression. I'm not ready to dedicate 4+ hours a day every day (well actually even 12 will not be sufficient for many modern games) instead of just playing for 2-3 hours twice a week. For latest and greatest AAAAAAAAAAA games i prefer YT gaming, if some of my favorite youtubers play it, and don't care about the rest: DLC, season pass, microscum, grind, DRM and other types of BS.

 

[lyndonguitar]

it costs more to make games but a lot of people are now into gaming more than ever. that's why we consistently break the records for most played game, most number of players, most earnings, most opening week sales, etc.

I would like it to return to the good old days of gaming. Battlefield 2 and Battlefront 2 were my favorite games. if you wanted to just have fun, you can even play with BOTS. and have fun owning them, roleplay, create your own scenarios. basically everything is playable except you are playing with bots instead of real players, it's like a sandbox mode... today those franchises are now online only. what a sad waste of potential, imagine the amount of mods, total conversions, fan fiction, machinima movies, we can get from Star Wars if Battlefront isn't so restrictive. It's a damn good looking game and they really went their way out doing everything from the maps, to the models, to the textures, it's very well made and accurate to the movies. sad to see it only getting used to earn more money through shitty multiplayer and lootbox schemes

I also don't see the logic in we need more money to keep running the servers. The game dies without servers yes but also it's their own doing because they god damn removed the ability to host servers without jumping through a bunch of hoops and also the BOTS, I need bots singleplayer. fuck campaigns.

 

[dorsetknob]

You Should be able to Play the Game you buy without paying extra like micro transactions
Download expansion packs is ok if they add to the Game like new levels
Pay to win is a no go
i expect to see More and more people will start to retro game

 

[Xzibit]

You Should be able to Play the Game you buy without paying extra like micro transactions
Download expansion packs is ok if they add to the Game like new levels
Pay to win is a no go
i expect to see More and more people will start to retro game

I retro game (Go outside) all the time.

 

[FreedomEclipse]

Long story short. G.R.E.E.D

thats all it is. Then you have puss filled tumors like ScientificRevenue that are born just to help publishers/developers fleece their customers.

Jim Sterling (Thank God for him) goes quite deep into explaining it

So far from EA's standpoint, Games take a lot of money to make so they need ingame microtransactions to boost or top up their revenue. EA also said that the Battle Front 2 would collapse if they turned off all the microtransactions. but the game is still working just fine without it, Its still P2W though without a doubt.

I dont doubt that games take more money to make but sadly the amount of money it costs to make a game doesnt match up to the actual content that the consumer should be receiving and ive always said that we as consumers are paying more for less. Multiplayer is just an excuse for them to make a half arsed effort of a game. Try to pass it off as a some posh juicy medium rare steak with all the trimmings when all it really is, is just non-palatable mushed up baby food.

publishers should knock the game back down to $10-30 then top up their revenue by adding their microtransactions.


A good example of a very successful F2P game is Warframe. Its F2P and has microtransactions but the system itself is done perfectly... You can either grind for parts to build things or you can straight up buy them from the shop and the grinding doesnt take forever either. EA Just seem to have lost all idea of what makes a great game. If not then they need to fight back control from investors who might have no idea how the game works or what it is and all they care about is getting their R.O.I back --- thats if EA are actually taking ideas from investors otherwise it seems that the Battlefield franchise is a runaway freight train.

But yes. long gone are the days when devs/publishers looked upon their fan/player base as a big community who loved their creations. We are just livestock with then burden of a heavy wallet being dragged along behind us.

 

[Xzibit]

Long story short. G.R.E.E.D

thats all it is. Then you have puss filled tumors like ScientificRevenue that are born just to help publishers/developers fleece their customers.

Racist & Sexist Scientific Revenue, Why are the lighter skin males being charged less.

 

[_UV_]

A good example of a very successful F2P game is Warframe. Its F2P and has microtransactions but the system itself is done perfectly... You can either grind for parts to build things or you can straight up buy them from the shop and the grinding doesnt take forever either.

Sure, microscum here set perfectly, you just can't play with friends for fun if not paying: you need slots because you need "characters" and different weapons and even upgrades now (hello raids/sorties), you may need some cosmetics (color pallets for example, cause some frames abilities locked to colors). And the game isn't popular anymore, every year devs punish players for having fun instead of grind: nerfs (they call it reworks), new resources (vet in same situation as a total newbee). Ok, you grind whole day to get resources to build something great new and after that you go to foundry to craft it and you need to pay or wait 1-7 days, and you need to level this stuff after crafting for another day just to get fun playing with friends for an hour. I have 2 accounts 4000 and 1000 hours INGAME time (doesn't count chat, trading, waiting for the rest in a party).

PS
Have no regrets about spending around 200$ in first 2 years, it WAS fun to play the game, i met some good friends IRL thanks to it. But now devs focused on moar money: want new shiny gun - np 5$ from ingame market (devs even trade clan research weapons now for non clan people), or 3-25$ (depends) from trade chat, wanna look COOL!!! - 5-10$ per skin through Steam (and you never get it with ingame premium currency which you may get through trade chat), need progression - 1-3$ for couple of slots (in over way you need to delete some great gear from the past, who cares it just cost you a few days to get it) + 1-3$ for immediate craft, etc

 

[Warrgarbl]

I think they make enough money already to develop new even greater games, even if we could buy the complete game for 60EU/$, there always be gamers to buy the games, they are just milking.

The point is that every gaming company is a profit-oriented enterprise. There is never enough money in that context. Creating games is not like creating art, there are clear financial motivations behind it and investors to appease that expect a return on investment. That being said I personally prefer indie games to AAA titles for that exact reason - indie game studies are often more into it for their vision / their creation, and less so for the profits.

 

[Vayra86]

The point is that every gaming company is a profit-oriented enterprise. There is never enough money in that context. Creating games is not like creating art, there are clear financial motivations behind it and investors to appease that expect a return on investment. That being said I personally prefer indie games to AAA titles for that exact reason - indie game studies are often more into it for their vision / their creation, and less so for the profits.

Nail on the head, except for 'every gaming company is a profit-oriented enterprise'. It takes bigger balls to say enough is enough in terms of profit and let the excess money flow towards the creative vision of developers. There are companies that do this, and they are successful. Another key aspect is consistency. For a good example: compare Blizzard with EA. In terms of service, support, patch history and overall game quality. Both big, old companies, but the latter is not consistent and follows the money over the gameplay. It shows that it can be done right and it shows that 'everyone can win'.

The idea that mindlessly following the biggest paycheck is the best way to do (big) business is a fallacy. I currently work at a company that has weathered every storm by doing the exact opposite, they've stuck to their ideals since day one and have grown to over 70k employees, starting with a mere two. Working in such an environment is really refreshing and kinda restores faith in humanity in some way. Can recommend

As for the current state of gaming: there is nothing that time, a few shitstorms on the internet and healthy competition won't fix. In fact, they're already fixing it, and this has made 2017 a record year in terms of game releases. Ironic, no?

 

[jboydgolfer]

This is why game developers are working their damnedest to move away from campaign content, in an effort to be solely multiplayer online-based content.

If you buy a game that is strictly single player campaign you get everything ( or the majority )all at once (except for DLC) which they've managed to figure out a way to finagle in a season pass BS thing... but mostly it's the lightest hit of the "ad-on franchise culture"

Then you get games like battle field which have the worst campaign ever ,and clearly the developers did that for a reason ...they just put a placeholder story that's playable for an hour or two ,and the other 98% of their focus is on multiplayer which they spread out over two or three years ...

I think that once the older generation of gamers dies out (meaning when we get old enough to stop caring about games) they'll have it made, because they won't have a consumer base that remembers when you could just buy a game and that was it ...the transaction was complete, it wasn't a 4 year financial relationship with a game company. they just need to placate the remaining Original gamer generation for a little longer, & then, its a no internet = no gaming reality.

bethesda
Rockstar
are a few that still put work into their offline content....for that they have my thanks. EA can eat my $h!t

 

[PLAfiller]

Things got more complicated from the time yo spent $60 on a game and be done with it. Or at least it looks this way to me. You have to account for :

- type/ genre of the game.
- mobile gaming
- the advent of APPs and freeware/shareware/ open source
- complexity of the games : people want photo-realistic textures, 3D motion capture, professional voice actors, amazing sound track, engaging script...etc.etc..the production values have grown into the wild. The amount of concept artwork that is going into the trash is just insane.

For e-sports you can get way with one time purchase like Starcraft, but for mobile gaming, people want to try first. This means you always have to release some part of the game for free. You must be able to monetize somehow later on. Personally, games that require too much grind or pressure real hard for cash don't last long. Unless there is something absolutely exclusive they can give you and you want.

 

[StrayKAT]

Nail on the head, except for 'every gaming company is a profit-oriented enterprise'. It takes bigger balls to say enough is enough in terms of profit and let the excess money flow towards the creative vision of developers. There are companies that do this, and they are successful. Another key aspect is consistency. For a good example: compare Blizzard with EA. In terms of service, support, patch history and overall game quality. Both big, old companies, but the latter is not consistent and follows the money over the gameplay. It shows that it can be done right and it shows that 'everyone can win'.

The idea that mindlessly following the biggest paycheck is the best way to do (big) business is a fallacy. I currently work at a company that has weathered every storm by doing the exact opposite, they've stuck to their ideals since day one and have grown to over 70k employees, starting with a mere two. Working in such an environment is really refreshing and kinda restores faith in humanity in some way. Can recommend

As for the current state of gaming: there is nothing that time, a few shitstorms on the internet and healthy competition won't fix. In fact, they're already fixing it, and this has made 2017 a record year in terms of game releases. Ironic, no?

I think Bethesda (or is it Zenimax?) is also like Blizzard. Not everything they do is great, but most is fairly solid (I mean, everything from Beth studios stuff to Id stuff). Definitely not the same as EA at least. They even manage to make a majority of single player oriented games.

 

[Vayra86]

I think Bethesda (or is it Zenimax?) is also like Blizzard. Not everything they do is great, but most is fairly solid (I mean, everything from Beth studios stuff to Id stuff). Definitely not the same as EA at least.

If you discount their endless re-release of the same stuff that STILL doesn't really play smoothly without mods (TES) then yes, they're pretty solid. I think its safer to say that Bethesda has an understanding of what gamers want and manages to give it.

Keep in mind that they needed the Legendary Edition for Skyrim to get it right... and even still, you want that community patch on top. As far as quality, bug free releases go, they don't score points.

Another stingy little thing was that brainfart about paid mods they launched at some point.

EDIT: Yeah Im a ninja editor too sorry

 

[StrayKAT]

If you discount their endless re-release of the same stuff that STILL doesn't really play smoothly without mods (TES) then yes, they're pretty solid. I think its safer to say that Bethesda has an understanding of what gamers want and manages to give it.

I just made a ninja edit, but what I added is they also manage to be a giant while also mostly making single player games (thank God).