Spider
-
Posts
2171 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Spider
-
-
As an aside, someone asked how much more Troika got from ToEE from the DD versions. The answer would be (almost certainly) zippo. ToEE isn't Troika's IP and the developer doesn't usually make any royalties until the development costs and a further profit margin are "repaid" to the publisher. There's little chance ToEE made the breakeven, so they would have seen nothing extra.
That someone would have been me. I guess ToEE was a bad example since it sold so little, I used it because it was a game I knew was sold online at retail price and because it ties somewhat to the topic. Although what I was curious about could still be answered with that example, so let me rephrase the question.
I am aware that before Troika would see even a penny, their share of a game's profits would have to exceed the money the publisher had already fronted. Now, when a game is sold through retail, that typically means $3 per game, and a certain percentage gets eaten by distribution costs and the store getting it's due. Now, for those copies of ToEE sold online, that percentage was removed or at least lowered. So does that mean that Troika's share of each game sold (to be counted against the production costs) increased or did they still only get $3 per game?
Or in other words, would ToEE have needed to sell less copies before Troika saw any cash if it had sold more through DD?
What I'm getting at here is will DD truly benefit developers that much, since they will still be reliant on publishers for funding. A mainstream title will still cost $5-10 million to make and that money still needs to be invested before a single copy is sold.
-
I care if I can not read the bloody thing. Text towards the left I can not read and there is no bottom scroll bar.
It works just fine on 1024x768 which is the standard resolution these days. And when I resized to 800x600 it was indeed too big, but there was horizontal scrolling. I dont know how you manged to disable it, but in FF it worked just fine.
-
If the physical game sells for $50, sell the online one for $45. That way people feel they are being reimbursed for the lack of physical materials and it makes DD a much more viable choice. They are still increasing their profit-margins with something like $10 so it's a win-win situation.
According to Sawyer and McCarty $10,- is way too small a thought... they even save that on not having a retailer that sells the game remember...
Actually, when coming up with those numbers all I did was removing the production costs and retailers percentage. I did not factor in cutting out publishers since there will still be a need for them. And I didn't factor in distribution costs because I don't know what they are and I don't know how they compare to the costs for online distribution. There are still costs associated with that distribution method, although they should be lower. Regardless, I think my numbers hold up fairly well, but it should say at least in front of the amount.
The reasoning behind it is still sound.
-
snip
I think this post sums up pretty well while I think DD games should be cheaper than their physical counterparts. It's not that I personally particularly care about the CD or manual, but a lot of people do. And reducing costs in such a blatant way without it benefiting the consumer is just bad marketing strategy, especially when you're increasing your margins a lot more than most people realize.
If the physical game sells for $50, sell the online one for $45. That way people feel they are being reimbursed for the lack of physical materials and it makes DD a much more viable choice. They are still increasing their profit-margins with something like $10 so it's a win-win situation.
Games created directly for DD is another story all together, but if they come from an indie-developer they're probably going to have to have a lower price point since the quality is, in the public eye, more questionable.
I am personally all for DD, and not only games but other media as well, and I definitely see it as the future. I just don't think that the developers (and in a lot of cases publishers since someone still needs to fund games) are the only ones that should benefit from increaced profit margins. I don't think they should split the difference, but I do think they need to lower the price since people will complain about the missing physical components.
On a different note:
(BTW, does anyone else despise the .pdf format entirely? of all text formats, it's by far the most annoying one out there, IMO).You're thinking of it wrong. PDF isn't a text-format, it's more an image-format. It servesa single function and it does it excellently. That function is to provide a way to distribute a document with all layouts intact to any given computer. What you basically do when creating a PDF document is taking a snapshot of the page. Not everyone have Word (it's still an expensive piece of software) and viewing the most graphic intense PDF documents in that program would be much more bothersome.
(and yes, I'm aware that openoffice.org is a free program that can open .doc files, but it still doesn't solve the other issue)
PDF is way overused on the internet though. If a document is published for offline use, then it's fine to have it as a PDF, but a lot of the time not making it into html is just laziness. When it comes to distributing game manuals however, there currently is no better format (at least not that I know of).
Edit:
and I WOULD rather the developers get the additional money.One thing though. When we're talking about games that are sold through a publisher AND through DD. How much more does the developer actually get in those cases? Sure, for HL2 I'm guessing Valve gets a lot more since they financed the game themselves (I think), but did Troika get a significantly higher percentage of the ToEE online sales?
-
David Kunkler
Se
-
Your expectations may seem reasonable, but they completely go against economics. Even if there is concern about retailers not stocking a game because it is cheaper, it's still a pipe dream to assume that any business is not going to try to maximize its profits. I suspect that few, if any, of us on these boards would willingly sell a product they made at a cost that they knew would get them less money in return. The only exceptions would be some form of altruism or charity, but even then that decision is still made to maximize your "gain" from the sale.
It depends on how many people feel like me. If a large enough percentage does, then it does warrant a price reduction. The thing here is that it's such a blatantly obvious cost reduction that people can't help but be aware of it. Sure, most people may not know (or care) that a lot of middle men are being cut out of the picture, but people will recognize that there is nothing physically produced.
What I suspect will happen is a more varied price range. Not every game is created equal and therefor shouldn't be priced as such. A game like Oblivion is (for me) definitely worth $50, while ten hours of Gun should probably have costed less. Similarly, indie productions will probably be cheaper than mainstream productions, the game we're actually discussing here had a $30 price tag associated with it, if memory serves.
Actually, what I REALLY think will happen is that when some larger developers will try to push online distribution for real, the price will be somewhat lower just to get people used to the distribution model. Then once physical copies are no longer an issue they will probably creep back up again.
-
Nor is there a guarantee you'll find a new copy from a company that has gone out of business...
-
So, it becomes the purchaser's responsibility to put the game on disc when it should have been on the disc to begin with when one buys the game. Sounds lame. I did DD once and that is it. It is the lamest idea ever.
Since my edit probably went unnoticed due to the speed this thread is moving at, here is a (sort of) repost:
If you break your IWD CD how do you plan on re-installing that game?
-
Of course! There are NO OTHER COSTS! The company doesn't have any expenses, liabilities, and no equity to repay. They just turned up and had a brand new game with 35 GotY awards. Your wet finger-in-the-air figures are as rubbery as a super-ball.
Oh come on, this is not what he meant and you know it. Each game sold makes the company $20 once moving costs are deducted. The only fault here is that server costs aren't exactly a moving cost, unless they pay soly for the bandwidth. He acknowledges in the next part you quoted that a game needs to sell a certain number of copies before turning a profit. It's just easier to do the math if you deduct the moving costs first.
Just to clarify why your points sound like the rabid rantings of a hospital inmate: Half-Life 2:Episode 1 is available for pre-load (i.e. pull the download off-peak at the end-users' convenience) and pre-purchase for 10% discount.And if I don't want to pre-purchase, but would rather wait a few days to read reviews to see if it's actually worth getting at all, do I still get the discount? Isn't this just an attempt to lower server stress once it goes online? Sure, a discount is a discount, but even so this is actually beside the point. Since the discount is an incentive to pre-order, not a reflection of lowered costs for the consumer due to it being downloadable content. Will Episode 1 even have a physical counterpart?
Why would developers charge less for direct download than retailers charge in stores? They develop a game in order to sell it and to make money. If market conditions show that $50 is the optimum price for developer profits, then they will charge that. It's mainly for people that are just too lazy to go to the store, or who are just fascinated by their high speed connection.I'm neither to lazy to go to the store or just fascinated by my high speed connection. I just prefer digital media over physical for a lot of reasons. Game boxes and cds makes my desk messy and from an evironmental perspective it's also very wasteful. But it's mainly the mess part.
However, these arguments have no relevance to games that are not available in stores. Direct download isn't helpful for developers to save money that they then pass onto the consumers. It's helpful for them to maximize profits. Why would they then give those profits to consumers when consumers are willing to pay them the price they want?But that's just it. I'm not willing to pay the price they want, and apparently neither is HH. Again, if my actions help a developer to make more money, I expect some reward for it as well. If by downloading a game I reduce costs for packaging and distribution, I expect to see my price lowered as well. And this doesn't at all take into account the fact that the game developer may not even be reliant on a publisher that takes a large percentage of the profits which they otherwise would have been.
But let's use the numbers McCarthy himself posted. When using a publisher, a developer will get $3 per game sold. If releasing through Steam at the same price they get $50 (remember, Steam is free if you license Source). So through my actions I am making $47 for that developer. I don't see why the developer is the only one who should benefit from this, especially since I don't get a physical copy in my hand (although I prefer digital copies, a physical one does represent money spent on the physical material).
I know the argumentation doesn't quite hold up since the Steam model will allow for the creation of games that would otherwise never see the light of day, band a game that caters to my exact interests is of course worth paying more for than other games. And also, the need for a publisher will still exist since someone has to pay for the making of a game and that model assumes the publisher is bypassed entirely. But the core of it remains.
Edit:
How would you instal the game on another PC if heir servers are down?Since he said if his house was swalloved by a volcano... How would a guy with only the physical copy install the game on another PC at all?
-
Israel, that is considered one of the best trained armies in the world, has compulsory draft for all men and women (alright not ALL, there are exceptions, but most). They seem to be doing fine.
Of course, the women only have two years of mandatory conscription where the men has three, but still.
-
Don't know, haven't bought them (too expensive; not enough content). But I do know it is raining complains of people who cannot install these things after paying for them...
Too expensive? $2 isn't exactly that much. I'll admit that the horse armor mod is pretty crap, but the other two at least seem interesting. I may even get the orrery one myself (not playing enough of amagic user to have much use of the other one).
-
You still didn't answer the question I ask. how is it more work downloading a game than going to a store and buying it?
If it would just work none at all...
But certain copy protection and security things can really mess it up (see Oblivion).
Also that is from a POV that is timedependant it probably is easier to go to retail. Getting downtown, buying a game and being home in 15 min, install 5 min and you game in 20 min (2 DVD's). See that happen with a internet connection over here...
Ah, but I'm in Sweden. We have good connections. It'd take me 30 minutes to get to the closest gaming store and back if I'm lucky with public transports and I'd definitely download a game in less than that (again, assuming their upload matches my capacity for downloading). People on crappy DSL-lines aren't exactly the target audience for downloadable games.
As for messy copy protections, that can happen with physical copies as well. There are plenty of people that haven't been able to play their physical copies due to copy protection. How does Oblivion's (online protection) work though? Considering they had virtually no protection on the retail version (at least no name protection like Starforce or Securom).
-
I actually forgot to mention Oblivion's AWESUM online deals. But this post reminded me to them again.
Both on price and why downloading can screw ya is inside this Oblivion "Plugins" debacle...
You still didn't answer the question I ask. how is it more work downloading a game than going to a store and buying it?
As for the pricing, Dhruin already answered that question in a previous reply to me. Apparently retailers refuse to sell games if a publisher/developer is selling the game cheaper through DD. I'm guessing this is large chains like EBGames or Walmart. Physical sales is still by far the largest percentage so not having your game on the shelves is a bad thing.
(remember here that I actually agree with you on the pricing, a DD game should be cheaper than a physical copy).
Edit: Also, this company is hardly Troika. It's one guy from Troika starting his own company. maybe a few of the Troika fellows are with him, but I've seen no mention of the more well known ones. He was an artist on ToEE so I don't think he had much to do with the crappy code in that game (nor did he have that much to do with VtM)
-
I didnt read the 2nd page of this thread but the man with the tattoos is the "shadow king" isnt he?
I thought the Shadow King was the guy that became all shadowy a few times.
-
especially since you're going to a little more trouble to download
While I agree with most of your post, this I just don't understand. How is it more trouble downloading a game than going down to a store? Granted, my internet connection is good enough that going to a store and back will take longer than just dowloading (at least if the upload server manages to meet my capacity). But even besides that, getting a game without having to leave your home is more trouble how?
-
The pricing often isn't $50 for DD - have a look at the games available. Where the game is also a retail product, the price is often mandated by the retailers -- they will refuse to stock a game if the developer is selling it directly at a discounted price. I understand that isn't a perfect situation but it isn't easy to fix.
Sorry for being a bit unclear. I am aware that a lot of games aren't sold for $50 through DD. But there are those that are and that's what I was reflecting over. I do buy the retail explanation, but I still think it's dumb (but I can udnerstand the retailers position on this).
You certainly don't need to use Source to sell via Steam - again, have a look at the titles. McCarthy is saying you get free distribution on Steam if you use Source. Many others already use it - but they pay some percentage fee or whatever.Cool, I didn't know this. I guess I just misinterpreted him then, and looking back on it it was rather clumsy of me
. All the better really, one case where I don't mind being wrong. -
I can see why direct downloads would benefit developers... but I still want my games on CD (or DVD)
What would be nice is if they allowed you to download it as a single extractable file and then include a registration key of some kind to prevent piracy.
That way I could back the file up, and still be happy with a hard copy just in case something goes wrong.
From what I can tell, most DD solutions already work like this. Steam does (although if Steam requires you to authenticate through their servers when re-installing something could get problematic) and the Galactic Civilizations II version also allows this. Companies do realize that people are paranoid and will be forced to design their service after that fact.
Then explain why most online downloads ALSO cost $50,-If I have to choose 50,- for a digital copy (+$ downnloading, +$ for a disk) VS. 50,- in a shop (already on disk, with box, hopefully with manual and NOT pdf...) I will easily pick the shop-one...
This is a reasonable question and one I've been asking myself. I think it's very odd to ask customers to pay for expenses that no longer exists. Sure, the developer gets more money, but by going the way of DD they already do that. I have the same problem when I buy a physical copy from the publisher's website. I get charged the full price and that of shipping. Which means they simply get to pocket the retailers share. If my actions are causing a company to save money, I expect to save money myself in the process, otherwise what is the point?
My largest problems with the Steam-model is that through the interview I understand that in order to use Steam, you must also use the Source engine. Even if the Source engine is very customizable and excellent in every way, I'm not sure I like the thought of so many games using the same engine. But time will tell when it comes to that.
((this also explains why Steam can be free of charge, since you have to pay to use Source, and I guess the contract for that includes the right to use Steam)
And by the way, a counter to the argument about what happens if the server goes down, is what happens if your CD gets scratched and the company goes out of business? How do you go about replacing your IWD cds for instance?
-
Also worth mentioning about Nexus is that it comes with full pause-and-play capabilities so there is no twitch involved at all.
-
Replay value? Not that I've actually replayed either, but I'd have to go with Freelancer. The comparison is wildly unfair though, since Space Rangers takes much longer to complete the first time (at least it did for me). Although by the time I did finish it, it felt like I had gotten the most of what the game had to offer out of it, so I don't think I'll be playing it again anytime soon (and I felt the game became a bit repetetive at the end).
Which is the better game overall is hard to say though. I really liked Freelancer in the beginning, but the second half it became a linear mess and thus lost part of what made it good. Space Rangers stuck to it's guns all the way through and the game deserves credit for that.
In the end I'd probably recommend Freelancer, but it's tight and depends a little on what you want to get out of the game. You should also take a look at Nexus: The Jupiter Incident, that was a really good game.
-
I'm a lot more negative than people in general it seems. I'm expecting 20-25 hours doing every sidequest I can find.
I hope I'm wrong though.
-
At any rate, I'll be sending out more emails/snail mails today.
While I applaud your efforts, I fear that they are going to be in vain. The gaming press isn't exactly the most objective. Most gaming sites are too dependant on good will from the publishers (review copies, invitations to press events) to be asking questions this uncomfortable.
(not that I really consider this an uncomfortable question, but apparently Feargus does or we'd have an answer already)
I may be a bit cynical, but I don't exactly have faith in the gaming sites and magazines when it comes to digging.
-
Nah, seperate entities. Jessica(?) must have been the one that did the "Wahey there!" things on the main BIS page. KK took over after she left or whatever. Don't remember what her original job was there.
KK was the web admin and designer for Interplay. Jessica was the designer for BIS.
-
I had heard that they were sitting on it as well, but I'm surprised that Troika was unable to work on it anyways, since it was clearly not fully polished. And it's not like they had much else to work on either, as their Post-Apoc idea had no takers. I'm curious what Troika did in that time. It's possible many employees were let go for cost reasons, but if the employees are there and already getting paid, why not have them continue polishing the game for another few months?
I really don't know either. But it's possible they were so sure they'd get to make the Post-Apoc game that they poured all their resources into that since they weren't getting paid to work on Bloodlines anyway. The Post-Apoc game was supposed to be FO3 after all, until Bethesda snagged the license. Or maybe they had to let a lot of people go once Bloodlines was done and didn't have the manpower to work on it. Or maybe Activision simply wouldn't let them ("We have the gold master we need and we want to be able to go into production with a days notice"). Or maybe my speculation is way off base and they did work on the game up until the release date.
I was never shown that the idea they were sitting on it was anything more than speculation though.Agreed and for a while I discarded that as unprovable myself. But there are so many things that just don't add up in that case. I'm pretty sure that the info that dev time was cut short came from a Troika dev, or at least someone with good enough insight to be reliable to me. And the first (at least semi-)official release date given was May.
And so many people have said that Activision was sitting on it. Spread a rumor far enough and it becomes true.
But in the end it's all speculation and the only people who truly know aren't likely to tell us. And in the end, it probably doesn't really matter anyway.
On-topic: As for the actual topic at hand, I've got to say I'm with Gromnir. I think we (meaning we as consumers, not board geeks) deserve to know what we're expected to spend our money on. But I'm not sure getting that information now is going to be much help. As long as there is an official estimate by the time the game gets released I'm content.
(to use the knife analogy, before the set goes into production they could still add or remove a knife, so it doesn't matter before they hit retail)
How long does a crpg need to be for me to consider it worth $50? It's hard to say I guess. But I think 20 hours is too short. I thought Bloodlines and KotOR had it down pretty well, which means 35-40 hours. If it starts getting shorter than that, then I'll probably stay away. Although in the case of NWN2, there is also the toolset to consider. It's not why I'll be getting the game, but it's still a huge part of it and something that a lot of dev hours have been spent on. So yeah, the toolset does make up for some of it. So if those are 20 brilliant hours I may be interested. But they'd better be bloody amazing.
Then again, I'm one of those people who are amazed by the sheer size of Oblivion. I've been playing for 100+ hours and I am nowhere near done with it yet. I've done basically all the quests I've found except the main one and a few others that don't fit my character. Currently I'm dungeon crawling like crazy and I'm loving that as well. On the other hand I wouldn't really classify Oblivion as a RPG either (although I can see why people do and it is a RPG-Sandbox hybrid I guess). So length does matter and average content can be improved upon if there is simply a lot of it. Oblivion as a 40 hour game wouldn't have been the same.
-
Tell me, you are the one who knew ALL about Vampire and it's use of Source... And yes, Vampire was done when the leak occured and had to be delayed since Valve wanted HL2 to be the first Sourcegame
In regards to Vampire not being finished, this is what I've been able to piece together from reading various message boards and interviews. Nothing is confirmed, but it makes sense.
I'm not sure that Vampire was done when the leak occured (iirc that was a year before actual release) but I am fairly certain that Vampire was completed from Troika's side quite some time before actual release.
Someone mentioned that when WW announced they were ending the World of Darkness, Activision got cold feet and wanted to cancel the game altogether, but Troika managed to convince them to allow development to continue, although with six months cut from the development schedule. This is why the last part of the game turns into a hackfest that really doesn't fit well with the rest of the game. There was plans for the end game to be more involved, but it simply wasn't possible.
So that is why the game shipped with a poor endgame and loads of bugs. The consensus (on the various places I visited) was that the game was out of Troika's hands in May the year of release and then just sitting on a shelf waiting for Valve to wrap up Half-Life 2.
So why did it just sit there for an extensive period of time when bugs could have been fixed? Why does anything ever happen in the corporate world? Money. Activision didn't have any faith in the game anymore and they definitely weren't going to spend another dollar on it. And Troika obviously didn't have the resources to do it on their own.
Again, this is only speculation, but from my perspective it seems very likely.
. All the better really, one case where I don't mind being wrong.
BREAKING NEWS: EX-TROIKA CRPG IN MAKING
in Computer and Console
Posted
Actually, ToEE was my example and a way to figure out how beneficial DD would be for a developer that is still dependant on a publisher. The argument that DD benefits developers greatly have, so far, been focused on developers circumventing publishers altogether. I was just trying to get another perspective into it.
Actually, in a lot of places in the US, distances can be fairly large. Cities spread out much further from the city core than they do in Europe, at least where I've been. In many places a car is almost mandatory if you're going anywhere (but it being such a large country, this isn't an absolute truth).