Is $4M enough?

[Veeno]

I have read several articles that were written lately about the crowd funding success of PE, and in a few of them they have interviewed an industry "expert", "insider", or "analyst". The message that these people seem to convey is that while the funding campaigns were exciting and successful, "true" Triple A titles often have budgets of $20M+ and they don't really see this new form of funding as a significant paradigm change in Video game production.

 

I've just realised another incredibly obvious reason why this argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

They're saying that you could never achieve a budget such as 20 million dollars via crowdfunding.

 

On the other hand, they invest 20+ million dollars in the development of a game and expect to get more than that amount of money back from the sales of the game (and they usually do).

 

Where does that money they get back come from?

 

From the players, of course - those same ones who participate in crowdfunding.

 

If they invest 20+ million dollars into a game and expect to get even MORE than that back from the players, how can they claim that those same players could never give that amount of money directly to the developer?

[Monte Carlo]

I remember Fallout 3 being advertised in the UK on bus-stops, trains, the Underground...

 

Fallout.

 

I always thought of it as edgy and subversive and there it was with what must have been a serious marketing budget. Since then we've got Skyrim TV ads (IIRC Dragon Age had one too) and Borderlands 2 sponsors TV shows.

 

So AAA titles are in the advertising mainstream and PE won't be. It will be interesting to see what clever marketing ploys, that ain't eye-wateringly expensive, Obs comes up with.

[Infinitron]

Something I've been wondering is:

 

How much did BGII or IWD cost to make? I understand times are different, as is the economy, as is technology, but I am curious how comparable the budget for those games and P:E are.

 

I'm curious about this too. It would give a general idea of how much PE could potentially cost to make, and could alleviate any fears about how far the $4 million raised from Kickstarter can be stretched.

 

The Baldur's Gate games had budgets of around 4-5 million dollars. Icewind Dale was probably cheaper. Not sure about Torment.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Infinitron

[Keyrock]

Strip away the bells and whistles of full high quality voice acting, physics effects, and numerous high quality cutscenes, and the budget of a game shrinks drastically. If you're looking for a game with gorgeous cinematics and top-tier voice acting, like Mass Effect or The Witcher 2, this ain't it and 4 million would not be nearly enough. This game is going to be somewhat stripped down in terms of bling, but deep in terms of gameplay, tactics, and story. For that, and in the hands of a group of veteran, seasoned developers, 4 million should be plenty.

[FlintlockJazz]

I believe BG2 cost around $5 million at least I recall reading somewhere. While that would be more nowadays since they won't be using cutting edge technology and the like hopefully the costs of things will have gone down substantially and these guys are alot more experienced and organised than they used to be, so maybe they'll be able to do more with less?

[Calmar]

They wanted 1,1 million $ to make a great game, now they have about 3 milions more that that. To me, there is not the slightest reason for doubt.

[vv221]

"AAA" is an empty term : big budget doesn't mean great game !

I'm sure this $4M title will be far better than a lot (most? (all?)) of $20M titles from the last years...

Edited October 19, 2012 by vv221

[AwesomeOcelot]

Today's AAA (I hate that term) titles mean sinking the budget into voice actors (including celebrities that cost way more than they're worth), an army of artists (making a game like Crysis 2, Gears of War 3, God of War 3 requires a lot of artists, that are also technically minded), and motion capture that requires a hell of a lot of studio time (and pure motion capture is terrible for games, so animators still have to work just as hard). The sad thing is these either make it hard to make good game play or they take resources away from it.

 

My favourite games in recent years have been made by small teams and they're not considered AAA. Stacking might be my favourite Adventure game. Braid, Super Meat Boy, and Trine 2 are my top 3 favourite 2D platformers (and I've been playing 2D platformers for a long time). Bastion is up there against any AAA action RPG. Rock of Ages and Orcs Must Die are incredible games, branching out in different directions from the other games in their genre. I don't understand the focus on AAA games.

[Stun]

Depending on your definition of *triple A*

Indeed. Is there even an officially recognized definition of "triple A title"?

 

I always just assumed that the term meant high budget, which would make the topic question redundant. I don't think anyone here questions the fact that PE is, by definition, a low budget game. But that's rarely ever a deciding factor of quality or length in the first place. So we, as players, shouldn't really care how much the game costs to develop. I'm willing to bet PE will turn out more polished and more content-rich than the vast majority of today's "triple A titles".

Edited October 19, 2012 by Stun

[Eternitude]

If they invest 20+ million dollars into a game and expect to get even MORE than that back from the players, how can they claim that those same players could never give that amount of money directly to the developer?

 

Exactly! That's why I got irritated and considered them just fearful and resistant to the idea that crowdfunding *could* change video game development profoundly. The "middlemen" are probably going out of their minds right now considering the implications.

 

Also Veeno, you hit the nail on the head! Who's to say as crowdfunding gains popularity and acceptance that it could not achieve funding of $20M, $30M, $40M and beyond?

Edited October 19, 2012 by Eternitude

[Veeno]

Also Veeno, you hit the nail on the head!

 

As I usually do when logical argumentation is required - in fact, that's more or less what I get taught at uni.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

is $4M really enough to deliver a Triple A gaming experience?

Of course not. This is the sort of thing that worries me about Kickstarters, in that I worry a lot of backers really have no idea what they're putting money into. Kickstarter's usual audience is generally fully aware of the risks, but when you put links up on Kotaku and IGN and everywhere else...how many people give money without really knowing what they're being promised?

 

If they invest 20+ million dollars into a game and expect to get even MORE than that back from the players, how can they claim that those same players could never give that amount of money directly to the developer?

Because the number of people willing to give $60 now on a pipe dream and wait for a AAA dev cycle(2-4 years) is MUCH smaller than the number of people willing to:

 

-Pre order up to maybe a couple months ahead, after being able to see finished game footage

-Buy on release day

-Buy after professional reviews

-Buy after customer reviews

-Buy after renting

-Buy when the price goes down a few months later

-Buy as part of a package deal 2 years later

 

Also, you're conflating two sets of people. $20 million games are being sold to "Joe Walmart". Joe Walmart doesn't follow game blogs, he doesn't follow publishers or developers, he doesn't know what a Kickstarter is, and he looks at the video game aisle and picks up a game because "this one looks cool I guess". There is nothing wrong with this kind of consumerism, but you won't see this person pay the same $60 for some weird high-concept thing two years out as he is for Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.

 

$20 million games are $20 million games because that many people are willing to play them. Kickstarter works because there is a smaller niche of people who are dedicated to certain ideas who are NOT getting something they want and so they're willing to pay for it because they believe on a high-concept level. These are not "the same" players as those of the $20 million game. SOME of them will buy the $20 million game, and they'll make up a small dedicated portion of that fanbase, but there's far less overlap than you're giving it credit for. If a Kickstarter game stops being high concept niche stuff and actually is wide market enough to bring in $20 million.....

 

...it's no longer a small niche thing, and the small dedicated audience aspect that makes Kickstarters work just sort of fall apart. Joe Walmart has dozens of games made for him every single year. He has no incentive whatsoever to pay now for something in two years when EA, Activision, and THQ just released 15 games he can't wait to pick up NOW.

 

Another example: Super Meat Boy was considered a huge success in the Indie space. It took until over a year after its release to make $1 million dollars. We're talking completely different scales here.

[Rahelron]

No, it isn't.

 

Depending on your definition of *triple A*

 

This game won't have a big marketing budget, complete voice overs, cinematic cutscenes or state-of-the-art graphics.

 

I will however have lots of quality content.

 

You are right. What makes me happy is that we menaged to fund every single feature they (and we) wanted to include. If cutscenes and complete voice overs had been a stretchgoal it would have been something north 10 million dollars, too far for any kickstarter project, at least in year 2012. So we don't have to regret not being able to fund other 200-500k dollars: it would have changed nothing.

[zhen]

My twopence:

 

AAA doesn't mean 'actor voice', we can live without them.

 

The game is already sold (I bought I copy, like ~70K persons), they [obsidian] don't need to show it on TV.

 

From that, all the money they get is benefit. Lucky us if they use to make a strong company. And them they put milliards job offers :D

[Piccolo]

$4m is more than enough to make a great RPG. As the budget goes higher and higher, so does the potential to make the game worse and worse with detrimental ****e like voice acting, cinematics, fancy animations, mainstream attention through advertising, etc.

[AlphaShard]

How much did it cost to make the BG, IWD and PS:t games ? I think that is the budget we need to compare.

[Ignatius]

Well, you ask if 4 million is enough. Yet their original goal was a measly 1.1m. Either they based this on past experience/expectations of cost or they're just plain stupid.

 

Umm, going with the former here.

 

Or maybe their intention all along was to deliver 1/20th of a gaming experience. Well, at least we get 4/20ths now!

 

(I'm bad at fractions.)

Edited October 19, 2012 by Ignatius

[Veeno]

<snip>

 

My point still stands.

 

Them getting 20+ millions of dollars from sales proves that it's far from impossible to achieve the same amount of budget through crowdfunding.

 

All it takes is for Kickstarter and crowdfunding in general to become more popular and for the awareness about it and its advantages to spread even more.

 

Besides, buying a game after it's released is also always a certain leap of faith - you cannot (legally) "give the game a test ride" before you buy it. No, demos don't count - you have no idea what sort of crap might be cut out in the demo and what the material not present in it is like.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Veeno

[Infinitron]

The reason game budgets today are so high isn't exactly because of "cutscenes". Games in the 90's had amazing pre-rendered cutscenes too and they didn't break the bank.

 

The thing is, today's games, in terms of graphic fidelity and detail, basically ARE cutscenes. They require armies of artists and level designers tweaking every little thing, iterating and re-iterating, making sure everything looks, feels and works perfectly.

 

The budgets are high because there are a lot of salaries to pay. It's not the technology itself that is inherently expensive.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Infinitron

[simon_templar]

 

From the players, of course - those same ones who participate in crowdfunding.

 

If they invest 20+ million dollars into a game and expect to get even MORE than that back from the players, how can they claim that those same players could never give that amount of money directly to the developer?

 

Because games from kickstarter are made to measure, there is a risk that we would say "best game played in my life", and the game wouldn't be hit on market.

 

In addition we pay cash before we got game, before game is developed. I think they really don't believe that someone would paid for their crap.

[HungryHungryOuroboros]

<snip>

 

My point still stands.

 

Them getting 20+ millions of dollars from sales proves that it's far from impossible to achieve the same amount of budget through crowdfunding.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even come close to even implying that, let alone proving it.

 

Being able to make more than $20 million by selling a finished, mainstream product through major retail channels only proves that you can make more than $20 million by selling a completed, mainstream product through major retail channels.

 

It does NOT prove, or imply, or even hint that these same people would give anything close to that under entirely different circumstances. All it lets us know is that they are willing to buy finished games at Wal-Mart.

 

Besides, buying a game after it's released is also always a certain leap of faith - you cannot (legally) "give the game a test ride" before you buy it. No, demos don't count - you have no idea what sort of crap might be cut out in the demo and what the material not present in it is like.

Risk reduction on a finished game is a lot easier. The modern gamer has:

 

-Professional Reviews

-Review Aggregators

-Customer reviews from either aggregators or online outlets

-Rentals

-Playing the game at a friend's place

-Screenshots

-Lets Plays

-Forum threads dissecting every little issue from the perspective of whatever niche you belong to

-Word of mouth from people who are actually playing the game right now

-The knowledge that the game is sitting on a shelf in Wal-Marts everywhere and as such has no chance of not being made if the company goes under financially

[AwesomeOcelot]

Another example: Super Meat Boy was considered a huge success in the Indie space. It took until over a year after its release to make $1 million dollars. We're talking completely different scales here.

 

Wikipedia is saying it sold 140,000 copies just on Xbox Live for $10-15 in a period of about 2 months and 10 days. Four months after that it had sold well over triple that. This is an incredibly hard game for people not familiar with 2D platformers, that's about 6 hours long, it's really niche.

[Shadeling]

"Celebrity voice actors who cost way more than they're worth..."    

 

So true! I'd love to know just how much sales are affected for the Todd Howard era Elderscrolls with the big budget actors he has to hire. So much money paid to well known actors that the average gamer couldn't care less about. As long as the acting is good and believable, that's all that matters. I just really doubt that the celebrity marquee of a videogame matters all that much as far as sales go.

[Stun]

How much did it cost to make the BG, IWD and PS:t games ? I think that is the budget we need to compare.

It's surprizingly hard to find an accurate answer to this question. I've been trying to google it for a while now and I'm coming up with nada.

 

My gut's telling me that those games couldn't have cost much more than $4 million to make though. And Unlike Project Eternity, those games had whole groups of middlemen that had to be paid their due. (Atari, WoTC, Hasbro etc.)

Edited October 19, 2012 by Stun

[Tigranes]

Fallout 1 cost 3 million, but a large proportion of that went to talking heads, which were technologically very challenging at the time.

 

The IE games - I forget what the figures were, one of them had a 5 million budget. Factor in the cost reduction with technological improvement over time, but also inflation in currency, and basically, we're looking at the kind of budget that was enough to produce BG1 or FO1, but not BG2 (which remains a very unique game scope-wise).