Re: RPGs, audiences, publishers, mass markets and everything between earth and sky.

[jarpie]

I decided to reply for Merin in separate topic not to derail the romance-topic:

 

Why is it so bad opposing "modernizations", like quest compass and arrows above NPCs head "I HAVE A QUEST!" or opposing magic map markers like in Skyrim? Or what's so bad opposing small party sizes, opposing cooldowns like in MMOs. When they revealed how exactly the cooldown will work, the complaints quieted down because it wasn't idiotc MMO cooldown.

 

If you don't like those things in games, there's nothing wrong in opposing it. I'm not sure where you see me saying it was wrong for anyone to oppose it.

 

The post you were quoting was showing a rough division of "two opposing forces", which itself was a very over-simplistic look at the dynamics of a customer, or worse fan, base.

 

How do they satisfy the extremes of their "base?" By not catering to either side overtly, doing what they were going to do anyway, and depend on the end product being good enough, and enough of what enough of their base will enjoy, that not directly engaging with the extreme sides won't matter.

 

Unfortunately, like a politician.

 

We from the RPGCodex have seen basicly entire genre been abducted, beaten, tortured, shot back to the head, dissected, pissed and shat on and then finally cremated in the last decade mostly because of so-called "modernizations" and appealing for lowest common denominator - we now have a chance of getting a grand rpg from one of the best RPG developers of all time without publishers meddling.

 

As much as I might dislike certain aspects of more "modern" games (I want turn-based (not real time with pause), six party member parties that the player creates, and I want graphics to be like the year 2000 never happened (cursed NWN and other games moving into "3D")) I accept that mediums change over time. Tastes and trends change. Game design doesn't happen in a vacuum... companies are trying to cater to their audience. Do they misread trends and tastes, see the wrong things in market research and polls? Often, sure, but they try - and when things don't sell, they change their tactics.

 

The sad truth is that FPS and Madden will always outsell cRPGs. Always. And that, for about a decade, MMORPGs were the best selling PC games. You don't have to like this (I don't) but you kind of have to adjust. You can sit on your mountaintop and remain pure, crusty and upset at the world...

 

or you can try and enjoy the best of what exists out there, encouraging the games closer to what you want. I'm sure THIS is what you all believe your are doing, and are trying to do. Or most of you. Benefit of the doubt?

 

We are (sometimes) abrasive because we are passionate about our precious genre and we dont want the game compromised because small subset wants it to be like those other modern rpgs with melodramatic relationship dramas - and what I read from the MCA's interview, the game wont be like that, none of the Obsidian's games have been melodramatic but we still dont want to see the forums filled with people who demands that kind of romances and romances for every possiblity.

 

But a small subset is exactly who your are. What's the Codex's membership levels? Hundreds? Maybe a few thousand? Games have to sell (even for indie titles) tens to hundreds of thousands, if not millions. A few hundred die-hards who wish it was still 1980 (and, again, I'm here - I want that, too, for video game design philosophy) can't be a target audience.

 

Be glad that Obsidian is full of people who at least want to bring back a bunch of lost design mechanics from the early 2000's.

 

That being said I do trust Obsidian to make the best game they can and make it how they want it, and according to MCA's interview it'll be more like PS:T than BG1 and BG2 from the story point-of-view.

 

Not just MCA, but their KS pitch. From BG - exploration and companions. From IWD - tactical combat and dungeon delving. From PS:T - themes and story.

 

Just, you know, I don't think for most who LOVE PS:T a removal of Vancian magic, the addition of cooldowns, or even adding more overt romance to the companions, would have significantly "lessened" their love for the game.

 

See, that's the difference between you and me; you are willing to take inferior and dilluted game but fortunately for me and other Codexers there are devs who do not want to make games for mass audiences and compromise - without people like in RPGCodex (who are not limited to RPGCodex) Fargo might not have known that there is audience for Wasteland 2 - same with the devs who are making game called Chaos Chronicles which is turn-based fantasy rpg using OGL 3,5 ruleset and partly because Wasteland 2 was so succesful they got financing for doing turn-based rpg.

 

If everyone would've just moved on and wouldn't challenge the "modernization" of RPGs, those games might not have never been gone into production.

 

I have been following game business since 1986, there have been genres which have gone away but has since come back such as 2D platformers which mostly disappeared when 3D appeared but has since come back because people glamour after those games. Should've they also just moved on stop demanding 2D platformers because they went out of fashion for almost ten years?

 

As well you know Obsidian launched Kickstarter campaign to get us finance the proper RPG which would not be compromised by what mass audiences want without modernizations such as partylimit of 3 or dilluting mature and serious themes which publishers are afraid of.

 

The audience for "old-fashioned" RPGs never went anywhere - 61290 backers for Wasteland 2 shows that, but the publishers has made the mistake of completely removing games which are made with small or average budget and they are aiming for AAA+++ titles with big budgets which are aimed to very much for big audiences.

 

Even though I disliked Dragon Age: Origins it was still a fair bit like games such as Baldur's Gate, and it sold about 3-4 million copies, and what EA does? They go "Hey, let's make DA2 to be over-the-shoulder action rpg to bring in the Call of Duty audiences!" and what happens? Call of Duty audiences wont buy it and EA drives away almost 2/3 of the DA:O fans because they dilluted the game.

 

If Bioware would've made DA 2 in the vein of DA:O they would've probably kept the DA:O fans and get new players to buy DA2 bringing at least somewhat larger sales but they screwed it up.

 

Let's take films for example, even though films like Transformers brings in gazillions of dollars in boxoffice, film studios are still doing films with budgets of 10-50 million for smaller audiences, and why? Because there's still audience for them and they make reasonable profit against their budgets.

 

And why film studios just doesn't do huge films? Because if they make five films with 200 million budgets, they take big risks with them even though they might bring lot of profit but if three of those five flops miserably it might bring down the studio, but if the film studio makes 20 films with budgets ranging from 10-60 million, they all make reasonable profit, and some of them might be surprise hits, and will probably bring as much profit altogether as those five huge films would.

 

That's what game publishers are doing wrong - they only go for games with big budgets bringing lot of profit but they are not taking into fact that if they would make maybe fewer big budget games and would make several average budget games which all would be different types (rpg, adventure, action, sport etc) then they would most probably bring as much profit as those big AAA titles but would widen their audience segments and some of them might be surprise hits.

 

Game with the budget of 5 million would have to bring in sales about 500 000 to get 10 million profit if they get 30 dollars profit per sold game, and now with digital distribution that shouldn't be too hard to get.

 

Me and codexers doesnt want back 1980, we want back the golden years from about mid-90s to early 2000s, and 61290 backers for Wasteland 2 disagrees with you.

 

Everyone had been saying that games like Dungeon Master are dead and buried and then small finnish team makes a game called Legend of Grimrock which is very much of Dungeon Master-clone and the game makes back the expenses in a week, that's right, in a week and spent quite a bit of time in the top sellers of Steam, not bad for old-fashioned game from the late 80s/early 90s with very few modernizations?

 

Now, tell me after that there are no audiences for traditional RPG, and it's not worth to stick to your guns? And remember to go to tell Fargo that it's no point of doing Wasteland 2 because there are no audiences for turn- and party-based rpg, oh and dont forget to stop by Almost Human offices too, they dont know that there's only very few people who wants to buy Dungeon Master-clone.

Edited October 20, 2012 by jarpie

[Malcador]

He probably has you on ignore, though.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Malcador

[evdk]

I'd buy all of the DM clones. Twice. In fact I did.

[Merin]

Other than at points misunderstanding what I was saying, I mostly agree with all of what you said.

 

It's funny - among friends and on other forums, I'd be in your position arguing against others.

[Nonek]

What the hell happened to the forums? They're posting pictures of little girls cartoons now, has that Bioware social thing shut down?

[evdk]

What the hell happened to the forums? They're posting pictures of little girls cartoons now, has that Bioware social thing shut down?

The romance forum did. There was a total drama overload and the mods pulled the plug on the entire thing. Mass exodus ensued.

[Merin]

Just to give some context, these are my favorite cRPGs -

 

1. Wasteland

2. Icewind Dale

3. Pools of Darkness

4 .Freedom Force

5. VTM: Bloodlines

 

and near that list are Knights of Legend, Alternate Reality: The Dungeon, Alpha Protocol and (yes) Dragon Age: Origins. If the inclusion of that last game somehow disqualifies my "cred" with the previous, so be it.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Merin

[Nonek]

Ah figures, thank you Evdk.

[Jaesun]

:salute: jarpie.

[Bos_hybrid]

What the hell happened to the forums? They're posting pictures of little girls cartoons now, has that Bioware social thing shut down?

The romance forum did. There was a total drama overload and the mods pulled the plug on the entire thing. Mass exodus ensued.

 

So... Sagani sweat analysis incoming?

Edited October 20, 2012 by Bos_hybrid

[kenup]

 

What I want to know is why publishers spend all that money into AAA++++++++++++++++++++++ titles, when the games definitely have less effort put into them? TOR is certainly the best example of that.

[evdk]

 

What I want to know is why publishers spend all that money into AAA++++++++++++++++++++++ titles, when the games definitely have less effort put into them? TOR is certainly the best example of that.

The money is spent on all the things that are insanely expensive but do not really make the game any better than their more reasonably priced alternatives. You know, almost real looking graphics, full voice over by hollywood cast, symphonic orchestra, etc. The thing is, the masses love them.

[Merin]

What I want to know is why publishers spend all that money into AAA++++++++++++++++++++++ titles, when the games definitely have less effort put into them? TOR is certainly the best example of that.

 

The same reason movie studios do it?

 

Because they are looking at the bottom line, and the bottom line for them is big budget movies make bigger box office?

 

Same with games?

 

I don't agree with the reasoning, but that's what it is.

[NerdBoner]

I, for one, support cooldowns on my romances.

 

/hurr

 

He probably has you on ignore, though.

probably...the guy has a stick up his ass the length of a broom handle.

[rjshae]

I, for one, support cooldowns on my romances.

 

/hurr

 

He probably has you on ignore, though.

probably...the guy has a stick up his ass the length of a broom handle.

I'm a n00b here, so just learning about the ignore mode. Foop.

[Gatt9]

 

What I want to know is why publishers spend all that money into AAA++++++++++++++++++++++ titles, when the games definitely have less effort put into them? TOR is certainly the best example of that.

 

That's an easy one. You have two primary forces operating here...

 

1. In the software industry, it's common to offer bonuses related to the product line you worked upon, with games it's common for that bonus to be paid out against the revenue of a specific release. So the business people and marketing groups take a look at a concept and think "How many units is this likely to sell and how big would my bonus be?". Or to be more specific, they walk into the room thinking "Call of Duty is what sells well this year, if we make something like that I'll get a huge bonus!".

 

So the thought of smaller, consistent projects isn't on their radar. They don't want the bonus from 2 million units, they want the bonus from 20 million units.

 

So right there, the employees are conditioned to think in terms of Blockbusters instead of thinking in terms of a viable and sustainable business strategy like Hollywood has. There's no incentive for being the man who released projects that consistently made profit, only in being the man who released projects that made alot of revenue.

 

2. Shareholders. Shareholders want growth, consistent revenue streams, and they want to hear that their company is the one who will revolutionize the market. In other Industries, this is fine. That works with pretty much every other Industry, but it does not work with the Gaming Industry.

 

Shareholders don't want to hear about games projected to sell 2 million units, they want to hear about games projected to sell 20 million units. Shareholders have no idea what the market's actually like, they have no idea Gamers are dissatisfied.

 

Which ultimately has created the impending Second Great Gaming Crash. Now Publishers have forced the market into "Graphics sell Games" mentality on the Console side, and combined with the blockbuster mentality ended up creating an environment where all projects are $20,000,000+ in budget and need 5 million in sales to be viable.

 

If you do the math on the 140 million installed base, they need 3% penetration, an event that is extremely difficult now with that installed base.

 

Next Generation consoles means you'll only have a couple million units, so where you need 5 million in sales, you get a few hundred thousand. Combine this with the drops in sales the last 3 years because Gamers appear tired of cookie-cutter games and sequels, and likely will be slow to adopt, and you end up with only one possible outcome which is a market crash as Publishers fold under the unsustainable blockbuster mentality they fostered.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Gatt9

[Crusty]

:salute: jarpie.

 

:RPGBrodex:

Edited October 20, 2012 by Crusty

[jarpie]

What I want to know is why publishers spend all that money into AAA++++++++++++++++++++++ titles, when the games definitely have less effort put into them? TOR is certainly the best example of that.

 

The same reason movie studios do it?

 

Because they are looking at the bottom line, and the bottom line for them is big budget movies make bigger box office?

 

Same with games?

 

I don't agree with the reasoning, but that's what it is.

 

If you read my post you would know that film studios also makes films with average budgets which potentially won't sell that much alone but when you combine their profits they make as much as one huge film and that's where game publishers are doing wrong; They are only concentrating on huge AAA+++ titles and not doing what film studios do.

 

Part from my post:

Let's take films for example, even though films like Transformers brings in gazillions of dollars in boxoffice, film studios are still doing films with budgets of 10-50 million for smaller audiences, and why? Because there's still audience for them and they make reasonable profit against their budgets.

 

And why film studios just doesn't do huge films? Because if they make five films with 200 million budgets, they take big risks with them even though they might bring lot of profit but if three of those five flops miserably it might bring down the studio, but if the film studio makes 20 films with budgets ranging from 10-60 million, they all make reasonable profit, and some of them might be surprise hits, and will probably bring as much profit altogether as those five huge films would.

 

That's what game publishers are doing wrong - they only go for games with big budgets bringing lot of profit but they are not taking into fact that if they would make maybe fewer big budget games and would make several average budget games which all would be different types (rpg, adventure, action, sport etc) then they would most probably bring as much profit as those big AAA titles but would widen their audience segments and some of them might be surprise hits.

[kenup]

The money is spent on all the things that are insanely expensive but do not really make the game any better than their more reasonably priced alternatives. You know, almost real looking graphics, full voice over by hollywood cast, symphonic orchestra, etc. The thing is, the masses love them.

And why the f' are all these things that costly, when they don't deserve it in the end.... was kinda my question. And were are the graphics in TOR? That's what I'm saying. No one but the best voice actors put effort. The development teams are most certainly not. Bioware for example shows this in every release in the last few years. They don't care to make an if statement to control how Sheppard's class will react differently in cutscenes. They are lazy. The money doesn't go on the game it goes on ****. And TW2 has much better graphics than TOR while having a much smaller budget.

 

 

The same reason movie studios do it?

 

Because they are looking at the bottom line, and the bottom line for them is big budget movies make bigger box office?

 

Same with games?

 

I don't agree with the reasoning, but that's what it is.

 

Like TOR? or DA2?

Edited October 20, 2012 by kenup

[Merin]

If you read my post you would know that film studios also makes films with average budgets which potentially won't sell that much alone but when you combine their profits they make as much as one huge film and that's where game publishers are doing wrong; They are only concentrating on huge AAA+++ titles and not doing what film studios do.

 

Games haven't gotten there yet. The movie industry went through a "crash" and adjusting to the burgeoning indie film movie, creating "indie studios" and funding such films to try and control that market as well. Largely because they want Oscar bait, but that's beside the point.

 

When the game industry creates an award show that doesn't pick best sellers but picks things that at least pretend to be avant garde and sell less but get huge critical acclaim, sure, but for now don't expect there to be too much impetus for the game industry to follow Hollywood in this just yet.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Merin

[Tale]

I don't want the 90s back. I want to take a different path off the 90s than was taken.

 

The popular form of RPGs after the 90s followed a path through Neverwinter Nights to KOTOR and I think much of what we look at today can be traced to KOTOR. Cinematics, smaller parties, voice acting. That is no more the natural endpoint of all change than the idea that all hominid forms eventually become human.

 

If we look at the legacy of advanture games, we see the birth of survival horror and the path to Resident Evil 6. But we also the birth of action adventure games in the vein of Devil May Cry. (I've never been clear on the earlier Soul Reaver/Tomb Raider branch and where that split off) But we also see cinematic narrative games like Walking Dead and Quantic Dream's works. We see alternate paths such as Telltale's 3D adventures, retro titles like the Wadjet series, and even alternate branchings of survival horror in the Penumbra and Amnesia series. The fact that Amnesia isn't a retread of Alone in the Dark 1 doesn't mean it's at risk of being Resident Evil 6. You even see the warning signs back in Penumbra where you can kill the dogs, but they steppedback in sequels because they weren't aiming for the same path Resident Evil took.

 

Games can still change without assuming the worst.

[jarpie]

If you read my post you would know that film studios also makes films with average budgets which potentially won't sell that much alone but when you combine their profits they make as much as one huge film and that's where game publishers are doing wrong; They are only concentrating on huge AAA+++ titles and not doing what film studios do.

 

Games haven't gotten there yet. The movie industry went through a "crash" and adjusting to the burgeoning indie film movie, creating "indie studios" and funding such films to try and control that market as well. Largely because they want Oscar bait, but that's beside the point.

 

When the game industry creates an award show that doesn't pick best sellers but picks things that at least pretend to be avant garde and sell less but get huge critical acclaim, don't expect there to be too much impetus for the game industry to follow Hollywood in this just yet.

 

See, that's where you're wrong. Film industry has always been making films with small or average budgets, even when they did the huge epics in the late 50s and early 60s. Sure couple studios took huge risks with some films which flopped gloriously almost bringing them down but even then they were doing the smaller films but publishers aren't doing that almost at all.

 

The indie film movement basicly started to flower in the 80s and 90s with the rise of the vhs and couple film festivals such as Sundance but I'm not talking about indie films, I'm talking about studio films which are done with moderate budgets - which they have always done.

[Merin]

If you read my post you would know that film studios also makes films with average budgets which potentially won't sell that much alone but when you combine their profits they make as much as one huge film and that's where game publishers are doing wrong; They are only concentrating on huge AAA+++ titles and not doing what film studios do.

 

Games haven't gotten there yet. The movie industry went through a "crash" and adjusting to the burgeoning indie film movie, creating "indie studios" and funding such films to try and control that market as well. Largely because they want Oscar bait, but that's beside the point.

 

When the game industry creates an award show that doesn't pick best sellers but picks things that at least pretend to be avant garde and sell less but get huge critical acclaim, don't expect there to be too much impetus for the game industry to follow Hollywood in this just yet.

 

See, that's where you're wrong. Film industry has always been making films with small or average budgets, even when they did the huge epics in the late 50s and early 60s. Sure couple studios took huge risks with some films which flopped gloriously almost bringing them down but even then they were doing the smaller films but publishers aren't doing that almost at all.

 

The indie film movement basicly started to flower in the 80s and 90s with the rise of the vhs and couple film festivals such as Sundance but I'm not talking about indie films, I'm talking about studio films which are done with moderate budgets - which they have always done.

 

You are missing much about the history of film. The film industry is over a hundred years old, the video game industry is just about forty or so. Hollywood went through the studio system and all those problems, and then the rise of the big six, and the decline of movie sales in the 80's and 90's that, because of the growing focus on blockbusters and mainstream markets, caused the explosion of the indie film movement. Which went from truly indie to truly corporate by the mid 2000's... with the newest wave of innovation and breaking from the control of the big studios happening due to the internet and growth of platforms like YouTube and Kickstarter.

 

If you think the game industry is where complaints about formulas and sequels is bad, but the movie industry is a beacon of originality and diversity....

 

you must not spend a lot of time talking to groups about movies.

[Gatt9]

If we look at the legacy of advanture games, we see the birth of survival horror and the path to Resident Evil 6. But we also the birth of action adventure games in the vein of Devil May Cry. (I've never been clear on the earlier Soul Reaver/Tomb Raider branch and where that split off) But we also see cinematic narrative games like Walking Dead and Quantic Dream's works. We see alternate paths such as Telltale's 3D adventures, retro titles like the Wadjet series, and even alternate branchings of survival horror in the Penumbra and Amnesia series. The fact that Amnesia isn't a retread of Alone in the Dark 1 doesn't mean it's at risk of being Resident Evil 6. You even see the warning signs back in Penumbra where you can kill the dogs, but they steppedback in sequels because they weren't aiming for the same path Resident Evil took.

 

The Tomb Raider branch was an updated form of the C64 era third person adventure game combined with modern Shooter mechanics.

 

The C64 era had a number of games which were focused more on exploration and intermittent action, like Seven Cities of Gold, Starflight, Star Control, and Pirates!. During the 90's, this split off about the same time as the survival horror branch split off the Adventure genre, and was actually defined as Adventure for many years. It had never really died, but the Tomb Raider branch just added some Shooter mechanics to it and ended up being successfull branch.

 

Sadly, we've lost the direction of those games I mention though, which is a shame because those were some of the best games ever made

[jarpie]

If you read my post you would know that film studios also makes films with average budgets which potentially won't sell that much alone but when you combine their profits they make as much as one huge film and that's where game publishers are doing wrong; They are only concentrating on huge AAA+++ titles and not doing what film studios do.

 

Games haven't gotten there yet. The movie industry went through a "crash" and adjusting to the burgeoning indie film movie, creating "indie studios" and funding such films to try and control that market as well. Largely because they want Oscar bait, but that's beside the point.

 

When the game industry creates an award show that doesn't pick best sellers but picks things that at least pretend to be avant garde and sell less but get huge critical acclaim, don't expect there to be too much impetus for the game industry to follow Hollywood in this just yet.

 

See, that's where you're wrong. Film industry has always been making films with small or average budgets, even when they did the huge epics in the late 50s and early 60s. Sure couple studios took huge risks with some films which flopped gloriously almost bringing them down but even then they were doing the smaller films but publishers aren't doing that almost at all.

 

The indie film movement basicly started to flower in the 80s and 90s with the rise of the vhs and couple film festivals such as Sundance but I'm not talking about indie films, I'm talking about studio films which are done with moderate budgets - which they have always done.

 

You are missing much about the history of film. The film industry is over a hundred years old, the video game industry is just about forty or so. Hollywood went through the studio system and all those problems, and then the rise of the big six, and the decline of movie sales in the 80's and 90's that, because of the growing focus on blockbusters and mainstream markets, caused the explosion of the indie film movement. Which went from truly indie to truly corporate by the mid 2000's... with the newest wave of innovation and breaking from the control of the big studios happening due to the internet and growth of platforms like YouTube and Kickstarter.

 

If you think the game industry is where complaints about formulas and sequels is bad, but the movie industry is a beacon of originality and diversity....

 

you must not spend a lot of time talking to groups about movies.

 

Actually no, and yes film indrustry went through a studio-phase but there still were such people as Samuel Fuller who made such a films like I Shot Jesse James, The Steel Helmet and Pickup on South Street in studio system, where are games like those made by the big studios on average budget? Or such a films like Gone With The Wind which is huge studio film but it is still masterpiece artistically?

 

If you look at the 40 first years of film industry there a lot of formulaic films which are obviously made for mass audiences, but then there are films like Sunset Boulevard by Billy Wilder or Night of the Hunter by Charles Laughton, or Sunrise by Murnau made in 1927, which has been said to be the most beautiful film of all time?

 

Studio System of Hollywood gets lots of flack and most of is well-earned such as horrible treatment of Orson Welles (who is my favourite director by the way) but they never stopped doing films with small or average budget which weren't meant for mass audiences.

 

Yes, in the 80s film industry did lot of formulaic crap and numerous sequels but they just didn't do those. They also made such a films like The Terminator, Blade Runner, Full Metal Jacket, The Dead Zone, Videodrome, Platoon, Blue Velvet and numerous others.

 

Blade Runner, Videodrome and Blue Velvet are not exactly mainstream films and they still found an audience.

 

My point still stands that nowdays game publishers do not publish games which would've been made with approximately equivalent budget.