Cost of game development - Extra Credits

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Doctor Tyche
Doctor Tyche's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 2 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 11:29
Cost of game development - Extra Credits

Technical Director

Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider

Schinopiraph
Schinopiraph's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter
Joined: 09/18/2013 - 13:28
Glad to see you guys watch

Glad to see you guys watch that series as they have all sorts of usefull stuff they discuss that I would never have thought about. This in particular is usefull even for non-game developers to watch as it brings home just why it costs so much to make a game professionally.

Nadira
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/01/2014 - 13:25
Schinopiraph wrote:
Schinopiraph wrote:

Glad to see you guys watch that series as they have all sorts of usefull stuff they discuss that I would never have thought about. This in particular is usefull even for non-game developers to watch as it brings home just why it costs so much to make a game professionally.

This extra credits video caused a lot of noise on the internet too.

The interesting,or sad, part of that is tha most commenters agreed with the conclusion that a triple A game expected to sell millions of copies /should/ be priced between $80 and $90 to be able to recover the production cost (and risk). Yet instantly balked at the notion that if the players refuse to pay more than $60 (as seems to be the case) game studios /need/ an additional source of revenue to make up for the $20 to $30 shortage.

I totally agree that companies like EA are way over the line with their predatory business practices, but then so did the extra credits staff in their initial and subsequent videos on the subject. They always stated that real currency markets in games only work if they sell things that players /enjoy/ buying, instead of feel compelled into (or worse: ripped off for) buying.

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 16 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
Nadira wrote:
Nadira wrote:
Schinopiraph wrote:

Glad to see you guys watch that series as they have all sorts of usefull stuff they discuss that I would never have thought about. This in particular is usefull even for non-game developers to watch as it brings home just why it costs so much to make a game professionally.

This extra credits video caused a lot of noise on the internet too.

The interesting,or sad, part of that is tha most commenters agreed with the conclusion that a triple A game expected to sell millions of copies /should/ be priced between $80 and $90 to be able to recover the production cost (and risk). Yet instantly balked at the notion that if the players refuse to pay more than $60 (as seems to be the case) game studios /need/ an additional source of revenue to make up for the $20 to $30 shortage.

I totally agree that companies like EA are way over the line with their predatory business practices, but then so did the extra credits staff in their initial and subsequent videos on the subject. They always stated that real currency markets in games only work if they sell things that players /enjoy/ buying, instead of feel compelled into (or worse: ripped off for) buying.

No one asked for triple A developers/producers to spend so much making a game. The public didn't cry out for better graphics, the games industry went in that direction telling us that's what we wanted. You get indie games that are wildly successful and they didn't cost millions to make. Or you can get games with a smaller budget sell better than expected.

If a game is good, people will buy it. Putting more money into a game doesn't guarantee it'll be good.

EA told it's shareholders that removing the microtransactions from Battlefront 2 wouldn't affect earnings. So they were there to just milk more money out of people.

The problem is that the triple A game industry isn't putting microtransactions and other garbage in games that would need them to make up revenue. They put them in games that will sell well regardless.

And the argument that this sort of thing is needed kinda falls flat when you realize there are games that are free to play, expensive games like MMO's, that somehow make money.

So for some games, like say Battlefront 2, they could have released it for free with the microtransactions (though admittedly they'd need to have a much more fair progression system to make the players not feel swindled) and made, probably, more than they did.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Doctor Tyche
Doctor Tyche's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 2 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 11:29
Higher end graphics is a

Higher end graphics is a competitive point. Back in the 90's, the competitive point was elaborate storylines. There will always be someone willing to spend more to get a tiny bit of an edge.

Technical Director

Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Doctor Tyche wrote:
Doctor Tyche wrote:

Higher end graphics is a competitive point. Back in the 90's, the competitive point was elaborate storylines. There will always be someone willing to spend more to get a tiny bit of an edge.

From a technical point not many gamers actually care about graphics that much but rather aesthetics, even though most use the term graphics. Graphics is just a tool (that is the different techniques and/or features) and as with any tool you have to use it correctly, just adding higher end graphics does not magically make it look good. Yes it can certainly make good aesthetics look better but it won't make bad ones look good.

Graphics vs. Aesthetics:

Doctor Tyche
Doctor Tyche's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 2 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 11:29
Aesthetics are hard to

Aesthetics are hard to explain to pointy haired bosses. Graphics are easy.

Technical Director

Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Doctor Tyche wrote:
Doctor Tyche wrote:

Aesthetics are hard to explain to pointy haired bosses. Graphics are easy.

I know, doesn't mean that we (the more knowledgeable) have to perpetuate it. :P

Halae
Halae's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 41 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/17/2014 - 09:37
Doctor Tyche wrote:
Doctor Tyche wrote:

Aesthetics are hard to explain to pointy haired bosses. Graphics are easy.

At least you're the big-wig in question right now. The fact that you actually understand the points behind this crap is likely to be a real boon in the way things develop. So, so often games seem to be designed by committee, and in a way disconnected from the playerbase. But you kind of are our playerbase, just in a position of power over the game's development, and that's a wonderful thing.

An infinite number of tries doesn't mean that any one of those tries will succeed. I could flip an infinite number of pennies an infinite number of times and, barring genuine randomness, they will never come up "Waffles".

TitansCity
TitansCity's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 55 min ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 02:09
blacke4dawn][quote=Doctor
blacke4dawn][quote=Doctor Tyche wrote:

Graphics vs. Aesthetics:

I must admit that first, the aesthetics are the first thing i'm looking in a game and then after the graphics are a subject of attention. But between, i look at the gameplay mecanics.
This video is really good :)

McJigg
McJigg's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 32 min ago
kickstarter
Joined: 07/06/2016 - 05:14
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
Nadira wrote:
Schinopiraph wrote:

Glad to see you guys watch that series as they have all sorts of usefull stuff they discuss that I would never have thought about. This in particular is usefull even for non-game developers to watch as it brings home just why it costs so much to make a game professionally.

This extra credits video caused a lot of noise on the internet too.

The interesting,or sad, part of that is tha most commenters agreed with the conclusion that a triple A game expected to sell millions of copies /should/ be priced between $80 and $90 to be able to recover the production cost (and risk). Yet instantly balked at the notion that if the players refuse to pay more than $60 (as seems to be the case) game studios /need/ an additional source of revenue to make up for the $20 to $30 shortage.

I totally agree that companies like EA are way over the line with their predatory business practices, but then so did the extra credits staff in their initial and subsequent videos on the subject. They always stated that real currency markets in games only work if they sell things that players /enjoy/ buying, instead of feel compelled into (or worse: ripped off for) buying.

No one asked for triple A developers/producers to spend so much making a game. The public didn't cry out for better graphics, the games industry went in that direction telling us that's what we wanted. You get indie games that are wildly successful and they didn't cost millions to make. Or you can get games with a smaller budget sell better than expected.

If a game is good, people will buy it. Putting more money into a game doesn't guarantee it'll be good.

EA told it's shareholders that removing the microtransactions from Battlefront 2 wouldn't affect earnings. So they were there to just milk more money out of people.

The problem is that the triple A game industry isn't putting microtransactions and other garbage in games that would need them to make up revenue. They put them in games that will sell well regardless.

And the argument that this sort of thing is needed kinda falls flat when you realize there are games that are free to play, expensive games like MMO's, that somehow make money.

So for some games, like say Battlefront 2, they could have released it for free with the microtransactions (though admittedly they'd need to have a much more fair progression system to make the players not feel swindled) and made, probably, more than they did.

Are you Jim Sterling?

Project_Hero
Project_Hero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 16 min ago
Joined: 10/09/2014 - 11:21
McJigg wrote:
McJigg wrote:

Are you Jim Sterling?

Nope, but I watch his videos on the regular. And agree with a lot of his points.

"Let the past die. Kill it if you have to."

Doctor Tyche
Doctor Tyche's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 2 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 11:29
Project_Hero wrote:
Project_Hero wrote:
McJigg wrote:

Are you Jim Sterling?

Nope, but I watch his videos on the regular. And agree with a lot of his points.

Same. One of the guys from Valiance introduced me to him.

Technical Director

Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider

Terwyn
Terwyn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 43 min ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/04/2012 - 10:56
I will firmly admit that the

I will firmly admit that the philosophical grounding point that I have always been using for everything associated with the project is thoroughly non-zero sum. I fully anticipate every decision I make to have a cost, so my goal has always been to make sure that those costs are never borne on the community and future player base unless it proves to be unavoidable. In the early days, we actually had a very pointed argument about whether or not it's possible to have a win in which no participant ends up losing. It's that argument which left me thoroughly baffled why business programs don't tend to have an introductory course on game theory and/or evolutionary biology.

Doctor Tyche wrote:

Aesthetics are hard to explain to pointy haired bosses. Graphics are easy.

Fortunately, I am not pointy haired. Amusingly, the general experience has been that aesthetics have been the easiest thing to explain to me, with particulars of certain graphical decisions being something I have difficulty grasping. The general consensus of the project leadership is that I simply have a non-euclidean mind. This, of course, means that Nate is prepared to make sure I'm not an elder god in disguise by any means necessary. :)

It is only when we stand up, with all our failings and sufferings, and try to support others rather than withdraw into ourselves, that we can fully live the life of community.

Business Director

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
Euclidean minds are legacy

Euclidean minds are legacy support anyway.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

chase
chase's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 13 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/23/2013 - 11:11
Elder god, eh?

Elder god, eh?

It's been a while... but... lemme see:

Frn ymg' mgr'luh ah nafl hup fahf yar.
Mgvulgtlagln lag.

-- Ancient elder god gaming proverb.

Amerikatt
Amerikatt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 15 hours ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/27/2013 - 08:54
*noms on grilled eggplant

*noms on grilled eggplant slices and a cool, refreshing, Amerikatt Boysenberry Kola Lite!*

SLo
SLo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
Joined: 02/11/2015 - 21:39
I cant tell you enough how

I cant tell you enough how much It makes me equal parts extremely happy, and borderline terrified to see you guys posting these youtube videos. On the one hand I'm super happy, in the sense, that you are posting informative material like this for people like me and others, who wouldn't otherwise know what it takes to try to create something on this level. It shows that you are not only aware of the difficulty, but up to the challenge and are trying to do what it takes to create something meaningful and are striving to do your best. On the other hand, when i see the production cost of what it usually takes to put out a game like the one you are in the midst of creating i cant help but cringe. For those who would wish to help contribute (and i apologize if i completely missed it) when will the second kickstarter or equivalent begin?

......It's all a Nemesis plot

Lin Chiao Feng
Lin Chiao Feng's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 5 hours ago
Developerkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/02/2013 - 09:27
You haven't missed anything

You haven't missed anything and we're working on the Second Chance. We're being really careful with the SC because we don't want y'all's accounts to get hacked once money changes hands; that gets bad for everyone.

Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 41 min ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Superior visuals get you

Superior visuals get you NOTICED.
Superior gameplay is what gets you (and keeps you) HOOKED.

Guess which is easier to solve by throwing way too much money at the problem. Go on ... guess ...


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Huckleberry
Huckleberry's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 1 day ago
Joined: 01/03/2016 - 08:39
Redlynne wrote:
Redlynne wrote:

Superior visuals get you NOTICED.
Superior gameplay is what gets you (and keeps you) HOOKED.

Guess which is easier to solve by throwing way too much money at the problem. Go on ... guess ...

Well put.

Anyone who has played one of Spider web software's games will tell you they are some of the most engrossing games made. But they look like they were made on an Apple IIe from 1980. <=== exaggeration for the less sarcastically attuned.


I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.