63 replies to this topic

[Neenja]

IronGoat, on 06 July 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

i sincerely doubt any real casual gamers just dropped 30-120$ on an unreleased game.

That's exactly what I just did. So... yeah.

You have to keep in mind that the game development process has grown and gotten more expensive to the point where the initial investment is much more massive than it's ever been before. As a result, making a game accessible to non-hardcore players brings in the revenue to keep the company profitable. Then, as the game matures, you still have casuals trickling in every once in awhile, while the hardcore players continue because that's just what they do. Not to mention, out of every new batch of 100 casual players, a couple of them are going to go on to become more dedicated tot eh game.

Simple fact of the matter is that complexity for complexity's sake doesn't make money. BattleTech is complex, and MechWarrior (relatively) isn't. On the spectrum of the games currently on the market, this game looks to be quite comfortable in an area where a new player who wants to blow stuff up in a big robot can sit down and enjoy it right away - and a min/maxer who wants to spend hours tweaking a Trebuchet variant can squeeze every decimal point of damage/armor/whatever they want out of the design.

IronGoat, on 06 July 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

agreed

any movie (or game) that requires even a modicum of thought to follow the plot line is immediatly labled "stupid" by general audiences

"suckerpunch" case in point. so many people watched it for "cute girls in anime action" and then found out there was a a plotline one had to follow to make it all make sense. and in the end the "cute" girl dies anyway, hence "stupid movie" by so many of its viewers

BTW im sure many of you liked and enjoyed the movie im just saying most of the people I know and met that watched it said it was stupid and after only a moment or two of explination this was my conclusion.

Sucker Punch was a good premise with poor execution. =p

The only person that should be blamed there is the director/marketing who focused so much on T&A, and not drawing enough parallels between the fantasy worlds and the real opponents. They opened the floodgates for that kind of criticism themselves.

I still enjoyed the movie, but it could have been a true epic instead of just acceptable.

Edited by Neenja, 06 July 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[Project_Mercy]

Neenja, on 06 July 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

You have to keep in mind that the game development process has grown and gotten more expensive to the point where the initial investment is much more massive than it's ever been before.

This is not true. Baring inflation, the cost of PC development is exactly the same as it always has been. The difference is, the time frames people attempt to develop on are smaller, and to some extent people's standards on display/UI have gone up, so if you end up licensing expensive engines instead of rolling your own, you may have added expense at that.

There's no rule that one person couldn't sit down with a copy of VisualStudio and warehouse full of Hot Pockets and Mt. Dew crank out a game. The development cost of the game is his/her living expenses during development, and a copy of VisualStudio. Heck, go with Eclipse and you're down to hot pockets & dew.

As I said, Egosoft gets away rolling all their own. Their studio isn't that big. They get by. It takes them years and years to crank out product, but they do it.

The reason games are expensive now a days has to do with massive marketing and sales costs, as keeping a massive studio with huge asset creation staff around so they can crank out a game in a year or two with mocap and voice. It doesn't have to do with making a good game, it has to do with trying to get as much money out of the consumer as possible by reselling them the same game every year.

Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 06 July 2012 - 01:04 PM.

[Neenja]

Yes, it's possible to develop a game on a small budget if you're pushing something out for which you don't have to maintain responsibility.

If the game company intends to maintain that responsibility for their game (which is pretty much required to bring the BattleTech universe into an online experience), they have significantly higher overhead. On top of that, this game has to compete with MW:LL, and so has to be willing to invest the money to make it worth paying for over a free game.

[CCC Dober]

OP: Consoles are the reason I think. Less keys, less complexity, younger target audience on average. Added benefit: less trouble with piracy and reduced development costs (standardized platforms). Less trouble, more profit.

[Saevus]

Not only are games not cheap, they are in fact, ridiculous to produce. Everytime I see a game get rushed because there is a push to make some cash to pay operating expenses at the end of the month and the end result is a mess...it makes me die a little. However, when you have $75-100m in a product, it's hard to buy more time, the people who front these enormous amounts of money need a return, generally sooner rather than later. I've not seen anything from the way PGI is making this game to indicate it's catered toward a particular segment of the gaming comunity. Well...maybe one segment, Battletech Fans.

[Diomed]

Far too many of you are forgeting about FUN!

Yes, you can make a game complex. You know what, I can make almost anything complex. You can break down almost any activity and use uncommon jargon to add complexity. Complexity is not in and of itself good. If complexity adds to the fun then it is a positive characteristic of a game, if it detracts it is a negative one.

I can take an RPG game and make every single combat move require position, chains, timers, etc... It doesn't make it fun.

The reason that games are getting away from rediculous levels of complexity is quite simple: IT IS NOT FUN.

[Macphearson]

Steadfast, on 06 July 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

For complex games - try boardgames.

Advanced Squad Leader anyone?

[Project_Mercy]

Macphearson, on 06 July 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

Advanced Squad Leader anyone?

6-player Twilight Imperium with all the expansion is the best (worst) I've run into so far.

We had a game go for a good 50 hours on that before. I had that setup on my gaming table for like 2 months as we played it. Good thing I have no pets.

Edited by Wraeththix Constantine, 06 July 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[Bogart Vaperson]

Fire for Effect, on 06 July 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

the audience would be for example me.... (if anyone remembers spectrum holobyte )

I see your Spectrum Holobyte, and raise you Microprose...

[Fire for Effect]

uh thats hard to counter...

silent service no
gunship no
gunship 2000 no

I give up you win ^^

(never liked origin systems Jane´s line much)

I might sidestep with Lucasarts (X-wing )

dimly I remember Silent Hunter... but no microprose I cannot top...

[CaveMan]

Diomed, on 06 July 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

The reason that games are getting away from rediculous levels of complexity is quite simple: IT IS NOT FUN.

Give me a break.

Just because you don't enjoy something, doesn't mean it can't be fun. Sometimes mastering a difficult skill is fun in itself.

A simple game is a five minute diversion. A complex one can be a lifetime of enjoyment.

[Fire for Effect]

CaveMan, on 06 July 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

Give me a break.

Just because you don't enjoy something, doesn't mean it can't be fun. Sometimes mastering a difficult skill is fun in itself.

A simple game is a five minute diversion. A complex one can be a lifetime of enjoyment.

To be honest I was always more fond of simulations than of shooters; give me an updated F-16 falcon with a 400 page rulebook and a keyboard full of commands that are actually used .

Hearts of iron I also always like more than command and conquer..
anyone who does not know it complete campaign from 1935 till end with Hearts of iron 3 takes about 60 hours of playtime.
and some frustration because that damn carrier just sank my subs...

so tastes are different. some people like chess more than poker...

[ZnSeventeen]

First thing, I am pretty sure most strategy games are still relatively complex, with even fairly simple ones like Starcraft requiring a knowledge of various strategies among multiple races, remembering a plethora of hotkeys, a time investment of several minutes just to get prepared for combat, etc. (Civilization, Starcraft, Supreme Commander, Sins of a Solar Empire.)
As for no more huge strategy books? Yeah, I miss them, but nowadays most developers have online encyclopedias and in game tutorials, so sadly, they are just no longer the way to go. In game tutorials are usually quicker, and can get a gamer in working order with little difficulty. (Though I would take them just for the sheer cool factor.)

Edited by ZnSeventeen, 06 July 2012 - 04:13 PM.

[Ultraviper]

Jade Kitsune, on 06 July 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

When the last EPIC controller was Steel Battalion, you know there's a problem.

I bought a game controller last year for $270 that's pretty complex. 142 different inputs.

[grimzod]

Wraeththix Constantine, on 06 July 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

I disagree with this statement. Eve caters to a pretty hardcore crowd. It's about the least casual friendly game I've ever known. It does OK. They picked a market, they catered to that market, and they've done OK. Eve will never be a CoD, but their market is pretty stable. It's a fallacy brought on by an irrational system for classifying success in the current market, that causes people to view a lack of sustained growth as failure.

niche, lack of growth beyond the niche ; thanks for agreeing with me

Edited by grimzod, 06 July 2012 - 04:27 PM.

[Aullido]

Make the game casual and it would be like a dozen other FPS. We don't need Quakemech again. I would be a waste of my money for sure.

[Project_Mercy]

grimzod, on 06 July 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

niche, lack of growth beyond the niche ; thanks for agreeing with me

Uh.. no. Plenty of niche markets survive for extremely long times, while people attempting to compete in a wider market fail. Just because it's not growing doesn't mean its failing. The only reason the modern market equates growth with success is because the modern market is based around investment, and investment wishes to see a growth in their investment. The long-term life of the company is of zero importance.

So a niche market is a failure if your sole reason for doing it is to increase the returns on your investment.

It's success if you're attempting to produce a game that is loved by its players and get paid for doing it for a long time.

But I'm sure all the people who invested in such awesome growth opportunities such as Age of Conan and Warhammer Online appreciate attempting to market themselves to a wider audience over those dirty Eve investors.

[T0RC4ED]

Jade Kitsune, on 06 July 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

I've noticed in the past 10+ years, that company's have taken to catering to casual gamers to garner better profits, and from a business standpoint, this makes sense, however I can't help but feel that the business is begining to stagnate due to this idea.

I agree. On the plus side though that means there will be losts of soft targets for me to slay just like in COD.

Im a "Hardcore" gamer, I have a real life, and I will see you on the battlefield.

P.S. Ill probably be using this because all things in life should be done in the extreme.
http://www.thrustmas...hotas-warthog-0

[WrentheFaceless]

I think its more of a case of gamers getting overinflated egos of themselves and rose-tinted glasses on what it was like 'back in the day'

[PewPew]

In this thread: People who claim to know how the industry works, but don't.