• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Quantity vs Quality

This topic is 6220 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailyradar.com/columns/game_column_640.html Is it possible that as games get bigger and more expensive that gamers are becoming less risky with there money. As games get larger and more expensive it understandable that gamers are more likely to see buying their next game as more of an investment. Thus when you''re playing with money people who you would normally consider pretty radical or liberal become very conservative indeed. Anyhow, just something to think about and while you''re at it you might want to read the article above which has a differing view point again. ps. was the reason why games used to be more original due to there size. In other words there was less consumer pressure to remain conservative in approach. Or is it that people aren''t as interested in reading magazines on games or the reviewers of these magazines have lost there right to put the a dead horse down. A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
Hmmm.. you might have a point.

But for arguments sake, I''ll suggest the reverse is actually true.

Don''t people expect that a game released these days should be big? They don''t really care how much it cost to produce, as long as they don''t pay over the odds to aquire a copy.

Perhaps people are actually more willing to buy games without knowing everything about it, because they assume that there''ll be plenty of game for their money. Assuming of course that it has some gameplay and a lass with big ti...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
using the net as a way to sold games we could reduce their price.

A developer only get about 1/6 of the final price.
The problem is the publishers who really sucks IMO.
They are responsible of those high game prices, we should kill them ;p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ingenu,
that''s true but I don''t know if I can blame the publisher though. Think about all the packaging costs, shipping, making a catchy box cover, paying the money to get the rights to ship to retail stores.

But that does have much to do w/ the high prices, so internet distribution really is great.




http://www15.brinkster.com/nazrix/main.html

"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question is.. "What is the best way to do this?"

It would be posible to do internet distributation, but what would be the best way to stop warez and crakers and suff?

Also, with todays gaming, how would you best distribute all the game data (movies, textures, etc), on a medium as slow as the internet.


Another factor comes into play here as well.. advertising.
Today, unless your game is somthing like south-park was (got arround by word of mouth) (ie. lucky), you will need to do some advertising and promotion for your game, espicaly on a medium OTHER than the internet (such as newspapers, billboards, etc)


ANDREW RUSSELL STUDIOS
Visit Tiberia: it''s bigger, it''s badder, it''s pouyer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets not forget one other thing that was mentioned in that article (linked) in my previous post. That other thing is that if you''re working for a large company of sorts then it becomes harder to advertise original games. Think about it, there''s a lot more work that has to go into communicating how the game works, what the fun is, etc, etc to and fro the marketing - developers. Then once that''s done the marketer''s have to go through it all again to get the message accross to the public. Big head ache, and as games cost more to make then companies are putting more at risk thus the more conservative approach to designing games as the games get more expensive to make. Expense (risk) = more unoriginal games.

A designer doesnt need to know everything about code, they just have to have an appreciation for its limitations and how those limitations affect features they may wish to include in their design. - Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am inclined to beleive that maybe the reverse is true (for me it is anyway)

I am far less likely to spend money on a game that is similar to one I already have. If I have UT, what is the point in buying quakeIII?

I would buy more games if I saw more originality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe I''m getting old, bitter, and cynical (heh, I''m almost 30, so it''s about time... )-- BUT!

I now think the majority of gamers don''t mind retreads. Only designers and certain players do. If this wasn''t true, the market would show evidence of it-- innovative games would outsell retreads. Most don''t.

Gamers have changed. It''s an old argument, but I think it applies: Technology has convinced many that eye candy is gameplay. Realistic skeletal animation, or crinkle textures, or professional voice acting has superceded real choices and real features.

The only hope, then, is the niche. EA and Sony will continue to churn out whatever sells (retreads), and indies will have to take to the net.

This isn''t just the game industry audience, this is the way people are. It''s Baywatch vs. Masterpiece Theater, and we all know who''s been more popular.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wav, it is an old argument, and unfortunately true.

One thing that could help is that company you mentioned Drengin.

There''s a movie channel called Bravo here where they show fairly obscure movies. Drengin could be a bit like that. It would allow you to pay one fee and check out many different indie games. Time will tell if that company does well though.




http://www15.brinkster.com/nazrix/main.html
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wav, it is an old argument, and unfortunately true.

One thing that could help is that company you mentioned Drengin.

There''s a movie channel called Bravo here where they show fairly obscure movies. Drengin could be a bit like that. It would allow you to pay one fee and check out many different indie games. Of course that channel I was talking about comes w/ cable, but Drengin would still be kind of similar. Time will tell if that company does well though.




http://www15.brinkster.com/nazrix/main.html
"All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be --Pink Floyd
Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

What a plight we who try to make a story-based game have...writers of conventional media have words, we have but binary numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
>This isn''t just the game industry audience, this is the way people are. It''s Baywatch vs. Masterpiece Theater, and we all know who''s been more popular.

Ironically, Baywatch is more innovative than Masterpiece Theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technical question here: Am I the only one on this site that is getting horrible throughput. I am on a cable modem and it can take as long as 15 seconds for a single thread to load. Makes treading the boards a very focused event and not a casual see what you can see type affair.

Anyway: I have to agree with Wav on this one. My only problem is that with indie games the respect isn''t there unless it is redefining the industry in some way. I am finding that with the recent downturn in the stock market, investors are not willing to sell to the niche gamer such as the power gamer. They want broad markets, which reduces the options you have during development for eye candy that can help to get your game noticed. As it stands now, if you''re unwilling to go at it on your own and finance your life away on the odd chance you may produce a hit that someone might take notice of, then you might as well commit to a retread and enter the industry with an expansion pack. Even companies like EA and Bioware are resorting to rehashing old engines and releasing new games on them. Baldurs GateII, NWN(though this actually sounds cool), Madden NFL2001 and all of EAs sports line. EA hasn''t released an interesting new sim since The Sims. Bioware can''t seem to break the mold of Baldurs Gate style games. Luckily I believe the investment issues will come to a close here relatively soon. Perhaps investors will wake up to the fact that marketed properly, a more innovative game stands a better chance at sales than Deer Hunter 36 could ever make.

Just my opinion.
Kressilac

ps I wonder sometimes why the Game industry gets no investment respect. I sincerely hope that this changes as currently we are the only 10 billion dollar industry no one wants to invest into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement