Product Life-Cycle
I would have to agree on the expandability point. The more flexible you make your game, the longer it's likely to last. You may not be able to make money off of it during the whole time, but if it's kept fresh in everyone's mind the sequel will be that much easier to advertise. The only game I can really use as a case-in-point is Jedi Knight (one of my favorites). I expected it to be short-lived, but it was still up there for a while. Having most of the files being just simple text really helped; and now that they've got another one coming out based on Jedi Knight, they just mention "Jedi Knight" and everybody knows what they're talking about. I'm not an industry expert, but I know what keeps games interesting around my house. At least, that's my mostly-humble opinion.
Author
The current, prevalent computer game product life-cycle rather sucks, I think.
Books typically have 1-2 years development time by a very small team (usually 1-5 authors), followed by a publisher taking the work, editing it and publishing it. But that's not the end of it. After a hard-cover release, there is a paperback release. And then there are reprints. Not all books are bestsellers, obviously, but it doesn't have to be a bestseller to make money.
Movies have 1-3 years of development (initial shooting as well as pre- and post-production work), then it hits theaters. Then video. Then PPV. Then premium movie channels. Even movies with disappointing theater runs can recover quite a bit in video sales and rentals.
Board games usually take 1-2 years to develop and playtest, then another 2-3 years of slow growth to become the next "Trivial Pursuit" and be picked up by a company like Milton Bradley or Hasbro, which is when the real sales begin...and then last for several more years.
All of these show *years* of earnings potential. Which only seems fitting because of the amount of time required to produce the end product.
Now we have computer games...1-3 years development time with a team from 5-50 to create a product with a viable earnings lifespan of about 3-6 months. If you don't have a hit right away...oops. Bad investment.
Anyone else care to comment? Or am I the only one who thinks this "business model" has problems?
------------------
DavidRM
Samu Games
You can always give your game a boost for each new version coming out. Tomb Raider does that. Each new version has higher requirements then the last. Although I'd personaly have the option to use an older graphics engine if your computer can't handle the newer effects.
I'd like to see revamps of old games such as the Bard's Tale series and the Ultima series. For instance, Bards Tale 1-3 compiled into one game with today's technology. There are advantages to these series being so old and legendary. Many of us older gamers (20's +) played them and loved them as kids. We would love to play them again in a updated form.
Younger gamers probably never played them, so the game would be totally new to them.
I probably would not buy a remake of a game that I had purchaced only 5 years ago because I would still remember most of the answers to the game's challenges. But, for games that were release 10-20 years ago? I probably just remember the characters, the atmosphere, the basic plot, and that I had fun.
Advantages: Franchise recognition. Reuse of plot.
Disadvantages: Some people might have a "been there done that" attitude. Ancient code would not be salvageable. Having to study the series to insure continuity might outweight other advantages.
If these games had been programmed in a purely modular fashion, we could just plug in the new engine and be ready to play. Nice dream. Please, feel free to rip this idea apart. Honestly, I'd like to hear opinions.
Thanks for reading,
Rowindor
Edited by - Rowindor on 1/12/00 12:03:17 PM
Edited by - Rowindor on 1/12/00 12:04:50 PM
Younger gamers probably never played them, so the game would be totally new to them.
I probably would not buy a remake of a game that I had purchaced only 5 years ago because I would still remember most of the answers to the game's challenges. But, for games that were release 10-20 years ago? I probably just remember the characters, the atmosphere, the basic plot, and that I had fun.
Advantages: Franchise recognition. Reuse of plot.
Disadvantages: Some people might have a "been there done that" attitude. Ancient code would not be salvageable. Having to study the series to insure continuity might outweight other advantages.
If these games had been programmed in a purely modular fashion, we could just plug in the new engine and be ready to play. Nice dream. Please, feel free to rip this idea apart. Honestly, I'd like to hear opinions.
Thanks for reading,
Rowindor
Edited by - Rowindor on 1/12/00 12:03:17 PM
Edited by - Rowindor on 1/12/00 12:04:50 PM
This isn''t really the case in Europe. There is a very strong budget/re-release market in Europe. Some of the games I worked on 5 years ago are still on sale through budget labels like Sold Out.
Generally they spend up to a year on full price then go to budget and compilation.
Dan Marchant
www.obscure.co.uk
Generally they spend up to a year on full price then go to budget and compilation.
Dan Marchant
www.obscure.co.uk
One thing DavidRM mentioned in his first post is not quite true, and it has to do with books.
There are something like 50,000 books published in the US alone every year. Most people don''t even see all of the books in one genre, let alone all the books published. It''s been a long time since I looked at the figures, but I think that only about 20% of all the books published make money.
In the popular genre''s, books that are published as first run paperbacks (and that''s alot) have about two months to actually show that they are making any money. If they don''t, they''re gone. It''s really not that much different than the game shelf life (at least on the short side).
The longevity of a good book is admittedly much longer that a game, but that''s more because books are a stable technology. Really popular games actually have a fairly long shelf life compared to length of time that the technology sweet spot is around.
Look at Half-Life as an example, or as mentioned above, Quake II. You can still find Diablo and Warcraft II (published five years ago) on the shelves.
Until the technology race slows down on the hardware side (thirty years from now?), if it ever does, this will be a problem for the games industry.
Mark Fassett
Laughing Dragon Entertainment
http:\\www.laughing-dragon.com
There are something like 50,000 books published in the US alone every year. Most people don''t even see all of the books in one genre, let alone all the books published. It''s been a long time since I looked at the figures, but I think that only about 20% of all the books published make money.
In the popular genre''s, books that are published as first run paperbacks (and that''s alot) have about two months to actually show that they are making any money. If they don''t, they''re gone. It''s really not that much different than the game shelf life (at least on the short side).
The longevity of a good book is admittedly much longer that a game, but that''s more because books are a stable technology. Really popular games actually have a fairly long shelf life compared to length of time that the technology sweet spot is around.
Look at Half-Life as an example, or as mentioned above, Quake II. You can still find Diablo and Warcraft II (published five years ago) on the shelves.
Until the technology race slows down on the hardware side (thirty years from now?), if it ever does, this will be a problem for the games industry.
Mark Fassett
Laughing Dragon Entertainment
http:\\www.laughing-dragon.com
You know, this is a great thread going. Anyways, my oppinion is that its not us developers, its the publishers and the retailers. It seems as though they''ve got three rules:
Rule 1: Get Money.
Rule 2: Get More Money.
Rule 3: See Rule 1.
Mabey I''m wrong, but from what I see, thats the way it seems, which is right for business I suppose. But if you look at the other businesses mentioned in the other threads its tottally different, yet they make money still. Today I bought a copy of Scarface.. that was made in what? 1980. What I''m getting at is we need publishers and retailers with a different point of view, publishers and retailers that see through pretty pictures. We need something fun enough for them to keep on the shelves. Honestly, I can''t really put blame on anyone in particular, but somehow 20 year old movies are still being sold at regular prices and 2 year old games are being sold at less than 20% of thier original prices, thats if they''re lucky enough to still be on the shelves 3 months from release.
Karbon
Rule 1: Get Money.
Rule 2: Get More Money.
Rule 3: See Rule 1.
Mabey I''m wrong, but from what I see, thats the way it seems, which is right for business I suppose. But if you look at the other businesses mentioned in the other threads its tottally different, yet they make money still. Today I bought a copy of Scarface.. that was made in what? 1980. What I''m getting at is we need publishers and retailers with a different point of view, publishers and retailers that see through pretty pictures. We need something fun enough for them to keep on the shelves. Honestly, I can''t really put blame on anyone in particular, but somehow 20 year old movies are still being sold at regular prices and 2 year old games are being sold at less than 20% of thier original prices, thats if they''re lucky enough to still be on the shelves 3 months from release.
Karbon
If you look at the analogy even further:
Books and Films have a story, in general I believe it is the story that makes people want to see the film (although in recent years I have started to wonder...). With board games I believe its the multiplayer aspect that sells, I mean hungry hippos isn't exactly taxing, but you get to play with your mates.
If you look at long running franchises mentioned above they seem to, in general, take the story very seriously, for instance, adventure games such as monkey island from lucasarts or [insert any name here] quest from sierra, or the big rpgs like final fantasy. Or more recently they concentrate on multiplayer. I personally love adventure games and as such I am sad that the genere seems to be on the slide, but if we can take the stories from adventure games and use them in other generes I think it could help the longevity a games sales in general.
So, how about putting more emphasis on the story then?
Edited by - STG on 2/14/00 9:28:06 AM
Books and Films have a story, in general I believe it is the story that makes people want to see the film (although in recent years I have started to wonder...). With board games I believe its the multiplayer aspect that sells, I mean hungry hippos isn't exactly taxing, but you get to play with your mates.
If you look at long running franchises mentioned above they seem to, in general, take the story very seriously, for instance, adventure games such as monkey island from lucasarts or [insert any name here] quest from sierra, or the big rpgs like final fantasy. Or more recently they concentrate on multiplayer. I personally love adventure games and as such I am sad that the genere seems to be on the slide, but if we can take the stories from adventure games and use them in other generes I think it could help the longevity a games sales in general.
So, how about putting more emphasis on the story then?
Edited by - STG on 2/14/00 9:28:06 AM
Old thread, but I''ll add my 2 cents anyway...
Books today are barely different from books 50 years ago. Nicer cover art, but still just thousands of words. A book that appealed in 1950 may still appeal today because they
are not going out of date, they are not being superceded.
Movies follow this pattern to a lesser extent. A 5 year-old
movie is new, 10 years is still popular. But how many of you
regularly watch black and white movies now? In movies,
technology has moved on, and we came to expect colour, and
now computer generated special effects, in many of our
movies.
Computer games take this to the extreme. They are heavily technology-based, and that technology happens to be moving
very quickly. Sure, the Bards Tale II is still a fun game (I played it only the other month), but I can get just as much story and plot in a modern game with a full 3d dynamically rendered environment too.
It''s not so much that people don''t design games to ''last long'' on the shelves. People like you and me want to make fun, new games, so we do. We incorporate the new technology to make it run faster/look better/save coding time (all valid reasons). While that technology is new, the games are selling. Soon, that technology gets old, and that tips the scales in favour of the newer games. I don''t blame the developers, or the publishers. It''s just the way the computer industry is right now. I wouldn''t want the speed of technological advancement to slow down just so that games are on the shelves longer.
So what''s the solution for developers who actually want to be profitable? I don''t think expansion packs or add-ons are the answer, unless they can be produced quickly and cheaply. After all, it''s trying to prolong the life of a rapidly-aging engine, when you could be spending that time developing something new.
One answer is to allow user modifications. That way, the community keeps your game alive. The danger here (which is also a danger with rereleasing games at lower prices) is that players may be more inclined to stick with your older games due to all the addons and modifications available.
Another answer is to develop technology, rather than individual games. Write an engine, encapsulate it, and re-use. If it''s good, you can license it out and keep making money off it with minimal effort. If your engines are good, you can wrap new games around them, devoting more time to gameplay because you only have to update your game engine, instead of writing something new for every game. I think this is the way forward, and although several people wouldn''t want to be locked into producing the same sort of game for the next 5/6 years, it may be worth considering if you don''t have extremely benevolent financial backers
Any comments?
Books today are barely different from books 50 years ago. Nicer cover art, but still just thousands of words. A book that appealed in 1950 may still appeal today because they
are not going out of date, they are not being superceded.
Movies follow this pattern to a lesser extent. A 5 year-old
movie is new, 10 years is still popular. But how many of you
regularly watch black and white movies now? In movies,
technology has moved on, and we came to expect colour, and
now computer generated special effects, in many of our
movies.
Computer games take this to the extreme. They are heavily technology-based, and that technology happens to be moving
very quickly. Sure, the Bards Tale II is still a fun game (I played it only the other month), but I can get just as much story and plot in a modern game with a full 3d dynamically rendered environment too.
It''s not so much that people don''t design games to ''last long'' on the shelves. People like you and me want to make fun, new games, so we do. We incorporate the new technology to make it run faster/look better/save coding time (all valid reasons). While that technology is new, the games are selling. Soon, that technology gets old, and that tips the scales in favour of the newer games. I don''t blame the developers, or the publishers. It''s just the way the computer industry is right now. I wouldn''t want the speed of technological advancement to slow down just so that games are on the shelves longer.
So what''s the solution for developers who actually want to be profitable? I don''t think expansion packs or add-ons are the answer, unless they can be produced quickly and cheaply. After all, it''s trying to prolong the life of a rapidly-aging engine, when you could be spending that time developing something new.
One answer is to allow user modifications. That way, the community keeps your game alive. The danger here (which is also a danger with rereleasing games at lower prices) is that players may be more inclined to stick with your older games due to all the addons and modifications available.
Another answer is to develop technology, rather than individual games. Write an engine, encapsulate it, and re-use. If it''s good, you can license it out and keep making money off it with minimal effort. If your engines are good, you can wrap new games around them, devoting more time to gameplay because you only have to update your game engine, instead of writing something new for every game. I think this is the way forward, and although several people wouldn''t want to be locked into producing the same sort of game for the next 5/6 years, it may be worth considering if you don''t have extremely benevolent financial backers
Any comments?
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
