 |
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:18
|
|
Well they are making an expansion. Of course, much of the content should have been in the original, but thats something you may be able to say about a lot of expansions...
I guess the real test will be the number of expansions they manage to sell to those who weren't too put off by the initial Civ3 release.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eurhetemec
|
|
London, UK
Mar 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
For my money, Civ II was considerably more fun than Civ I, and SMAC, post X especially, which changed things more, was more fun than either...
As you say, .5 games look great on paper, and can be very successful, especially if you have an audiences of fanatics, especially non-gamers, who buy your product for reasons other than the gameplay (Tomb Raider, for example), or if your product always had very tight gameplay, and the main interest is the addition of new features (Street Fighter 2, 3, etc., but even in that case, there were so pretty massive leaps and changes).
However, many of the 2.5s that are extremely successful are action-type games, and many have their main market on the consoles, not the PCs. What might be accomplished by a mod or patch on a PC game, can take a new release on a console.
AFAIK, Infogrames is pretty new to this "Strategy and RPGs" market, and doesn't necessarily seem to realise that these types of games take longer to make than the latest licensed-engine FPS, and both Civ III and MOO3 have suffered because Infogrames (whom we hoped would be better than Hasbro, sigh...) hasn't given them enough time, and then has cut off funding when the deadline is passed, meaning that they have to lose money or release and unfinished game, or both.
Frankly, though, and this is where the rant starteth, .5 is what is killing the gaming industry, slowly but surely.
Instead of creating new games, instead of pioneering, developing new genres, and so on, almost every company out there is content to release game X.5, time after time, and whilst this pleases fanatics, people who don't play other games, and people who play Tomb Raider for the boobies, it stifles the whole industry, sends hardcore gamers away, and unless it stops, the games we are playing now, albeit in flasher forms with snazzier graphics, sound, and ease-of-use features, will be the same bloody games we'll be playing in 20 years...
To wildly misuse a quotation, "better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all" - I would suggest that equally, better to try to break the mould, to come up with something new, than to sit around pathetically re-making the same game over and over, because you're assured a certain profit.
It's not even good business sense, in the end. Sure, .5s sell, mostly, but after the 2nd, which is usually bigger than the first, each one sells relatively less and less, so profit margins are increasingly poor.
Whereas if you create something different enough to truly renew a series, or a totally original game, you not only get the profits from that, perhaps massive ones, if you hyped it enough beforehand, but you get the potential of numerous sequels, spin-offs, and further profits.
Thus, whilst a MOO3 could have easily led to profitable expansion packs, MOO4, MoM2, and so on, a MOO2.5 leads nowhere but a MOO3.0, really a MOO2.5.5...
Rant endeth...
PS - Can anyone think of a "great game" that was delivered truly "on time", especially in recent years? I ask, because GP talks about reality and so on. I suggest he knows little of the reality of the computer game industry. Only two kinds of games seem to have been released "on time" of late, those being cookie-cutter junk (Wolfenstein), .5-style sequels (Tomb Raider, but even that has slipped sometimes), many of them of dubious quality, and those which were unfinished, but passed off as complete, of which there have been a huge number (from Hostile Waters to Civ III).
Every game released by "unfailing" developers like id software and Blizzard has slipped or had very, very, very long development times, and this is hardly atypical of the industry.
The reality is that innovative, high-quality, and well-programmed games slip, and that junk, dubious sequels and/or unfinished games always ship on time. Computer game design is not house-painting or fixing a tire, it's an art, and one where a lot of unexpected issues can come up.
I suggest that publishers need to be more reasonable in their expectations about new and original games and sequels (if you ignore the oxymoron), rather than mindlessly putting in cut-off points.
As Microsoft knows, sometimes you have to lose a bit of money to make a LOT of money later on...
It's no wonder that the more original game designers, such a Molyneux, prefer to set up their own companies and do their own development, rather being at the whims of some random 35-year old MBA who doesn't even like computer games, let alone understand them...
Last edited by Eurhetemec on 05-05-2002 at 17:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eurhetemec
For my money, Civ II was considerably more fun than Civ I, and SMAC, post X especially, which changed things more, was more fun than either... |
Agreed. And it had some reasonable advances. But it was a sequel. The thing that made it great was already in civ1. It was just a shinier new model. But the advances were not more important than the core fun part already in civ1.
quote:
AFAIK, Infogrames is pretty new to this "Strategy and RPGs" market, and doesn't necessarily seem to realise that these types of games take longer to make than the latest licensed-engine FPS, and both Civ III and MOO3 have suffered because Infogrames (whom we hoped would be better than Hasbro, sigh...) hasn't given them enough time, and then has cut off funding when the deadline is passed, meaning that they have to lose money or release and unfinished game, or both. |
The issue isn't with IG. It's with Firaxis for either making a poor estimate of time/money required to do the project. (Or more likely for having a personell dispute, i.e. Reynolds departure, which set the project back.)
quote:
It's not even good business sense, in the end. Sure, .5s sell, mostly, but after the 2nd, which is usually bigger than the first, each one sells relatively less and less, so profit margins are increasingly poor
Whereas if you create something different enough to truly renew a series, or a totally original game, you not only get the profits from that, perhaps massive ones, if you hyped it enough beforehand, but you get the potential of numerous sequels, spin-offs, and further profits.. |
But of course it costs less to make a low end sequel. So that tends to keep margins up. The devil is in the details. But you can't just consider the top line. Think about the expenses also.
quote:
PS - Can anyone think of a "great game" that was delivered truly "on time", especially in recent years? |
donno...AOE?
quote:
I ask, because GP talks about reality and so on. I suggest he knows little of the reality of the computer game industry. |
Granted. But my instincts are good for this kind of discussion...and I bring more of a business forcused mindset than the compulsive gamer...
quote:
It's no wonder that the more original game designers, such a Molyneux, prefer to set up their own companies and do their own development, |
There are some potential advantages to in-house development. Espacially for creative ventures or R/D focused ventures. But realize there are downsides too. Maybe its good to have a mean, evil publisher who pushes the deadline and the bottom line. Lots of independant shops go belly up because they won't make the hard choices.
quote:
rather being at the whims of some random 35-year old MBA who doesn't even like computer games, let alone understand them... |
I'm 36, ok!?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
"The issue isn't with IG. It's with Firaxis for either making a poor estimate of time/money required to do the project. (Or more likely for having a personell dispute, i.e. Reynolds departure, which set the project back.) "
GP: I don't agree with you there. The problem lies primarily with IG. It's not like they can't structure a deal to minimize problems and then follow up to make sure things are on track. That's their job, isn't it? They've got to make sure their money is being spent right--nobody else will.
And personnel disputes should be a part of the risk calculus of IG. You don't start slashing and burning on a project because of personnel disputes.
"Frankly, though, and this is where the rant starteth, .5 is what is killing the gaming industry, slowly but surely."
I agree. On the other hand, I would really like to see a M.U.L.E. 1.5.
Last edited by DanS on 06-05-2002 at 09:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eurhetemec
|
|
London, UK
Mar 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
GP - Age of Empires.
One good game out on time, and not a particularly original game, at that. Not only was it not original, in fact, it was technologically primitive, being 2D, low-colour (256, IIRC!), and generally extremely simple.
That's at one end of the spectrum requiring almost zero R&D, because of the technological simplicity, and the stolen gameplay (typical RTS). All they needed to do was tune the gameplay.
Compare and contrast with a game like Black & White, which takes massive technological steps, is largely original, and requires significant R&D, and maybe even dramatic changes of direction, because you're venturing into uncharted waters. Such a game would be unlikely to be financed by a company such as IG, especially given the dev time.
So you can't compare the two very well, and if AoE is the only good game to come out on time and fully-featured of late, then that rather proves what I'm saying: truly innovative and technologically complex games need longer dev cycles, and need to be able to slip to accomodate technological changes, or reach their full potential.
When companies fail to realise this, that's where the problems start. You can't mindlessly blame it all on Firaxis for making a bad estimate of the time and finance required (if they even did), because IG are an experience company, and should have checked those figures, and got some of their own, to see if it was reasonable.
Indeed, they may simply have said: Make Civ III, you have until X, which is a foolish proposition for a TBS game, especially a prestigious sequel.
The main problem, though, is that companies like IG are *only* looking at the short-term bottom line. This is why they fold, change hands or have massive financial troubles almost as often as the independant dev studios!
I can't think of any risky games that have bankrupted any larger companies, or even, really, smaller ones (apart from Cavedog, perhaps, if you remember them). More often it's mass-producing some piece of crap that predictably fails to sell that does the damage.
Determining what is going to be a hit, and what is not, always seems to be difficult for big games publishers, but the fact is, almost all the "big hits" financially, of late, have been either entirely original and somewhat risky games (The Sims, for example, has raked in insane profits), or *proper* sequels with very long dev times (like Diablo II).
In the end, I challenge you to provide examples of the "big mean publisher" helping out, rather than screwing everything up, for both themselves, and for the developers.
Also, can I ask, what industry do you work in?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
ravagon
|
|
Australia
Sep 1999
time: 13:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
The issue isn't with IG. It's with Firaxis for either making a poor estimate of time/money required to do the project. (Or more likely for having a personell dispute, i.e. Reynolds departure, which set the project back.)
|
Now that I would tend to disagree with. Predicting a completion date a couple of years in advance can't be easy. Personell disputes, as with everything else in life, cannot always be resolved. I don't pretend to know what happened but I don't think blame can be arbitrarily lumped on Firaxis for not using "all necessary means" to keep the team together, regardless of the possible cost.
IG chose to release on time (Mid Nov IIRC), no matter the cost in consumer satisfaction, regardless of the bugs still present (some of which should have been very easy to catch), and whats more in a package that still (falsely) advertised features that weren't present. That last (IMO) is pretty much unforgivable.
Delaying for a couple of weeks shouldn't (and I admit I am guessing here) have seriously impacted their distribution or their Xmas sales, either in the US or elsewhere, and could have seen a large portion of those bugs fixed.
The point as to whether Firaxis should have been testing/fixing in advance of when they were is open to debate, (maybe they were hoping for a delay? - I don't know) as is IG's decision to release a faulty product on schedule.
What you can't debate though is that the advertising and packaging surrounding it were blatantly false. This isn't even touching on the LE issue.
This was solely and wholely IG's responsibility as the publisher/distributor, and they made the choice to deliberately sacrifice both their own and Firaxis' reputations for the bottom line "money-in-the-bank-on-time".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eurhetemec
GP - Age of Empires.
One good game out on time, and not a particularly original game, at that. Not only was it not original, in fact, it was technologically primitive, being 2D, low-colour (256, IIRC!), and generally extremely simple.
That's at one end of the spectrum requiring almost zero R&D, because of the technological simplicity, and the stolen gameplay (typical RTS). All they needed to do was tune the gameplay.
Compare and contrast with a game like Black & White, which takes massive technological steps, is largely original, and requires significant R&D, and maybe even dramatic changes of direction, because you're venturing into uncharted waters. Such a game would be unlikely to be financed by a company such as IG, especially given the dev time.
So you can't compare the two very well, and if AoE is the only good game to come out on time and fully-featured of late, then that rather proves what I'm saying: truly innovative and technologically complex games need longer dev cycles, and need to be able to slip to accomodate technological changes, or reach their full potential.
When companies fail to realise this, that's where the problems start. You can't mindlessly blame it all on Firaxis for making a bad estimate of the time and finance required (if they even did), because IG are an experience company, and should have checked those figures, and got some of their own, to see if it was reasonable.
Indeed, they may simply have said: Make Civ III, you have until X, which is a foolish proposition for a TBS game, especially a prestigious sequel.
The main problem, though, is that companies like IG are *only* looking at the short-term bottom line. This is why they fold, change hands or have massive financial troubles almost as often as the independant dev studios!
I can't think of any risky games that have bankrupted any larger companies, or even, really, smaller ones (apart from Cavedog, perhaps, if you remember them). More often it's mass-producing some piece of crap that predictably fails to sell that does the damage.
Determining what is going to be a hit, and what is not, always seems to be difficult for big games publishers, but the fact is, almost all the "big hits" financially, of late, have been either entirely original and somewhat risky games (The Sims, for example, has raked in insane profits), or *proper* sequels with very long dev times (like Diablo II).
In the end, I challenge you to provide examples of the "big mean publisher" helping out, rather than screwing everything up, for both themselves, and for the developers.
Also, can I ask, what industry do you work in? |
I'm a management consultant.
Wonder which made more money, AOE or Black and White? That should tell us something...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ravagon
Now that I would tend to disagree with. Predicting a completion date a couple of years in advance can't be easy. Personell disputes, as with everything else in life, cannot always be resolved. I don't pretend to know what happened but I don't think blame can be arbitrarily lumped on Firaxis for not using "all necessary means" to keep the team together, regardless of the possible cost.
IG chose to release on time (Mid Nov IIRC), no matter the cost in consumer satisfaction, regardless of the bugs still present (some of which should have been very easy to catch), and whats more in a package that still (falsely) advertised features that weren't present. That last (IMO) is pretty much unforgivable.
Delaying for a couple of weeks shouldn't (and I admit I am guessing here) have seriously impacted their distribution or their Xmas sales, either in the US or elsewhere, and could have seen a large portion of those bugs fixed.
The point as to whether Firaxis should have been testing/fixing in advance of when they were is open to debate, (maybe they were hoping for a delay? - I don't know) as is IG's decision to release a faulty product on schedule.
What you can't debate though is that the advertising and packaging surrounding it were blatantly false. This isn't even touching on the LE issue.
This was solely and wholely IG's responsibility as the publisher/distributor, and they made the choice to deliberately sacrifice both their own and Firaxis' reputations for the bottom line "money-in-the-bank-on-time". |
No doubt that personell issues may be unsolveable. They are still Firaxis's responsability. IG has no role here. that is internal to the subcontractor. (Firaxis.).
WRT to the LE. Agreed. That was IG responsability. Still would not surprise me to know that Firaxis was guilty of some of this problem as well. For instance, did Sid give IG the designer's note adn than IG lied about it. Or did the two decide mutually to have a flimsy designer's note. Or did Sid just under-deliver.
If anybody has a right to be mad, it's IG. They paid good money to a subcontractor and he's delivering shoddy goods.
hitting the Xmas rush was the only way top go. doing otherwise would be crazy form a retails sales standpoint.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eurhetemec
|
|
London, UK
Mar 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Black & White vs AoE1?
I'd be shocked if B&W didn't make considerably more money, myself, it sold very well indeed, where AoE1 was something of a slower hit.
AoE2 did very well, though.
B&W2 is still in production.
One key difference is that AoE is made my Microsoft, who have insane budgets and big advertising ability, whereas B&W was made by Lionhead (I forget who published it), and needed more hyping, and to actually be a good product.
MS' advertising machine can sell even a mediocre product, which puts it under less pressure to deliver quality games. The only reason to do that, really, is prestige, and the idea that your company "makes good games", which is priceless, because, whilst it's hard to maintain at a high level (again, only Blizzard, id software, and a few name designers like Warren Spector or Peter Molyneux manage it), it pretty much guarantees sales, and definately guarantees industry hype, which further helps sales.
A management consultant, eh? No wonder you're keen on painting the boss-types who'd be paying you as saints and the contractors as sinners. They wouldn't be too happy if you said it was the other way around...
In the end, if profit is concern #1, you should get out of the TBS business (not you personally, I mean, in general), because they are simply not the most profitable games out there, being hard to develop, requiring some patience to produce quality products, and having very finickity fans who actually do have some influence on sales...
Further, whilst you can bang on about how a Christmas release was the only sensible thing (despite the fact this matters far more to console games than it does PC ones, sales-wise, and to action games more than strategy and RPGs), by releasing an inferior product, they lose future sales.
Take the expansion pack, for example. Given the quality of Civ III, I have precisely zero interest in buying it, where I am normally the sort of person who buys every expansion pack for any game he owns, even ones I only play a little.
Then look further ahead, to say Civ IV. Had Civ III been a massive success, and well-liked, it could have come out fairly soon, maybe after a couple of add-on packs, and Civ spin-offs could have been devised, and profits would have been had by all.
Now it's unlikely to happen for several years, and if it happens any time soon, then it will have the stigma of Civ III to deal with.
You seem to be all about getting it out the door at any cost, and this is exactly the attitude that is producing crappy games and hurting the whole gaming industry. People like you should be kept very far away from games, I think...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
There is something to be said for seeing Civ3 as an introduction to the expansion packs, which I would imagine are very profitable. In this, Civ 3 failed for me at least.
" In the end, if profit is concern #1, you should get out of the TBS business (not you personally, I mean, in general), because they are simply not the most profitable games out there, being hard to develop, requiring some patience to produce quality products, and having very finickity fans who actually do have some influence on sales...
Boy are you in for a shocker! A game company such as Firaxis can be a money mint. On a project like Civ 3, my model is showing about a 50% IRR for both IG and Firaxis...
"They are still Firaxis's responsability. IG has no role here. that is internal to the subcontractor. (Firaxis.)."
Again, this is all part of the risk calculus for IG. Even if it's not their responsibility, it sure is their problem. They should factor in these possibilities to their financial planning and manage Firaxis once it starts hitting the fan.
Last edited by DanS on 08-05-2002 at 00:38
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-05-2002 19:01
).
|