Advertisement
Only epics should cost 40 quid - Charles Cecil News
PC
Xbox 360
PlayStation 3
News
by
Tom Bramwell
Revolution Software's Charles Cecil reckons games should move away from the one-size-fits-all approach because it's getting in the way of sales.
"Gears of Wars was clearly a blockbuster, people are happy to pay GBP 40 for that and feel it's good value," he told our sister site GamesIndustry.biz in an interview published today.
"But then we have all these smaller games like Katamari Damacy that get very well reviewed and perceived very fondly by people within the industry, but don't sell to a wider audience. My view on that is you can only sell something for GBP 40 if it's truly epic."
"We've got to find different models where we have the epic games on one side and the more 'indie' games on the other," he added.
Cecil says he's currently working on projects based on Revolution's existing IP - the company owns Broken Sword and Beneath A Steel Sky IP - but isn't prepared to talk about details or potential sales models yet.
Episodic might be off the table though, because while he's "really interested" in how Telltale Games does with Sam & Max, "the jury is still out" as far as his own efforts are concerned.
For more Cecil-related Cecilling, read the full Charles Cecil interview on GamesIndustry.biz.
Advertisement
Are you excited about Gears of War on Xbox 360?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Katamari Damacy
Gears of War
Latest News
-
Katamari was comment on consumerism [23]
-
Katamari creator not keen on Wii [58]
-
Namco says We Kill Katamari [34]
-
Katamari t-shirts on sale now [18]
-
Katamari creator unhappy [19]
Latest Screenshots
21 June, 2004 [4]
Release Date Out now!
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Poster
|
squarejawhero
24/05/07 @ 08:55
0
Wow, it's been a while since this name came up... At least he didn't return to "the adventure genre is dead" hyperbole. Maybe Sam N Max's episodic put paid to that? I hear the last Broken Sword was a bit disappointing. Shame, really, as Revolution have a crapload of potential as narrative leaders in an otherwise one-dimensional industry.
Other than that, I agree with him on this point.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/05/07 @ 09:56
|
|
DanWhitehead
24/05/07 @ 09:02
0
I've had more hours of gameplay out of Katamari than I got out of Gears of War, so I think it's a deeply flawed argument.
Some games, by their nature, are just more limited in their appeal. Most of the audience that made Gears of War a huge success probably wouldn't buy Katamari even if it was a quarter of the price, so claiming that games that aren't "epic" (whatever that means - Gears can be finished in a day) should sell for less would simply ensure that they'd sell roughly the same amount, but make even less money. Therefore, less non-blockbuster games would be made. I could understand such talk coming from one of the big action game developers, but that hardly sounds like an ideal scenario for a company like Revolution.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/05/07 @ 10:02
|
|
0
I think that's down to personal opinions... I certainly don't think Gears was at all "epic". It was nice, yes, but very short lived and over hyped and I'm damn certain that Katamari takes a hell of a lot longer to complete than Gears of War - besides they're completely different games. Katamari wasn't as well received because people are lazy or too stupid to try new things because they can't see past the "kiddy graphics". Look at LocoRoco. It got amazing reviews and happens to be an excellent game but did it sell well? The problem does not lie in the pricing of games but the awareness of the consumers.
|
|
nickthegun
24/05/07 @ 09:02
0
True enough. Sadly, there have been a few games ive missed out on that, despite reviewing well I missed out on because 'full price' seems a bit much for a puzzle game.
Take Crush, reviews today, for example. Good reviews, but I will probably only pick it up when its 10-15 quid from play asia. |
|
0
Cheaper games ftw!
Actually, he does make a good point - there's no way something like Katamari is going to be perceived to be worth the same as something like Final Fantasy XII and publishers should have variable pricing strategies to help promote those quirky puzzlers that might not ordinarily get to the top of the charts (Mercury Meltdown Revolution should take note, but I believe it's a full £39.99?). A new Beneath a Steel Sky game would be cool. I remember getting that on my Amiga on 14 floppy disks! It took me about 2 hours just to install the thing, but it was well worth it.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/05/07 @ 10:04
|
|
DanWhitehead
24/05/07 @ 09:06
0
Is this the same Revolution that owns copyright on a load of the stories from the 2000AD comics?
You're thinking of Rebellion, which actually owns 2000AD, and developed the Dredd vs Death game and Rogue Trooper. Beneath A Steel Sky did feature a promotional comic and in-game art by Dave "Watchmen" Gibbons though. |
|
0
I can't help buy agree with him.
But on the other hand, other media are the same. I mean, recently I went to see Zodiac in the cinema which was two and a half hours long. I'd have paid the exact same price to see an animated feature that lasts 80 minutes. But yeah, I do agree with his point. Why should a game like Twilight Princess that gave me 54 hours of pleasure be the same price as the likes of a Prince Of Persia game that lasts 10. Then again, what factor should influence the cost of a game? If longer games can be sold at a higher price this will encourage developers to bulk out a game with unnecessary boring parts. |
|
BadBoyBonner
24/05/07 @ 09:10
0
Think any publisher will always be right up against it, trying to sell a puzzle game to the masses at a top drawer price. Think it has as much to do with general perception of puzzles as much as anything to do with the game industry. Must also admit I am pretty much in the same camp - and do think things like Live should be explored for this with more than the odd converted Flash PopCap game etc.
Now if they Called it - Katamari Brain Training : Roll your brain to sucess. I perdict that sales would almost double or even triple. |
|
dirigiblebill
24/05/07 @ 09:12
0
Cecil's got his terms confuzzled, I'd say. By 'epic' I understand either many, many gameplay hours or a grand vision/narrative, whereas he seems to mean 'very accessible', 'mainstream' etc, as against 'small', by which he means 'indie' or 'niche'. Ico is an 'epic' game by my lights, but a 'small' game by his.
|
|
RobertFoster
24/05/07 @ 09:15
0
Cecil says he's currently working on projects based on Revolution's existing IP - the company owns Broken Sword and Beneath A Steel Sky IP - but isn't prepared to talk about details or potential sales models yet.
Apparently, it's a Broken Sword Movie... |
|
0
In other words, prices more like PC games....
Supreme commander , STALKER, even Spider man 3 are all under 30 Euros NEW on PC... http://www.play.com/Games/PC/6-/RegionHo... That's why I stick with PC anyway. |
|
0
Can't publishers just reflect the costs of making the game in the price of buying it? Games that cost less to make should cost less to buy, regardless of their innate quality. The console manufacturers insisting on one or two price-points for their games is one factor driving the constant stream of drivel available on any platform - if you can't compete on price, after all, you'll compete on appeal by licensing famous brands/movies/whatever else. Particularly when you know that being the Game of The Film is a far more reliable bet for decent sales over some vague promises about gameplay quality.
|
|
login_name
24/05/07 @ 09:37
0
Surely it's all personal opinion on what is or is not an 'epic' game. Like people have pointed out, you get more hours from Katamari than Gears of Bore. From his perspective, it would appear that only over hyped games deserve to make money, while the more modest titles don't, regardless of play time or fun factor.
Just cos a game looks and feels like a movie and has a movie like budget and marketing, does not mean it's an epic game. It's just a different style and approach. If the publisher decides to spend all that money then that's their choice. It doesn't make it any better, just look at EA titles or the numerous movie tie-ins. Besides, I thought Live! and PSN were doing this anyway... |
|
sickpuppysoftware
24/05/07 @ 09:39
0
Doesn't the market do this anyway? If people don't want to pay full price then the games sit on the shelves until the price comes down to shift stock anyway.
|
|
FaceOmeter
24/05/07 @ 09:46
0
The fact is, if Wii games were £35 I'd have bought 2 or 3 more of them by now... £40 is a psychological barrier! I seriously think they'd make more money knocking a few quid off even the big ones - PC games are down in the £20 area these days, and that still works...
|
|
Agent_Llama
24/05/07 @ 09:53
0
I wouldn't pay £40 for Gears, but I would happily do so for Katamari.
But I think publishers need to think about how their game is perceived - Katamari was a risky title that more 'casual' gamers would have been more reluctant to pick up. Having a lower price point would bring it more it to the range of impulse purchasing or sway their opinion. On the other hand, Game and their ilk could stop being twats and actually start promoting/getting enough copies in of games. Where was the promotion of Katamari, or Okami? Instead of seeing Clover's marvellous game plastered everywhere upon release, we had Little Britain instead. |
|
0
By 'epic' I can only guess he means epic development budget!! :)
There was nothing epic about Gears except the name of the developer. I'm all for a variable pricing scale, but measuring a products relative worth is pretty hard. For some people Katamari on the 360 may be the pinnacle of gaming and worth every penny of it's (probable) 39.99 price tag. |
|
0
DanWhitehead: I've had more hours of gameplay out of Katamari than I got out of Gears of War, so I think it's a deeply flawed argument.
Maybe "Epic" wasn't the best word for Cecil to use, should have used "High Production values". It's like saying you got 1000 hours of Geometry Wars so it's well worth the price of a fully fledged game, others won't see it that way because it cost **** all to make in the first place and you'd feel ripped off if they charged you £40 for it, compared to bigger games like Final Fantasy, Gears of War etc. There should be a similar pricing structure for MP only games as well, which is why I admire Sony's efforts to mix and match the games they sell between PSN and Retail accordingly to what they are.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/05/07 @ 11:05
|
|
DanWhitehead
24/05/07 @ 10:12
0
PC games are down in the £20 area these days, and that still works...
PC games don't have to hand over a chunk of money to the platform owner though. Console games have to factor payments to to Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo into their prices. |
|
0
He could have picked a better example. Katamari was always sold at a lower price in the United States and Japan. In the States the list price for We Love Katamari was $29.99 and the first game retailed for $19.99.
It was EA who made the decision to slot We Love Katamari into its existing price structure for the European release. Just another Euro rip off.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/05/07 @ 11:18
|
|
DanWhitehead
24/05/07 @ 10:21
0
Trouble is, you can't assign monetary value to a game based on how big it is. To return to the film example, nobody walks out of a 90 minute movie and demands half their money back because it wasn't as long as Lord of the Rings. You're paying to be entertained, not by the minute.
A great puzzle game can entertain you for just as long as Oblivion, and is just as worthy of the same price point - but only to people who love puzzle games enough to get that level of entertainment from it. More people may pick it up at a lower price, but that devalues the product and probably wouldn't result in enough new sales to offset the reduced profit. It seems to me that what Cecil is arguing is that niche titles shouldn't command a premium price - which may be commercially true, but it seems like a curious cause to be championing when you develop niche titles yourself. |
|
kangarootoo
24/05/07 @ 10:32
0
I think XBLA and The PS3 Store are already catering for customers in the way he describes. "Smaller" games for less than full shop floor prices is what XBLA is all about (though the wave of cynical "retro" tat that keeps getting released is harming the potential of the service IMO).
He is quite right that some games don't really suit an RRP of £40. I think part of the problem is that declaring your game to not be AAA+++ with bells on is not good marketing. It never harmed the £1.99 ranges I remember as a kid though. |
|
0
I dunno. I see both sides. I mean, I don't expect to pay less for an independent film than a Hollywood blockbuster.
Big titles make the money by selling more and smaller titles are sustained with the revenue they generate. Less revenue might just kill them off. Would lowering the price help? I don't know. I buy what I really like, not what's really cheap... |
|
0
Trouble is, you can't assign monetary value to a game based on how big it is. To return to the film example, nobody walks out of a 90 minute movie and demands half their money back because it wasn't as long as Lord of the Rings. You're paying to be entertained, not by the minute.
No your not, but your paying for the quality of the entertainment. If you went to watch a movie and all the special effects cheaply done 60's style retro, where you could still see the string, or the pathetic shakey cam to create the effect of an after shock of an explosion because of the budget, that type of movie in todays age would go nowhere near the Cinema's they'd go straight to Sky movies Indy channel or DVD's. Saying that you would need a cheaper way of distributing the smaller games last gen it was all down to Handhelds, this gen the Xbox 360 and PS3 have XBLA and PSN. Hell even Sony touched up on this, they sell the PS2's eye-toy with the Eye-toy Camera and game for £40, yet Eye-toy games without the Eye-toy are £25 I think they do a similar thing with Buzz. |
|
kangarootoo
24/05/07 @ 10:38
0
@DanWhitehead
"but it seems like a curious cause to be championing when you develop niche titles yourself." Not if he realises that for his titles to perform to the best of their potential, they need to be appropriately priced. Seems to me like he is savvy enough to know where to place his product. |
|
kangarootoo
24/05/07 @ 10:45
0
So long as they keep the "point and click" control option (as they did with the latest BS game) I whole heartedly agree.
|
|
0
I think his use of the word Blockbuster is more to the point than the word Epic. You need to look at it from a mass market rather than hardcore point of view. The like of Gears, Halo, Zelda, GTA etc are perceived as blockbuster due to a combination of graphics, advertising and hype as well as decent gameplay, regardless of their length.
Despite it being a decent game, I doubt many casual consumers would judge Katamari worth £40 due to basic graphics and a lack of advertising / hype (plus the fact that it doesn't involve racing or guns). However, they might take a chance on it at £15 as the cost / risk ratio is much less. |
|
kangarootoo
24/05/07 @ 11:51
0
@mingster
I think it makes perfect sense when you realise that the only thing that really matters is public perception. However much you spend making something, and however many hours of fun it provides, it is only actually worth what people will pay for it. |
|
0
I agree with kangarootoo on this. I guess he's thinking that the lower price the more it will shift, the more revenue overall the game will get and therefore offset the impact of lowering the price in the first place *makes the most obvious point so far*.
It really depends on what model of purchaser these 'minor' games attract though. Maybe they aren't selling as well as they could at the top price range because of price, or maybe it's just because they don't actually appeal to that many people in the first place. In the latter case lowering the price may attract a few more people but could actually be harmful in the long run due to just simply not having the wide-ranging attraction the 'Epic' games have. EDIT: I said "model of purchaser". You remember that gun I gave you? Take it.....you can do this!
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 24/05/07 @ 12:53
|
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
