Future of single player games - Worrying

  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Previous
  • neil74 28 Mar 2013 15:58:53 2,306 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I just saw This and thought it was interesting.

    Tomb Raider may not be to everyone's taste however it was very well received by most and if it fails then that would be worrying for the future of single player games. Personally I only play single player games so if gaming goes multilayer only then that would probably be the end for me. Maybe COD, Halo eat-al only sell well because they have multiplayer too, who knows?
  • Deleted user 28 March 2013 16:04:56
    There are plenty of single player games that are successful and profitable.
  • Gambit1977 28 Mar 2013 16:04:57 9,583 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Wonder how Bioshock infinite has done.
  • Deleted user 28 March 2013 16:13:37
    The fact that game budgets are nearing the same sort of level as film budgets is more worrying to me, to be honest. Where does the money actually go? Films at least can be somewhat broken down by the fact the lead actors usually pocket 7-8 digit salaries.

    Edited by meme at 16:14:06 28-03-2013
  • Deckard1 28 Mar 2013 16:15:30 27,124 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Huge development teams, marketing, long development cycles
  • Deleted user 28 March 2013 16:20:38
    Yeah, but even with fairly large dev teams you're not going to burn through $100 million in a hurry, considering most of them make next to nothing.
  • Deckard1 28 Mar 2013 16:24:50 27,124 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Aliens then, I dunno
  • kinky_mong 28 Mar 2013 16:27:06 9,952 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Huge development teams, marketing, long development cycles
    They should scrap the huge teams and go back to basics with small teams.

    Games will probably be worse, but at least we won't have to sit through 20 minutes long credits including all the fucking babies born to cousins of the code monkeys in case skipping them misses out a final post credits scene. *stares angrily at Bioshock Infinite*

    I'll never get my Orc looking the same again.

  • ronuds 28 Mar 2013 16:29:02 21,788 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Pubs seem to spend as much for marketing as they do everything else. You figure, though: 200 devs @ 40k per year? That's 8m right there for year 1 of just your devs.

    With credits for most games rolling for as long as it took me to beat the game, 100m seems small, tbh!
  • Deleted user 28 March 2013 16:30:11
    It's just one of those "someone somewhere is getting rich, regardless of whether it makes money or not" things to me. You could probably trim out the top brass and have that budget reduced to a fraction of what it was with no real impact on the end product.
  • ronuds 28 Mar 2013 16:40:51 21,788 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The bigwigs will always get paid, with bonus money for good performance.
  • Deleted user 28 March 2013 16:42:23
    It's stuff like this:

    "Square Enix's franchises are well established and require ever-higher production budgets to match and surpass past performance."

    How long and how much did Guardian of Light take to make? That's been about the most well-received Tomb Raider game for at least a decade. I'm fairly convinced most of these devs studios would probably be more profitable if they scale down and pump out decent smaller titles rather than ploughing everything into a single AAA that takes years and years to make. Doubly-so considering how many seem to be folding nowadays. Eggs in baskets and all that.
  • Deckard1 28 Mar 2013 16:45:24 27,124 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Games like Guardian of Light are lucky if they break 2 or 300,000 sales though
  • CharlieStCloud 28 Mar 2013 16:46:02 5,046 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    kinky_mong wrote:
    ... but at least we won't have to sit through 20 minutes long credits including all the fucking babies born to cousins of the code monkeys in case skipping them misses out a final post credits scene.

    *stares angrily at Bioshock Infinite*
    That's called being impatient.
  • ronuds 28 Mar 2013 16:47:17 21,788 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's all about stock holders, imo. Huge profits keep them happy.
  • sanctusmortis 28 Mar 2013 16:48:47 9,627 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It's true - I'd like to see a cost vs sales breakdown for all the big games of the last year, but in particular:

    Halo 4
    Tomb Raider
    Bioshock Infinite
    Assassins Creed 3

    Those 4 AAA single-player focused games are the key here. And if they all took cinema budgets, cinema timeframes and cinema profits, then we need to be looking at why that was necessary. I mean, do you need named voice actors in games? Named writers? What is it that separates the successful and the duds?
  • kinky_mong 28 Mar 2013 16:51:14 9,952 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    CharlieStCloud wrote:
    kinky_mong wrote:
    ... but at least we won't have to sit through 20 minutes long credits including all the fucking babies born to cousins of the code monkeys in case skipping them misses out a final post credits scene.

    *stares angrily at Bioshock Infinite*
    That's called being impatient.
    If not wanting to read that Barry Neckbeard in testing wants to thank his "mom, dad, sister and Mr Tibbles" makes me impatient, then yes I am impatient.

    I'll never get my Orc looking the same again.

  • Deleted user 28 March 2013 16:55:35
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Games like Guardian of Light are lucky if they break 2 or 300,000 sales though
    They also cost less to make, take less time to make and with less people. Smaller dev teams producing smaller, nicely profitable games regularly seems like it'd be better than than one gigantic dev team churning out a single title over the course of five years that needs to sell ridiculous amounts just to break even.
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 28 Mar 2013 16:58:45 6,654 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Yep, a hundred million is a shit ton of money.
  • disusedgenius 28 Mar 2013 17:03:17 5,205 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I thought the current issue was that the mid level stuff wasn't selling enough either? The whole 'go big or go home' conundrum.
  • nickthegun 28 Mar 2013 17:07:16 58,782 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The big stuff isnt selling either, which is why everyone is shitting themselves.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • DavidBoring 28 Mar 2013 17:11:32 1,263 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Personally I only play single player games so if gaming goes multilayer only then that would probably be the end for me.
    according to this study you don't need to worry
  • Deleted user 28 March 2013 17:19:17
    kinky_mong wrote:
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Huge development teams, marketing, long development cycles
    They should scrap the huge teams and go back to basics with small teams.

    Games will probably be worse, but at least we won't have to sit through 20 minutes long credits including all the fucking babies born to cousins of the code monkeys in case skipping them misses out a final post credits scene. *stares angrily at Bioshock Infinite*
    Why would they probably be worse? There are hundreds/thousands of games made for very little that are many times better than many games that cost the ridiculous amounts mentioned.

    Large amounts of the money, ignoring marketing etc. goes on shit cut scenes written and directed by people for whom daytime TV was too high a standard for them. Start with getting rid of that shit.
  • Deleted user 28 March 2013 17:20:48
    ronuds wrote:
    It's all about stock holders, imo. Huge profits keep them happy.
    What? Stock holders want them to spend a fortune on things that don't seem to be selling well.

    Where are your profits?
  • Deleted user 28 March 2013 17:24:19
    I feel the reason they want to still concentrate on these massive big budget games are for the aforementioned "someone getting rich" thing. The small devs, small budget, regular decent income angle doesn't allow for $10 million paydays for producers and so on.
  • kinky_mong 28 Mar 2013 17:26:23 9,952 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    kinky_mong wrote:
    Deckard1 wrote:
    Huge development teams, marketing, long development cycles
    They should scrap the huge teams and go back to basics with small teams.

    Games will probably be worse, but at least we won't have to sit through 20 minutes long credits including all the fucking babies born to cousins of the code monkeys in case skipping them misses out a final post credits scene. *stares angrily at Bioshock Infinite*
    Why would they probably be worse? There are hundreds/thousands of games made for very little that are many times better than many games that cost the ridiculous amounts mentioned.

    Large amounts of the money, ignoring marketing etc. goes on shit cut scenes written and directed by people for whom daytime TV was too high a standard for them. Start with getting rid of that shit.
    Fair point, they might be better.

    Also don't take my post so seriously.

    I'll never get my Orc looking the same again.

  • Deleted user 28 March 2013 17:29:03
    I didn't take your post particularly seriously anyway.
  • ronuds 28 Mar 2013 17:50:10 21,788 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    ronuds wrote:
    It's all about stock holders, imo. Huge profits keep them happy.
    What? Stock holders want them to spend a fortune on things that don't seem to be selling well.

    Where are your profits?
    Profits are nice, but not if they're small. They want millions and million and millions in profits!

    EA, etc. have canned so many franchises that were probably still making money. They just weren't making enough of it.
  • King_Edward 28 Mar 2013 18:40:33 11,454 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Tomb Raider cost $100 million to make, and needs to sell 10 million to be a success.*

    As a point of reference, Uncharted (by all accounts the same game) cost $20 million.

    *Never mind. The article doesn't actually say that at all.

    Edited by King_Edward at 18:42:17 28-03-2013
  • oceanmotion 28 Mar 2013 18:55:39 15,647 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Marketing budgets are probably obscene.

    Cut scene and CGI nonsense can't be cheap as well as those fancy animations.

    I wonder if these cinematic moments are more expensive than good AI and sandbox play. Look at BF4, bet a few scenes had many more staff to make those scenes perfect.

    MS blew 10 million on that Halo live action series.

    Dunno how much they paid that soundtrack guy for Halo 4 but his work was forgettable. Do they need these names, voice people to propel the game to greater heights, don't think it is make or break.

    Edited by oceanmotion at 19:00:05 28-03-2013
  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply