By Laboured Go To PostWhew.
This is awfully misleading without reading the full context of it.
All based on estimates, all AAA games removed from the numbers, any game with less than 10 user reviews removed, further top and bottom 5% removed.
The end result leaves behind 170 games, with anything to possibly skew the data positively, like the top 5% of indie games that are actually worth buying or AAA games removed completely from weighting the averages.
What’s it trying to prove with data? That shit games sell like shit?
By Laboured Go To PostA whole page and a half of earnest Naughty Dog discussion. And you fuckers bitch about Era.If this were Reset, we'd have 15 pages discussing Uncharted 4 as the Citizen Kane of gaming.
By HottestVapes Go To PostThis is awfully misleading without reading the full context of it.I wouldn't say it's that misleading, he's trying to estimate what the average dev can expect to earn from steam, and how that has been trending over time. he's hit on a real issue here.
All based on estimates, all AAA games removed from the numbers, any game with less than 10 user reviews removed, further top and bottom 5% removed.
The end result leaves behind 170 games, with anything to possibly skew the data positively, like the top 5% of indie games that are actually worth buying or AAA games removed completely from weighting the averages.
What’s it trying to prove with data? That shit games sell like shit?
By LFMartins86 Go To PostThey only announced it yesterday. Demo teams : Liverpool, Man City, Real Madrid, Atlético Madrid, Roma, Dortmund, PSG, Club America, LAFC and Vissel Kobe, kick-off and Volta mode playable.what the fuck
where's the GOAT team Juventus
By rerixo Go To PostI wouldn't say it's that misleading, he's trying to estimate what the average dev can expect to earn from steam, and how that has been trending over time. he's hit on a real issue here.It's gonna get worse. Too many indie studios, shitload of games coming out every week.
There's 1000++ games that's out on the fucking Switch for instance.
I
By rerixo Go To PostI wouldn't say it's that misleading, he's trying to estimate what the average dev can expect to earn from steam, and how that has been trending over time. he's hit on a real issue here.At face value, without the further context of the study, it’s misleading. If you don’t think so just wait for Polygon/Eurogamer/etc. to take the bulletpoints of the tweet to use for their next clickbait article then get back to me.
By FortuneFaded Go To PostUncharted 4 is the best Uncharted #youcanthandlethetruthFuck uncharted 3 and 4 and whatever psp vita versions
By Flutter Go To PostIt's gonna get worse. Too many indie studios, shitload of games coming out every week.I'm sure subscription services will help out and not hurt the industry at all.
There's 1000++ games that's out on the fucking Switch for instance.
By NinjaFridge Go To PostI'm sure subscription services will help out and not hurt the industry at all.I keep thinking about this, actually. What happens to the industry after the publishers have all convinced consumers that their games are only worth $5-$15 a month? Like, Game Pass is good value, but at what point is Microsoft just devaluing their games? Alternatively, the kinds of experiences needed to support subscriptions will eventually lead to a homogenization of the types of games being made, if we aren't already there.
Does the big single player game have a place in that kind of world? It's tough to support a project like that if you're only asking people to only play $10 to play it. And it's not just Microsoft. We've already seen Sony start to wade into the service game market (GT Sport, the long term support of stuff like Days Gone) and that's only going to get more aggressive next generation.
Seems like a cable model to me and we know some items are subsidized by others in that type of subscription model. IE, ESPN helps cover the cost lost on things like the science channel or oxygen network. That being said ... those networks still need to be offered, otherwise you'll reduce your subscription base. I ain't signing up to play a bunch of online FPS's as an example. I wonder if they'll come up with tiered subscriptions. $15 a month gets you access to AAA titles, $20 a month gets you access to AAA + Indy, $30 gets you access to everything.
But Microsoft already set the standard. $10 gets you everything, from giant releases like Forza Horizon and Gears 5 to small stuff like Ori and Psychonauts. Nobody can then come out with a service that's less for more money. Sony can't charge users extra to play Death Stranding because it cost more to make than Wipeout. (And really, people are fooling themselves if they don't think Sony is heavily exploring this stuff and how to break into the service game market.)
That, I think, is the problem. We're heading to a place where the major publishers and platform holders have told users to pay a small price to play their catalogs and they can't go back on that now. Ubisoft's thing is $15. EA Access is $30 for a whole year.
That, I think, is the problem. We're heading to a place where the major publishers and platform holders have told users to pay a small price to play their catalogs and they can't go back on that now. Ubisoft's thing is $15. EA Access is $30 for a whole year.
By rodeoclown Go To PostI keep thinking about this, actually. What happens to the industry after the publishers have all convinced consumers that their games are only worth $5-$15 a month? Like, Game Pass is good value, but at what point is Microsoft just devaluing their games? Alternatively, the kinds of experiences needed to support subscriptions will eventually lead to a homogenization of the types of games being made, if we aren't already there.
Does the big single player game have a place in that kind of world? It's tough to support a project like that if you're only asking people to only play $10 to play it. And it's not just Microsoft. We've already seen Sony start to wade into the service game market (GT Sport, the long term support of stuff like Days Gone) and that's only going to get more aggressive next generation.
SIngle player games will become the domain of first party showcases and small indie titles.
It is what it is. The market isn't big enough to support games like Control that cost a ton of money to make and doesn't have a recurring revenue stream on the backend.
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostSIngle player games will become the domain of first party showcases and small indie titles.We'll see about that.
It is what it is. The market isn't big enough to support games like Control that cost a ton of money to make and doesn't have a recurring revenue stream on the backend.
By rodeoclown Go To PostI keep thinking about this, actually. What happens to the industry after the publishers have all convinced consumers that their games are only worth $5-$15 a month? Like, Game Pass is good value, but at what point is Microsoft just devaluing their games? Alternatively, the kinds of experiences needed to support subscriptions will eventually lead to a homogenization of the types of games being made, if we aren't already there.
Does the big single player game have a place in that kind of world? It's tough to support a project like that if you're only asking people to only play $10 to play it. And it's not just Microsoft. We've already seen Sony start to wade into the service game market (GT Sport, the long term support of stuff like Days Gone) and that's only going to get more aggressive next generation.
Subscription models are fine, but the kind of value Microsoft is offering is...dumb. Brand new titles for 5 dollars a month, many of which have significant SP components to them that don't require users to enter into something like Xbox Live Gold. If the games that ruled the day were all GaaS based and also required a Gold subscription to access an always online SP, then that'd be one thing--because you're forcing people into the ecosystem and getting them hooked. The problem is beating Gears 5 campaign and (presumably) Halo Infinite campaigns and then unsubscribing doesn't require that. Back in the day though, these titles are strong enough that people will buy them for 60 a piece, beat SP, dabble in MP and then trade them in at a loss.
I mean ... maybe we're all assuming $10 isn't enough, but we're no privy to those types of financials. And if it isn't feasible I would expect price increases.
By Pennywise Go To PostWe'll see about that.Control might've done fine, but fine doesn't cut it when you're talking budgets like that or Quantum Break. He's right. Remedy is going to get bought up at some point soon because they won't be financially able to make games like this without the backing of a major publisher.
The consolidation is going to get worse and worse as these smaller teams can't comfortably make bigger budget games and publishers need content to fill their subscriptions.
Remedy has no business trying to bring those level of assets to the table right now tbh.
They should be on the AA eurojank model atm.
They should be on the AA eurojank model atm.
I straight up dont even buy indie games anymore because I know they'll be free on egs. Like I wonder if the epic check is worth it when it completely devalues their games
By data Go To PostI straight up dont even buy indie games anymore because I know they'll be free on egs. Like I wonder if the epic check is worth it when it completely devalues their gamesconsidering that epic check covers their development cost, yeah.
don't need to base too much on the current offers. of course they'll seem absurdly good, that's because it's new and they're rapidly bringing in new customers. once the services mature a little the offers won't be as good. probably $10 as base entry, but more emphasis on higher tiers to get dlc and stuff like that. this'll end up bringing way more money into the industry, it's just the distribution of that money that may be a worry. i'd pay for a separate indie game pass tho, i'm sure solutions will emerge.
By s y ngmi Go To Postconsidering that epic check covers their development cost, yeah.probably isn't worth it if no one plays their games
its like ps+, just download because theyre free then never play them
By rerixo Go To Postonce the services mature a little the offers won't be as good. probably $10 as base entry, but more emphasis on higher tiers to get dlc and stuff like that.But nobody charges for DLC anymore and going back to that style won't work. Everybody hates map packs, online passes, paid add-ons that aren't full-blown expansions. Nobody is going to pay for maps for Gears of War 6 after not having to pay for them in 4 or 5. There isn't a compelling enough argument the publisher or developer can make.
By rodeoclown Go To PostBut nobody charges for DLC anymore and going back to that style won't work. Everybody hates map packs, online passes, paid add-ons that aren't full-blown expansions. Nobody is going to pay for maps for Gears of War 6 after not having to pay for them in 4 or 5. There isn't a compelling enough argument the publisher or developer can make.i mean dlc like forza's expansion packs. i expect to see more and more content like that going forward
By rodeoclown Go To PostControl might've done fine, but fine doesn't cut it when you're talking budgets like that or Quantum Break. He's right. Remedy is going to get bought up at some point soon because they won't be financially able to make games like this without the backing of a major publisher.Control is far from having a big budget though, compared to the heavy hitters from MS/Sony.
The consolidation is going to get worse and worse as these smaller teams can't comfortably make bigger budget games and publishers need content to fill their subscriptions.
They're obviously a good choice for anyone to pick up due their long history and experience, but I don't necessarily see it as step they have to take. There are plenty of publishers that don't shell out as much as EA and they're still doing fine.
I just don't see the issues tbh. There are pubs like Focus Home Interactive doing smaller budget games, THQ Nordic as well and quite a few others (Squeenix, Namco Bandai are also publishing smaller titles more frequently).
This isn't gonna stop and no one is just gonna snatch up studios left and right.
MS is currently doing their subscription model as a strategic thing leading up to nextgen, getting people into their eco system and getting some exposition on certain games and IPs. That model won't be going on forever and it's not a sustainable strategy for them and alot of publishers.
There might be certain games that will fit into that category, especially those with long term support. SP games will drop in price anyway and MS will rather pick them up later and boost their service, instead of spending a shitload of cash and having them there from day 1.
I heard that line of dying SP games so freaking often now, especially during the PS3/360 era and yet, here we are and they are still a huge success.
I'm not afraid of MS, since they rather invest in potential. I'm not afraid of Sony, since they're seeing additions to their lineup as a long term thing now, instead of the short sighted acquisitions they did in the past. Not afraid of google either, since they're really cautious on the market and rightfully so. So far Google is another option, that hardly speaks to alot of existing players and rather speaks to those, that aren't fully invested into gaming yet. Plus they don't have the necessary infrastructure yet.
I would be afraid of Disney, since they're big cunts and got the IPs. Them snatching up studios left and right to pump out games based on their IPs on a regular basis would be something I would hate. Because that would limit the already existing lack of creativity in the buisness even more.
I just don't see the problem for SP games. Quality games will always make it.
However, I see the indie market as something that will have a bigger crash sooner or later. There's just far too much out there, without any financial backing, exposure, or people that don't know how to handle those things right.
By rodeoclown Go To PostBut nobody charges for DLC anymore and going back to that style won't work. Everybody hates map packs, online passes, paid add-ons that aren't full-blown expansions. Nobody is going to pay for maps for Gears of War 6 after not having to pay for them in 4 or 5. There isn't a compelling enough argument the publisher or developer can make.That model is gonna change hopefully. I would love to see SP games going back to "addons" that were there in the 90s or early 2000.
Some publishers are already adopting that model again, like Capcom did with Monster Hunter.
Capcom actually paid some survey panels, to see what people would rather have.
Ongoing stuff close after launch with smaller additions here and there or just a really big package with alot of cool stuff at once.
nothing about control is big budget. it's an AA game, in budget, in scope etc
https://www.pcgamesinsider.biz/news/69553/devcom-2019-budget-for-remedys-control-between-20m-and-30m/
https://www.pcgamesinsider.biz/news/69553/devcom-2019-budget-for-remedys-control-between-20m-and-30m/
By s y ngmi Go To Postnothing about control is big budget. it's an AA game.Even if it's not polished as Quantum Break, I bet it was not cheap. Three years plus of development at a studio with over 200 employees costs a lot of money.
E: $20M to $30M is not cheap.
By rodeoclown Go To PostEven if it's not polished as Quantum Break, I bet it was not cheap. Three years plus of development at a studio with over 200 employees costs a lot of money.it is in 2019. at max they had 100m developers on it. 20-30m over three years is squarely AA territory.
E: $20M to $30M is not cheap.
"I can't give you the exact number, but within one-to-two million units, we will have broken even. After that we are profitable."If you only need 1.5 million to break even on a 3 year project, they're not big budget.
By rodeoclown Go To PostEven if it's not polished as Quantum Break, I bet it was not cheap. Three years plus of development at a studio with over 200 employees costs a lot of money.It is cheap. That's like half of Detroits budget.
E: $20M to $30M is not cheap.
By s y ngmi Go To Postit is in 2019. at max they had 100m developers on it. 20-30m over three years is squarely AA territory.Do you really think it would move that many copies at full price, though? They took the Epic money for a reason.
If you only need 1.5 million to break even on a 3 year project, they're not big budget.
making deals like that is how AA games survive, that should't be surprising or concerning. They took the Epic money and they took the Sony money
Kinda weird to see a pixelated game with full voice acting
By rvy Go To Postoh, those are pretty dopeThis post made me laugh a lot
bless amy hennig, she made voice acting relevant before that hack kojimmy got his ass saved by jeremy blaustein
By J Ciaran Go To Postwhat the fuckDo you mean Piemonte Calcio?
where's the GOAT team Juventus
By Auto Simeone Go To PostMicrosoft buys RemedyMicrosoft is the reason why there's no Alan Wake 2, doubt Remedy would want to go exclusive again.
Alan Wake 2 on Xbox Game Pass
Make it happen Phil
should also note that Remedy is also developing SP content for some big korean f2p shooter. They signed that contract awhile ago too and I'm sure they did it to help fund Control.
https://www.remedygames.com/games/crossfirehd/
So if anyone's buying Remedy it's gonna be Tencent
https://www.remedygames.com/games/crossfirehd/
So if anyone's buying Remedy it's gonna be Tencent
By s y ngmi Go To Post
Oh 2k. Jeff gives his take on why they weren't given a Borderlands 3 review copy.
Jeff: "When we inquired about it we were not told 'hey, there are security concerns', we were told - and I'm paraphrasing here - but we were told by a 2k PR representative that based on the sentiment of our E3 coverage that they were going to send it to us closer to launch. So if you want to take that, I feel like that just empties a full magazine into the security concern shit and make it sound a whole lot like they wanted to micromanage reviews for a good day one metacritic. So congratulations to them for their 85 on day one!"