Quote:

Original post by Cpt Mothballs Do it the easy way, make a movie and have a bunch of Devs come to you.

Now why didn't I think of that? Since making movies is cake... *SMACK*

Quote:

Original post by QuantifyFun So please... take your so-called wake-up call and shove it up your ass. Hardcore gamers are a bitter bunch of proper jaded morons that shit the bed any time the next game they play isn't the best game ever made. You approach every single box you open with the expectation that it will be better than the last, and you actively look for things to hate. You refuse to open your tiny little mind and simply have fun. You're basically useless.

It sounds like hardcore gamers aren't the only bitter people trolling the internet. This was uncalled for and unnecessary. The op has an opinion just like everybody else, and he was ballsy enough to create a thread about it. The thread did come off very emotional, but that's just because someone is changing something that he loves. That's understandable. Calling him useless is not understandable. Lighten up.

Anybody who knows anything about game development knows that if the project's game designer is an elitist then the game is going to suffer. I apologize that hardcore gamers upset you by picking apart your game(s). They just don't know how to give proper feedback. Realize that everybody just wants to play a good game and attempt to make the game that everybody wants to play. This response to the op's thread was completely out of line and I would be surprised if the op didn't get chased away from his own thread. This type of response may fly well on somethingawful.com, but this is gamedev.net. Grow up.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Quote: Original post by QuantifyFun You don't make games for a living -currently-, which kind of precludes you from speaking to this point. My point was that some people may in fact make games for a loss, simply because they love to do it. If I was wealthy beyond the need of a job, I wouldn't give it a second thought. Giving my products away for free would just mean more people get to experience them. As a creative developer, that's what it's all about. Evoking something in the masses. Getting a rush out of enriching the experience of so many people. Building your own universe to let thousands of people explore it. How does money even compare to that? Quote: The point is simply that we need to pay the bills and that involves turning a profit. Period. Well, I would agree with that. But that's not how your original statement ("It's all about making money") made it sound. It's not all about making money. At least not for everyone. For one thing, there are easier ways to make money, if that was the long term goal. Game development is extremely complex and involving. You're likely to put far more "work" into it than you would any normal job, to get the same cash results. But for those of us who don't consider it work at all, it's a pretty nice career choice.

What you're describing is Batman, not a business or an industry and especially not the gaming industry. Eccentric billionaires that have time and money to waste on making toys to suit their lifestyle is generally a lesson in economic failure. Hello Bruce Wayne, nice to meet you.

The gaming business is all about making money. The happiest game developers are people that have found a way to satisfy their creative urges while making money, but the baseline is still the economic reality - we're in business to create profit and growth. There's no real arguing it.

If Mario games didn't sell a single unit, Nintendo would not be supporting Miyamoto's creative visions. Rather, they empower him because he's an source of revenue for the company.

This is life, guys. Accept it. Find a way to make it work for you. Deny it at your own risk.

Quote:

Original post by Sandman Perhaps not; but there certainly have been business models that follow a relatively similar principle. You've already brought up Battlefield Heroes' microtransaction model; at the end of the day, isn't the client software essentially a loss leader for the DLC?

I never mentioned Battlefield specifically. But no, the game itself is not a loss-leader. It's not a loss-leader because they've already figured out how they're doing to make a profit, how big they imagine that profit margin will be, and the cost of developing that game is a part of that calculation. It's supported by the money they intend to earn in micro-transactions.

To be honest, I'm not interested in arguing the loss-leader issue anymore. I like you. You seem like a fair and reasonable guy. But you're in over your head on this topic and given the fact that you can't cite a single example, I'm at a loss for why you're still arguing it. I feel like I've made my case in several different ways already so I'm just going to move on. Peace. Werd.

Quote:

Original post by Sandman I'd like you to quote an example.

There are too many. But my favorite is this one...

Quote:

Original post by Sandman ...if that means turning out a couple mid budget shooters that you can be reasonably assured will ship 2.5 million world wide, so be it.

That's the kind of comment that just makes me want to smack you in the face with a giant fish. It tells me everything I need to know about the position of knowledge you're speaking from, which is very little - and there's nothing wrong with that except that you're trying to speak with authority and you're just beyond wrong.

Again, what is a mid-budget shooter? What's a low budget? What's a high budget? Name specific examples. You can't answer any of these questions, can you?

Here's an interesting bit of information for you...

Between 2006-2007, there were 18 games released for consoles that rated a 90% average or above. That's right, just 18, out of more than 600+ games. Of those 18, roughly 12 sold less than 2 million units. 7 of them sold less than 1 million units. These represent the best games out there, at least according to averages from gamerankings and metacritic, and more than half of them fell beneath that casual threshold you threw out there. What do you imagine their budgets were? In the case of a few, I know for a fact that they were very, very expensive.

Breaking 2.5 million units is not easy, it's never a reasonable certainty, and it's not the kind of thing you can crank out at moderate expense.

Like I said, Sandman. I like you. You seem like an okay dude. But really... come on... you're just pulling this stuff out of your ass, and you're not even cleaning it up before you put it on the table for discussion.

Please stop. Please.

Quote:

Original post by kiwasabi Quote: Original post by QuantifyFun So please... take your so-called wake-up call and shove it up your ass. Hardcore gamers are a bitter bunch of proper jaded morons that shit the bed any time the next game they play isn't the best game ever made. You approach every single box you open with the expectation that it will be better than the last, and you actively look for things to hate. You refuse to open your tiny little mind and simply have fun. You're basically useless. It sounds like hardcore gamers aren't the only bitter people trolling the internet. This was uncalled for and unnecessary. The op has an opinion just like everybody else, and he was ballsy enough to create a thread about it. The thread did come off very emotional, but that's just because someone is changing something that he loves. That's understandable. Calling him useless is not understandable. Lighten up. Anybody who knows anything about game development knows that if the project's game designer is an elitist then the game is going to suffer. I apologize that hardcore gamers upset you by picking apart your game(s). They just don't know how to give proper feedback. Realize that everybody just wants to play a good game and attempt to make the game that everybody wants to play. This response to the op's thread was completely out of line and I would be surprised if the op didn't get chased away from his own thread. This type of response may fly well on somethingawful.com, but this is gamedev.net. Grow up.

You call it ballsy. I call it ignorant. Ignorant and insulting. I'm entitled to be bothered by things like this, just like he's entitled to be bothered by what he sees as a watering down of his precious hardcore experience. Thing is, I had the balls to state -MY- opinion, in the way I saw fit, and so I did. Just as he did. He got his wake-up call too.

Who knows, maybe I don't know how to give proper feedback either. Not really true, but it makes a great excuse!

Quote:

Original post by QuantifyFun You call it ballsy. I call it ignorant. Ignorant and insulting. I'm entitled to be bothered by things like this, just like he's entitled to be bothered by what he sees as a watering down of his precious hardcore experience. Thing is, I had the balls to state -MY- opinion, in the way I saw fit, and so I did. Just as he did. He got his wake-up call too. Who knows, maybe I don't know how to give proper feedback either. Not really true, but it makes a great excuse!

That's a fair statement; you stated your opinion as well. However, as someone who knows how to give proper feedback, you know that tearing someone down in an attempt to make him/her look and feel stupid isn't the way to win him/her to your way of thinking. It's pointless to tear down your fellow man when you could just as easily point him into the right direction.

/end preach mode

QuantifyFun, you seriously need to chill out a little in your posts. You're coming across very heated.

Quote:

Original post by QuantifyFun Quote: Original post by Sandman Perhaps not; but there certainly have been business models that follow a relatively similar principle. You've already brought up Battlefield Heroes' microtransaction model; at the end of the day, isn't the client software essentially a loss leader for the DLC? I never mentioned Battlefield specifically. But no, the game itself is not a loss-leader. It's not a loss-leader because they've already figured out how they're doing to make a profit, how big they imagine that profit margin will be, and the cost of developing that game is a part of that calculation. It's supported by the money they intend to earn in micro-transactions.

I'm not sure what your definition of "loss leader" is here. To me, a loss leader is when items are sold at a loss in order to stimulate sales of some other products. Obviously they are part of a plan for an overall profit. Probably a more apt analogy is the "razor and blades" model, where something is given away or sold very cheaply in order to sell accessories.

Quote:

Original post by kiwasabi tearing someone down in an attempt to make him/her look and feel stupid isn't the way to win him/her to your way of thinking. It's pointless to tear down your fellow man when you could just as easily point him into the right direction.

QFT. You don't have to be an asshole to have a discussion ;)

Quote:

Original post by Hodgman Quote: Original post by kiwasabi tearing someone down in an attempt to make him/her look and feel stupid isn't the way to win him/her to your way of thinking. It's pointless to tear down your fellow man when you could just as easily point him into the right direction. QFT. You don't have to be an asshole to have a discussion ;)

LOL!

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid I'm not sure what your definition of "loss leader" is here. To me, a loss leader is when items are sold at a loss in order to stimulate sales of some other products. Obviously they are part of a plan for an overall profit. Probably a more apt analogy is the "razor and blades" model, where something is given away or sold very cheaply in order to sell accessories.

I'm pretty sure you've got the concept down. I'm not entirely positive myself what he meant by that term, but I assume that's what he was referring to.

On a related note, I believe earlier it was stated that usually only game consoles and not games themselves are sold as "loss leaders". I would have to disagree. Sega really pushed the envelope a couple of years ago when they released a $20 competitor to Madden. I don't remember the exact figures, but I know that Sega was a big threat to Madden after they did that. Because of this, Electronic Arts had to go and sign an exclusive contract with the NFL to prevent this from happening again. Anyway, the point is that Sega probably didn't make a whole lot of money out of this deal, but in the long-term they probably would've had a good chance to take out Madden as the top NFL game. I would say that this could be called a "loss leader" since it was a short-term loss in order to establish a long-term brand that would eventually make lots of consistent money.