It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionAre game companies forward thinking enough?(23 posts)(23 posts)
(23 posts)
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 16, 2017
avatar
MirkotheGamer184: For videogamecompanies the games is their product . And the coal of a company is to either make profit or at the very least get the production cost back .That is why the first sale week/month is so importent for them and they have protection like denvo because the main function of stuff like this is to prevent the game of getting pirated in the first importend sales week/monts. That is also the reason why yearly sequels like the fifa games or other sequels exist because it gives them money if there were no profit in it we wouldnt have it.

And companies are looking in to new ways to get money that is why all that microtransaction and only have dlc instead of addons is in existence in the first place.

And about the quality of the games the big companies dont make deliberately bad games on purpose you can have (deadlines or inexperienced developer and tight budget like no time for playtesting or bugfixing) that is affecting the quality in bad ways just take mass effect andromeda as an exempel.Also the reason why there is often low or no patchsupport is because after the first sale the game is considered old and it is more profitable to make a sequel with sometimes not having any real improvement over the prequel.

Also the companies dont try experiments or new stuff in the games and stick to formula x and make only call of duty or other concepts like you have in the other 100 games because it can be unprofitable and sometimes for a gamecompanie one miss can be the end of the companie .
Indiedeveleper are different becaue they dont have the problems that the big companies have to the same extent that is why indiegames are more creative or trying out new things but also for an indiedev an miss can be the end it is not as if there are untouchable missmanagement, inexperience and greed is also present in the indiedeveloper
Much of what you say, is their own fault. They have created the false situation they are in, especially by selling out to big companies who don't give a rats about what really matters, only money. Everything they are doing is like applying bandaids for the cure, rather than prevention.

There are exceptions all the time that prove my points.

For an industry that is supposed to be forward and progressive, they are certainly backward most of the time and chasing their own tail, never really getting anywhere.

While skills have increased, as they usually do, especially under pressure, much of the rest has diminished when it comes to good ideas and quality and freshness and due diligence.

They need to start thinking outside the box they have placed themselves in. They need to have more faith in the possibilities and the potential. They need to take the longer term view to realize their dreams.

So sayeth the Lord Dog.
Posted July 16, 2017
avatar
neurasthenya: I know what you're talking about, but as I've said companies (as in the big publishers) aren't making bank always, they are merely surviving, not huuuuuuge profits, not doooooowwwn profits, just stability.

I don't think that the market and/or their approach is healthy, I'm saying it is harder to make about something else given the current situation.
avatar
Timboli: But that is why they need to change their model.

And while we are talking about many game companies, many are owned by big ones, like Warner, who are doing more than surviving, but who don't care much beyond the mighty dollar in a very short term manner.

The money is there in the longer view, which is the model they need to move to.

It is the only way to break the current stalemate of the throwaway society.

It is a false dichotomy that a game has a use-by-date or that its value is diminished after the first month. The only reason the last seems that way, is because it was a false price to start off with, that doesn't reflect the real value, that is ongoing. So much is propaganda and falsity ... just like what gave the world the Financial Crisis. It is about overpaid managers who only care about one thing, and not thinking about the benefit to all of taking the longer term view.

They have gotta stop thinking Get-Rich-Quick and take on the realistic view.
Yeah, but lets be realistic for a second, this isn't going to change from the top, no company is that stupid.

The change, a massive and collective one, has to come from the bottom (i.e. consumer side).

And good fucking luck trying to convince millions of people that are paying good money for dem videogames are harming the industry in the long term.

No company would be that dumb to try and pursue long term profits and artistic integrity when there is a truckload of money every game launch. Nor every one of them could afford it either.

They already painted themselves into a corner, when the bubble burst, we'll see what will remain of it.

But as for now, live and let it be, it's not going to change soon.
Posted July 19, 2017
avatar
neurasthenya: Yeah, but lets be realistic for a second, this isn't going to change from the top, no company is that stupid.
I don't agree. I don't think the company would be stupid at all.
I believe it is in their best interest to take the more long term view, and as I have already said a few times, there are already companies doing that.
However, it is greedy management, executives, you are really talking about. They are the ones most interested in the big quick buck, and then they tend to move on to their next big killing.

But let's pause and reflect a moment.

1. The more games in my collection, the less driven I am to spend large amounts of money on new games. This is especially so where differences in games and the variety I have, come into play. I like a new game as much as the next person, and I am always craving something new, but I am in a position where I can be far more discriminating.

2. The Moral Argument - Who mostly is buying these new games?
The way I see it, it is the collectors like myself and it is the young.
However, as I said about my position above, they are not making big bucks out of me on new releases, or I suspect most other collectors who probably feel and operate the same way.
So then, it is down to the young, many of whom can least afford it really. A good many however are privileged in that their parents are paying the money, so they don't care much one way or the other about things.
But what of the others, who are no doubt the majority. They should be saving up for other things, not wasting big bucks on games. Many of them however, are addicted or just foolish.
And really the Game Industry has a duty of care and a responsibility to our young.

So for the moral argument alone, games should not be the price they are on release.

Especially when you consider they would be nothing without us.

You also have to look at the changing conditions and thus all the other things we all spend our money on these days. So things are going to get worse for game companies, not better, unless they adopt a smarter model.

The smarter model of course, says that a good game is always popular regardless of time passed ... to a point anyway. So there is definitely money to be made from taking a long term view.

So a smart company would build up a good backlog of games. Those games once released, are ongoing profit, especially once costs have been met. If the right mix of quantity plus quality is adhered to, then a game company need not be wanting ... especially if they allow, embrace and encourage their fan base in the various ways available.

We already see examples of that, that have worked well for a decade or more.
Post edited July 19, 2017 by Timboli
Posted July 19, 2017
avatar
Timboli:
Again, bringing the moral argument and greediness is useless at this poing,companies don't care because there are millions of people supporting their current business model.

That's why I made the statement about how stupid it would be for said companies to change their ways, they are getting their money's worth out of this model with the big chunk of the alienated consumers.
This isn't about sheer grid, is about not changing what "isn't broken" (mind the quotes).
It's good to think that every company that does it right has the perfect formula and everyone should follow because it will work for all of them, but that is being naive.

I have a product that millions of people are buying, I can iterate on said product every year with minor tweaks and still get most of the same millions again. My artistic integrity goes down, but my money goes up.

I could change it and maybe get a bit more of a niche audience, scale down my budget and maybe get the money back in the long run.
Or I can keep doing the same thing, selling to the same millions of alienated consumers every year and have the investors money back without worries.

Again, not healthy, but not changing anytime soon unless there is a revolution on the consumer side.
Posted July 19, 2017
Are we for real with this thread? There is a question about a marketeer being concerned about artistic integrity over profit margin?
Posted July 19, 2017
avatar
Timboli: There are far greater long term profits to be made.
Eh, I was just saying angry sounding things...
Post edited July 20, 2017 by misteryo
Posted July 19, 2017
More angry sounding things that I didn't need to say...
Post edited July 20, 2017 by misteryo
Posted August 02, 2017
avatar
muttly13: Are we for real with this thread? There is a question about a marketeer being concerned about artistic integrity over profit margin?
You do realize this topic has a philosophical bent and that not all is rosy in Game Company Land?

I have given my view and stand by it ... though like all my views on just about anything, it is flexible enough to adapt and change according to reliable data.

As they say, what comes around goes around.

You take a dump in your backyard and don't clean it up, then sooner or later the stink etc becomes overwhelming .... despite all the cost savings up to that point .... and the profits spent on chocolate and champagne.

avatar
Timboli: There are far greater long term profits to be made.
avatar
misteryo: Eh, I was just saying angry sounding things...
If done right .... and the profits are not just limited to money either.

P.S. Sorry, I had my headphones on, while gaming .... and didn't hear a thing I didn't want to hear. :P
Post edited August 02, 2017 by Timboli
Pages:
1
2
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionAre game companies forward thinking enough?(23 posts)(23 posts)
(23 posts)