4 ms·

> the game still ended up boring as hell There are two problems here. One is when people haven't played the game enough during development. Everyone on the dev

by feoren 2y ago

> the game still ended up boring as hell There are two problems here. One is when people haven't played the game enough during development. Everyone on the dev floor should know whether the game is fun or not, and which parts are the most fun and most boring. Often when games end up bland and boring, you find out that devs have been raising this alarm for a year, but management -- who have never played video games and probably think they're stupid -- ignored them in favor of their own ideas. It's the same problem as not talking to your clients when writing any software. The second problem can be summed up thusly[1]: "I worked two years of overtime straight on Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty made less money than the first Sparkle Pony horse in World of Warcraft. A $15 microtransaction horse made more money than Starcraft 2". -- Jason Hall, former Blizzard employee. Starcraft 2 was a fun game, well-crafted with love. It made less money than a single cosmetic microtransaction in WoW. Why would game companies waste their time making fun games? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY

plorkyeran 2y ago
Jason Hall's claim there was very incorrect and he later walked it back. People tried very hard to find a context in which was true and the best anyone could come up with was that the horse had higher day one profits by virtue of that it cost basically nothing to make and SC2 wasn't profitable off preorders alone.
- feoren 2y ago
  That would be wonderful news, because his claim is extremely depressing. I'm finding a bit of chatter on it on reddit, but do you happen to have a link to anything substantial? Particularly him walking it back?
ashoeafoot 2y ago
You can see that style of management from a mile away ,cause it will be bland but cinematic as hell.
- feoren 2y ago
  Right, and that's most titles referred to as "AAA" nowadays.
kbolino 2y ago
You're spot on about playing during development. But I don't think the point about microtransactions should be extrapolated from. Besides the fact that Hall was wrong about the numbers, there's also the fact that he's kind of missing the point. The Sparkle Pony horse made money because it was dirt cheap to produce and lucked into a niche and moment that resonated with enough players to get them to part with their disposable income. It was a consumable item, low-interest-rate phenomenon, and one-hit wonder. A full game like SC2 is (a lot) more work but also, if done right, a lot more durable. The other problem with SC2 and increasingly most other AAA games though is that they're over-budgeted. Indie developers have shown that the cost to make a game is much lower than large game publishers are spending. But the problem is not the raw cost as such, it's how the money is spent. There was a certain expectation for what it meant to be a Blizzard game, but it wasn't really aligned with what the suits thought (not getting into what has happened to that company since). It took a small fraction of the SC2 budget to make the original StarCraft, and it just can't be demonstrated that the budget increase (adjusted for inflation) reflects a proportional increase in fun or quality. And, ironically, the good devs are still getting underpaid. Just because a lot of money is being spent doesn't mean it's being spent well. Then, over-budgeting leads to under-performing. If a game that cost $10 million to create made $50 million, then surely a game that cost $100 million to create will make $500 million! Well, maybe, if you're Rockstar and it's RDR2, but otherwise, you're just taking a much bigger risk. Moreover, you know it's a risk, you can feel the weight of the budget during development, and you start producing anodyne crap that isn't that fun but shows a lot of superficial value for the money.
- feoren 2y ago
  > Indie developers have shown that the cost to make a game is much lower than large game publishers are spending ... Then, over-budgeting leads to under-performing. I think this is a great insight. Rather than taking a big gamble on a $100M game, you'd think a better strategy would be taking 20 smaller gambles on smaller teams putting out $5M passion projects. The revenue profile for a successful $100M game vs. a successful $5M game just doesn't seem that different. Maybe by a factor of 2 or 4, but not 20. I suspect it's the standard principal agent problem where no one decision-maker individually benefits from instituting this change; rather, each individual manager is trying to optimize the total headcount underneath them, leading to bloat. Are any major studios currently pursuing the "smaller passion projects" strategy? Paradox, maybe?

by feoren 2y ago

plorkyeran 2y ago

Jason Hall's claim there was very incorrect and he later walked it back. People tried very hard to find a context in which was true and the best anyone could come up with was that the horse had higher day one profits by virtue of that it cost basically nothing to make and SC2 wasn't profitable off preorders alone.

feoren 2y ago
That would be wonderful news, because his claim is extremely depressing. I'm finding a bit of chatter on it on reddit, but do you happen to have a link to anything substantial? Particularly him walking it back?

ashoeafoot 2y ago

You can see that style of management from a mile away ,cause it will be bland but cinematic as hell.

feoren 2y ago
Right, and that's most titles referred to as "AAA" nowadays.

kbolino 2y ago

You're spot on about playing during development. But I don't think the point about microtransactions should be extrapolated from. Besides the fact that Hall was wrong about the numbers, there's also the fact that he's kind of missing the point. The Sparkle Pony horse made money because it was dirt cheap to produce and lucked into a niche and moment that resonated with enough players to get them to part with their disposable income. It was a consumable item, low-interest-rate phenomenon, and one-hit wonder. A full game like SC2 is (a lot) more work but also, if done right, a lot more durable. The other problem with SC2 and increasingly most other AAA games though is that they're over-budgeted. Indie developers have shown that the cost to make a game is much lower than large game publishers are spending. But the problem is not the raw cost as such, it's how the money is spent. There was a certain expectation for what it meant to be a Blizzard game, but it wasn't really aligned with what the suits thought (not getting into what has happened to that company since). It took a small fraction of the SC2 budget to make the original StarCraft, and it just can't be demonstrated that the budget increase (adjusted for inflation) reflects a proportional increase in fun or quality. And, ironically, the good devs are still getting underpaid. Just because a lot of money is being spent doesn't mean it's being spent well. Then, over-budgeting leads to under-performing. If a game that cost $10 million to create made $50 million, then surely a game that cost $100 million to create will make $500 million! Well, maybe, if you're Rockstar and it's RDR2, but otherwise, you're just taking a much bigger risk. Moreover, you know it's a risk, you can feel the weight of the budget during development, and you start producing anodyne crap that isn't that fun but shows a lot of superficial value for the money.

feoren 2y ago
> Indie developers have shown that the cost to make a game is much lower than large game publishers are spending ... Then, over-budgeting leads to under-performing. I think this is a great insight. Rather than taking a big gamble on a $100M game, you'd think a better strategy would be taking 20 smaller gambles on smaller teams putting out $5M passion projects. The revenue profile for a successful $100M game vs. a successful $5M game just doesn't seem that different. Maybe by a factor of 2 or 4, but not 20. I suspect it's the standard principal agent problem where no one decision-maker individually benefits from instituting this change; rather, each individual manager is trying to optimize the total headcount underneath them, leading to bloat. Are any major studios currently pursuing the "smaller passion projects" strategy? Paradox, maybe?