3 ms·
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 wa
by 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?