Quake3World

It looks like the microsoft middleware 'xsi' (fuck that's not the name, I don't remember) will do some good. Who knows when that will be really for release though.

Grudge wrote:I was talking about development

Well when I said '5 million for PC game' I meant everything, from start to finish. The publisher will want to recuperate his money after the project is done.

dzjepp wrote:Advertising?

The most prominent advertising I'm aware of is word of mouth. Especially true for multiplayer games because a bulk of interest comes from online forums and the like.

I can't think of any games I bought as a result of the expensive advertising.... magazine spreads, TV ads, or such.

Foo wrote:Lol are you kidding me dzjepp?

Open because if you wanted to create your own game, the setup costs are nil (you already own a computer right), the distribution costs are negligable (bittorrent?), and there are open-sources game engines and content for them just sitting there available for use.

The cost of high-end assets plagues any type of video game.

However, from a publishing standpoint, PC games have it the easiest. What we need is a place that is like Fileplanet mixed with ebay where companies and indie groups can upload their creations to a wide user base and make a profit.

All console games are developed on PC's anyway, so how's it any different? In the end run they have to change the codebase to the consoles given architecture, and vice versa (all the shitty console ports on PC's) so the cost difference is definately marginal.

Foo wrote:

dzjepp wrote:Advertising?

The most prominent advertising I'm aware of is word of mouth. Especially true for multiplayer games because a bulk of interest comes from online forums and the like.

I can't think of any games I bought as a result of the expensive advertising.... magazine spreads, TV ads, or such.

But the thing is that us gamers who spend our time on forums and friends who spend time on forums are already the ones who are on top of innovative indie games. The problem you run into is getting the word out to the average gamer. And marketing is MUCH more than advertising on a television.

dzjepp wrote:All console games are developed on PC's anyway, so how's it any different? In the end run they have to change the codebase to the consoles given architecture, and vice versa (all the shitty console ports on PC's) so the cost difference is definately marginal.

Not the case. You're not aware of console development boxes?

Also, you completely ignore game licensing. Games for a console have to be licensed and this is a massive cost.

dzjepp wrote:

Grudge wrote:I was talking about development

Well when I said '5 million for PC game' I meant everything, from start to finish. The publisher will want to recuperate his money after the project is done.

In the article, he talks about development budgets being around 5 million. The advertising budget is put on top of that, and is often just as big, for AAA titles sometimes twice the size of the development budget.

Within 3-5 years though, online distribution will have overtaken distribution via retail channels, and within 8-10 years, retail distribution will be non-exsitant. Distribution isn't really the issue. The big publishers will spend more on advertising, and less on distribution.

The big problem is that the market is not yet ready for a change. As he says, there is no market for indie products yet. It will be there in a couple of years though.

Foo wrote:

dzjepp wrote:Advertising?

The most prominent advertising I'm aware of is word of mouth. Especially true for multiplayer games because a bulk of interest comes from online forums and the like.

I can't think of any games I bought as a result of the expensive advertising.... magazine spreads, TV ads, or such.

Don't use yourself as an example. You do not represent the average buyer of computer games. The average buyer is heavily influenced by advertising (and the way the retail business work).

Does advertising for games even work though? I mean when I saw the Half Life 2 ad on tv I was like 'wow thats pretty fucking cool, seeing hl2 advertised on tv and all' but it didn't make me want the game any more.

But then theres the San Andreas tv ads that ran every night in almsot every ad break on late night tv but they still don't make me want to buy that pos.

Does game advertising do anything other than eat up money?

There are no indie games that look line Unreal 3 though. If you want the capital funding to greenlight the project to match those visuals you need the publisher, but they want them killed? OMG PARADOX!!!!

reefsurfer wrote:

o'dium wrote:Aye. PC games are shite compared to games released even 5 years ago on a console...

Why is it games are jsut nowhere near complex on a PC, yet on a console they can be really, really complex? Its got nothing to do with raw power. Look at hte PS2, how can THAT make games like Ratchet and Clank, games that ae more than just type X. Why cant a pc make something like that?

Sometimes i dont understand you o'dium... you switch sides way to often..
so a 5 year old console game beats a pc game by todays standard?
So pc games arent complex and not even near as complex as a console game?

hmmm...

No, its just you think I'm all about graphics, when i'm not. I would rather sit and play a10 year old game on a N64 than play most of todays pap.

When it comes to graphics, I have one simple rule; Consistency. I couldn't care less if its all high res or all low res. But when Wall X is sharp as fuck and Wall Y is low res, THEN i moan. Case in point, Doom 3. Sometimes the models and skins look good, i.e. the marine. Then some things look retarded, i.e. the imps. Some textures look great, but others look horrid...

Thats my main gripe with "graphics". Its just most people think I will only play things if they are super 8000x8000 res textures with 2394320million polwobbles. Thats not the case.

If it was, would i REALLY *STILL* have more fun playing goldeneye on the n64, over Doom 3 in ultra?

But then i dont understand this argument made an hour ago...?

o'dium wrote:starshiptroopers

About 6 years to late? Looking at it, it screams made for PS2.

Or this one

o'dium wrote: I dunno, it looks very "straight to budget" if yo uask me (Autosprite muzzleflashes like this make NO sense)

Does that count if the game is good?
You say it screams made for PS2.. but just now you said graphics had nothing to do with it?
And then you complain about the muzzle flash... why is that important if you dont bother about that if a game is consictent?
And shouldent the muzzleflash look that bad if the game screams PS2 or 6 years late?
And you also say that console games are more complex than pc games... why do you still compare it looking like a ps2 game....shouldent that be a compliment then?

As i said o'dium--- i dont understand you sometimes.. you seem to say one thing one day..and another thing the next day.

ps. goldeneye for N64 is pure ownage though! :icon25:

Foo wrote:

dzjepp wrote:Advertising?

I can't think of any games I bought as a result of the expensive advertising.... magazine spreads, TV ads, or such.

I doubt that's true. Don't forget that an online review is also a form of marketing, and that is certainly true these days, with IGN, Gamespot, Gamespy and all taking sacks of money for good review scores.

Who actually READS gamespy though? I go there for movies, screenshots and files. That's it.

My choice of game purchase always comes down to a) whos developing the game and b) what other like minded people think about it.

Someone is reading it, and buying their shit (there was that article mentioning IGN being up for sale on the market, upwards of 800$ million, and the GSI purchase was rumored at $500 million something). But hey, those are just some shit articles I read on some shit site a while ago.

You can't make money out of something that isn't tangible. You would have thought that people would have realised this after the dot com bust.

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:You can't make money out of something that isn't tangible. You would have thought that people would have realised this after the dot com bust.

I think companies like Yahoo, Google and Microsoft succeeded pretty well in making money out of something that "isn't tangible"

Eraser wrote:

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:You can't make money out of something that isn't tangible. You would have thought that people would have realised this after the dot com bust.

I think companies like Yahoo, Google and Microsoft succeeded pretty well in making money out of something that "isn't tangible"

Microsoft does has something tangible though. It has physical copies of the software it produces. It produces a product that can be put on shelfs.

Google and Yahoo are just names. They have no real product to sell people. They survive on advertising.

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:

Eraser wrote:

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:You can't make money out of something that isn't tangible. You would have thought that people would have realised this after the dot com bust.

I think companies like Yahoo, Google and Microsoft succeeded pretty well in making money out of something that "isn't tangible"

Microsoft does has something tangible though. It has physical copies of the software it produces. It produces a product that can be put on shelfs.

Google and Yahoo are just names. They have no real product to sell people. They survive on advertising.

Can't be any less tangible thand your description of the Yahoo and Google businesses I think.
And you've pretty much described the business model behind 99% of all websites (that don't require a paid subscription to view).

A site like IGN or Gamespot survives on advertising and subscriptions. If that is a profitable business, then I'm sure investors will be interested in buying it.

The IGN/Gamespy network is HUGE and widespread. Many sites you would never connect with them are indeed owned by them. I'f you've got 100+ high traffic sites up and about with 4 or 5 ads on each page you'll pull in a shit load of advertising money.

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:The IGN/Gamespy network is HUGE and widespread. Many sites you would never connect with them are indeed owned by them. I'f you've got 100+ high traffic sites up and about with 4 or 5 ads on each page you'll pull in a shit load of advertising money.

So what is it that you are saying? Are you trying to point out that online advertising is tangible and doesn't fall within the "same mistake as the dot com fiasco" category, or are you saying that you can, in fact, make money out of something not tangible after all?

Mr.Magnetichead wrote:You can't make money out of something that isn't tangible. You would have thought that people would have realised this after the dot com bust.

Advertising might not make me want to buy the game but it makes me aware of it. Since I stopped picking up gaming mags I really don't know what's going on and what comes out when.

You just can't take your actions and apply them to an entirely different market segment.

IGN is privately owned. They prolly had a good chunk of capital upstart. Don't forget they have a wide reach and sleep in bed with countless of people in the game biz. The HardOCP's and Tom'sHardware's have done pretty good for themselves as well. I think Kyle Benett is focusing on his site full-time nowadays. But hey, with a 3 man crew and a good number of visitors I guess they can live off of it. That and they also sleep in bed with Intel and the likes. Their reviewers are probably happy with getting the hardware and software they review as a return. HardOCP was also involved in some kind of scandal a while back I think, they where alleged of artificial benchmark scores to favor one company (it was brought to light by a former writer of theirs). It might of been TomsHardwareBribe though, don't quite remember.

I don't quite know how Mark Surfas managed to turn GameSpy into a decent sized organization out of PlanetQuake, but hey he seems to have done all right for himself.

dzjepp wrote:I don't quite know how Mark Surfas managed to turn GameSpy into a decent sized organization out of PlanetQuake, but hey he seems to have done all right for himself.

Gamespy 3D probably kickstarted the whole thing.
Back in the days it was the only decent way of finding servers.