Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 14:35:19 +0000
From: Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Subject: Re: Sony: Blockbuster Games Are "A Death Sentence"
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 10:35:20 -0400
Message-ID: <pnochjh6thbmt936ee7q66mnql7ucrnopg@4ax.com>
References: <56s7hjljk54fnbeph1bhfp4hli3cd8dto1@4ax.com> <88cchjl1jvhddn9r5us7d48q0dqo0kcs81@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 86
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-PvWl74i2gnTo4pXEqcyUdBtfsIyLDoP2d9/Rn0bmu/0AkAUBdvfmf65QKA2DdKrIfLK/iAnSQsuVOHx!z/fvHNjnW3w5VbE4Ks5CW37mUUKB+8sX2OjABXwKd+eSHX6tUZsaGWmZjgN2RzLE+Q44Y/hy
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 5477

On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 07:06:53 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:

>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
>entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>say:
>
><Big Snip>
>>[Shawn Layton doesn't mention this, but smaller games with shorter
>>development cycles would probably also alleviate the necessity for
>>mass layoffs after a big game completes, because rather than laying
>>off all those artists while the years-long pre-production and
>>programming for  your AAA game takes place, you can just shift them
>>all over to a smaller project.]
>
>Ahh but firing them all means more bonus money for the executives.

True. The biggest problem with Layton's argument is that it depends on
long-term thinking by C-level execs. It requires them to consider the
future of the company _beyond_ the immediate quarter. Too often, their
concern is only, "what will pop the stock price up a few ticks" and
not "what's good for the long-term health of the corporation?"...
especially since they're protected by too-high salaries and golden
parachutes.

Releasing huge games makes for great Wall Street fodder.
"ElectroActiUbiVisionSoft has released Call of Halocraft XXVI, which
required $400 million to develop and is one of the most anticipated
games on the market today!" sounds a lot more exciting to investors
than, "For the twentieth time this year, MicroBlizzArthesda which is
expected to easily recoup its $10 million development costs". The
former makes the stock bell go ding-ding-ding while the other is just
boring business-as-usual that barely gets noticed... even though the
latter is safer and more likely to bring in continued revenue.

>>Layton also makes some other interesting points: for instance, the
>>insistence that titles have mass-appeal world-wide (with particular
>>focus on the West) instead of making games that might be popular just
>>in certain geo/political regions. "Look at the markets [in other
>>regions], they're growing, the economies are robust. There's more
>>disposable income. You can make a great game in Indonesia for that
>>market." says Layton. Again pointing to how a focus on just big AAA
>>games is leaving money on the table.
>
>Ahh but what is Indonesia's dollar value these days?
>Look at the blue-ray/dvd markets and region coding because the product
>is sold for so much less outside of NA/EU.
>Presumably games would be the same, so it's a market they will never
>pursue since the return will be so much less.


But I think that's the point. Stop chasing after $400 million dollar
games that have to appeal to everyone. They leave you vulnerable. If
it fails (and it happens, just look at "Concord"), that investment is
gone. Don't be afraid to make 40 ten-million dollar games in their
place, each designed for a smaller demographic. Some of them might
fail, but most probably --thanks to their tighter focus-- probably
won't. 
>
>If  it's $90 a game in the west and $15 in Indonesia or wherever,
>they're never going to go after that $15, since it's pocket change for a
>company like SONY.

There's three hundred million people in Indonesia, its per-capita GDP
has more than quadrupled in the past two decades (and continues to go
up). Yes, it's low compared to America, but it's not savages living in
the jungle. Why, they even have electricity nowadays! There's enough
people and enough money there that you _can_ make money from a market
like that... if you develop with a tighter focus. 


>Essentially we'll have AAA titles and A/B titles, but no AA, at least
>for a while, until one of those A/B studios makes enough money to take
>it up a notch.   The next Blizzard (remember how varied their games were
>early on, and all of them good, before WoW screwed everything up by
>getting them too much money.)


I think the argument is that companies that continue to rely solely on
AAA titles and not diversify are going to find it harder and harder to
retain marketshare and be profitable. They're just too expensive and
don't offer customers enough 'bang for the buck' over smaller,
Indie-led projects, and customers are going to flock to those smaller
games. The AAA studios will be left in the dirt, unable to compete
unless they start re-organizing now.