Comments on: EA’s Tough Sell

By: Making games last: Social Cost « Game of Design

Making games last: Social Cost « Game of Design — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:21:52 +0000

[...] a problem because at these budgets, those games need to sell millions to make money. Mr. Game-ism clued me in. Why did EA’s new IP do so poorly last season? It doesn’t seem to be because they [...]

By: Bri

Bri — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 06:10:59 +0000

I got 63 hours into Fallout before I decided to start a new character, and within 2 hours of my new one I found 2 locations I had never stumbled across in the whole length of my first character. There are JRPG’s on the market which offer 40-80 hours easily in their main quests, and in the days of PlayStation we got those same games for $20 less than they ask of us with games like ME and DS. Don’t get me wrong, I love ME, I think it’s a terrific game, but for the short amount of time I got with it, I find myself puzzled that they are CHARGING for the new DLC when other games will even give us more content for free.

By: Skye

Skye — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:40:28 +0000

I agree with a lot of the points made. Similar to Skybot, I won’t buy a new game at 60 dollars unless I am going to get significant play time with it. There are exceptions to this, but it serves as a general rule of thumb.

Mirror’s Edge failed because it was superficial flash. The marketing machine went to work and created an initial market, but the end of the day the cost-benefit value was out of whack and the market collapsed.

The industry understands that new IPs are essential to growth, but somewhere along the line “the substance in the game” portion gets lost for some. Hype only gets you so far. At some point you have to back it up. Video gaming has an incredible market/ hype machine that can become disadvantageous to developers and publishing houses. It can provide a lot of false expectation and willingness to cut corners. You get products like Mirror’s Edge and Dead Space. Cool new products labeled as innovative and the new best thing, when in truth they really aren’t. Once you pull back the curtain you see what is really there and it is not as impressive or revolutionary.

In the end it gives a bad name for new IPs and a hesitancy by the industry to go that route in the future. It is always easy to dismiss failure but not as easy to genuinely figure out why we failed in the first place.

This is both unfair and unfortunate for all parties involved. Gamers miss out,the industry stagnates, and greater financial opportunities are lost. There are times I wonder if good risk management practices would change these situations.

By: Skybot

Skybot — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 17:36:40 +0000

My thoughts exactly. There are plenty of games out there coming out that I wouldn’t mind playing but there is simply no way I am going to pay $70 (canadian) for a game that won’t even last me through a day. I want to know when it became common practice to sell every new game for the same price (59us, or 69can). Is it a standard among game distributors or is it simply because any game that is “new” can justify the price on that merit alone? One thing we all know is these games never stay that price for long. Example, Call of Duty4, even a month after the release of its sequel, still sells for $50. No wonder game companies want to erode the second-hand market away. Without it, their crap games could potentially sell for higher first-sale prices for far longer periods of time.

By: Aaron Davis

Aaron Davis — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:36:06 +0000

Sorry to latch onto to such a small point:
“While I would like to turn this into a hit piece on why used games are bad for the industry…”

Don’t. Used car are bad for the automotive industry also. So don’t write such an article unless you can do one of two things: 1) explain, adequately, why the videogame industry is so different from any other industry that the First Sale Doctrine should be further eroded for it, or 2) conclude that, while some sales are certainly lost to people who buy used, this is not an insurmountable problem, and isn’t worth eroding people’s rights in favor of your wallet.

“New IP here isn’t the problem. A small value per dollar is.”

This. I have a personal policy that I won’t pay the full $60 for a game unless I can get *at least* 20 hours out of it. If I were independently wealthy, it might not matter, but as it stands, I don’t have the money to shell out $60 for a game that only lasts 10 hours and has no replay value.

By: Malta Soron

Malta Soron — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:08:27 +0000

Spot on.

@Moshe: First, Portal is cheap. It was part of the Orange Box (five games for 50 bucks) and is now sold on Steam for $5. Second, it’s a very good and innovative game. Even though it lasts a few hours, those few hours are worth every penny.

By: Sol Invictus

Sol Invictus — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:02:31 +0000

You’re pretty spot on with this. While we could rag on GameStop and their used-games policy and talk about how it hurts the industry (it does, somewhat) I think it’s fair to say that the ball is still in the industry’s court to produce games with higher retention value. Playing a game that lasts for 10 hours isn’t exactly a good deal if you have to pay the full price for it, no matter how good it is.

It’s probably the reason why BioShock is on sale for 5 dollars on Steam while Call of Duty 4, a game with much higher retention value and multiplayer capabilities has only seem a 20% reduction in price.

By: Brandon Bloom

Brandon Bloom — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:21:20 +0000

I’d also be curious to see sales by store. I’m willing to bet Madden sells best in Walmart, but new IPs sell best at GameStop.

By: Moshe

Moshe — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:24:01 +0000

You seem to be right, but i gotta ask, how does Portal fit in these equasions?

Its a single player game with less then 6 hours of play…

By: no

no — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:16:35 +0000

Brill.