Support NeoGAF

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Because they see the successful ones and think it's an easier way to make more money.

This is really a product of their own creation though. What kind of budget do you think a game like Animal Crossing or Pokemon has in comparison? Yet these games sell like 20 to 40 million copies.

That's great for Nintendo, but other publishers can make a game aesthetically and functionally identical to Animal Crossing and Pokemon and they will only sell a fraction of what those games sell.

There's a benefit to being the first mover of a successful franchise and genre. Anyone trying to copy you, even if they do many things better, will not achieve your level of success.

So, when these big publically traded companies are answering to shareholders about their gaming investments, their strategy can't just be make 10x animal crossing and Pokemon clones; since a only a third will break even and those that do make a profit won't print money like the OG Nintendo franchises do.

 

[cartman414]

 

[64bitmodels]

great fucking song

 

[Faust]

Low effort development, less cost, possibility of more profit.

Why put in the hundreds of millions to develop a strong, complete game, when you can put in 50 million to create a shell and promise content over years? If it flops, they can just drop it with minimal loss.

There was recently a story that the first MTX Pony in World of Warcraft made more than the entirety of StarCraft 2's history and its expansions. There are more morons in this world than there are those with brains. These are the types of people that publishers are trying to catch with their GAAS design.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Fortnite is probably the king of F2P games but to get there with constant contents and updates, people at Epic are working 70-100 hours a week. I would say it's more little risk since they have their golden goose.

Make a claim, support it with evidence.

If you compare the workload of a game like Fortnite and a game like Destiny 2, it's a night and day difference. Fortnite gives players ~30% of a new map every season, and 3 - 5 new weapons / items that keep the gameplay fresh. Then they obviously have a skin+emote team working year round.

Destiny 2s updates require significantly more work from a development perspective.

Sandbox design is exponentially more developer friendly because the nature of sandbox games are so much more replayable.

 

[Mobilemofo]

No need for detailed posts, or over thought bollocks...it's simply the ability/possiblity to have a constant source of revenue. Anything else is bullshit.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

No need for detailed posts, or over thought bollocks...it's simply the ability/possiblity to have a constant source of revenue. Anything else is bullshit.

Constant source of revenue is only part of the equation.

More revenue overall is the other half.

 

[Mobilemofo]

Constant source of revenue is only part of the equation.

More revenue overall is the other half.

Or course. That's the whole thing. More money...much more money at a steady rate.

 

[Red5]

Make a claim, support it with evidence.

If you compare the workload of a game like Fortnite and a game like Destiny 2, it's a night and day difference. Fortnite gives players ~30% of a new map every season, and 3 - 5 new weapons / items that keep the gameplay fresh. Then they obviously have a skin+emote team working year round.

Destiny 2s updates require significantly more work from a development perspective.

Sandbox design is exponentially more developer friendly because the nature of sandbox games are so much more replayable.

How Fortnite’s success led to months of intense crunch at Epic Games

Sources reveal long hours and intense pressure while working on hit game

www.polygon.com

The creator of 'Fortnite' reportedly has a brutal work culture where some employees have 100-hour work weeks: 'I hardly sleep. I’m grumpy at home. I have no energy to go out.'

Employees at "Fortnite" maker Epic Games are reportedly facing brutal work hours as the company struggles to keep up with the popularity of its game.

www.businessinsider.com

Epic devs speak out on Fortnite crunch

Epic Games is the latest company taking criticism for its crunch culture, as Polygon today reported on working conditio…

www.gamesindustry.biz

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

How Fortnite’s success led to months of intense crunch at Epic Games

Sources reveal long hours and intense pressure while working on hit game

www.polygon.com

The creator of 'Fortnite' reportedly has a brutal work culture where some employees have 100-hour work weeks: 'I hardly sleep. I’m grumpy at home. I have no energy to go out.'

Employees at "Fortnite" maker Epic Games are reportedly facing brutal work hours as the company struggles to keep up with the popularity of its game.

www.businessinsider.com

Epic devs speak out on Fortnite crunch

Epic Games is the latest company taking criticism for its crunch culture, as Polygon today reported on working conditio…

www.gamesindustry.biz

All early 2019 articles about reports from 2018...when Fortnite was fighting for it's future / existence.

There's no data to suggest GAAS leads to any more or less crunch than traditional AAA games. Crunch is everywhere.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Stupidity and greed. Suits see trends and dollar signs, but don't give a fuck about the dedicated fan base that got them where they are. I hope those who choose to go that rout fall flat and lose everything in the process.

 

[nani17]

Being Irish I read it as pubs as in bar

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

That's great for Nintendo, but other publishers can make a game aesthetically and functionally identical to Animal Crossing and Pokemon and they will only sell a fraction of what those games sell.

That's because they CAN'T make games "identical" to Nintendo. They can do their best to copy things, but they can't create the same gameplay elements, charm and fun that only Nintendo can make. Gamers know the difference and that's why those generic clones will never sell like the real thing.

 

[wolffy66]

Look at the Day Z thread. Simple as that really. Constant income, steady content, no risk on big. new game, investments

 

[Yoda]

It's kind of like the VC backed software biz model. Getting one mega success is generally better (from their PoV) than a bunch of OK/average successes. The "core" gaming market is a bit different as there's a much lower addressable audience, I think this model is better suited for mobile games where the customerbase == everyone with a smartphone, which is a good chunk of the planet. Everyong with a current gen gaming PC/console is still large, but much smaller than mobile phones. The reality is the market can only fit a few CoD/Fortnites until there are no more "gamer attention hours" to capture.

 

[TrebleShot]

Money

 

[DaGwaphics]

With that said, the failure rate of these games is super high. I'm sure there are many of them that never recoup the development dollars spent. Also, the games have to be working and functional enough to be fun, thus the upfront costs still exist.

 

[majorgamer10]

I have no intention on spending money on any of it, especially if the future "gamer" is to spend money to fit in.

 

[Sakura]

That's great for Nintendo, but other publishers can make a game aesthetically and functionally identical to Animal Crossing and Pokemon and they will only sell a fraction of what those games sell.

There's a benefit to being the first mover of a successful franchise and genre. Anyone trying to copy you, even if they do many things better, will not achieve your level of success.

So, when these big publically traded companies are answering to shareholders about their gaming investments, their strategy can't just be make 10x animal crossing and Pokemon clones; since a only a third will break even and those that do make a profit won't print money like the OG Nintendo franchises do.

I think you are missing my point. If a game is fun, people will buy it, even if it isn't a 200 million + budget game.
I didn't say to make a bunch of animal crossing and pokemon clones.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

That's because they CAN'T make games "identical" to Nintendo. They can do their best to copy things, but they can't create the same gameplay elements, charm and fun that only Nintendo can make. Gamers know the difference and that's why those generic clones will never sell like the real thing.

Well that only buttresses the point I was making. It's easy to point at the masterpieces of industry auteurs like Miyamoto and say, "why don't third party makes games like this instead of GaaS?"

You've answered that question. They simply can't. So it's much easier and less risk for them to invest in Live Service games that don't even need to be high quality to generate big profits. As long as you capture an audience and that audience includes an appropriate number of whales, you're good.