-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
"The flops are piling up for video game titans" - Daily Herald
- Thread starter Killer
- Start date
AAA selling millions is a dispointment to the investors since they instead of earning for example 52 billion they earned 48.8 billion this how the metric of success and failure is measured and every AAA company is chasing the Fortnite money so every game is now trying to be like that.
Problem with that is lack of innovation and a bunch of games that feels pretty much the same
Problem with that is lack of innovation and a bunch of games that feels pretty much the same
Maybe big AAA stoods should worry on making small scale games that's meaningful and engaging, you know like what indies attempt to do. I wish ea went back to their PS2/Gamecube/Xbox roots. Its worth a try in this day and age of gaming.
Yep, this is a business article about video games.
Also the idea of EA trying to shore up sales of BFV with its Battle Royale mode seems a bit far-fetched to me. I feel like everyone will have moved on from that game by the time they get it out the door.
Stop shooting for the moon in graphics if you can't afford it and just make good lasting games. The graphics don't need to be life like, we don't even need a new gen (4k is just way over the top. Ok for slow story based single player, wasteful for competitive skill based games). 1080 60 - 144fps should have been what these pro consoles and next gen are about.
A 4k tv was bought for the livingroom 2 weeks ago and I thought it was a waste. These consoles have support for high resolutions but they are struggling for it when they don't have to. Doing anything lower than native resolution just makes things look worse, and for PC trying to do everything at 4k require so much horsepower it just seem unnecessary.
A 4k tv was bought for the livingroom 2 weeks ago and I thought it was a waste. These consoles have support for high resolutions but they are struggling for it when they don't have to. Doing anything lower than native resolution just makes things look worse, and for PC trying to do everything at 4k require so much horsepower it just seem unnecessary.
Wait, that's not out yet? Lol. I didn't know that. I assumed they released that with the game. Shit, just make that a new game at this point.
AAA games are sustainable. It's the expectations that are crazy. The games are making a lot of money.
The industry is shifting and many are unwilling to change. You can't release a 'beta' with little polish in a world where games like Fortnite and now Apex Legends are incredibly well polished and free.
It's exciting times really, curious to see where things go in the next few years and in next gen.
It's exciting times really, curious to see where things go in the next few years and in next gen.
PS2/GameCube/Xbox...roots?
Roots?
EA is a lot older than that. Also, modern EA bears no resemblance to its formative years.
Those are pretty much realistic expectations, even more for the budget of the development and marketing they have. You can't invest 100 million on Battlefield 5 and expect to only sell 5 million, you need a definitive number like let's say 10 million and if it don't surpass the number, you won't have a profit for that product.
Microsoft is supposedly making those, can't wait to see how that turn out, and if it's bad I hope Obsidian is not part of it. Imagine the wreckage, the studio will be the new Rare if they don't get rid of them.
So let me get this straight GTA V is like highest selling whatever of all time at 100+ million copies. So you're telling me if GTA VI sold 40 million, some of you'd be genuinely confused as to why it'd be considered a disappointment despite the high number.
Instead of making all of these technological advances that cost so much, shouldn't there be ways of introducing cost-cutting technology like texture generators and the like? I think those would help much more in the long-term (or maybe I'm clueless and they are already working on these).
EA doubled their value in a year? Was their value in a crater a year ago, or did people completely overestimate EA's growth?
Really? That's going to be interesting.
Maybe it will be an open world, cloud based MMORPG Halo game lol
What does that means in practice? Create a game on a lower budget, quicker? That's going to end up not being competitive with similar games that had larger budget, and not many people will buy it.
This is why i'm not excited for new consoles, the bar is going to get raised even higher, dev teams already way too big, games take waaaaaaaay to long to make, the business model isn't sustainable.
Video games and the AAA space aren't going away but the budget bloat is very real and has been discussed many, many times now. The bubble is probably gonna burst and drag one of the big players down with it while the others who restructured or were smarter about it drag on.
Let's be honest, the attitude is a bit hypocritical on this forum. A lot of people on this very forum called Halo 5 a failure for selling only 5 million copies in it's first three months, even though by now it has sold more than Halo 1 and is one of the top ten most profitable games on the Xbox One.
This is just how business works. The #1 rule is to keep climbing higher in terms of revenue, profits, and basically sales. You can´t expect anyone to be happy with a product that is less successful than it´s predecessor. Even matching the success is an uneventful achievement.
If you set an ambitious goal then you need a thorough plan to achieve it. In the case of Battlefield V, they made too many missteps so there´s no one to blame but themselves
If you set an ambitious goal then you need a thorough plan to achieve it. In the case of Battlefield V, they made too many missteps so there´s no one to blame but themselves
If the goal was to make the highest rated opencritic game, then sure. Alot of EAs games score in the 60s and 70s but sell tens of millions of copies like Battlefront 1 and 2 did, Alot of Bethesda games get high 80s or low 90s and bomb.
Publishers like Bethesda and Square Enix cannot match the AAA output of a juggernaut like EA, Activision, or Ubisoft. This is why alot of publishers got shut down last gen.
The more expensive games from EA/Activision/Ubisoft/Take Two are probably 60-150 million (RDR2 probably significantly more than that), with another 100+ million in marketing, they're extraordinarily expensive.
A SF based development studio is 20k per developer per month, and dev teams are hundreds of people and takes years to make, and that doesn't include outsourcing.
It shouldn't take 16 posts before someone got it exactly right. Lock the thread. Nothing else to say.
Ubisoft has avoided this and evened strengthened its hand to ward off a hostile takeover by diversifying its lineup WHILE doubling down on key franchises.
The correct formula doesn't seem that difficult to determine.
The correct formula doesn't seem that difficult to determine.
Yes, but I guess what I'm trying to get at is do these lower sales but higher rated releases not hurt them as much if they had to answer to shareholders. In other words, can they risk taking the blow in commercial sales since they aren't a publicly traded company? Is this why Bethesda keeps chugging along even after commercial bomb after bomb
Honestly, though, the gaming market is constantly growing. 1 million units sold 15 years ago isn't the same as 1 million units sold today. If your customer base keeps growing, metric for success also grows (probably not as much as EA's and Activision's head honchos estimate, but still).
I don't see why a company like Activision doesn't change course with their COD Yearly cycle. They have how many studios? Take some of them and have them make smaller indie size games with more controlled budget and than have your tent pole studios work on the big franchises. After that you also contract out your IP with smaller indie studios, pay them to make your games and revenue split it. EA and Activision have a huge IP portfolio that they are not even touching.
I can't believe I'll say that, but the future is being f2p and pursue a mid-term between support and creative push. And, of course, staying on the ground when we talk about expectations, especially the one of the shareholders...
Well, that or just being Nintendo on 2019.
Well, that or just being Nintendo on 2019.
These corporations are focused on growth. So if a game doesn't sell more than their last effort and hit the numbers they just pulled out of their asses, they deem it a failure.
I know EA is older than that. What i meant to say they were more prominent during that era. I cant even think of them being better before or after that era. IMO
In a world where executives are getting $15,000,000 bonuses, idk if inflated budgets due to heightened expectations from users is really the issue. A big budget, AAA game that sells millions of copies and objectively makes a healthy profit are only "flops" in the eyes of greed driven shareholders and executives who expect exponential growth.
This is also incredibly valid. Activision could make bank releasing core titles like THPS in the $20 range. People would absolutely eat that up, and all they have to do is put a small team on it to make a tiny, budget title that get's released every 2 years or so. It's so odd that they seem intent on trying to make everything a yearly $60 franchise, which seems to fail to recognize completely that not everything *can* be a yearly $60 franchise in a world saturated with titles competing for user's time.
Copies of GTA5 are consumables at this point. Bread, milk, eggs, GTA5... Or maybe it's just the Shark cards.