|
[see more from Megan Fox at her primary site, Glass Bottom Games]
There's this (very understandable) worry amongst folks looking at the market currently enjoyed by Steam (and Impulse/D2D et al), PSN and XBLA. This idea that somehow, it will be infected by the same malaise that has driven mobile pricing to 99c. That game value is eroded, that content is without value, that we'll never have another Ultima or similarly higher-cost game again and that we're all doomed to a world of flying on Tiny Wings away from Angry Birds.
First, let me be clear: I love Tiny Wings and Angry Birds. Tiny Wings moreso I think, but that's beside the point.
Second, if I say "downloadables," I generally mean Steam (and Impulse/D2D et al), XBLA and PSN. Yes yes, I know, iOS is also downloadables, just... run with me. I am tired of typing that entire thing out.
Third, let's get to the point: I don't think we're going to see a race to the bottom in pricing in downloadables. "But!--" you say, but - hold on, let me at least run you through the reasoning.
Mobile games pre-iPhone meant Nintendo GB/GBA and DS, mostly. The market was priced well below AAA big-box console games, around $20-$30, and it was of course a massive industry. The team sizes were typically below 10 (call it 7-ish on average?), the dev times were a matter of months, and it was high volume as a result.
You drove a small company based on contract work, and had to sell yourself well to keep going, unless you scraped together enough scratch to run with an original IP and got lucky with strong sales.
The occasional game came out with a longer development cycle or a larger team, but typically on the back of a larger company or IP that could be counted on to sell much better. You also had people risking substantial savings on long shots, and losing out miserably if they weren't so lucky.
Aside from the price, that... sounds a lot like modern iOS development, doesn't it? Very similar team sizes, very similar development timelines. I'd say product visibility was easier to control, and team sizes were larger, about twice as big, though these days that's inching back up.
What really changed was the price, yet these companies are still staying in business about as well as they managed before (which is to say, it's risky as heck and difficult to drum up enough business entirely on original IP, but that isn't much of a change) making games of a very similar appeal and scope.
This suggests that the content, stripped of debatably higher graphical quality and platform-related overheads, had an actual cost of something closer to less than $5, though tiering drove them more toward 99c.
Now let's look at downloadables.
These games were born from the market of AAA $60 titles. Massive team sizes (100+, easily), massive budgets in the many multiples of 10s of millions, development times of 3-5 years, and massive sales. Now we see team sizes of usually less than 20, budgets below or in the very low millions, development times more like 1-2 years at most, selling for $15-20, and in every way competing with current gaming tastes.
You have Torchlight as a $20 Diablo, Shadow Complex as a game you would have paid $50 for last generation, Limbo too, Monday Night Combat, Overgrowth, Braid et al, etc, and that doesn't even count those more focused game types that are being pulled off famously by still smaller teams for $5-10ish. Blueberry Garden, Osmos, World of Goo, Monaco, the list goes on. Then you include the small-team f2p's, Riot games with League of Legends, or World of Tanks, and compare those against the previous stock of huge budget MMOs.
Downloadables are immune from race to the bottom conditions because they already have raced to the bottom.
This is the price it takes to make these games. This is the price at which these games can be made and still be profitable. Just as iPhone has shown the price at which mobile games can succeed, Steam / XBLA / PSN have shown the larger games the scale at which they can still succeed and be profitable.
The minimum you can scale an action RPG, or how low you can go with a physically-active combat game about rabbit ninjas and still have it be awesome - we're already pretty much there. In fact, we're swinging up a bit, as this market grows.
The worry that if we hit 99c or bust prices, that these games would vanish, because they can't be made at that scale? Well yes, that was what would have happened, which is why the market put on the breaks above that point.
I'm not sure there's any great boogeyman here to face. I think we already faced it... and came out fine. And the cries that 99c gaming will still devalue gaming on a whole, and that nobody values content anymore?
After I play Tiny Wings when I get home, then I think I'll finish Bulletstorm. And then I need to finish that Dragon Age DLC chapter someday. Devaluation indeed, harumph, quit telling me that I can only like one kind of game.
|
I own a iphone, and I have purchased most games for it on sale, but that is because IMHO, gaming on a phone is a diversion rather than viewed as quality gaming time. Dropping the price during sales increase purchases by those on the fence, most that were interested from the beginning aren't afraid of buying it at full price.
On my personal views..
I'll buy a game on XBLA/Steam/PSN on a whim at the $4.99 to $20 cost, and consider the purchase seriously at the $29.99 and above costs. Same with DLC, if the DLC is $20.00 or more but offers some great value (Like the Dragon age expansion, or shivering Isles), I have no problem paying that amount. If I'm getting under 3 to 4 hours for DLC that costs over $5.00 (like most mass effect 2 DLC), I'll hold off and get it on sale.
That said, I bought torchlight on PC for $5 while on sale, and will be buying it on XBLA full price to support the developer since I love the title so much.
Seeing a sale on PSN has just become 'kinda common' [aside from PS+].
But that aside, the reason you're seeing more sales is because of a relatively recent research finding. It was found that you can produce a higher sustained volume of cashflow via occasional sales than you can via permanent price drops. Hence, you're going to be seeing a lot of people applying that logic.
People are comfortable right now buying games at $60 or more, but as younger children are exposed to more and more smartphone and handheld games, people have even less leisure time on their hands (which many fields of academia claim won't change anytime soon), downloads start pushing the barrier with more and more aggressive sales, etc., they're going to get used to cheaper games offering as much as more expensive games do right now. Obviously the quality bar on those AAA titles is going to keep going up, but how good do games really need to be before people are satisfied?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was ugly or anything. It was very pretty. Nor am I saying it was a bad game (though I didn't care for it myself). What I am saying, though, is that it was a game specifically built to be something that could be done on a small budget, and it is nothing like and no replacement for the larger action RPGs that it in many ways emulates.
That's where you see price drops. When you compare GBA games and the current crop of iOS, what you see almost to the game is a very similar value proposition, depth and playability. Hence, the price dropped - that content could be made and sold for a fraction of the end-user prices on the GBA.
Now, XBLA/PSN/Steam? No, you're not seeing equivalence of any kind with iOS 99c games (instead, you see equivalency with the AAA $60 games, hence the article's point). Infinity Blade is a really neat, attractive portable game, but it is not a game that you sit down with in the sense you sit down with an Oblivion, or a Death Spank - it is the smaller, shorter, more focused mobile equivalent. The question isn't "can portable games be as pretty as XBLA/PSN/AAA" - sure, they can, no doubt, especially with some of the newer excellent workflow tools to make the high-end art faster to produce - the question is do they offer equivalent value.
In that? They do not, and show no signs of that changing. People simply enjoy mobile games in a very different way (and for very different lengths of time) than they do sit-down games, and thus they must remain largely parallel markets, unless people magically stop wanting to play sit down games, or magically stop wanting to play on-the-go games.
Also, I didn't say that people are going to "magically" change their mind about what games they enjoy. The gaming landscape is constantly changing, and soon there will be huge numbers of players who have never even seen an original Xbox or PlayStation 2 before, and soon after those who have never even used a PC or a home console; they may well even view those platforms as outdated, archaic, limiting, etc. It's not just about the games or the hardware, it's about who's playing them and for what reasons. The needs of an audience aren't static, and you can't assume gamers are going to be interested in the same things forever.
My point is, players change, and the hardware is evolving very quickly as well; the two influence each other and respond to each others' needs and wants. We've had gaming consoles for a long time, but the inclusion of social networking, online play, and so on has kept them going. Even the 3DS is already handling 3D gaming better than the home consoles and most PCs. The only limiting factor with portable devices is in interface, and who's to say that won't get better, or that controls won't evolve to provide a quality play experience that rivals larger platforms? I mentioned Infinity Blade, but I could just as easily imagine a Dragon Age style RPG on a portable device. It might be a smaller game, but if I'm a casual RPG player who only has a few hours a week to spend on gaming, and I can get it without paying for a console? Heck, we already have an extremely competent, feature-rich version of Dead Space on smartphones in the $5 range.
Just to clarify, I don't think that this means short, phone-centric gaming, handheld gaming like the DS and PSP, or home consoles are going anywhere just yet. I also don't want to suggest that I don't think platform matters to the final game experience (I'm a die-hard PC gamer and can barely stand to play on consoles anymore). In the short term, I totally agree with your original article, but it only took a year or so for gaming on phones to "stabilise". To say that we've already figured out the precise ratio between game experience provided, pricing and development costs, just seems too presumptuous to me.
I absolutely agree that if somehow, we can eventually produce games with depth within a few months on a tiny budget that are competitive, gameplay-wise, with what's currently offered? Sure, prices will drop. This shouldn't concern us, since the games (and teams) aren't really going anywhere, it's just the price changing, but you're right, that could happen.
All I mean to counter is the idea that prices will be forced to 99c-esque levels by mobile games, and that this will in turn destroy any games with depth / value above 99c. Which is to say, I am countering the growing assumption that "content has no value," a conclusion many are building on the present success of free and effectively free mobile and social games.
The 99c thing is just the shorthand for that.
What don't think you accounted for, though (and what I attempted to point out, possibly unsuccessfully), is that those 99 cent experiences are getting better and better. Prices may not all plummet and big-budget games may not disappear, but I think it's entirely possible that sales will change to reflect the needs of players. As I said, people are playing games differently, on different platforms. Big-budget titles may no longer be able to command such high prices simply because they won't be selling 5-20 million copies anymore.
As for the content is worthless argument... well, if anything, content is worth more than it used to be (see DLC etc.), but it's true that there are so many options for gaming out there that simply making a "good" game isn't enough. What differentiates the great games are narrative, innovation, and branding. When someone can put together a totally competent game in a matter of weeks using XNA (or heck, even Flash), it forces you to stand out. Price isn't directly responsible for lowering value of content, but it does exacerbate the issue of there being just way too many games and not enough people to play them.
The only related data we have for the moment (that I know of) is that Steam, XBLA and PSN are going strong, with a growing market share, and that social games are still growing much faster, and that mobile is growing at a rate somewhere between those two. Both social games and mobile games appear to have passed their explosive growth phase and be entering their steady growth phase, with downloadables still possibly approaching explosive growth or possibly in stable growth depending on how you look at it. There's no evidence of cannibalism of markets, and no evidence of buyer fatigue in Steam/XBLA/PSN.
From that, it seems like it's fine, but 5 years from now, 10, 20? A lot can change, certainly. I try to avoid prognostication to that degree. If you've got suggestive evidence of movement in the direction of abandonment of larger games in exchange for more exclusive interest in smaller/mobile games, I'd certainly be curious to see it.
Although I can only say this for Steam, but I actually think we are seeing a development in the other way. True the average price for games on steam is doping, but we are also seeing way more smaller titles. But for the respective size of each title the price seems to have risen. Games like Osmos or Plain Sight are selling stably at the 10$ range. Other more complex titles are more expensive.
Developers and Publishers, even AAA, are starting to change their pricing strategies. A few years past you would expect a title to drop it's price a good time after launch. But many titles on Steam stay at the launch price or keep a relative high value. (Save the awesome sales Steam has.) I wanted to get a friend of mine to play Civ V and it is still the same price like launch... AAAAAA!!!
Although I don't really know this, but I think Valve is actively trying to prevent price erosion. Because more sales at a significant lower price point does not mean more profit. Especially for the platform provider, since the cost (eg. bandwidth) for Valve is approximately per unit, no mater what it cost.
The thing is, you can buy iPhone games right now for < $5 that are functionally very similar to what you can get for $60 on consoles. Games like N.O.V.A, a FPS with full online multiplayer and an expansive single-player mode. The only difference between that and Halo really is audio/video fidelity, and that Halo can be played with a much better controller. If only there was a way to control games that well on a tablet. Oops:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/03/samsungs-exynos-4210-flexes-3d-gaming-muscle-
at-gdc-2011-video/
Graphics don't look too bad either. But Meghan here's the really scary thing, and the flaw in your argument: the VAST majority of iOS game developers are not profitable. Yet this is in no way impeding the flow of apps! It is that lack of correction that is the unnatural part of this market, preventing the traditional cost/price relationship from being true. Between the gold-rush mentality and hobbyist-level cost structures, traditional rules of pricing and profitability need not apply.
Me? I'd vote that if there exist unprofitable games worthy of note on iOS, they exist mostly from game developers trying to break into the industry (the ones that have a shot of making it, more specifically). Students, basically - it would take someone with a fair amount of time and some other financial support, a/o living really cheaply in dorms or similar. Now as I was one such breaking-in programmer at one time, I add another bit of knowledge to the mix - it is notoriously difficult to construct any kind of functional team at that level, when you're unfunded.
So, yes. It is very possible for games of competency to be made below budget by a single do-everything programmer. It is... somewhat... possible to do the same with an artist+programmer, though finding a stable artist (or a stable artist finding a stable programmer) is incredibly frustrating and takes luck. So games that can be made by 2 people can indeed be pushed. Maaaaybe 3, but now you're pushing it.
Congratulations. Welcome to the games Flash developers have been making for years, often by young teams straight out of college, some just doing it for giggles and beer money via FlashGameLicense.com, that have managed to not collapse the other markets, that serve different tastes.
It is simply not as easy to make a competitive app as you're claiming it is. It may have been at first, when standards were low, but now with polished titles like Tiny Wings? No, no, these are not bargain basement games, it takes real polish and panache to succeed these days. The same logic was applied to social games when they exploded, and hey, they're doing the same thing - craft begins to matter again, as the market develops taste.
And craft has, and will always have, a cost associated, below which the price can not dip. And has not dipped.
The real threat from that horde of apps is to iOS developers themselves. In an open market, it becomes hugely difficult to get noticed, which is why most every successful iOS developer I know doesn't succeed via original IP, but through contract work. The iOS market will eventually need to develop tiering to some degree if it wants to solve that problem, and who knows, it may well do such.
>>And craft has, and will always have, a cost associated, below which the price can not dip. And has not dipped.<<
It has dipped, massively, because many iOS developers are game development professionals now working for themselves.
I agree it's VERY hard to make a profit on iOS development. But that's where the gold rush comes in - everyone believes they can be the next Tiny Wings.
Game quality is the real issue. No one would ever be scared of game pricing if they were confident in their own ability to see what the markets unmet demands are and have the skillset to produce said game. I see a games industry incapable of seeing how incompetent it really is.
I grew up on games and I watched allegedly smart companies totally ruin major franchises (Nintendo: Starfox adventures and assault). I've seen the rise of competent action game developers (god of war) which made my playing zelda Twilight's princess painful due to no expansion of interesting combat mechanics. There is a huge untapped market out there for making quality games for the pent up constant disappointment for modern games... the problem is it's going to take a while to solve because tools have to bring asset costs down to a point where profitability is once again regained.
Tools for small/indie games may see entire genre's like 2D shmups re-emerge if development time and costs are brought down.
I look at the independent PC games developers and die-hard arcade aficionados creating things like Nestalgia and hydorah and I know gaming will be fine in the long term, as long as there are imaginative people that have the urge to create the games that do not yet exist and imaginative and exciting additions to mechanics of existing genre's ... gaming will be fine.
http://silkgames.com/nestalgia/index.php
http://www.locomalito.com/juegos_hydorah.php