Forums

Topic: Let's address the elephant in the room.

Posts 61 to 80 of 90

kkslider5552000

lol yeah Breath of Fire and Ghosts and Goblins have never made money :/

I mean, I'm sure no one bought the incredibly expensive to make Megaman 10, the last original Megaman game they released.

And yeah, Viewtiful Joe is a game that was a cult classic and immediately got way too much support for a not huge game series (none of which lived up to the original). That doesn't mean they should ignore most of their IP.

But y'know, I guess with game budgets this big, they can't release a game without making it a AAA-level release for like Strider-oh

I mean, they don't run off their best talent and...um...oh

Well at least people like their current fighting games-oh dear, um...uh...

...

Deep Down any day, m i rite?

(also as the cherry on top, Capcom decided for years that no one wanted RE to be survival horror, and then this year made a ton of money on RE7 being survival horror, so I'm sure they always know what makes money )

Edited on by kkslider5552000

Non-binary, demiguy, making LPs, still alive

Megaman Legends 2 Let's Play!:
LeT's PlAy MEGAMAN LEGENDS 2 < Link to LP

Octane

@kkslider5552000 Not saying they don't make any money, but I can understand why it would be more interesting for them to focus all of their effort on one big project instead of several smaller projects. And without knowing exactly how much money each game made and how big their budgets were, it's hard to compare. However, I do know that a game like RE7 or Monster Hunter World does more for Capcom than a game like Viewtiful Joe ever could (as much as I love those games). They gain for more publicity with their bigger projects than a few smaller ones. It's just the way it is.

Octane

Beedrill4Smash

@Octane IDK because I'm bored of them reusing the same franchises regardless of what does and doesn't make them money. They are a business and I can't blame them for chasing the money, but that doesn't mean that I can't dislike them. Yeah most people do find bigger projects more interesting, but not everything has to be. RE7 was the first Capcom game to interest me in a long while, and I would love to see them continue to interest me with games. At the very least Okami is getting an HD re-release, so hopefully that could lead to a new entry done the road.

Beedrill4Smash

StuTwo

Capcom (like Sega, Namco and Konami) have some legacy franchises that still have plenty of brand value and goodwill. Failing to properly manage those franchises will eventually lead to that goodwill dissipating.

New Megaman, Ghosts & Goblins etc. games could certainly be commercially successful - infact there's plenty of indie developers who make a living because those games are still viable on a certain level. Whether they hold the potential for a GTA V scale success is a different thing entirely. Capcom don't want to commit any of their top teams working on a game that doesn't have the potential to be that GTA level success and the manpower demands of modern AAA games are so severe that they can't develop too many in parallel.

So those franchises lay fallow.

Personally I'd say that they've got their business model wrong. Provided a game doesn't lose big amounts of money (and a high profile classic brand name being attached helps to reduce the chances of this) every entry is a potential lottery win. More than likely not but - of course - but potentially.

There's another reason too why I'd suggest that companies like Capcom should tender their classic franchises - even if it's just with a small team - it diversifies their output and makes them less reliant on the success/failure of a single big game. It makes their company more durable and adaptable to a changing environment.

StuTwo

Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507

Scrummer

The problem with a lot of third party games on the Switch for me is the fact that, (a.) I usually get these on PS4 anyway, (b.) most games are built with dual sticks in mind, so that means spending more money on extra controllers, (c.) while I would love to be able to take a game like WWE 2K with me on the go, I don't really travel with the Switch much anyway. I mainly use it as a home console.

But of course, this is just me. And this is also just talking about big AAA releases. I buy most indie games on the Switch, just because indie games usually get lost in my PS4 library, whereas I feel like I'll actually play them on my Switch.

Edited on by Scrummer

Scrummer

Switch Friend Code: SW-7938-1793-3581 | My Nintendo: Scrummer

NEStalgia

@StuTwo The entire AAA model is permanently on the brink. It isn't sustainable. It never was. The fact that most of the AAAs have doubled down on streamlining all output to only a handful of huge projects and the whole company relies on each and every product being an overwhelming success or risk bankruptcy makes playing the ponies sound financially sound. Bethesda balances that by focusing on producing evergreen titles, which is why they have the manpower and resources left to take a gamble on Nintendo. Rockstar to a degree has made it evergreen, but they've taken a huge risk with only ONE evergreen franchise and sinking everything into it. Ubi went into that approach but has since backed off and has gone back to a large, diverse portfolio at different cost tiers. Same with Squeenix who is very clearly backing off their commitments to big budget AAA only and making a variety of smaller projects to balance that. Capcom's rationale for going all in, EA style, on only the big projects seems like backward thinking 6 years out of date.

The trouble they have is, what franchises are viable? What can they do with Megaman to reinvent him without flipping off the fan base? It's better he remains mythical and unattainable than turn into what Sonic became. There's profit in merchandising a myth (ask Inafune....(*dodges tomatoes)). Street fighter is their big money and they can't even fund SFV themselves, and their 25 year old classic is outselling their current games. MHW is a big risk and a bit try...ok, I'll give them that. But what else do they still have? Okami? Great game, I'd love to see more, but whats the return? Would it have to be AAA graphics now? Even Zelda went AAA. Ace Attorney is niche but at least they keep that low cost franchise running.....

NEStalgia

BanjoPickles

Here's something to consider, and it's something that gives me hope for the future of third-party successes and support:

the Wii was a huge hit, yes, but----how much of that success rests on the shoulders of Wii Sports' universal appeal? I read countless stories of Wii's being put in nursing homes and rehabilitation centers, so that immediately rules out software attach rates. I mean, the console sold over 100 million (playstation 1 numbers), but yet most third party titles bombed (save for the occasional Sonic/high-quality party game).

The Switch feels different. Not everybody bought a Wii for Twilight Princess, but everybody did buy Breath of the Wild for Switch at launch. The demographic for the Switch is going to consist of Nintendo fans, curious gamers (I myself land in both categories), and those who spend a lot of time on the go who want that console-quality experience. The Switch has that same universal hook that the Wii had, but they aren't selling it to the nursing homes and rehabilitation centers (is it weird of me that I'm sort of happy that 1-2, Switch didn't sell through the roof?

BanjoPickles

Beedrill4Smash

@NEStalgia It is hard for a company to know which franchises are viable that is true. The problem I can't answer is why did they take the risk introducing a new ip, but aren't willing to take the risk of a new installation of an established franchise. A way they could find out how viable a franchise is with smaller games with a smaller budget, and I find it unfortunate that a lot of developers seem to think negatively about the idea of these smaller games. You mention developers like Ubi and Squeenix who have begun shifting towards more smaller projects, and I have never been more interested in their games. I guess thats just my taste in games though.

Also does everything have to be reinvented? I just don't think that everything has to be reinvented (Of course this is coming from a guy who's most played game on the WiiU is Hyrule Warriors and who's most anticipated game at the moment is FE Warriors). The first priority IMO is to bring the franchises back into the market, and then start to add or change things up. Look at Nintendo they tried reinvent Star Fox with motion controls, and it caused a split in the fan base. Nintendo could have kept them out, or you know make them an option, and more people would have been happier with the final product. (Assuming it wasn't based heavily on star fox 64 again)

Edited on by Beedrill4Smash

Beedrill4Smash

Octane

@Beedrill4Smash It's the same reason why we haven't seen a new F-Zero game in ages, yet Nintendo risked a new IP like Splatoon.

Octane

JoyBoy

Try telling a creative person to do the same thing again.

SW-7849-9887-2074

3DS Friend Code: 3754-7789-7523 | Nintendo Network ID: Longforgotten

StuTwo

Spanjard wrote:

Try telling a creative person to do the same thing again.

Try telling an uncreative person to do something new!

It's a little unfair for me to say it of course but there are plenty of developers who are skilled at refining the works of others but useless at creating something completely new and original. That doesn't mean they're not creative - only that they are likely to thrive more when their creativity is forced to take place within a slightly more rigid framework with concrete restrictions. Those teams are better off working to an existing template.

That doesn't mean I completely agree with @Beedrill4Smash - I don't want glorified level packs to classic games and they often fail when the new team is of a lesser standard than the original (see Yoshi's Island DS) - but I do agree there is a value to keeping some water in the original well and that can often be done by a different team.

The problem - as @NEStalgia has noted - is that the AAA model doesn't allow it. Those games are literally 'bet the company' gambles on mega hits and if you've adopted that model then there's no point in making anything to keep a franchise merely 'ticking over'.

StuTwo

Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507

Beedrill4Smash

@StuTwo Maybe I worded it badly, but I never meant that I wanted "glorified level packs". All I'm saying is that a reintroduced franchises doesn't have to have something that makes them completely different from previous entries in the series. Is change necessary? Yes it absolutely is, but I don't think it has to be a game changer every time. Sometimes all the change a game could have is narrative.(But again this is coming from a guy who loves the "Return To Dreamland" style Kirby games) At the same time I'm not looking for a not by note copy.

Edited on by Beedrill4Smash

Beedrill4Smash

mav-i-am

What many seem to be forgetting is that while the Wii U had a tiny userbase, it was also not straight forward to port games too (difficult port = expensive).

The Switch is apparently extremely easy to port too, so the costs of doing so would be much lower, so once you have developed a game why would you not port it to the Switch? you would only need small sales to cover costs.

Also, if you had multiple consoles, why would you double dip on games? bar off tv play the WiiU offered no advantage over a PS4 or XB1, the switch on the other hand is a reason to double dip.

Doom on the Toilet/Bus/Train or where ever!

Switch games list,

Legend of Zelda BotW, Human resource machine, NBA Playgrounds, Street Fighter 2, Super Bomberman R, Snipperclips, Overcooked, World of Goo.

Nintendo Network ID: mav-i-am | Twitter:

Scrummer

@Snaplocket Yeah, but I like to play these games four player, seeing as I have seven siblings.

Scrummer

Switch Friend Code: SW-7938-1793-3581 | My Nintendo: Scrummer

NEStalgia

@Beedrill4Smash The trouble with the AAA industry is, like @StuTwo said, it's a "bet the company gamble." The amount of money they expect as return is what they base their budget on, and the budget expectations are based on what they then need it to return. It's a horrible chicken and egg paradox. They have a huge budget, so to pay for it, they need it to be the Next Big Thing. In order to make it the Next Big Thing, it needs to have production values so high, it's an eye popping extravaganza the masses just MUST be a part of. In order to make such an eye popping extravaganza, it takes a ton of money. Which means it needs to sell a ton to pay it back. Which means it needs to be an even bigger eye popping extravaganza. Which then takes more money.

It's mostly a game of economic brinksmanship that needs to be easily marketable. Impressive tech results are more marketable than solid gameplay. So the focus always has to be how to make the new game, not a more solid game, not a tighter woven narrative, but a more impressive tech demo to entice a market.

The best summary is that the AAA model isn't about making games to appeal to all audiences. It's about making a game that appeals to all audiences. And to do that it must be dumbed down and streamlined. It can't borrow heavily from any prior knowledge or build on a genre, or appeal to a particular category of gamer. Instead it needs to appeal to EVERYONE. It can appeal to experienced gamers by having some new gimmick or hook that's a fun toy but the depth runs shallow fast. It can appeal to everyone else by being simple to understand and complete, and most of all presenting a sleekly marketable technological demonstration. So games become "experiences" like a blockbuster movie, that anyone can enjoy and complete without too much effort or skill, rather than smaller games, one that appeals to RPG fans, one that appeals to RPG fans that like exploration, one that appeals to RPG fans that like grinding, one that appeals to strategy fans, and one that appeals to shooter fans that like crime drama. Instead it's one quasi-generic entirely inoffensive one size fits all product. Because with a $400M budget, it needs to sell at least 10M copies. And to sell 10M copies, it needs to be so impressive at a single glance, that it'll cost $400M to make. And if it isn't THE game everyone is talking about for at least 5 weeks, the company will have to close some studios and liquidate some assets.

Just a few years back Ubi was hyping up that model, that every company will distill down to that AAA model and focus down on only one or two games with games-as-services ongoing online activities and such to extend the income from that long development process. Since then they seem to have done a 180 and diversified into more of their old selves with a ton of different one-off games that look and play like AAA games, but aren't monstrously massive in budget and reuse tech from the big games. Usually those are the better games. The AAA games are the cash cows that pull the money in, but always play it safe and are likely to bore dedicated gamers. EA on the other hand went all in with only a handful of AAA, mostly online, games. They have lots of sales to the mass market, but they're the punchline of most conversations among dedicated gamers. I think Ubi got a fire lit under them with the whole Vivendi hostility situation....they stopped chasing mass market and rapidly refocused on games for niches. It keeps them less prone to overextend, and thus project weakness for a takeover. Which says a lot about the AAA model if the best way to fight a hostile takeover is to step aside from AAA except for existing "safe" products.

The funny thing is BotW achieved everything a AAA game dreams of, as one of the biggest of the AAA hype machines we've seen in a while. You couldn't get away from BotW discussion on a Playstation, XBox, or PC forums. It was everywhere ,with sales constrained more by being a platform launch title than lack of demand for the game. But their budget was still a fraction of what the tech demos spend on their games. They said they needed to sell 2M to break even (unheard of for Nintendo.) They sold that in a few weeks. The budget was smaller, because the game was limited to the hardware rather than the rest of the AAA market that has dual SLI Titans to saturate before they've reached the tech demo cap they set for themselves. People complain about Nintendo's self imposed hardware limitations, but this is why they do it. They can do "AAA" with a 2M unit break-even by forcing limitations on themselves while the other guys chase "AAA" with break-evens over 8M. They sell a lot more copies, but they don't start making money on them until much later. And BotW will still be selling $60 all-profit units 5 years from now. The other AAA games will, maybe, make lunch money on those summer Steam sales next year when it's considered an obsolete game while they're knee deep in debt on the next version.

When you look at that business model you can't help but think "why is anybody funding them?" It's like investing in a resort facility next to a sewage treatment plant. It's all fun and games until high tide.

@mav-i-am "Nintendo Switch: Doom on the Toilet"
I am soooooo making this a bumper sticker.....

Edit: Seriously didn't mean that to be a text wall when I started! The ridiculousness of the AAA business model is just such a good conversation starter

Edited on by NEStalgia

NEStalgia

StuTwo

@NEStalgia ...and on top of which the biggest single success in the industry over the past decade is Minecraft. Which is decidedly not a AAA game.

Rocket League and PUBG are up there too and they aren't AAA games either. They're certainly been vastly more profitable than almost all AAA games.

StuTwo

Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507

NEStalgia

@StuTwo Indeed. Minecraft really should have been a wakeup call to the industry. Maybe it was. Too much stuff midway done in the half-billion dollar budget pipeline to finish up before admitting defeat and retreating. Though I think the money chasing minds at the big companies are doubling down on the games as a service thing. IMO that gets old fast. Sea of Theives et all look fun....but after a while just doing "stuff" gets samey. I think the lesson they unfortunately learned from Minecraft as "make your own fun without any real objectives sells if it's social!". Kind of Facebook: The Game. Sadly I think it's working

But at least it's less likely to bankrupt them. But like retail, entertainment is cyclical. Gray is the new black, black is the new beige, Sea of Thieves is the new Everquest, and Mario + Rabbids is the new XCom. We're just waiting for the new E.T. to complete the cycle.

NEStalgia

Beedrill4Smash

@NEStalgia Yeah that is AAA for you I just wish it wasn't that way. You know after these comments and a video from my favorite journalist talking about a topic connected to the idea of big budget gambles vs small budget I realize that I maybe giving Capcom all the heat when I should be giving the AAA industry the heat. Although I still believe Capcom is the worst offender of this but that might be because they have the franchises that I'm interested in. EA does the same thing but don't really have any dormant franchises that I find interesting or ones that I can think of off the top of my head.

Beedrill4Smash

This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.