[Poll] A New business model for game development? poll

[Borealis7]

Hi All, i was thinking about something, and i wanted to see what is the general consensus about my idea.
Game developers and publishers spend millions over several years to develop a game which often has about 20-30 hours of gameplay and costs 50-60$ on launch.
A typical Hollywood movie runs about 2 hours and costs 10$ at the cinema.

What if, games were developed to have a very concentrated 3-4 hour single player plot (multi-player is a whole 'nother debate) and cost 10$ as well? you would actually get good value for your money as a consumer since it'll last you twice as long as going to see a movie, you don't have to pay 10$ to "see" (replay) it again, and it'll give the small studios a chance to compete with the big boys and inject more creativity instead of spending tons of money on "shiny new graphics".
On the publisher's side, a basic law of economics says that as price goes down, demand goes up. this will not necessarily hurt the bottom line, plus they could just release more "games".

what do you think?

 

[Sulaco]

The problem is, we're currently seeing a majority of single-player games with campaigns that last maybe twice that, tops. Plenty are in the 5-10 range. 8-12 hour campaigns then are the norm and standard, and by your example, should only cost twice to three times what you suggest. So instead of $10 for 4 hours, $20 for 8 hours, etc.

There's also the "marketing" side, and the debate about how "long" a game is. With all the (imo) stupid "challenges" and "achievements" out there in games now, it's very easy for some PR/Marketing group to claim a game has "30 hours of gameplay!" or longer, when you count all the unlockables and achievements and so forth.
So I don't think there would ever be much consensus reached on how long a game really "is".

It's interesting to think about, but purely academic, IMO. Too many game companies are raking in $40-$60 per game for single-player games that last a handful of hours. Why mess with a successful and profitable strategy?

 

[frozentundra123456]

I would be more willing to spend 20.00 for a quality 10 hours of single player gameplay. An example of a game that comes close to this might be the original Torchlight. And some Indy games also are shorter but dont cost as much either.

The problem I would have with a 3 or 4 hour game, is that setting up, installing, and learning the controls all take some time and effort, and I would like to get more that 3 or 4 hours of gameplay after setting up and learning the game.

 

[BoberFett]

There are some companies trying this already with episodic games.

 

[KaOTiK]

A lot of arcade/indie titles fall under this already. Then you need to consider most single player experiences for games are around the 8-12 hour mark and sell for $60, plenty without multiplayer.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Anyone still holding their breath waiting for Half-Life 2 Episode 3?

It's been tried and pretty much abandoned.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

There are some companies trying this already with episodic games.

Worked really well for Valve.

 

[Absolution75]

I don't believe it won't work because of the time needed to develop an engine for decent games will remain a constant amount of time. Shiny graphics don't only come from artists, but from programmers allowing artists to use DX/OGL features. I guess it could work for people licensing engines like unreal if the license allowed for such a system to work (and be profitable).

Engine programmers generally start on the next iteration of an engine before the last game is actually done.

 

[Arg Clin]

3-4 hours is way to short for a game. In fact I'd like to see things pulled in the opposite direction. more 60+ hours games please.

3-4 hours is like a teaser. I thought 9 hours for Bad Company 2 was short enough - once you're getting into the story and setting it's all over.

 

[AstroManLuca]

A lot of arcade/indie titles fall under this already. Then you need to consider most single player experiences for games are around the 8-12 hour mark and sell for $60, plenty without multiplayer.

This. Typical indie game is $5-$20 and has 1-4 hours of gameplay. Call of Duty games now have 4-8 hour single player that most people don't even play, and they rely on multiplayer for replay value. Sadly, a lot of games are going in that direction, leaving single player as an afterthought and trying to capitalize on the large MP-only crowd. Of course that just results in a lot of shitty, shitty games that aren't worth the $60.

 

[CPA]

a basic law of economics says that as price goes down, demand goes up.

uh, where'd you get this from?

 

[BoberFett]

a basic law of economics says that as price goes down, demand goes up.

uh, where'd you get this from?

Any grade school economics class?

 

[PingSpike]

I don't think episode 1 of a game containing 1/6th of the normal levels would cost 1/6th of a full $60 game to develop. I actually think it would cost more like 50% because even with only a handful of levels you're still going to have to fully develop the game engine and mechanics and probably do at least a third of the art and models of a full game. From there it would be pretty cheap to push out the next episodes, you'd just need to do the models and art for each level, add maybe a weapon or two and a single new enemy type.

The trouble is if your customers only buy episode 1 you've now spend half the development costs of a full game and only made 1/6th of the profit. You'll probably end up needing to sell 3 episodes well before it starts to even look like a good deal.

I honestly don't know why HL2 episodes seem like a failure though. Most of the engine and development work should be paid for by the first full priced and great selling first game. That is a luxury most companies just don't have when trying to start rolling out episodic games. Yet it seems like the company has lost interest in that route. SIN episodes I sort of understood fizzling out.

 

[darkewaffle]

That's basically just an enhanced DLC. Which I don't really have a problem with, but most people here will swear on their mother's grave it's the most evil awful horrible terrible thing to ever happen to games.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Side though majority of movies suck

 

[CPA]

Any grade school economics class?

bullshit, lowering prices /= more demand. If you have a shit product, I don't care how low you make the price, you aren't going to create anything.

In fact the real law is as demand goes up, price goes up.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Any grade school economics class?

Demand drives price, not the other way around.

I don't think episode 1 of a game containing 1/6th of the normal levels would cost 1/6th of a full $60 game to develop. I actually think it would cost more like 50% because even with only a handful of levels you're still going to have to fully develop the game engine and mechanics and probably do at least a third of the art and models of a full game. From there it would be pretty cheap to push out the next episodes, you'd just need to do the models and art for each level, add maybe a weapon or two and a single new enemy type.

Bingo. Game cost isn't a linear relationship with length. If anything it's inversely exponential. A game with a $10 million budget can have an hour of gameplay or maybe 2 hours with $10.5 million. All the expense of licensing, development, publishing, art, etc. are overwhelmingly up front costs that are independent of length.

Sure you may need more art and level design, but the biggest costs are already there regardless of game length. As noted above, a $60 game that is 6 hours wouldn't cost $10 if it only had an hour of content. Probably closer to $45 or $50 (using that example).

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Demand drives price, not the other way around.

That explains why demand stayed constant for HP Touchpads when their price was slashed to a fraction of retail value. Yep, absolutely no change in demand when that happened. None whatsoever. You economists are so smart

 

[thespyder]

I think you would have several problems with the business model.

First is you would have to be sure you could sell enough units to cover the development costs. At 1/5th the cost, but probably something like 1/2 the development time, means you have to sell something like three times as many units as a standard game to break even.

Second, for the short duration, you pretty much have to go online these days. Most of the games today have to fall into one of two categories. Either significant content or online (with the sad fact that the latter is wining by gangbusters) or it doesn't sell.

Third is you would have to find investors who are willing to invest in a practice that goes against the current "Success" models. and that can be tricky.

Fourth isn't really a point against, but a lot of DLC falls into that same category. Which actually works because the "Engine" already exists and all you are doing is grinding out content. So your business model could be in competition with this.

 

[CPA]

That explains why demand stayed constant for HP Touchpads when their price was slashed to a fraction of retail value. Yep, absolutely no change in demand when that happened. None whatsoever. You economists are so smart

That is an exception. if price drove demand, then you'd give away everything free. Problem is you have costs and many times you have a crappy product that no one wants regardless of price.

 

[darkewaffle]

That explains why demand stayed constant for HP Touchpads when their price was slashed to a fraction of retail value. Yep, absolutely no change in demand when that happened. None whatsoever. You economists are so smart

You're mistaking demand and quantity demanded.

 

[zinfamous]

comparing a movie to a game is rather pointless.

people have different expectations for each experience, and assuming that the entire experience is a simple time/money value is absurd.

that's my 2 cents, anyway.

 

[BoberFett]

That is an exception. if price drove demand, then you'd give away everything free. Problem is you have costs and many times you have a crappy product that no one wants regardless of price.

There's so much wrong here I don't know where to start.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

That is an exception. if price drove demand, then you'd give away everything free. Problem is you have costs and many times you have a crappy product that no one wants regardless of price.

Face it - economics is complete bullshit. Total, utter bullshit, predicated on notions that we know for a fact are wrong. It's amazing to me that the whole economics paradigm still exists. It's bullshit. Economists have never been right about anything, ever. It's the most unscientific discipline ever.

 

[darkewaffle]

Face it - economics is complete bullshit. Total, utter bullshit, predicated on notions that we know for a fact are wrong. It's amazing to me that the whole economics paradigm still exists. It's bullshit. Economists have never been right about anything, ever. It's the most unscientific discipline ever.

Actually, it's just the notions that you think you're sure are wrong. Otherwise it's not that different from any other scientific discipline where theories and models are put forth, contested, and revised continually. The only difference is it's not a strictly natural science so it does not have the benefit of natural law to back it up, so it must rely on a handful of reasonable principles; one of the basic axioms of economics is that people act rationally in order to "gain" as much as possible relative to the "cost" of doing so.

However, people do not always act rationally and often times the "gains" are not those that can be measured as neatly as dollars and cents. Which is why economics will probably never be 'perfect'. But something that is imperfect can still be accurate and meaningful.