| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
| Side Quest: Would you like fries with that? |
|
Some credit for this topic must go to the December Roundtable at <a href="http://blog.pjsattic.com/corvus/">Man Bytes Blog</a> and <a href="http://onlyagame.typepad.com/">Only a Game</a>, as well as the <a href="http://www.octopusoverlords.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=23533">Octopus Overlords forum</a>.
<br>
<br>There was a time when purchasing a single-player game was a simple one-off transaction, but the market is starting to evolve beyond that. We recently looked at episodic content, which would enable developers to spread the cost of development over time, while realising income both sooner and on an ongoing basis. In some ways it draws parallels with the MMO market - and few gaming bean-counters would have failed to notice the revenue generated by the likes of World of Warcraft, on an ongoing basis.
<br>
<br>Two more revenue frontiers that have been pioneered by the MMO market are making their way to single-player games: in-game advertising and buying in-game virtual objects.
<br>
<br>You've probably read about in-game advertising, with quite a bit of coverage hitting the web after <a href="http://www.funcom.com/">Funcom</a> moved <a href="http://www.anarchy-online.com/">Anarchy Online</a> (sans expansions) to a free-to-play, ad-supported model. The casual games segment has used promo games and advertising for quite some time with everything from corporate Flash games to <a href="http://www.neopets.com/">Neopets</a>. You can read some comments from developers on advertising in games at <a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051130/hong_01.shtml">Gamasutra</a>.
<br>
<br>As a player, my first instinct is to reject this as capitalism gone berserk. The reality isn't quite that simple: isn't this win-win for the players of Anarchy Online? Players get free access to a substantive MMO and Funcom gets to extend the life of an aging game. As Chris Bateman points out at <a href="http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2005/12/will_design_gam.html">Only a Game</a>, in the right circumstances adverstising may enhance the game by creating a more realistic and immersive experience. However, Corvus from <a href="http://blog.pjsattic.com/corvus/2005/12/something-rotten/">Man Bytes Blog</a> points out that advertisers may make demands of the game design in return for their dollars - and he is right. It's downright scary to think of the pressure that might be placed on developers by a publisher like EA, compounded by big advertisers.
<br>
<br>The typical fantasy cRPG doesn't lend itself to in-game advertising but it's not hard to see logo placement during loads and on the game menu:
<br>
<br><blockquote><em><b>A Hero's Tale: Revenge of the Orcs</b>
<br>- Brought to you by Harry Potter and Goblet of Fire - Now on DVD!</em></blockquote>
<br>
<br>The second area is downloadable add-ons and in-game items. <a href="http://www.bioware.com/">BioWare</a> has sold NWN Premium Modules for some time now - presumably with enough success to justify the Live team that runs it. This sort of add-on adventure module is analogous to a retail expansion pack, so it's not a big leap for players to embrace. Online games like <a href="http://www.runescape.com/">Runescape</a> and <a href="http://www.project-entropia.com/Index.ajp">Project Entropia</a>, however, sell in-game benefits for monthly subscriptions or items for real cash.
<br>
<br>In a recent <a href="http://www.shacknews.com/extras/2005/120205_oblivion_2.x">preview</a> at Shacknews, Bethesda's Pete Hines raised an ancillary market for Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion:
<br>
<br><em><blockquote>Pete says that from the very first day, downloadable content will be made available that will add to the game. The content will "range from new items to new quests to anything in between. Being able to charge something for it allows us to dedicate more resources to it than we could in the past and be able to bring out things on a consistent basis."</blockquote></em>
<br>
<br>We don't know any of the details about Bethesda's plans, so let's just use this as a springboard into the hypothetical.
<br>
<br>This hints at going beyond add-on adventures and into selling individual in-game items. A magical sword for only $1? An additional skill for $2? A custom armour pack for $4.99? How about a subscription to every official add-on for the low monthly rate of $8.99? Let's assume the game doesn't have an easy to use editor, so you can't conveniently create your own items - would you pay $1 for a unique armour in your favourite cRPG?
<br>
<br>All this opens questions about game balance and the amount of content in the box, which obviously must be judged in each individual case. It certainly raises the <i>spectre</i> of developers withholding content or creating an artificial in-game shortage to encourage demand.
<br>
<br>I have little doubt that large publishers and successful game brands will exploit this purely for additional profit. But there's a possibility in the mid and lower tiers that these income streams could enable projects to proceed that simply wouldn't get made otherwise. Looking at the future cRPG release list, there are a number of key AAA titles such as Oblivion or NWN2, along with a number of Euro and Russian projects that may not even make international distribution - but there's a clear lack of mid-tier titles. CRPGs are expensive and risky - smaller studios are exiting the market or developing other projects - perhaps this is one way to make these smaller projects viable?
<br>
<br>Ultimately, whether this is a good thing or not for gamers depends on maintaining the integrity of the gameplay, with judicious use of add-ons to enhance the play - rather than selling out the design in the name of ongoing revenue. Can the games industry do that? I can see the potential but I have my doubts.
<br>
<br>What do you think? Will this extend your favourite games with regular add-ons and updates? Provide alternative revenue to support risky projects - or merely line the pockets of big publishers? |
Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:49 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Ever notice that the middle-ground games (not-indie, not-big budget) get slammed by all the big sites? My theory is this is because there will always big a big population that loves every big budget game released, so it would hurt their fan base to review it badly. Were the audience for a mid-budget game will be smaller. They can safely slam it. But you have to give indie games good reviews so you don't get lableed as a grpahics whore or be so superficial as not to love this "little gem."
Bringing this up because another thread talks about it reviews have anything to do with sales. If a mid-budget game never gets any good reviews from the big sites, they won't have the sales to make money, ensuring that games are either big budget or indie in the future.
As to the pay for add-ons idea. I like it. If the devs are making add-ons, the fans probably are also. I would love to see more content for say, ToEE. I rarely like any games now-a-days, so when there is one I like, I want to see it stick around as long as possible. I also don't mind supporting the game with money, because I want more of that game made. If the only way to get more of the rare games I enjoy is to buy a bunch of stupid little crap, I'll buy it.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:10 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
I can't speak for review of high and mid budget games (though I've seen both good and bad reviews for both on mainstream sites) but I think the reason why you mostly only see good reviews for indie games is because they have to be good to make it to the attention of the site in the first place. Most reviews of indie games are designed to bring the game to the attention of a crew of gamers who probably would not have heard of the game if it were not for the review. It's rather pointless to do that to a bad game that you don't think they should buy. |
|
Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:21 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Why do the best indie games get ignored then? Prelude to darkness and Tulgor: Alliance with Rome to name two?
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:31 pm |
|
|
abbaon
Guest
|
| Re: Side Quest: Would you like fries with that? |
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dhruin
Will this extend your favourite games with regular add-ons and updates? Provide alternative revenue to support risky projects - or merely line the pockets of big publishers?
False dichotomy. It'll do both. [Episodic games/downloadable content/ad-supported games/bugbear of the week] provides the average consumer with another way to get screwed by unscrupulous publishers, but that's the role fate has assigned him. I trust my ability to find the good deals and rare gems that a new [distribution/funding/etc.] model will offer. This doesn't bother me. |
|
Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:57 pm |
|
|
Momotaca
Village Dweller
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 7
Location: Henderson, NV |
My fear is less and less provided with the game. Strategy Guides, once labors of love, are now almost designed as necessities to be purchased. Hope it never gets to the point where the basic instructions are an "add-on". |
|
Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:14 pm |
|
|
corwin
On the Razorblade of Life
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 8376
Location: Australia |
As usual Dhruin, a well written and thoughtful article. I'd like to think that all these add ons/ins were for the enhancement of the gaming experience, but I honestly doubt it!! Sure the devs are interested in that issue (though why weren't they included originally), but the publishers who call the tune and pull the strings seem only interested in the bottom line. Would that extra cash be re-invested in the games, or merely be used to appease shareholders and such ilk!! Am I cynical and suspecious? You bet!! I've been around a long time. 
Nightshade is I think correct when he says we give indie developers generally good reviews to help them get noticed. This is especially true because the majority of Indie devs are producing good games simply because it is a labour of love that THEY care deeply about. Richard Garriot was once a small indie developer and he made incredible games. Then he sold out to EA and we all know the rest of the story. The same could be said for NWC.
Would I purchase extra 'stuff'? Most likely NOT. I'll buy expansions like SOU or HOU for NWN, but if I'm not enjoying the game out of the box why spend more, and if I am enjoying the game, then why be greedy!!
_________________
If God said it, then that settles it!
I don't use Smileys, I use Emoticons!!
 |
|
Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:29 pm |
|
|
Dyne
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Posts: 17
Location: London, UK |
My tuppence: Stop beating around the bush. You want more money, raise game prices. If it doesn't shift enough units then maybe, just maybe it was a crap game anyway, and no amount of extra episodes, items or quests could change that.
If it's a good game built on a solid engine (thinking Baldur's Gate, NWN etc) then there'll be extra revenue from good old-fashioned expansion packs.
Put the time spent thinking up increasingly fanciful ways to get money from extra content into making a damn good game in the first place that justifies the price you set.
_________________
Chonky big tim-tam Australian so-so. |
|
Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:42 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
What about a game that is "free"? It can be downloaded for "free", played all the way through for "free", but might have certain features that you could unlock for a buck or two. (Like an alternative game mode, a hidden area, etc).
Or perhaps there are some annoyances that you could avoid for a small price (i.e. dying costs your character experience, items, or prestige, but if you want to avoid that, pay a buck and you are back to your good ole self?).
And how about the possiblity of a little gift for your in game character? You spend a dollar, and your character gets a random *something*, like a special item, a new spell, an experience boost, etc.
Would any of you guys be up for a model like that? Any thoughts if a "free" model with optional in-game pricing schemes would generate enough revenue to justify the development costs? |
|
Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:45 pm |
|
|
Val
Risen From Ashes
Joined: 18 Feb 2002
Posts: 14724
Location: Utah, USA |
I wouldn't mind paying for additional content if I enjoy the original product and the additional content is good. I enjoyed the NWN premium modules and wouldn't mind buying more.
_________________
Freeeeeeedom! Thank heavens it's summer!
What do I have to show for my hard work? A piece of paper! Wee!
=Guardian, Moderator, UltimaDot Newshound=  |
|
Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:50 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
Why do the best indie games get ignored then? Prelude to darkness and Tulgor: Alliance with Rome to name two?
Most indie games get ignored by the mainstream press. Their opinions on the best games that are worth showing to the world may be dramaticaly different then yours. |
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:51 am |
|
|
Guest
|
I think all forms of entertainment that you pay up front for should be free. For example I buy DVDs, books, CDs, games, ect and I expect them to be ad-free; radio, TV (you pay for the cable connection not the content), websites, and even media that is delivered at a reduced price over its manufacturing cost such as newspapers and magazines, I can understand that advertisment. If I pay $50+ for a game I shouldn't be annoyed with ads, if on the other hand I receive a reduced priced or free MMORPG I can understand the ads. Game developers should be wary that customers will not respond well, just as with movie goers, to in -game advertisment after dishing out $50.
As far as buying ad-ins, I would only pay for expansions, my realworld financial situation (even if it's only a buck or two) shouldn't influence my role-playing experience, it's counter-intuative to the very idea of role-playing. I should have to work hard and diligent in the game to receive that special item. |
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:06 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
What about a game that is "free"? It can be downloaded for "free", played all the way through for "free", but might have certain features that you could unlock for a buck or two. (Like an alternative game mode, a hidden area, etc).
Or perhaps there are some annoyances that you could avoid for a small price (i.e. dying costs your character experience, items, or prestige, but if you want to avoid that, pay a buck and you are back to your good ole self?).
And how about the possiblity of a little gift for your in game character? You spend a dollar, and your character gets a random *something*, like a special item, a new spell, an experience boost, etc.
Would any of you guys be up for a model like that? Any thoughts if a "free" model with optional in-game pricing schemes would generate enough revenue to justify the development costs?
I like it. If it means more games being made.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:10 pm |
|
|
evil_lemming
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 06 Aug 2005
Posts: 38
|
I'll but expantions to game I like (NoTR, SOU/HotU) and maybe even smaller stuff like those modules Bioware is selling but I think changing cash to effect the game or get a uniqe item is wrong because then you no longer need skill just daddys credit card.... I can see that killing any game with PvP |
|
Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:40 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
All this talk about increasing revenue streams and creating constant revenue streams really makes me wish for the good ol days when small developers cranked out great games like Ultima back in the 80s and 90s.
Marketing is an insidious thing. You give it an inch and it will take up an entire universe for itself.
I go to the movies, pay nearly one hundred dollars between my wife and kids and for that I get to enjoy 20 minutes of commercials.
I buy a DVR and connect it to the internet and the great reward is having commercials streamed to my DVR.
I wash my car on Saturday, and the peace and quiet in the neighborhood is destroyed by that twin-prop helicopter dragging a football-field sized advertisement for Bud-Weiser 50 feet over my house. The premium content here is the peace and quiet I was supposedly going to get by working hard to buy a house in a decent neighborhood.
Back when cable first came out, it too was considered premium content. But after 25 years of a little advertising here, a little marketing there, most cable channels have regular commercials regardless that you are probably paying 50 to 100 dollars a month for so-called premium content.
While I find the idea facinating that I might be able to purchase the fascinating 'kill the foozle' quest for my copy of Oblivion, I have no doubt that this business model is going to be perverted into a totally money-centric situation.
Like cable TV now, I can already foresee how you'll go to your favorite computer game store and you will pay for the core engine of the game, but then on top of that, you'll have to buy all the actual content.
The idea of premium content is being eroded here and with the 'Holleywoodification' of games already taking place, all of this, at least to me, is changing the nature of gaming to the extent that I wonder how much longer I will find computer gaming interesting.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:22 pm |
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:12 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
