CVG - PC Gamer Predictions

[Dhruin]

CVG, the UK portal for Future Publishing's magazine stable, has a series of PC gaming predictions from PC Gamer UK's blog. There are four articles written by different authors that include ideas such as Steam taking over PC distribution to crush piracy and Duke Nukem actually getting released soon...ish. Kieron Gillen's first article (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=160651) is the most interesting:
1) Fallout 3 will disappoint Fallout fans and delight everyone else.
The only thing that confuses me about Bethesda getting the Fallout licence is why they'd even bother. Fallout, while important and brilliant, was never a runaway sales success. At the moment, Bethesda are arguably the most commercially successful western-style Role-playing Game developer on earth. It'd actually be far smarter for them to develop their own post-apocalypse setting from scratch rather than trying to raise Interplay's child from the nuclear ashes.

The idea of Bethesda doing a post-apocalypse game is as big a story as Bethesda doing Fallout 3. Perhaps even a bigger story. Since it'll be presumably be appearing on the consoles, where it'll have no history whatsoever, the "3" is going to make people back away slowly. (Don't
expect it to come out under the name "Fallout 3" but "Fallout: Some Extra Subtitle")

So what have they bought with the licence? Just the enmity of the hardcore Fallout fans who'll hate any game Bethesda make with it just on principle.

So why did they do it? Only reason I can work out is Bethesda are just dirty big Fallout fans and would love to play in the Sandbox. Which is a good a reason for the rest of us to be very excited indeed.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=4493)

[Lucky Day]

I can't agree with them here. The Fallout name is big now. I'm not aware of any game associated more with the Post-Apoc theme, especially among RPG's. Wasteland is the only one close.

I can't think of a game that was ever successful as a Fallout "clone". STALKER is so far the only Post-Apoc game that seems to be successful, but I'm not sure that can be said just yet.

Like most RPG's I think Fallout was still doing brisk sales over time especially after the word of mouth. The same thing happened with PS:T. Its one of the few games this old that generates some buzz today.

Again, I use the comparison of Ultima Online to the Ultima series. In this regard I do agree with the one contention: new players like it and a number of fans of the old game will hate it. Can Beth weather that storm? ToEE didn't but NWN did.

[Dhruin]

I'm with Gillen on this one. The Fallout name does have a high level of awareness among (older?) PC gamers but I doubt it has any real pull on the Xbox 360 or PS3. On the other hand, Bethsoft themselves are a hot property (as far as the market is concerned) and surely should have been able to design their own setting.

Anyway, its pretty irelevant now. :)

[guenthar]

We can't really say how the game is going to be until there are more detils or when it comes out. Who knows it could end up being a true successor to the Fallout franchise and be liked by the hardcore Fallout players. They could even make it appeal to the general gaming community also and get really good sales from both sides. We just don't know till it comes out.

[Corwin]

I think the two are mutually exclusive; FO fans want TB and the general community wants RL!! And that's only the beginning!!!! :)

[GhanBuriGhan]

I diagree with Gillen. The Fallout name creates far more press awareness than a new IP would. Sure, any game bethesda makes after Oblivion will receive attention, and would probably sell well. But the Fallout name has been hyped by any game journalist in recent memory, and, ironically, by the same hardcore fanbase that is bound to be unhappy with what Bethesda does with the license. Inevitably the drama that will ensue after the game is unveiled will be covered (repeatedly) by every gaming publication in print and on the net. It doesn't matter that Fallout has no history on the console - by the time it is released every Xbox player will know the story, if not the game behind it. It's gonna be the talk of the town until release and long after. Gillens own article is part of that. And even if this coverage will vocalize the criticism too, the mere attention it gernerates will guarantee stellar sales. I don't know if Bethesda counted on this when they bought the license, but now they cannot loose.

[txa1265]

I can't agree with them here. The Fallout name is big now ...The same thing happened with PS:T.
Those names have serious cred with hardcore gamers over 30 and game 'journalists'. That is it. It doesn't exist outside of those (relatively small) circles.

So I have to go with the author on that.

[GhanBuriGhan]

Those names have serious cred with hardcore gamers over 30 and game 'journalists'. That is it. It doesn't exist outside of those (relatively small) circles.

So I have to go with the author on that.

Game journalists are opinion leaders.

[crpgnut]

Game journalists are like movie critics: If they happen to like a movie I like, then they're righteous. If they trash my beloved movie, then they're clueless idiots who have lost touch with the mainstream. In either case, I don't base my movie-going choices on their beliefs. Same with game journalists.

[GhanBuriGhan]

Game journalists are like movie critics: If they happen to like a movie I like, then they're righteous. If they trash my beloved movie, then they're clueless idiots who have lost touch with the mainstream. In either case, I don't base my movie-going choices on their beliefs. Same with game journalists.

Even so I would bet you are likelier to go see a movie that is discussed controversially by every critic on every site and every newspaper plus has articles in editorials and general interest sections about the controversy, than one that gets glowing reviews but is only covered lightly. A good example is the current "300". The contorversy surrounding it gets it media coverage, and its doing great, despite the criticism.

[doctor_kaz]

I agree that it made absolutely no sense for Bethesda to buy this license and then basically take a gigantic shit on the fans of the series by making a game that is completely different. The only value that the license has ever had came from the success of Fallout and Fallout 2. It makes no sense to say that this is a strong license with name recognition, and then in the next breath say that the Fallout games were just cult hits so you can't make the next game like that.

Anyone who thinks that Bethesda has an automatic hit on their hands needs to take a look at how Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel sold compared to Fallout. Or look at what Deus Ex: Invisible War did to the careers of Harvey Smith and Warren Spector. This isn't the first time that we've had this conversation. If Bethesda makes Oblivion with guns, then I wouldn't be surprised if it flops miserably.

[txa1265]

Game journalists are opinion leaders.

Sure, but they are largely dominated by 20-ish males looking for the latest and prettiest 'big boom' they can get. They will banter about Fallout, but many haven't played it or PS:T ... they are name dropping in the worst media tradition.

And in that regard I also agree with doctor_kaz - if this doesn't look good these same people who are pimping the Fallout name will be the first in line to crap all over it.

[aries100]

Yes, this isn't the first, nor the second, nor the 3rd time, we've had this discussion.
And I, for one, am through discussing why Bethsoft bought the license, if TB is better than RL combat, if isometric perspective is better than first perspective as well as through discussing any thing loosely related to Fallout.

I'm sorry to say this: But people (from both sides) seem to repeat themselves. That you think that TB or RL combat is the way to go, doesn't make it any more correct - if you say LOUD or for the zilch'th time...

I have only one thing left to say to you when discussing Fallout
(and this doesn't mean I leaving this board, it just means that I'm leaving the FO discussion)

'goodbye and good luck'

[bjon045]

I agree that it made absolutely no sense for Bethesda to buy this license and then basically take a gigantic shit on the fans of the series by making a game that is completely different.

What on earth are you talking about? The game isn't even made yet!!!!! Talking about the chicken coming before the egg.

[Bundyo]

What everyone keeps forgetting is that now the average game player age is in the middle :-/

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

[Moriendor]

What everyone keeps forgetting is that now the average game player age is in the middle :-/

http://www.theesa.com/facts/gamer_data.php

Not really saying you're wrong but just to present a different view, the NPD group says that the common belief that gamers are now older on average is actually a myth (more or less ;) )...

Report From The NPD Group Shows 45 Percent Of Heavy Video Gamers Are In The Six - To 17-Year-Old Age Group

Study Explores Uncharted Territory of Multi-Dimensional Gamer Segmentation- Refutes Common Assumption that Serious Gaming is Focused Mainly on 18 - to 34-year-old Males to the Exclusion of Kids and Females

PORT WASHINGTON, NEW YORK, September 19, 2006 –Contrary to popular belief that most video game players, and particularly “serious” video game players, are 18- to 34-year-old males, 45 percent of the NPD Heavy Gamer segment and nearly one-in-three Avid Console Gamers, the largest overall segment, are between the ages of six and 17, according to The NPD Group’s recently released Video Gamer Segmentation Report.

The report, which identifies six gamer segments - Heavy Gamers, Avid Console Gamers, Mass Market Gamers, Prefer Portable Gamers, Secondary Gamers, and Infrequent Gamers – provides deep insight into gamer segments by key behavioral and demographic metrics to better target relevant segments for sales and marketing. The report defines the platforms, titles, genres, and retailers that are attracting various types of consumers, to inform product development strategies and to identify opportunity gaps while leveraging areas of strength.

According to the report, Heavy Gamers’ demographic/gender parameters also expand beyond 18- to 34-year-old males: 21 percent of this segment is female. The Heavy Gamer segment comprises only 3 percent of the total game playing population, contrary to common assumption that these serious gamers constitute a larger percentage of the game-playing population and retail sales dollars.
“Heavy gamers can be critical to a title or retailer’s success since they are the market leaders, but focusing on this segment entirely is ignoring a much broader consumer base and larger revenue potential,” said Anita Frazier, entertainment industry analyst, The NPD Group.

Those in the Prefer Portable segment may also be older than previously thought. While the majority of these gamers are under 18 years of age, one in three is 18-44 years old.

“NPD is excited to finally bring a measured approach to gamer segmentation and is looking forward to releasing future updates and shedding more light on this important topic,” said Frazier.

The report divides gamers into relevant segments by the number and type of systems owned, whether or not consumers are primary or secondary users, frequency of use, and the number of titles purchased/received. It provides a better understanding of ownership and usage patterns within gamer segments, as well as specific platforms, titles, genres, and retailers.

Methodology
The data in this report was collected via an online survey using NPD’s robust U.S consumer panel. The sample is comprised of 16,670 respondents ages six to 44. Panelists who currently own video game systems (portable and console) were targeted.

http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_060919a.html

[Dhruin]

Discussing the strategy behind purchasing the rights is a different discussion to whether TB or RT is required, in my opinion.

Automatic hit? Obviously that depends on the exact definition of "hit"...I really can't see this failing based on Bethsoft's name and likely use of technology...but I also can't see it being bigger than Oblivion. At the end of the day, high fantasy will trump post-apoc regardless of the other parameters.

[Corwin]

Did anyone consider that the rights could have been bought to prevent someone else making FO3, if Beth had plans to make their own post appoc game!!

[Gorath]

Did Bethesda buy the rights or did they only license the brand for a certain time?

[Dhruin]

License. Kharn will have the details to hand but they have the right to make Fallout 3 and then (IIRC - don't have time to check) the right to make sequels for additional payments (around $1M each time?). They can also develop handheld and other products but *not* an MMO.

[Lucky Day]

Did anyone consider that the rights could have been bought to prevent someone else making FO3, if Beth had plans to make their own post appoc game!!

I seriously doubt that.

Discussing the strategy behind purchasing the rights is a different discussion to whether TB or RT is required, in my opinion.

Automatic hit? Obviously that depends on the exact definition of "hit"...I really can't see this failing based on Bethsoft's name and likely use of technology...but I also can't see it being bigger than Oblivion. At the end of the day, high fantasy will trump post-apoc regardless of the other parameters.

Call of Cthulhu I'm pretty sure was a failure. It had Beth's name all over it and that couldn't save it.

I think people should realize many games have a "collective unconscious" about them. There are many names in the industry that are surprisingly resilient. Bard's Tale, System Shock, Wasteland, Ultima, Wizardry, Wolfenstein, Star Wars, Alien, Pool of Radiance...all names that seem to stick around and find new fans. I was shocked to discover "new" ultima fans that didn't like Ultima 3 after they investigated having only played 7. etc...

[Brother None]

License. Kharn will have the details to hand but they have the right to make Fallout 3 and then (IIRC - don't have time to check) the right to make sequels for additional payments (around $1M each time?). They can also develop handheld and other products but *not* an MMO.

NMA has a special feature page (http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=34287) dedicated to clear up the massive confusion around the Fallout licenses and assets. To quote from there:
The license to make a singleplayer or online co-op sequel to Fallout 2 has been purchased by Bethesda Softworks LLC (Bethesda), a ZeniMax Media company, for $1.175 million dollars guaranteed advance against royalties. Bethesda also has a deal for an option for making two additional sequels at the cost of $1 million dollars guaranteed advance against royalties each. The deal is not affected by whatever happens to Interplay. Bethesda's right to make Fallout 3 and options on Fallout 4 and 5 are unaffected by what happens to Interplay and to ownership of the license.

Note that for that amount of money they still haven't bought it, it's a guaranteed advance against royalties, meaning that if royalties exceed 1.175 million they'll have to pay Interplay that too. A popular topic of conversation amongst Interplay investors.

I think people should realize many games have a "collective unconscious" about them.

This collective unconsciousness is hardly immortal, nor does it guarantee hits anymore than the Bethesda name does.

There is no such thing as a "surefire hit". Sure Bethesda has the know-how and the reputation to churn out another hit (though, as Dhruin says, probably not of the size of Oblivion, but they're not investing as much this time around, so that's not a problem), but there's no way anyone can guarantee it'll be a hit based on either the name or Bethesda's name. Usually, guaranteed sales are fairly low in numbers, like Troika's guaranteed market, or Vogel's. A market of 3 million is never guaranteed.

[Dhruin]

Thanks for that.

[magerette]

I, like aries100, am pretty much through with Fallout discussions. I do however find all this marketing and licensing data fascinating.

Interesting stuff about Beth basically licensing a franchise(3 titles other than MMO) and still having to siphon off any excess profits to Interplay, who- and wherever they are. Thanks for the info, Kharn.

This stuff from NPD is worth a little examination also.

Moriendor quoted this report, (which I have taken liberties with):

Report From The NPD Group Shows 45 Percent Of Heavy Video Gamers Are In The Six - To 17-Year-Old Age Group

According to the report, Heavy Gamers’ demographic/gender parameters also expand beyond 18- to 34-year-old males: 21 percent of this segment is female. The Heavy Gamer segment comprises only 3 percent of the total game playing population, contrary to common assumption that these serious gamers constitute a larger percentage of the game-playing population and retail sales dollars....
snip* market segment analysis blahblahblah*
Methodology
The data in this report was collected via an online survey using NPD’s robust (yes, it has to be robust!)U.S consumer panel. The sample is comprised of 16,670 respondents ages six to 44. Panelists who currently own video game systems (portable and console) were targeted.

This looks like a serious report that will be taken all too seriously, yet what is the real meat?
They surveyed 16 thousand Americans in a 38 year age span who presumably game with consoles/portables. A goodly number, yes, but one wonders what percentage of the total world gaming population (and ensuing "retail sales dollars") that actually represents. We end up with a target market of six+ year olds with consoles and handhelds who are all living in the U.S.

Fortunately for their mental development, only 3% of them are Heavy Gamers. :p

It's amazing ANYbody is making Fallout3 or any other game more complex than Pacman...(er, MS Pacman--21% are female after all...) :raincloud:

I'm sure these statistics could be interpreted differently, and I am mostly joking along here, but bear with me. Trends all too often seem to have their birth in what is little more than hot air and then set up their own reality. This is probably the market surveyed and given emphasis because it is perceived as the most affluent (tho most six - 17 year olds might disagree.) They want these people, preferably for life.

Is this the only successful gaming market? I have my doubts.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

I believe the so-called "marketing experts" have this problem as well.

Wel,l, their comany wants to make money, doesn't it ? And for money they need the most possible income.

Where is actually the most possible income generated ? Which age group ?

This is a question the marketing has to ask itself, too, because if they want to get the most cash, then they have to focus on those with it or the largest amoung within the biggest group ( 10 people having 1000 dollars or 1000 people having 10 dollars ?).

So, they just NEED such studies like the one mentioned, AND they need people whi are good at analysing them ! Analysts !

The currend trend towards younger audiences means to me that they have found or decided that they rather want to go the "1000 people with 10 dollars" scheme. I personally assume that the older generation(s) are rather the other group.

I just see a more and more flow of games tpowards so-called "casual gamers" and a younger generation - generating what i call "wishy-washy- games". Oblivion looks great, and that is imho the most important point for those who are attracted by rather eye-candy than content.

I just wonder how Fallout 3 will look like. Will it be kind of an Oblivion - great, shiny graphics - so, that it might appeal to the greatest number of gamers available ?

What we *really* need is a study on how many gamers are attracted rather by content than by look.

[aries100]

I have seen a BBC online report which the BBC had made, and it showed that the average gamer (in the UK) was about 28-29 years old. (I think, studies in the US have proven the same) thing). It is sort of difficult to read the figures etc. but one of the figures I remember was that about ½ of the age group of adults enjoyed playing video games, both on console and rpgs. Only 15-20% percent of all adults played rpgs, though. (again, this is sort of difficult to find in the report,since the report tends to smack rpgs, adventure games, puzzle games, etc. together in one group, which means that games like tetris, syberia and fallout are placed in the same category. However, the report proves a tendency...that older people, e.g. people over 25+ do like playing rpgs and other videogames as well).

As for the 6-17 year olds playing videogames, well, I still think that game companies are shooting themselves in the foot, if they don't develop (mature) games aimed at an adult market. While they could get the 6-17 year olds right now, they need to plan ahead for the next 10 years or so. And this means that the 15 year old will then be 25 year's old, and interested in different types of game content than they were when they were 15 years old.

As for who has the money, in Denmark (and other scandinavian countries) there can be no doubt: It is the young between people, the young adolescents between 12-18 years of age that has the money overall. Many of these young people get a lot of money from their parents each month as well as they have jobs where they earn good money. And they pay nothing at all for living at home with their parents.
This means they have maybe USD 200- or USD 400- or even maybe USD 600- each month to use on anything they like: cell phones, clothes, video games etc. etc.

Anyway, I agree that the videogame industry seems to be going for the 1000 people with the 10 dollars instead of the 10 people with the 1000 dollars. Maybe the video industry just need to go going for the 500 people with the 20 dollars instead ??

[Dhruin]

Yeah, but the market price is fixed for games - it tops out at USD$50 ($60 for CE or top console release). I was watching a thread on another forum where people were accusing Matrix Games (indie strategy developers) of ripping off players because they charge up to $55 for their indie (often low-tech) games. Personally, I'd happily pay $USD80 for an RPG (or whatever) if it really was good enough but the market pricing structure is pretty flat and all hell breaks out if otherwise.

[aries100]

I don't why this is, that there seems to be a fixed market price for videogames (rpgs, too) at 50 USD, since games 10 years ago also did cost - wait for it - $50 US.
[If we were to pay the correct price for games, accounting for the inflation during the years, we would pay about $60-$65 US (or perhaps even higher prices) for games].

Personally, I would be willing to pay up til $80-$100 for a good game. I don't much about the market the market structure in the US, or how games are prices, but it seems oddly suspicious to me that ALL (new) games are targeted to be sold at 50 USD dollars or so.

[Corwin]

Perhaps, but down here, games sell for $80-100 and have done for years. If the US price goes up, so will ours and I don't want to be paying $125 per game!!