View Single Post

Default 

April 1st, 2007, 14:02
Originally Posted by Gorath View Post
Games lack most of these income sources. The business is growing up, now we have Steam, etc. , but it will take a long time until the gap to other entertainment industries is closed.
Conceded, but that's a difference in scale, not in absolutes (hence the economic basis is roughly the same, just not identical). That doesn't explain why the gaming industry doesn't recognise that a long seller is an asset *at all*. Nobody in the industry took Troika seriously, no publisher would back them up long enough. That has nothing to do with a healthy entrepenurial attitude, like I said, a spread portfolio is a good thing, and there are surely publishers out there big enough to be able to afford backing up a company that cranks out slow, but steady bucks.

This is a vicious cycle, y'know, one of the reasons the gaming industry isn't maturing is because it refuses to face the simple economic fact that the high-profile high-risk-only game they're playing is pure economic insanity, and one of the reasons they have to play that game is because they're not mature. It's not going to be changed if people just keep saying "meh, that's just the way it is."

Of course, it'll inevitably change, but that's another topic.

Originally Posted by bjon045 View Post
Publishers are interested in games that are long sellers like Fallout, it's just they have no way of knowing what is going to be a long seller and it is far easier for them and safer to publish a game with the latest and greatest graphics that is going to sell 300,000 in the first 3 months and give them a quick profit even though it may slide into obscurity once reviews start becoming widely available and games with even better graphics are available.
Uhm, not to nit-pick, but while, as Gorath effectively argues, the long-term selling market is hardly risk-free, it's not like the short-term selling market *is*. Remember, the compete in the short-term selling market at all, you have to go high-budget. If you flop in the low or mid-budget range, you can survive. If you flop in the high-budget range, you generally go belly-up.

As an investor, if looking at risks, I'd probably prefer Troika to Bethesda. Troika had mid-range games that sold enough to pay for themselves and then some, and each game so far was a long-term hit. Bethesda has a *lot* more, but also invests so much that one flop is all that is needed to topple the entire structure.
Brother None is offline

Brother None

Brother None's Avatar
SasqWatch

#75

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,552