|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » The Witcher 2 - Preview at N4G

Default The Witcher 2 - Preview at N4G

March 30th, 2011, 18:46
Originally Posted by Tragos View Post
If we decide to make a game and the game sells enough to cover our wages during for the period of development then we have made a successful game.
Everyone got paid and iirc they made a "profit" of 5.000€ .

I don't get the capitalist dream of getting rich and buying more useless crap because you made a good game . Bioware made good money from DAO and you saw what followed …. CDPR can do better without any EA like sharks lashing their sweaty backs.
Making a profit has nothing to do with capitalist dreams of any kind but rather with sound business plans. In order to produce a product of any kind you first need to invest money. If you don't have the money yourself you need investors who will then have influence on your business because they actually pay the current bills. After you sold the product you have to pay them back with interest. And if the product doesn't sell well enough for you to finance the next product yourself you have to go and search investors again.
If you on the other have more money than you have to spend on your next product you have reserves. And you don't have to rely on outside sources (i.e. investors) for capital. And that is exactly the reason why some companies don't have to care about delaying a product for a few months while others simply can't do that.
Roi Danton is offline

Roi Danton

Roi Danton's Avatar
Sentinel

#21

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Saarbruecken
Posts: 464

Default 

March 30th, 2011, 18:47
Atari give them some money. But most of them they had from games distribution (what CDProjekt do here in Poland)…

Damariel

Guest

#22

Posts: n/a

Default 

March 30th, 2011, 22:03
Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
Dice poker helps.
Especially if you save, and reload if you lose.
Thrasher is offline

Thrasher

Thrasher's Avatar
Wheeee!
RPGWatch Donor

#23

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Studio City, CA
Posts: 10,127

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 00:07
Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
Development costs on TW2 should be significantly lower, and getting investment is easier having proved how popular TW1 was.
Why would development cost be significantly lower for TW2? Do you have something that supports that?
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#24

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 18,019

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 00:11
Originally Posted by Tragos View Post
If we decide to make a game and the game sells enough to cover our wages during for the period of development then we have made a successful game.
Everyone got paid and iirc they made a "profit" of 5.000€ .

I don't get the capitalist dream of getting rich and buying more useless crap because you made a good game . Bioware made good money from DAO and you saw what followed …. CDPR can do better without any EA like sharks lashing their sweaty backs.
Welcome to the free market and capitalism where enough is never enough. An example A company made made a total of 5 million but was supposed to make 6 million. Now they made more of a profit than last year but there still not happy.

See now you have to tell your lovely investors and shareholders why you didn't make more and there cut is smaller. Money people its all about making more and never satisfied with what they do.

I have to attend meetings like this where oh we made a profit but not as forecasted. We BLAH BLAH BLAH have to increase efficiency and oh we need to lay off more people to save more money. That's how a company operates.

"We must stand strong my fellow watchers against the horde of red trolls." - Couchpotato

RPGWatch News Editor & Moderator
Couchpotato is offline

Couchpotato

Couchpotato's Avatar
LazyGamer
RPGWatch Team

#25

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Potato Land
Posts: 10,156

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 06:11
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
Why would development cost be significantly lower for TW2? Do you have something that supports that?
Since they built a brand new engine I would guess TW2 is the one that cost more. They're likely around the same budget though I bet… I doubt CDP expect to sell more copies than they did of the original, which was already impressive given the market.
DoctorNarrative is offline

DoctorNarrative

DoctorNarrative's Avatar
Patroling Written Words

#26

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,825

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 09:45
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
Why would development cost be significantly lower for TW2? Do you have something that supports that?
My statement was wrong, as already corrected. I had expected TW2 to cost less primarily because the development time (purely related to TW2 stuff) is less, and because the engine is in-house resulting in lower licensing costs. When you are creating a sequel you also have less design work (characters, protagonist, game mechanics, stat systems, feel etc.) Creating your own engine can cost more, but one way it does so is by increasing the development time - however in this case the development time including engine creation is less than the development time using a licensed engine.

Of course, length is only one way of increasing costs - breadth is the other So I'd guess they have had more people working for them in the shorter development time (for example engine engineers working sooner in the process along with design), and hence costs being around the same and in fact slightly higher already.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#27

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 11:14
Originally Posted by Couchpotato View Post
Welcome to the free market and capitalism where enough is never enough. An example A company made made a total of 5 million but was supposed to make 6 million. Now they made more of a profit than last year but there still not happy.

See now you have to tell your lovely investors and shareholders why you didn't make more and there cut is smaller. Money people its all about making more and never satisfied with what they do.
But I read that this kind of thinking rather evolved over the last 3 decades … Before that, the policies ? philosophies ? in company were not so much money- and growth-oriented, but rather different.

In an article I read that it began in the 80s, mostly during he Reagan era, where there was quite a rebuilding of the whole financial sector.

In that time - according to the article - business philosophies became more and more money-oriented and profit-oriented, compared against the … I think it was rather an employee-oriented approach/philosophy earlier.

In an Star Wars collecting forum, one put it as such _ In the 70s, there was always a shop employee doing his or her best o satisfy the customer's wishes - oten even ordering single items, if wanted. Customers were persons, then, they were human individuals, and these employees were people one knew personally.

Now, things have changed. we are considered as numbers, as mere tools for giving the companies more profits, shop employees are not personally known anymore, and the tendency would rather be there to punish them if they do ANYTHING that takes away from the most possibly company's income … Like ordering individual items, for example …

The shift I see there is that of a de-humanisation of wole businesses.
And on a meta lvel it is almost as if "money" or rather a firm had become a "meta being" which tries to maintain itself and grow and grow and grow …

Last Wednesday I read a book about dinosaurs. There it was discussed why they became so big.
What astonished me was that there seems to be a natural law in this : Animal groups tend to become bigger over time. As a tendency.
Like some Dinosaur groups did.
And I see a similar law in economics. Companies tend to become bigger over time.
I once wrote about even crystals becoming bigger over time. (Thus dissolving smaller ones in the process, if both are within the same liquid.)
And planets, too. Given they are able to accumulate enough stuff over time.

Growth and a tendency to become bigger appears here, there and everywhere … It's almost like a natural law built into the universe …

On the other side stands the Diversity. Hundreds or even thousands of small and tiny animal and plant species in a given space.

What we have here - imho - is the lack of diversity. U.S. economics - and the U.S. are a role model for quite a lot of countries - have an unhealthy tendency towards growth. Microsoft, Oracle, AT&T and the "Baby Bells", EA etc. …

“ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#28

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 16,002

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 11:30
I actually also think developers want as many people as possible to be able to play their games…..
GothicGothicness is online now

GothicGothicness

GothicGothicness's Avatar
SasqWatch

#29

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,292

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 12:08
Originally Posted by GothicGothicness View Post
I actually also think developers want as many people as possible to be able to play their games…..
That goes without saying in most cases..
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#30

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 18,019

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 15:45
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
That goes without saying in most cases..
I'm not so sure. I think sometimes devs want to make the game that they would have liked to play. Otherwise we wouldn't get any games for the PC any more or if there were they'd all be browser based

Certainly, my motivations when developing content for persistent worlds was exactly that - I felt there hadn't been something that addressed my wants, so I made it myself on behalf of the (minority) that felt the same way.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#31

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 16:01
Originally Posted by kalniel View Post
I'm not so sure. I think sometimes devs want to make the game that they would have liked to play.
I agree, but that doesn't have anything to do with also wanting to make it playable to others.
JDR13 is offline

JDR13

JDR13's Avatar
SasqWatch

#32

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida, US
Posts: 18,019

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 16:53
Originally Posted by JDR13 View Post
I agree, but that doesn't have anything to do with also wanting to make it playable to others.
Well obviously, no one want to put that much effort in something that only 20 peoples will play or see… sames goes for every art form…
A Stormy Night is offline

A Stormy Night

Traveler

#33

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 13

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 22:21
I think most developers are trying to juggle pleasing their core audience and branching out to get a lot of new fans and mainstream gamers.

A lot of the time they fail on both ends.
DoctorNarrative is offline

DoctorNarrative

DoctorNarrative's Avatar
Patroling Written Words

#34

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,825

Default 

March 31st, 2011, 23:45
Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative View Post
I think most developers are trying to juggle pleasing their core audience and branching out to get a lot of new fans and mainstream gamers.

A lot of the time they fail on both ends.
I agree totally. Don't you think if they just made a great game irregardless of who it caters too that people would just buy it? kind of like if they build it they will come.

For example i'm an rpg first guy but when I hear of a great fps, strategy, adventure or what ever kind of game I will give it a try. But I will not buy an average fps/rpg or strategy/rpg just because it has rpg elements.

I assume most gamers buy from all genre's if the game is worth it.

Heck, i'm anti-casual games guy and even I got angry birds
sakichop is offline

sakichop

SasqWatch

#35

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,256

Default 

April 1st, 2011, 01:16
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
Now, things have changed. we are considered as numbers, as mere tools for giving the companies more profits, shop employees are not personally known anymore, and the tendency would rather be there to punish them if they do ANYTHING that takes away from the most possibly company's income … Like ordering individual items, for example …
Excellent point and your right we are all just numbers and statistics to corporation and to are governments. Remember everyone has a credit score that follows you through life and affects everything you do. You dont have a name just a number.

"We must stand strong my fellow watchers against the horde of red trolls." - Couchpotato

RPGWatch News Editor & Moderator
Couchpotato is offline

Couchpotato

Couchpotato's Avatar
LazyGamer
RPGWatch Team

#36

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Potato Land
Posts: 10,156

Default 

April 1st, 2011, 10:00
Originally Posted by sakichop View Post
I agree totally. Don't you think if they just made a great game irregardless of who it caters too that people would just buy it? kind of like if they build it they will come.
The problem is that you won't get funding for the game in the first place from any investor. So you're left with people basically having to work for free on games, which means it's not something you can do as a day job or for any length of time.

That's fine for games like angry birds, but you couldn't do a modern equivalent of ultima 7 for free.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#37

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877

Default 

April 1st, 2011, 10:27
Originally Posted by Zloth View Post
1. Fewer customers, resulting in less money and less people enjoying your game.

2. More pirates, resulting in less money and less deserving people enjoying your game.
How on Earth can creating an additional console version reduce the number of pirates?
Elwro is offline

Elwro

Elwro's Avatar
Filthy Codex Spy

#38

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 482

Default 

April 1st, 2011, 14:07
Originally Posted by Elwro View Post
How on Earth can creating an additional console version reduce the number of pirates?
That's because it's easier to claim PC are pirates, you don't piss off Sony and Microsoft when you do so.

Console games get pirated and that pirated version is usually the first one released, well before the PC one.
azarhal is offline

azarhal

SasqWatch
RPGWatch Donor

#39

Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,565

Default 

April 1st, 2011, 14:26
Originally Posted by azarhal View Post
That's because it's easier to claim PC are pirates, you don't piss off Sony and Microsoft when you do so.

Console games get pirated and that pirated version is usually the first one released, well before the PC one.
Yet more people buy games for the console than PC, despite the vastly larger gaming capable PC base.
kalniel is offline

kalniel

SasqWatch

#40

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,877
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » The Witcher 2 - Preview at N4G
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:29.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch