You'll have to excuse any odd jargon I use, I'm not used to talking economics in English.
Not to sound rude, but I can’t see you arguing economics at all. I think you mean accounting. A core principle of economics is supply and demand. Consumer’s demand and producer’s supply what is demanded. It’s exactly what I am saying and you are arguing against.
Huh? We have two situations in which games are profitable, only one in which the profit margins are higher for large, centralized corporations. Because for big corporations, more titles means more overhead and diminishing returns, if you're versed in accounting I don't need to explain that.
I’m versed in economics and finance. Finance has some different definitions for common terms, such as value, when compared to economics, which is different compared with accounting. But you can’t say higher overhead without qualifying it, which you haven’t yet. Again, companies are measured by efficiency, and the efficiency can be measured and includes almost all variables, and definitely overhead. A better measure for this discussion is accounting profit or economic profit. I’ll skip ahead to the only qualification I can find for this statement.
The lower overhead...well, each game from mid-level upwards has a base investment cost due to management, Q&A and PR. That investment can never go below a certain value without risking getting no returns on the investment at all. Then on top of that base, you invest more to make the game more profitable. If you have x million to invest, one project means you only have to do the base once and have x-y=z left to invest. If you do multiple projects, you have x-y-y-y-y<z to invest, meaning those 4 projects would have to outsell the single project by a margin of 3y to balance out.
(oversimplifying).
This goes against any sort of anything I’ve learned in education and by experience. All factors are variable, and if x is the only investment strategy you would still shoot for the money-line. We have to talk total efficiency of the business, as well as factoring in the strategic plan of the business and why. And also the market. What are the forecasts of projects, etc. Can the company have efficiencies of scale?
It's not very complex. Consumers don't buy as many niche games as they buy mainstream games, this is kind of inherent in the definition of both those terms. Titles can be sold profitably in both areas of gaming, as has been proven constantly. Yet they are produced only in one, because in stock market-driven economies, the bottom line does not allow for both kinds of profitability.
You totally lost me here. Stock-market driven economies as in how? By the owners wanting to be paid dividends. You just said both areas can be profitable, do you think the owners care if the profit came from one area or the other?
It is ridiculously naive to think you can turn niche titles into mainstream titles by shouting buy buy buy at consumers. There will always be niche titles, either because the graphics are low or because the gameplay does not attract enough people. The question is not if we can make every gameplay model sell millions, the question is: why would they have to?
Now we get to something we can actually talk about. Niche vs. mainstream. What is niche and who are the buyers? Are they sophisticated buyers? Why does menu-pricing work in video games (i.e. deluxe/collector’s editions)? Menu pricing is second degree price-discrimination and sucks up consumer surplus. Why are the demands of the niche not being supplied? As to your question, “why would they have to.” I answered in my first post. They don’t. If the niche market is generating economic profit, the big companies will chase it, because, again, the only viable business driver is long-term economic profit. My answer made you talk crazy, and here we are, you still talking crazy.
Why are you using Fallout as an example when I gave you a more recent one? The numbers for Fallout were not made public, it sold 500k lifetime, which is enough to reasonable fund a game with about the same investment that - say - Drakensang got, assuming that 500k is not more than half bargain bin.
It's still selling like hotcakes now, mostly on GoG. You can't easily build that kind of value, but no publisher cares.
Also, you're avoiding my question. Troika's industry model produced a profitable low-risk low-margin TB Iso title. It can not do that anymore? Why not?
Where is Troika? Why couldn’t they get funding? Why is only one of their three titles TB (RT/TB hybrid is not TB)? Why was there last tech-demo of a PA game RT? Did they want it to be RT? What was their answer to that question? The why not I answered as well in my first post. And you answered as well, the market does not react to mid-level titles.
Look at rpg codex’s last year round-up. The codex is supposed to be hard-core crpg lovers, yet it is clear they didn’t even try Avernum 5. Why? Spiderweb doesn’t treat assets as sunk costs. The market (meaning the consumers) demand each game be like a movie. All costs and all assets are sunk-costs. A game’s assets can only be exclusive for that title. And what is the big barrier between low-budget, mid-level, and high-budget game? Graphics. What is the most expensive and resource draining aspect of creating a game? Graphics. What are treated as sunk costs? Graphics. What doesn’t have to? Graphics.
Why are graphics such a huge sales driver? Evil CEO’s or the consumer’s? Consumers. Why can I count all the TB games not released from indy devs this century on one hand? Consumers. Why is one big title more desirable to game companies than 5 mid-level titles or 20 low-level titles? Consumers. Whose demands are the game companies supplying? Consumers.
Whose fault can it only be? Consumers. How can this change? Consumers change what they value, buy independent productions, prove there is economic profit to be made by catering to and supplying the demand of segments who value game-play over graphics. It is the only logical answer.
I really don’t even know what your point is. And I can’t justify continuing this debate unless you clarify your stance. “You’re wrong because of (crazy talk),” doesn’t count. How am I wrong (please don’t use accounting, economic, or business terms unless they are qualified and the qualification makes sense. I.e. “You can't easily build that kind of value, but no publisher cares.” Value? Marketing value? Value in finance means the last price an item sold for. So the value would be $30. I would hope a publisher doesn’t care that much about $30.)
ToEE was Atari's best-selling RPG and second-best selling PC game of 2004. Why are you making me repeat myself?
What was it's competition RPG-wise and non-rpg-wise on Atari’s 2004 menu? Name all the TB rpgs released this century. Name all the RT or Twitch “rpgs” released this century. Why do I have to repeat myself even more than you do, with simple concepts even?
Yes, they are. They're also a lot more expensive, which also means they make for a less stable basis for your industry. That is, in fact, a key part of the argument I'm making. Not entirely sure how you missed that.
Again, what? My industry? What "argument" are you making besides, “You’re wrong,” followed by crazy talk?
Your basic argument, Roqua, is that if TB games weren't a niche - if as many people liked them as currently like WoW or the Sims - they'd be massive hits. So, therefore, it's the public's fault these are niche games. Am I right?
I guess that's fine as far as it goes but it's a pointless argument. People like what they like - apart from tinkering at the edges to influence them with marketing. Given that as an absolute (or close to it), the rest is a matter of how game producers respond to that demand.
No. I’ll reiterate my points for you and Brother None. The industry as it is now is due to consumer values and demands. Management at game companies would probably love not to treat their most expensive assets as sunk costs. Management would probably love to diversify risk. TB games are not mainstream because of the consumer. TB will never be mainstream. A TB rpg will probably never sell as well as a super-fancy FPS (I say TB crpgs are now a niche product and I can qualify this statement by pointing to the a) lack of TB titles this century b) none of the big rpg developers around today make, have made, or plan on making a TB crpg that anyone here can name this century or in the foreseeable future). This is not because of the big game companies, it is because of consumer demand and the market the consumer created. Things can be different, and I stated how, and I will so again. For those who value game play over graphics, challenge over accessibility, etc, support independent titles such as AoD and show that there is economic profit to be gained by catering to niche markets.
I never said TB would be mainstream. I said we, the consumer, are responsible for the current state of things. We can only blame ourselves. If we are not willing to compromise on graphic quality or show that what we want can create economic profit nothing will change and we will always have to lie the bed we made. But trying to pass the buck off to and blame the game companies for a situation we created is retarded. Yes, people will like what they like, and buy what they want, that is supply and demand working correctly. But when we say we want a good rpg to play that includes this, this and that, and we don’t even consider a Spiderweb game, we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We have compromised on every aspect of what we used to value in crpgs, besides graphics. Our spending habits have ensured all games have the best graphics and cater to retards and are diverged of all challenge, and then we whine about it. We demand, they supply, and we cry about it. It’s retarded. Take onwership. If you believe there is a problem and want to affect the situation, do it, or stop whining.
This is insane. If you don't make TB ISO then you can officially call the market dead on them, can't you? Convient isn't it?
What’s insane and what is convient? If you mean convenient, I guess so, but I don’t understand what you are saying. So I’ll agree if you agree to stop confusing me.
