I know that full well, this isn’t only about Ubi, but also 3rd parties in general and the CoD franchise is the perfect example of difference in consumer habits and purchasing intent of most Nintendo owners.
However the point remains. These publishers have been trotting out the same formula and purchasing smaller successes and running them into the ground for quite a few years. That doesn't mean Nintendo is wrong. When looking at AC as an example each iteration has sold less than before. You keep coming back to that same well and it is dry that doesn't mean Nintendo fans hate it. It just means version four of the game doesn't fetch another $60 from as many people. I have a Mac background in computers and we often saw the same tired excuses. Apple just hated games it was claimed until iPhone came along and magically now Apple must love gaming.
Rather it was the same tired problem. Lazy developers unwilling to do the smallest bit of work.
Red Steel I and II were released on the original Wii. Have you noticed that Nintendo finally made the HD transition? Development costs have risen a great deal and the Wii U is basically on par with, or slightly above the 360 and PS3 in development costs. What was required to make a profit on an average Wii title is bound to be a lot lower than on the Wii U, that’s quite simple the most basic premise of the whole profits discussion.
This is the very same reason why Nintendo are struggling to release their own games in time; rising cost and development time and they have fairly small teams.
A multiplat title costs about 20 million dollars on average while a single platform costs 9 million on average (2012 numbers).
The point is that development costs shouldn't have risen at this stage. Sure initially as all the surrounding tools have to be improved, it makes sense. In 2006 the monitor you would purchase to do HD development on with your computer might have cost several hundred dollars. The imaging devices, tablets and everything else were all much more expensive and finer resolution drove the costs even hired. Now we live in an age where HD video can be taken by almost everything. Your local office photocopier can scan entire books and email them to you. Your cellphone has a higher resolution than most televisions did in 2006. People can put 1080p cameras on consumer drones and run them around canyons for footage for a few hundred dollars.
If the cost hasn't come down, it is because of choices made by publishers. The tools should be profoundly cheaper in cost by now. Nintendo is struggling a bit in terms of getting games out but they are managing as well as everyone else but the real point, that the return on investment and gains isn't really being measured properly in the videogame industry or most other industries. Everyone just wants to hit a bigger and longer homerun.
Actually; AC4 released simultaneously on Wii U, 360 and PS3 and was ported to PS4 and One. They even had to patch in full resolution support on PS4 after it had released. It was a good effort on the Wii U, certainly on par with PS3/360. The AnvilNext engine is a transitional engine made to ease development across the 7th and 8th generation platforms more easily.
It still sold terribly, leading Ubisoft to believe, with good reason that the Wii U audience simply aren’t interested in the AC franchise at all.
The point is made by you with regard to the problem. The WiiU version came out of the gate with no support for DLC while they were willing to continue to work on and optimize the PS4 version for better resolution support. Ubi shouldn't be shocked when a game advertised as gimped on the box sells less than the version that is promised support and improvement.
It is just as easy to patch the WiiU version to accept DLC as it is to patch the PS4 version with no optimizations to support higher resolution with good frame rate. Heck they could even try out some new business models on the WiiU. Imagine AC4:DLC on WiiU, free but sponsored by Amazon with a little banner ad on the load screen during use of the DLC. The point is that even with nothing to lose, they manage to lose. It is just bad business.
AC was never big on PC, that’s what I’m saying though; demographics matter. Call of Duty also sells pretty badly on PC, same with Battlefield.
And it’s not because all PC gamers are pirates; the average demographic is simply different.
The fact that it was never big never led to it being gimped. The numbers can be smaller or identical yet Nintendo gets screwed. I'm not reading any articles where PC development (which is the most expensive of all) is being reduced or gimped because Ghosts sold a third of what other COD's did on PC. If the games came out as bad ports to PC, they would be called out as such and the lack of sales would be on the publisher, not on the consumer.
It is scalable and flexible, most developers have gained a lot of experience and developed a slew of tools for HD development, there is also a lot of middleware available to lower costs. This is the primary reason why the development cost rose so little between the 7th and 8th gen.
Nintendo are among the only major developer/publishers in the world who have almost zero experience with HD development and they were caught with their pants down in terms of cost and time frame.
Nintendo isn't doing too badly. I think everyone just wants their favorite franchise available day one when most of the time these games come out over several years. That said publishers keep falling by the wayside and cancelling games when they should be cheaper than ever to make. As an example NfS: Rivals was cancelled on WiiU and it was proof of terrible things regarding WiiU owners. Yet right after that an entirely different NfS game was just cancelled outright across all platforms due to layoffs and cutbacks.
That wasn't because of Nintendo.
Also a look at history will show the same pattern. Here is a franchise run into the ground with yearly releases. The last release didn't sell well no matter the platform (about half a million on PS3 as an example.) It always sold pure crap on PC (often less than 200k) but was never gimped. Now after several years of bleeding the franchise dry, watching the costs go up for some strange reason when all we get is rehashes and minor changes, the bad guy is.... WiiU owners. I guess when the NfS movie flops it will be because of Nintendo owners too.
Besides; even though production costs can’t possibly be blamed on Nintendo and their fans; the fact that there is seemingly no culture and interest for these games, can. How is it not the consumers fault if 6 million people decide to purchase 100k copies of a game?
The game doesn't compete in a vacuum. If it is advertised on the box as gimped then of course it will suffer. People are already talking about the Watch Dogs delay hurting WiiU sales. Why wouldn't someone go get it day one if they have another console? Why wouldn't they spend the same for more if available?
Again publishers are willing to understand this with other consoles. They are even offering full game upgrades for $10 for certain games that basically amount to transitionals first round games for the next gen.
If the very same game sells 15 times as much on a different platform; there’s clearly a market for it, just not on this particular platform, so it’s not about the software itself being of poor quality either. And how is it not Nintendo’s fault for having created a core following with such narrow preferences by basically never deviating from the same formula and approach for decades? I don’t subscribe to the whole “Nintendo gamers just have such incredibly high standards” that a lot of vgchartz member always drone on about; I believe it’s more about enjoying a certain type of games and gameplay elements and not appreciating elements and directions of a lot of other games (just like I prefer Half-Life 2 over any Call of Duty, we all like different things).
First we aren't even discussing numbers anywhere near 15 times the number of sales. We might be discussing a factor of two or three in some instances, especially when discussing PC. That said, a gaming monoculture is a sure recipe for disaster. When everyone is a "bro" playing CoD of FPS of the month on their identical consoles with identical controllers, that is when the whole thing will go bust or get swept aside. Heck I'd argue that to a smaller degree that is what is happening now. FIFA, COD, AC, NfS and a few other variations on a theme are not enough to keep the gaming industry healthy and growing.
These gamers are then put off by other games, again; just like me with a lot of franchises.
For instance; I lap up almost anything in isometric RPG’s, while the vast majority of gamers don’t, and I am put off by RPG games that aim very differently and lack certain elements I like, thus there is automatically anything inherently wrong with those games I avoid; I’m simply not in the demographic.
It’s a combination of things and most core Nintendo gamers simply appear uninterested in certain types of games, which is fine in and on itself.
Except the industry is increasingly unwiling to cater to anything that is not the prime demographic. That is exactly the point with the WiiU. Selling half a million or so units isn't enough and has publishers declaring it isn't worth their time. Some are even declaring that in the blockbuster/homerun model that half a million means they are losing money.
They are right but only when it comes to catering to that model. (I use a lot of analogies) Sure your movie might be screwed if it needs 3,000 theaters to open in but that is only because it cost half a billion to make and market and needs to earn a billion to be a hit.
However you don't have to make that sort of movie. It doesn't need to cost that much and open in that many theaters or need to make that much just to break even. There can be a different way.
Nintendo in that regard represents health in the industy because AC5, COD12, FIFA15, Madden, etc aren't getting their same return in terms of yearly purchases anymore. The numbers aren't just going down because of generational change. They are going down because yearly rehashes for $60 (plus increasingly expensive and mandated skins, DLC, microtransactions, pay to play online, etc.) don't float people's boats and doubling down on the smaller fees all over the place just hastens the demise of the industry.
This I agree and disagree with; I agree that console gaming has become more PC like and less simple but I disagree that PC’s are so “buggy, expensive and time intensive”, that’s highly exaggerated. Development costs for PC titles have been the lowest relative to returns for at least two decades and they’re not that complicated today; anyone with enough technical insight to use a smartphone should be able to use Steam and other services with ease. Everyone knows how to work a PC today.
As consoles have become more PC-like, especially with DLC, microtransactions and online play costing money, along with lack of backward compatibility, PC's have become a better return on cost for many. PC's have also shed most of their expandability and most component suppliers have been absorbed. You aren't buying a sound card, ethernet card, and video card from several different makers. The PC has become a commodity and the average maker earns less than $20 per box. The point is that the PC has adapted to the smartphone and tablet age by simplifying and driving down their cost but still are dying as an industry. Sony just sold off their PC division for a reason.
Yeah, the only thing more tired than “Nintendo is doomed” is; “PC gaming is dying”. PC gaming has actually grown in the past five-six years, even with the smartphone/tablet revolution. Consoles, both dedicated handhelds and home consoles, however, are taking a hit and will suffer a major market contraction, so this is flat out wrong.
PC gaming may not be dying but PC makers are seeing declining numbers. This will affect the market at some point and in some way.
A 300$ program on the PC replicated by a 10$ app? You know that that’s impossible, you can get editing programs, Windows 8.1 Pro and Photoshop for less than 300$ and no 10$ app can replicate a whole OS or a full version of Photoshop.
1200$ for a PC? What age are you living in? That can get you a gaming monster; a decent desktop or laptop PC won’t cost you more than a good tablet or smartphone, perhaps even less.
I'm living in the age that can remember 2006 and the cost of things back then in terms hardware. A good scanner, digital camera, or camcorder was much more expensive then and couldn't even do what most smartphones can do now. The point is that the $300 program might still be around and might do even more now but what it can do then has been replaced by a $10 program.
Are you talking gaming here? Gaming experiences are 10-15% better on consoles? How can you possibly measure that? Or is it apps you’re talking about? Then that is irrelevant to the discussion since this is about game development and sales and ROI.
I am talking gaming experiences on consoles. Smartphones and tablets are providing a good enough experience in all but the most hardcore cases.
Excuse me? You think Ubisoft gets the whole 60$ a game retails for? Do you also know that games go down in price in time? An average 60$ release leaves about 27$ for development cost, marketing and print, if you remove marketing and print, that likely leaves a maximum of 20$ that actually goes directly towards the creator/publisher. Factor in lowered price over time and, as an example, 1 million sales over two year won’t net you much. If the game cost 9 million $ to make (the average cost as of 2012) and you have about 20$ per unit going directly to you and the price lowers into about half after one year and 500k sales; that doesn’t leave a huge number after taxes.I hope you don’t honestly believe that publishers/developers get the whole 60$ for every copy sold.
I never believed that they received all $60 as profit but the point is the money is spent and they decide the model that determines what percentage of that goes to them. When someone comes along and gives a similar enough experience for $1 or $10-20 arguing that they don't have to adopt to the new reality because their old model requires certain inputs and outputs just doesn't jive. Nearly a third of available revenue need not go toward marketing. As I mentioned with the movie analogy, of course you need 3,000 screens and $250 million in marketing to support your $250 million movie about dinosaur robots. That isn't the only choice though.
You think you create the same code for all platforms? Every hardware configuration requires its own solutions, and the different solutions do not coincide most of the time, especially when the One and PS4 have entirely different chipsets and shader generations/versions than PS3/360 and Wii U, the Wii U shares a PowerPC configuration with PS3/360 but it has three different processors and different RAM, and a different, low consumption GPU, so it is different from both PS3/360 and One/PS4.
Multiplatform development consists of more than building one universal string of code and then printing discs which go into different color sleeves. It’s not like making a movie and then releasing on DVD, Blu-ray and streaming services.
I never claimed this. The point is that multiplatform development isn't a new thing. Most compilers allow you to check and the executable will be optimized for the target platform. That doesn't mean there isn't some optimization but the cost and claims are beyond what other industries experience. You note that the average game cost $9million to make. Ports should be well below that. The core assets remain largely the same.
Assassin’s Creed 4 cost about 100 million $ to make according to estimates (including One and PS4 ports), let’s divide that by the six platforms it is available on, that makes about 16.6 million $ per platform to break even. That’s how multiplatform works; the company as a whole funds the production across all platforms and the total returns are tallied, if one or more platforms give poor returns on their end; they cut them out and save development time and cost, business 101.
They would need about 615-820k sales per platform to break even (depending on marketing efforts and whether or not you factor that in), if four of those platforms move 1.5-2 million copies and two platforms move 150-300k copies, what do you think they will do?
It doesn't need to be equal on every platform. Part of being a franchise is being able to toss money at concerns that only break even or that basically act as advertising. When a Hollywood blockbuster has a certain artist on the soundtrack and pays for their music video. They are hoping the synergy makes more money for all parties, but if it only breaks even that is fine too because they are the blockbuster and it reinforces that fact and scares off other competitors.
Call of Duty is far from the best shooter out there in the minds of many but it is available EVERYWHERE and thus it builds momentum from that fact. When it can't be everywhere then it is no longer an event that demands that $60 a year. The knife cuts both ways. If you are too cheap to be everywhere then you aren't an event and a top level franchise. However part of this is the model. Minecraft will be everywhere and will be there at $20. The $20 spent on it could have been spent on Ubi software. However since Ubi can't think of a way to make money at a lower price point, they lose.
How does Youtube fit into this mix and point? It’s a versatile streaming service without productions; it’s an entertainment portal and not a set production of any kind. It’s like roads and cars; the roads provide a transportation segue but has nothing to do with the manufacture of cars. Cable, cinema and gaming have a lot of similarities, true, but Youtube has nothing to do with this what so ever, I don’t even understand why you wrote that.
The point is the money and eyeballs are a big pot and when it gets spent on one area, the other area losses. The $1 smartphone games, the $50 fees to go online, they all subtract from the pot of money left to spend on $60 games. YouTube is almost exclusively what younger kids are using to get their entertainment and information from. It is part of why parents don't mind cutting the cord on expensive cable subscription services who (like game publishers) can only think of one way to make money.
This is true, no doubt, but it’s the ambition that runs away with the cost, the focus is on gloss and production value before creative output and depth, I very much agree that this is the same major issue in gaming today.
Development costs as such are not killing the industry; it’s the overreaching ambition that causes the problem.
The Walking Dead truly is an amazing show, but there are shows with massive budgets that are amazing as well, just like with games (Band of Brothers and Rome, for instance).
This issue though is when the costs get squeezed. What happens when Band of Brothers declares they can't get buy without a third more money and you already pay extra for HBO while paying nothing extra for AMC. At that point a cost to benefit equation is run and there will be a winner and loser. My prediction is that the industry that can't adapt to the lower costs and instead doubles down and increasing costs will eventually go down in flames past a certain tipping point.
Ran out of gas....
