Forums - Gaming Discussion - Publisher's 'blockbuster' or bust mentality is hurting the industry

The ever emerging indie scene says hi.

How is it hurting an entire industry? The only ones that are hurting are the publishers, which isn't even true because they have some cashcow blockbuster on the side to help over failures. Thanks to steam, the Internet and mobile we're currently living in a golden era. Never before have so many games been released, only a fraction of which are AAA games.
So yeah, I don't know what you are talking about.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network

Just because we play games extensively doesn't mean you know how the industry should been run. You can't visit a gaming forum these days without running into a couple of these self appointed "know it all" s.



Yes it is and it will be the downfall of this industry in the coming years if they keep going like this. We already saw what happened in the 7th gen, lots of studios closing and multitude of layoffs. This trend isn't going to stop because companies are doing the same mistakes!

Budgets will increase because gamers demand more power with each passing gen. That in turn will elevate the costs further down the line which in turn will make budgets more robust and will make the risk of failure a more serious thing. The idea of more power with each passing gen has to go.

There is no need to push the limits with graphics and budgets, gaming should be something more simple. Indies are a good move and I'm pretty sure they will be important as the years go by. Even mobile games show you that you can reach big profits with something really simple. It' s all a matter of quality. If the game is good and people want it, then no matter how simple or how much graphics it lack, people will buy it.

Just look at Tetris, it keeps selling and selling and it lacks those pretty graphics some console games have.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

I don't really understand the value of exaggerating like this. There are TONS of lower end games being made. A very few publishers, like Activision and EA, concentrate on blockbusters. What's wrong with that? The Industry needs CoD and Battlefield, too.



Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Games should be priced at a more attractive price. Say $40 for a new game and that would result in more sales and in return generate more profits. Lowering the retail price of games would generate more sales and better returns for all games including: small, medium and large franchises. It is smart for a consumer to wait for the new $60 game to drop down to a more affordable price.


I see this answer a lot of times but people think there are unlimited buyers for a game.. But there isn't and never will be

Lets say the interest for a game is at 5 million users who are willing to buy it

3 million buy it at 40 = 120 million

2 million buy it at 20 = 40 million

160 million in revenue

 

1 million buy it at 60 = 60 million

2 million buy it at 40 = 80 million

2 million buy it at 20 = 40 million

180 million in revenue

 

Cheaper price would only work if your potential buyers is almost infinite and your product doesn't decrease in price in its shelflife (toothpaste for example)..  That can attract potential new buyers.. With videogames you'll won't attract any interest for new potential buyers.. most already decided to wait for a certain price to buy a game.. You'll only cut away the portion that would have bought it full price.. There is no indication that suddenly a extra million more people want to buy the game when its 40 bucks.. Why would they if the weren't intressted in the game in the first place? If it would really work by lowering the price they could earn more money cause more people would be interested in it they would have implemented in the NES days... But it doesn't work cause you'll only shifting around the potential buyers not creating new ones.. Thats why they don't do it.



 

Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!) 

Around the Network
NiKKoM said:
Dark_Lord_2008 said:
Games should be priced at a more attractive price. Say $40 for a new game and that would result in more sales and in return generate more profits. Lowering the retail price of games would generate more sales and better returns for all games including: small, medium and large franchises. It is smart for a consumer to wait for the new $60 game to drop down to a more affordable price.


I see this answer a lot of times but people think there are unlimited buyers for a game.. But there isn't and never will be

Lets say the interest for a game is at 5 million users who are willing to buy it

3 million buy it at 40 = 120 million

2 million buy it at 20 = 40 million

160 million in revenue

 

1 million buy it at 60 = 60 million

2 million buy it at 40 = 80 million

2 million buy it at 20 = 40 million

180 million in revenue

 

Cheaper price would only work if your potential buyers is almost infinite and your product doesn't decrease in price in its shelflife (toothpaste for example)..  That can attract potential new buyers.. With videogames you'll won't attract any interest for new potential buyers.. most already decided to wait for a certain price to buy a game.. You'll only cut away the portion that would have bought it full price.. There is no indication that suddenly a extra million more people want to buy the game when its 40 bucks.. Why would they if the weren't intressted in the game in the first place? If it would really work by lowering the price they could earn more money cause more people would be interested in it they would have implemented in the NES days... But it doesn't work cause you'll only shifting around the potential buyers not creating new ones.. Thats why they don't do it.

I was about to say the same thing, but you expressed it brilliantly well. Lower prices would not help sales and profit as much as people think.