By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - CONFIRMED: Airtight games, developer of Murdered: Soul Suspect, collapses

celador said:
It's sad, but like any company in any industry, if you don't release quality products you're always likely to struggle. I plan on getting Murdered SS soon, but the fact of the matter is that smaller studios with less of a budget have made better games


Murdered SS is not a bad game at all, its average game but it should deserve some sales but this game did not get that at all to breakn in/survice(they are closing) so there is no sense to develop games with singler player only with good budget these days. Its sad that many developers are losing interest in AA/AAA games and migrating to risk free mobile/Indie games. Future of single player only and average games are not good for developerss.



GAMING is not about spending hours to pass/waste our time just for fun,

its a Feeling/Experience about a VIRTUAL WORLD we can never be in real, and realizing some of our dreams (also creating new ones).

So, Feel Emotions, Experience Adventure/Action, Challenge Game, Solve puzzles and Have fun.

PlayStation is about all-round "New experiences" using new IP's to provide great diversity for everyone.

Xbox is always about Online and Shooting.

Nintendo is always about Fun games and milking IP's.

Around the Network
torok said:
zarx said:
QuintonMcLeod said:

And yet, somehow, people think AAA developers are going to do just fine this generation. I'm sorry, they won't! If an indie studio attempting to make big budget games can get shut down, then any studio can get shut down and WILL get shut down.

Developers! If you don't have the money, DON'T SPEND IT! This is common sense! You don't grab up a ton of credit cards and push yourself off the cliff with debt! If you only have 100 bucks, then your game should only cost 99 bucks to develop. If you have 20k, then your game should be 19k to develop. Don't put yourself in the hole just for a moment of fame!

There problem wasn't with over spending, even if they didn't spend all of the budget it's not like they would have got to keep that money anyway Square Enix payed them enough to make a game with whatever budget it had. It just sold really poorly and they couldn't get more work in time. Lets face it no matter the size of the studio or the budget of the game if you make several games that under perform in a row people aren't going togive you money to make more. Not unless you make critical darlings and a publisher goes looking for a prestige project anyway. If they made low budget indie games that floped they would have gone under just the same, hell their previous game was a low budget downloadable title that also didn't sell well.

It's not like they were really a AAA studio anyway, more of a mid tier one. I am sure the budget for Murdered wasn't even a quarter of something like Tomb Raider.

 

I'll out a part of the plane in game reviewers. They are bashing and giving horrible scores for almost all games now and giving free passes for games with serious issues. Castlevania received horrible scores and Murdered received 40s on Metacritic. This is insane. Rambo received 35 and is a completely broken horrible mess. Murdered isn't a masterpiece, but it is quite decent and enjoyable. How can it be only 5 points better than a complete crap? Anybody that saw it thought this game was broken or simply was horrible.

 

And the same critics have given 97 to GTA V. It's a great game, but 97? Really? It isn't nowhere close to that with a simplistic history like that. This was a free pass with critics.

 

 



I completely agree, reviews are doing big damage to the games.



GAMING is not about spending hours to pass/waste our time just for fun,

its a Feeling/Experience about a VIRTUAL WORLD we can never be in real, and realizing some of our dreams (also creating new ones).

So, Feel Emotions, Experience Adventure/Action, Challenge Game, Solve puzzles and Have fun.

PlayStation is about all-round "New experiences" using new IP's to provide great diversity for everyone.

Xbox is always about Online and Shooting.

Nintendo is always about Fun games and milking IP's.

biglittlesps said:
torok said:
zarx said:
QuintonMcLeod said:

And yet, somehow, people think AAA developers are going to do just fine this generation. I'm sorry, they won't! If an indie studio attempting to make big budget games can get shut down, then any studio can get shut down and WILL get shut down.

Developers! If you don't have the money, DON'T SPEND IT! This is common sense! You don't grab up a ton of credit cards and push yourself off the cliff with debt! If you only have 100 bucks, then your game should only cost 99 bucks to develop. If you have 20k, then your game should be 19k to develop. Don't put yourself in the hole just for a moment of fame!

There problem wasn't with over spending, even if they didn't spend all of the budget it's not like they would have got to keep that money anyway Square Enix payed them enough to make a game with whatever budget it had. It just sold really poorly and they couldn't get more work in time. Lets face it no matter the size of the studio or the budget of the game if you make several games that under perform in a row people aren't going togive you money to make more. Not unless you make critical darlings and a publisher goes looking for a prestige project anyway. If they made low budget indie games that floped they would have gone under just the same, hell their previous game was a low budget downloadable title that also didn't sell well.

It's not like they were really a AAA studio anyway, more of a mid tier one. I am sure the budget for Murdered wasn't even a quarter of something like Tomb Raider.

 

I'll out a part of the plane in game reviewers. They are bashing and giving horrible scores for almost all games now and giving free passes for games with serious issues. Castlevania received horrible scores and Murdered received 40s on Metacritic. This is insane. Rambo received 35 and is a completely broken horrible mess. Murdered isn't a masterpiece, but it is quite decent and enjoyable. How can it be only 5 points better than a complete crap? Anybody that saw it thought this game was broken or simply was horrible.

 

And the same critics have given 97 to GTA V. It's a great game, but 97? Really? It isn't nowhere close to that with a simplistic history like that. This was a free pass with critics.

 

 



I completely agree, reviews are doing big damage to the games.


THIS is wat i have been sayin for years the fact that games like cod always gettin good scores from reviewers for the same Sh*t every year show how simple minded and bias they could b



zarx said:
QuintonMcLeod said:

And yet, somehow, people think AAA developers are going to do just fine this generation. I'm sorry, they won't! If an indie studio attempting to make big budget games can get shut down, then any studio can get shut down and WILL get shut down.

Developers! If you don't have the money, DON'T SPEND IT! This is common sense! You don't grab up a ton of credit cards and push yourself off the cliff with debt! If you only have 100 bucks, then your game should only cost 99 bucks to develop. If you have 20k, then your game should be 19k to develop. Don't put yourself in the hole just for a moment of fame!

There problem wasn't with over spending, even if they didn't spend all of the budget it's not like they would have got to keep that money anyway Square Enix payed them enough to make a game with whatever budget it had. It just sold really poorly and they couldn't get more work in time. Lets face it no matter the size of the studio or the budget of the game if you make several games that under perform in a row people aren't going togive you money to make more. Not unless you make critical darlings and a publisher goes looking for a prestige project anyway. If they made low budget indie games that floped they would have gone under just the same, hell their previous game was a low budget downloadable title that also didn't sell well.

It's not like they were really a AAA studio anyway, more of a mid tier one. I am sure the budget for Murdered wasn't even a quarter of something like Tomb Raider.

No, that's BS.

If SE paid for the game to be made, then making the game shouldn't have bankrupted them. This is a business. If your client gives you money to perform a project, you don't spend ALL of the money to create that project. A business's life shouldn't be run by the flip of a coin. What I mean by that is, your business's success should not ride on the outcome of ONE project! Or even 3 projects! If I make 3 horrible games that sell 300k each, then  I better be making profit from those 300k sales! However, these developers don't work like that. They create games that cost over 3 million dollars to create and because they don't make that money back, they go away. There's nothing you can say to justify this. Nothing.



QuintonMcLeod said:

No, that's BS.

If SE paid for the game to be made, then making the game shouldn't have bankrupted them. This is a business. If your client gives you money to perform a project, you don't spend ALL of the money to create that project. A business's life shouldn't be run by the flip of a coin. What I mean by that is, your business's success should not ride on the outcome of ONE project! Or even 3 projects! If I make 3 horrible games that sell 300k each, then  I better be making profit from those 300k sales! However, these developers don't work like that. They create games that cost over 3 million dollars to create and because they don't make that money back, they go away. There's nothing you can say to justify this. Nothing.

 

I am not justifying it I am explaining the realities of the situation.

A studio with 50 (Airtight are 51+ acording to linkedin) employees in America is $350k+ a month on just wages (add more for taxes, rent, utilities, medical etc etc). So given your rediculous $3 million budget example that is 8 and a half months of development for 50 people a studio would need to release 2 or more games of that size every year just to keep everyone payed and the lights on. And to give you an idiea of the kind of game $3 million buys you that is less than half a 2D point and click adventure game by Double Fine (a company that has 65 employees and is currently developing 6 announced projects at once 2 of which were crowd funded because publishers didn't want to publish them) it really isn't a lot of money.


Now how the games business works for indipendant developers that don't own the IP is you have a budget say for something like Murdered I would say ~$20 million, but it of course varies from game to game. That budget will be worked out with the publisher and developer based on the number of staff working on the project and the length of development. That is payed out in installments bassed on progress on creating the game. If the developer misses a development milestone then depending on the contract the publisher could give them extra money or withold payment or worst case cancel the game. This is why game developers have to often indure brutal crunch with lots of unpayed overtime to avoid missing milestones, if you are lucky you may get a couple % profit but as I pointed out that won't buy much time. And if you don't spend the budget on devloping the game you will most likely miss your miletones and end up not getting payed at all. Once the game is complete they will usually get payed in a combination of 3 ways a completion bonus for finishing the project on time, a royalty based on sales (in most cases the devloper will get nothing or a tiny amount until the publisher makes back their money so if the project underperforms the developer could end up only barely breaking even), or worst case scenario based on metacritic score (which can lead to heartbreaking resaults like for example Obsidian getting no royalties from Fallout New Vegas because they where one point on metacritic below their goal). These should give the developer enough of a buffer to line up their next work It's brutal but that is the reality of publishing deals with indipendant developers. Publishers aren't charities, they pay for services rendered not for developers to line their own pockets. No matter the size a developer is not going to get work if they can't make a successful game.

If you make games that don't sell at best the developer would be just over breaking even (tho if they make a hit depending on their contract they could become rich). So developers have to alwayse have new projects to keep their employees payed if they don't make succesful games, naturally if you make games that don't sell publishers don't want to give you money to make game big or small and you go under. And you idea of if your games sell poorly just make games with budgets that small idea is incredibly naive. Less budget means less money spent making and marketing your game, which usually (unless you are increadibly lucky) means lower sales and or a lower price point which means you will most likely still lose money exept now you have to make more pitches to publishers to make more games which means even less time actually making games which leads to lower quality products or mass layoffs.

Small studios making small games go under all the time as well, they just don't make the news. For every indie success story there are 20 failures. Making any game big or small is a risk and no one is going to give you free money. If you can't make successful games no one is going to keep paying you.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Around the Network
Scisca said:
I thought Quantum Conundrum was quite ok, wasn't it?


I thought so and so did my 9 year old son who played the heck out of it on the PS3. We both loved Prtal as well so it spoke to us. So I don't think that one should count against them in this discussion.



biglittlesps said:
torok said:
zarx said:
QuintonMcLeod said:

And yet, somehow, people think AAA developers are going to do just fine this generation. I'm sorry, they won't! If an indie studio attempting to make big budget games can get shut down, then any studio can get shut down and WILL get shut down.

Developers! If you don't have the money, DON'T SPEND IT! This is common sense! You don't grab up a ton of credit cards and push yourself off the cliff with debt! If you only have 100 bucks, then your game should only cost 99 bucks to develop. If you have 20k, then your game should be 19k to develop. Don't put yourself in the hole just for a moment of fame!

There problem wasn't with over spending, even if they didn't spend all of the budget it's not like they would have got to keep that money anyway Square Enix payed them enough to make a game with whatever budget it had. It just sold really poorly and they couldn't get more work in time. Lets face it no matter the size of the studio or the budget of the game if you make several games that under perform in a row people aren't going togive you money to make more. Not unless you make critical darlings and a publisher goes looking for a prestige project anyway. If they made low budget indie games that floped they would have gone under just the same, hell their previous game was a low budget downloadable title that also didn't sell well.

It's not like they were really a AAA studio anyway, more of a mid tier one. I am sure the budget for Murdered wasn't even a quarter of something like Tomb Raider.

 

I'll out a part of the plane in game reviewers. They are bashing and giving horrible scores for almost all games now and giving free passes for games with serious issues. Castlevania received horrible scores and Murdered received 40s on Metacritic. This is insane. Rambo received 35 and is a completely broken horrible mess. Murdered isn't a masterpiece, but it is quite decent and enjoyable. How can it be only 5 points better than a complete crap? Anybody that saw it thought this game was broken or simply was horrible.

 

And the same critics have given 97 to GTA V. It's a great game, but 97? Really? It isn't nowhere close to that with a simplistic history like that. This was a free pass with critics.

 

 



I completely agree, reviews are doing big damage to the games.


Reviews and over dramatic fans.



I feel bad for them, but I have to say Soul Suspect could have and should have been a lot more.  It was not bad by any stretch, but hugely underwhelming, IMO.



Good luck to those who will lose their jobs. But as a developer these guys won't be missed.



Scisca said:
I thought Quantum Conundrum was quite ok, wasn't it?


i enjoyed it.  ps+ gave it too me so i played it with absolutely no expectations of what it was.  the comparisions to portal were unavoidable but i thought it did a good job of finding it's own personality while sitting in portal's shadow. the controls were spot on and the puzzles engaging.  i couldn't be bothered to run through all the challenges but i'll give it the best feedback i can give,... had a QC2 ever released i would have bought it.

i have not opinions on murderedSS other than the production values didn't seem to jive with a $40 price tag to me.  i honestly thought it was going to be a $20 downloadable all the way up until it launched.