Gamasutra is one of my favorite gaming sites, and their opinion pieces are definitely worth a read. I just got this one in my inbox and I wanted to share it with everyone.
“Amidst the neverending talk about how the PC is changing or declining as a market for hardcore games, outside of perennial chart-crusher World of Warcraft, commentators seem to lose sight of the historic strengths of the platform and its place in the gaming world. Meanwhile, studios like Valve and Stardock -- successful, independent companies comprised of staffers whose memories seem to go back a little further -- understand some key principles that have always defined the PC platform in a positive way. These include ongoing, direct contact with their audience; agility and responsiveness in development and support; and smaller teams that can afford to take interesting design risks and thus foster a loyal niche (not to mention thrive on sales that are less than astronomical).”
Read the full article at Gamasutra.
I wish more industries would see similar development.
Damn. Beat me to it... A great article to be sure.
Good find. It's always nice to see Stardock in the news.
I know we're having a good time here!
A well thought out article to be sure.
The most important sentence in the article:The lesson seems simple, but it's often overlooked in our NPD-obsessed industry: return on investment is a lot more important than units sold, especially as budgets continue to balloon dangerously.I'd rather make 20 games for $20 million than one game for the same price. If even half had the same return as Sins, I'd be loaded!Interestingly, "Gamers With Jobs" said Sins was an important trend of 2008 for similar reasons:
Why This is Important: Large corporations with the resources to risk tens of millions of dollars in the hope that they will collect revenue in the hundreds of millions are timid juggernauts. With that kind of scratch on the line, these companies must play it safe at every opportunity, and like financial hypochondriacs, the more risk averse they become the more they see risk in every option. With a more modest budget comes the ability to be successful with more modest sales, thus opening up the opportunity to tap otherwise untapped markets. Ironclad proved that you can still create a strong product from humble means without sacrificing quality or integrity.Thanks for making old-school PC games, Stardock, cheesey names and all
Why This is Important: Large corporations with the resources to risk tens of millions of dollars in the hope that they will collect revenue in the hundreds of millions are timid juggernauts. With that kind of scratch on the line, these companies must play it safe at every opportunity, and like financial hypochondriacs, the more risk averse they become the more they see risk in every option.
With a more modest budget comes the ability to be successful with more modest sales, thus opening up the opportunity to tap otherwise untapped markets. Ironclad proved that you can still create a strong product from humble means without sacrificing quality or integrity.Thanks for making old-school PC games, Stardock, cheesey names and all
I had no idea Stardock and Ironclad were so small of companies.
That furthers my respect for yall. After all we are a needy bunch.
Woot - party @ Brad's place!!!
Hi,
As graphics technology improves in leaps and bounds for the next pc generation, more and more gamers expect, and more or less demand, new and innovating concepts to blow their mind. However, there are some games out there that simply stand the test of time for pure entertainment. One of these games is Quake III Arena from ID Software.
Jimmy
Do they?
See, I've heard this a lot. But I've yet to see actual evidence that a game with "good but old" graphics (as opposed to "crappy and old" graphics) is disproportionately punished relative to its cost.
I personally believe that the Source engine, or perhaps something slightly more capable than it, is the break-even point for graphics. It's the point at which you stop getting more net money from spending on graphics.
And that's specifically for games involving control over one character or a small party that all walk around or exist in some terrain.
HL1 sold 9 million,Orange box 5 million copies so I would think Valve would take issue with (not to mention thrive on sales that are less than astronomical).
"Only" sold 5 million copies at retail (on PC and 360); Valve has yet to reveal Steam sales numbers. And since Valve makes way more money from copies sold on Steam, it's safe to say that the Orange Box's revenue was quite impressive.
Anytime you sell a million or more copies, you're doing quite well.
If we can take just the Xbox 360 as an example, the criteria for a console game to become a "Platinum Hit" is that it sell 1 million units or more. Look at the relatively small number of Platinum Hits in comparison to the number of games that have shipped since the console came out in late 2005. You're looking at less than 10%, easy.
So yeah, I wouldn't call sales of 9 million and 5 million copies "less than astronomical". Because numbers that high are largely uncommon.
Very good read. Thanks. Keep up the good work Stardock.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
