There’s been a lot of debate in our industry in the past year about the so-called “middle market”. This is the class of games between say Call of Duty and Angry Birds. Not quite AAA (i.e. not $25 million to produce) but also not $250,000 to make the game. The middle market is the world that Stardock and Paradox thrive in. And both of us have done very well in this market.
The argument against the middle market basically boils down to market size. That the middle market just misses the “sweet spot”. Retailers don’t want to carry middle market products because they don’t sell as well AAA or the casual market. The thing is, digital distribution changes all this.
I contend that a game like say Baldur’s Gate (with updated graphics but no where near Dragon Age) would likely sell very well at a fraction of the cost of Dragon Age. The same is true on a whole host of games. The challenge, of course, is for developers to carefully budget their title based on their best guess on the market size. A game like War in the East may not sell a million copies but they also didn’t cost that much to make.
What’s your take?
Yeah, it's been my experience that middle market games tend to have more depth but poorer graphics. Which is just fine with me. I certainly don't buy all of them, or even most of them, but I always have my eyes open for a good one.
What category does dwarf fortress fall into?
For example, I would literally give one of my kidneys for an XCom remake. It wouldn't have to have cutting edge graphics. Actually, I would prefer that it didn't. It would just have to have the same features as the originals... and any innovation would only be bonus.
Then why don't you just keep your kidney and play x-com? They have it on impulse.
I tend to agree with the OP, I think the market will be fine. Much like the restaurant business, there will always be 5 star, 100 dollar a plate, likewise there will always be a cheap burger and fries joint. I like both, and I am thankful I have a choice!!
I totally agree with Lord Xia. Dominions 3 is the game I have played more then any other. I have been playing fantasy games since the board game Divine Right by TSR in the late 70s, including Master of Magic and Warlords. Dominions 3 has every mythological creature you can think of, each "nation" has strengths and weaknesses, and depth to provide many strategies for winning. I hope Elemental will over time gain much depth.
I have no idea about business or markets, if a game is good in its own right I just think its market will find it. I think most what are called AAA movies tend to just be about shiny special effects, a convincing trailer, but a poor movie. Not that I actually know what makes an AAA from a middle or small, but if the amount of advertising/hype is a factor then I'm basing it on that. I don't think I could stand to play another console game, there's some certain "sameness" that comes with them that reminds me of buffet food, where no matter which dish it is it somehow tastes like "buffet".
I think as a game or title becomes more popular (based on it's success), it's actually bad for it. It seems like the more millions they spend on a game, and the bigger the dev team, the more focus it loses. It turns out to be some giant committee build monument of compromises. I am of the opinion that too many games these days judge their own worth on how flashy they are, and how new their graphics are. On the other end of the scale are war games where it's almost like they go the other way, and try to impress their audience on how they can build an entire game using blue squares and red triangles. If Elemental was completely 2-d I wouldn't miss it at all. The only time I've actually rotated the camera was when I wanted to build on the other side of a mountain blocking my view.
Having played my share of Paradox games, I would like to say that although they have the right kind of idea in their depth, they seem to make simple tasks more complicated than they need be, forcing you to go through several menus for some basic things. And they tend to omit some simple features that you just have to be baffled how they could build an entire game and not (example:) allow you to change a units move orders after they have been set.
Looking at everything I just wrote, I find myself agreeing that a game should primarily try to be the game that as it was envisioned, and not worry so much about conforming to a genre, or a certain market. I think that's doing things oppositely from how it should be. An analyst can't build a classic, they can only give a formula for a middling title (sounds dangerously close to "middle-market"). I realize I haven't really made much comment on the original post, but I think digital distribution has yet to prove itself. And budget constraints should be taken into account before work on a title begins, when things get cut half-way through part of the vision is lost, and it shows in the final product.
I love the middle market. You get the most bang for your buck. More so lately AAA games just don't live up to my standards... 60$ game and I get this S***... Hell sometime I just play the game through once or even just drop it after a few hours...
Middle market will be fine. Digital Distribution will keep it alive and well. Love digital distribution for picking up old games and new games (sales).
Personally I prefer middle market games, most of the AAA titles are too much polish and not enough depth. I can spend endless hours on most middle market games, but the AAA stuff I get bored of far to quickly.
Unfortunately, with the disappearance of middle market games from the like of EB Games/Gamestop, I lose access to many of the titles I would like to pick up. Choosing to avoid debt traps by never having a credit cards, means it's becomes very difficult, if not outright impossible, to get game via digital download.
if anyone is interested, i have created a thread to discuss the idea of a stardock rpg (and by association modern RPGs generally) in the pc gaming general forum
https://forums.elementalgame.com/406844
Unfortunately, this takes into account developers' needs, but not players' budgets. Would I buy a AAA title and a middle-level game if both were priced at $15? Sure. Would I see The 40 Year Old Virgin is the ticket was around $50? No way.
I think that it's a mistake to target just your existing player base. It will eventually erode and will not be replenished. You need to reach new people, to draw new players into the hobby.
I know that it's not a revelation to you. Stardock is full of smart and talented people. It's just another voice from the players' trenches.
I wish they would remake Baldur's Gate with modern graphics. Say, something as good as NWN1 or so.
I personally didn't really like Dragon Age. I played a few hours into it and just couldn't motivate myself to go on. Hell for all it faults, I spent far more time playing EWOM
The nice thing about the Gaming Market is that it's not drilled in a stone tablet it's frequently changing.
I remember when games had little profit and was an industry about doing something you enjoyed rather than driving a ferrari to work. Now you have people who can enjoy there work and drive a ferrari or people who enjoy there work and drive there standard middle class car. Point is the industry is very diffrent than what it use to be like and I think it's good, but companies should always love what they're doing and reach for the stars, but under guidance and wisdom.
Brad you always reach for the stars and that's your greatest feature I just think your ship needed a full crew, like the crew you have now.
Hmm, If Stardock was the Enterprise Brad would be Picard, Derek would be Riker (#1), and umm Jon as Deanna Troi?
I think the gap is actually in the $20 to $30 range (£15 to £20) this is now filled with reissues of past games - there may be scope - particularly on a digital platform to play at this price point - popcap do this quite well. games have more depth & polish than Angry birds, but not the high end graphics of the AAA.
The middle market is probably most product dependent. The share could seriously shrink or grow based on expectations. I could make a game for lowest or highest market. Middle is like a bonus for your success.
Ok so what happens if you spend as much as ya would on a AAA game on a 'middle class' game like E:FE spending your resources on ai,depth,story-and such while keeping the graphics the same quality as they are? The game could turn out soooo good & the rarity of such a game could really do wounders for sales.
Probably you go broke, because the market size wasn't sufficient large enough to generate the required revenue?
Apart of the problem that higher budget doesn't equal higher quality.
If the game costs millions to make, you would need to sell millions. You on the other hand would need less sells to not lose profit, so it is somewhat easier, especially if people know you. (I seriously didn't knew who you were until I waltzed into a Galactic Civilizations 2 review, now my top company )
I don't like big companies, they apparently just throw some nice graphics in and sell it, and I'm left dissappointed that the game lasted like 3 hours.
Indie games have more soul, but not the resources.
Big companies have the resources, but lost their soul as far as I can see. Someone once send some suggestions to Square Enix and he got back only a mail basically saying "We make games, you buy them, period. You don't have opinion (Customer is always right huh? Hate them now, and it wasn't me!)
Middle companies have both, so their games are quite good (You guys hold two great space games, cannot tell of any other, and I refuse to name Spore -.-)
So in short, at least to me, the middle market is the best.
Don't get me wrong I was happy paying $70 or so for the special edition of Elemental. I trust that Stardock will give me an excellent return on entertainment for my money.
As a middle-ware company though I think the games should be priced lower to bring in more customers. AAA titles don't need to do that because they can sell based on hype alone. Middle-ware games not only cost less to make but I know people would be more willing to take a risk with them if they cost less. Stardock will make up for the price in volume of sales. Plus getting the game out there will definately bring in some hype for the next release.
And a note to someone that said AAA PC games are $60 now. I've only seen that true for multi-platform games. Because most new console games are $60 they feel they can price their PC version the same. Most games still end up being $10 less on PC.
I'd argue that not only is it not dying, it's absolutely essential at this point...
AAA games aren't likely to take too many risks with new ideas or new IPs. You see this all over in the tech world nowadays, large conglomerates buying up smaller focused technologies, and incorporating them into there overall package (look at the last few years of Oracle or CA). Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes the act of acquisition drains the talent and effectiveness for the support for the original product.
When something new is needed, they look to the minor leagues (AA if you will) for talent and ideas that they can, uh, "leverage".
If all we got was Starcraft II type games, it would get stagnant quick. Nothing wrong with polishing a great original, but even the best get stale after a time.
Then you made a AAA game that likely won't sell very well as marketing will have a harder time getting the word out.
It still surprise me today that 25 years ago, It cost me around 70$ to buy my first NES cartridge called "The legend of zelda".
I am not sure how much time they spent developping that game and if it could be comparable to other video games today. I know that the cartridge itselt was not expensive.
Now today, in a video game, there is much more work to be done than in an original NES game. Or course, the tools and compilers are better, so you can do more stuff in less time. It is still very odd to think that a full 3D engine video game today would still be sold 70$, the same price as the NES game 25 years ago, when the amount of work to do seems 100 times bigger than the original NES game.
@larienna
According to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com rate of inflation change of USD between 1986 and 2011 is 101.9%. So $70 in 1986 = $141.35 in 2011. So the game that costs $70 nowadays is twice cheaper than cartridge with "The Legend of Zelda" bought in 1986! (Maybe shipping from Japan was extremely expensive then;))
(edited)
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
