[casual_games] Escalation (based on: Different Payment Models)

Juan Gril juangril at jojugames.com
Wed Oct 11 12:56:32 EDT 2006 

No, I don't think that just art and audio is the discussion. I'll put
in an example for you: Mystery Case Files: Prime Suspect was made with
a lot of art, because the gameplay required it. Feeding Frenzy 2 has
something new in every level, enhancing gameplay.

All this takes time and resources; hence more money. You have to
compete against Feeding Frenzy 2 and MCF: Prime Suspects in 2006
whereas you were competing against Super Collapse and Bejeweled in
2001.

Cheers,

Juan


On 10/11/06, Eric Lamendola <eric at slingo.com> wrote:
> Ok,
>
> I guess everyone is going to chime in on this at some point.
>
> Isn't the escalation of the development cost for games self inflicted?  The
> same way that consoles are investing more into their titles in order to
> capture the continually diminishing market, the casual games space seems to
> be following suit.  And we don't even have the benefit of a next-gen
> platform coming out every 3 years to bolster sales.
>
> Are we really at the point where we believe that it takes $200k worth of
> graphics in order to make a successful title?  For the most part, if there
> were no games based on the Super Collapse model available today and it was
> released today in a vacuum, it would probably have a successful run because
> of its compelling game play and addictive qualities.  Sure it's fun to make
> nice graphics and quirky sounds, but at the end of the day - no matter how
> nicely you dress up a boring game, it will still be boring.
>
> Obviously, if you release a game that looks like it was done in MS Paint, it
> will probably have a slow start - but if you are hanging your hat on
> particle effects and 3D images, you are probably focusing on the wrong area.
> [opinion]
>
> Are there any market studies that suggest that enhanced graphics and audio
> are what our consumers are looking for?  If success were just a matter of
> how much money was invested in the look and feel, everyone would dump $250k
> into their next game and then roll around in the impending profits.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Eric Lamendola
> Slingo, Inc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
> On Behalf Of Juan Gril
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:25 PM
> To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [casual_games] Different Payment Models
>
> There may be a little bit of both. But the truth is, if you release
> Super Collapse today like it was in 2001, it's not going to sell,
> because of too simple game mechanics and because of outdated
> aesthetics. So you have to work harder, create more sophisticated game
> mechanics and themes (investing more time in art and sounds) in order
> to create a game that will sell in 2006.
>
> There is a cap though, or at least a slower growth curve than what we
> have today. I don't know when we are going to reach it. One thing to
> look at are the costs of production of board and party games and how
> have they evolved over the years. It's probably a better analogy for
> casual games production than videogames production.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Juan
>
>
> On 10/11/06, Paul Turbett <paul at benevolent-online.com> wrote:
> >
> > Once upon a time (20 years ago) games for PC were developed by small teams
> > (sometimes of just one) and didn't cost much to make. (Of course, the
> > revenues weren't so high then either). Nowadays, you can't make 'core'
> game
> > for less than a few million.
> >
> > If my reading on the casual games scene is right, it started out a bit the
> > same way - small teams, inexpensive products. As the market has grown,
> > production values have increased, and now costs are starting to blow out,
> > making it harder for the smaller guys to complete or get established.
> >
> > My question is, are the customers demanding the 'bigger better' products
> > (with the higher price tags) or is it the industry that's pushing costs up
> > because that's what we think it will take to compete, and because that's
> > what we've always done?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Paul Turbett
> > Benevolent Interactive
> > www.benevolent-online.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James Gwertzman [mailto:james at popcap.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 11 October 2006 12:25 PM
> > To: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
> > Subject: RE: [casual_games] Different Payment Models
> >
> >
> > 1) Assuming that these numbers are accurate, the $350MM is end-user gross
> > revenue, not net revenue. Assume 60% (or more) goes to the distribution
> > channel, leaving 40% or $140M for publishers. 35% of $140M = $49M to split
> > among the top 5 games, or $10M each from portal sales. That might be a tad
> > high, but not an order of magnitude high.
> >
> > 2) $200K for a AAA casual game these days is low. It's not enough to just
> > look at the dev cost for an individual game (which frankly is higher than
> > that) but you also have to look at all the prototyping and games that get
> > cancelled along the way. You're going to see some games from us later this
> > year that have been in development for close to two years and cost well
> > north of $200K.
> >
> > ---------------------------
> > James Gwertzman
> > Director of Business Development
> > PopCap Games, Inc.
> > +1-206-256-4210
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: casual_games-bounces at igda.org [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
> > On Behalf Of Adam Johnston
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 8:55 PM
> > To: 'IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List'
> > Subject: RE: [casual_games] Different Payment Models
> >
> > Oh come on.  35% for top 5 games gives 7% of $350MM/year to each of them.
> > That's $50MM each per year. If we guess that the top games cost $200,000
> to
> > produce, then after giving $2MM to Oprah and only 40% on development they
> > still have at least $20MM each to spend.  That's 100 games per year.
> Where
> > are they?  What game did PopCap produce this year?  We're in October
> > already. Did Tailismania cost $20MM?  If PopCap have more than 1 in the
> top
> > 5 then did Talismania cost $40MM?
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: casual_games-bounces at igda.org [mailto:casual_games-bounces at igda.org]
> > En
> > nombre de Juan Gril
> > Enviado el: Lunes, 09 de Octubre de 2006 01:14 p.m.
> > Para: IGDA Casual Games SIG Mailing List
> > Asunto: Re: [casual_games] Different Payment Models
> >
> > I'll step forward, as I wrote the presentation that you are mentioning.
> The
> > data is taken from the DFC Intelligence and CGA Casual Games Study.
> >
> > The report's breakdown was:
> > Top 5 Games             35%
> > Top 10 Games            60%
> > Top 20 Games            75%
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Juan
> >
> >
> > On 10/9/06, Christopher Natsuume <natsuume at boomzap.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > First of all - thanks for the great information, James.
> > >
> > > As always, you bring some great data to the discussion.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "But don't use type mythical "80% of the sales coming form 20-30
> > > games" as proof that the industry is broken."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As for my figures, I was recalling a lecture from this year's
> > > Causality talk by Pat Wiley and others: "One Billion Dollars"
> > >
> > > You can see that slide presentation here:
> > > http://www.casuality.org/seattle/html/index.htm - the figure I was
> > > recalling was on slide 3. "75% of those 350MM are made from the top 20
> >
> > > games" - I rounded it to 80% and added 10 games (not on purpose, I
> > > just incorrectly remembered it that way J).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But the general gist is still pretty much the same. A 42% distribution
> >
> > > of income on 20 out of 300+ games a year is one thing. A 75%
> > > distribution - that's another. To be fair - they don't have the data
> > > you have to back up that assert, so it very well may be incorrect, but
> >
> > > I would guess it may be that other portals are not seeing as broadly
> > > distributed income as on Reflexive. I believe some of the Big Fish
> > > people are on this mailing list - maybe they can share where they got
> > that
> > data?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > As for your further assessments of % of TV shows/movies/breakfast
> > > cereals, I see your point, and I agree that there will always be
> > winners
> > and losers.
> > > But my issue is that movies, breakfast cereal, and TV shows that don't
> > "hit"
> > > still make some revenue (they aren't giving away free cereal or
> > > advertising space or movie seats) - whereas under a play-then-pay
> > > model, a lot of the "filler" product sees essentially no meaningful
> > > revenue at all, even though they may be experiencing thousands of
> > > downloads.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That is the part of the model that I see as broken. Not that all games
> >
> > > should be big winners, but that the losers should have some sort of
> > > sliding scale of loss, so that they might recoup a small part of their
> >
> > > investment and try again. There has always been a market in "direct to
> >
> > > video" movies, generic breakfast cereals, or late-night-filler cable
> > > TV - even B-list budget video games - and they don't make a TON of
> > > money, but there is a revenue model that says they CAN make money, if
> > > handled correctly. I am wondering how we can create such a model in
> > > our industry. Maybe we can't - but I'd like to have the discussion, at
> > least.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I am curious what other issues you had with my ideas - as I think your
> >
> > > deep experience with Reflexive may put you in a much better place to
> > > see some of this much more clearly than me. I am sure you have a great
> >
> > > deal of insight to share on this issue.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Cn
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Casual_Games mailing list
> > > Casual_Games at igda.org
> > > http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Casual_Games mailing list
> > Casual_Games at igda.org
> > http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Casual_Games mailing list
> > Casual_Games at igda.org
> > http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
> > _______________________________________________
> > Casual_Games mailing list
> > Casual_Games at igda.org
> > http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Casual_Games mailing list
> > Casual_Games at igda.org
> > http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Casual_Games mailing list
> Casual_Games at igda.org
> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
>
> _______________________________________________
> Casual_Games mailing list
> Casual_Games at igda.org
> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/casual_games
>
>

More information about the Casual_Games mailing list