GTA Publisher: Game Development Getting More Expensive and Risky

[Mystical]

 

“It’s an expensive business, and the risk profile reflects that,” Take-Two CEO Strauss Zelnick told Bloomberg TV. With that Strauss also said that the hit ratio for a well-run interactive entertainment company is in the 80s, while the hit ratio for a well-run movie company is in the 30s comparison.

“That said, those very expensive production, marketing, overhead, in the case of sports titles, licensing, they do create a risk profile,” Zelnick said. “And from our point of view it embeds the winners even further. It actually creates a barrier to entry in our business.” Zelnick added that a developer “cannot get in not without having a couple hundred high quality engineers and artists, loads of capital and lots of money to market the title.”

 

Avalanche Studios founder and creative director Christofer Sundberg had a different thought on that matter that the state of AAA development today is unhealthy and most big-budget games will never make a profit.

 

Source

 

Did take two make a game? I know they own rockstar but have they ever made a game that was successful?

[dalekphalm]

 

 

Source

 

Did take two make a game? I know they own rockstar but have they ever made a game that was successful?

 

They are almost exclusively a publisher now, but they did make two games themselves in the 90's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Take-Two_Interactive_video_games

Star Crusader     DOS     September 1, 1993

Millennia: Altered Destinies     DOS     September 1, 1995

 

However, being a Publisher means they know the financial risks much better then your average game dev. Publishers finance the games after all.

[TwistedDictator]

They are almost exclusively a publisher now, but they did make two games themselves in the 90's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Take-Two_Interactive_video_games

Star Crusader     DOS     September 1, 1993

Millennia: Altered Destinies     DOS     September 1, 1995

 

However, being a Publisher means they know the financial risks much better then your average game dev. Publishers finance the games after all.

 

There only truly sucessful series was GTA.

[Mystical]

There only truly sucessful series was GTA.

 

You forgot evolve. 

[Derangel]

There only truly sucessful series was GTA.

 

They also own 2K Games. There are quite a few successful titles.

[Opcode]

Of course it's getting more expensive and risky. It's getting more risky because it's getting more expensive.

[Xorbot]

I am a game developer because I love to live in the Danger Zone.

[SOLO_AVENGER]

There only truly sucessful series was GTA.

And you forgot Borderlands!

[Opcode]

[XTankSlayerX]

I've been saying this for a while...

[MageTank]

There would be less risk if publishers were not forcing dev's to release unfinished products because its "game buying season!". I am tired of getting unfinished games, or games that are only 2 hours of time to complete, only to have to wait for patch, or pay for a DLC for the game to be what it should have been in the first place. 

 

The gaming market as a whole, is starting to suffer from cancerous tactics, such as re-releasing games, and calling it an HD remake. Dark Souls 2 came out under a year ago, and its already getting an HD remake, which should simply be a patch in and of itself. Other games come out with plenty of bugs, then get a "enhanced edition" at a separate price tag. This is hurting the consumers more than they realize, as it makes them wonder if the product they are buying, is as good as it should, or will be. Should i pay $60 for a game, when its graphics will be enhanced and released in a matter of 12 months time? Should i buy DLC when the enhanced version will include it for free? These practices, in my honest opinion, contribute to the "risk factor" that the publishers are pointing out, and its entirely their fault.

 

You see amazing MMO's, or MMO's with amazing potential, be brought down because the publisher or sub-letter demands more profit, so the game has to either cut server costs, delay content, force unfinished content faster, or release an unfair cash shop onto the market. If they would stop spending stupid amounts of money on commercials that hardly show the games content (Clash of Clans is a great example of commercials being nothing like the product itself) then they could instead use those resources to contribute to publish higher quality games.

 

Sorry for the slant rant, but the gaming industry as a whole has been irking me for a while now. 

[deviant88]

Thats because they keep making retarded games.

Put out a proper games and its not risky anymore.Also ban the DLC's.

 

Where are the small games that used to strike it big for the concept not for the money put in its graphics and cutscenes?(except minecraft which i dont like). Where are my strategy games i used to love?.Why are they all keep fooling themselves they have to make "cinematic experiences" for games?games and movies have absolutely nothing in common,2 completely different types of entertainment.I blame the USA Gaming Corporations they set this hollywoodic fake trend which everyone is following.When they will stop following and copy each other and find their own way of developing games thats when it wont be risky anymore.Hint > Metro 2033/Last Light,Witcher series.East europe last front where proper PC games were made.

[AlexGoesHigh]

There only truly sucessful series was GTA.

not really, right now they have good series on their name besides publishing gta, look at the wikipedia link @dalekphalm provided, on the first paragraph show their current series, that's far more that what activision and EA are publishing these days combined

[rockking1379]

maybe if they adopted google's 20% policy they would get some cool small games that do alright and aren't super expensive. instead they just keep focusing on the next huge title to release

[ThyFeared]

Didn't they publish the Mafia series? 

[Zulkkis]

Thats because they keep making retarded games.

Put out a proper games and its not risky anymore.Also ban the DLC's.

 

Where are the small games that used to strike it big for the concept not for the money put in its graphics and cutscenes?(except minecraft which i dont like). Where are my strategy games i used to love?.Why are they all keep fooling themselves they have to make "cinematic experiences" for games?games and movies have absolutely nothing in common,2 completely different types of entertainment.I blame the USA Gaming Corporations they set this hollywoodic fake trend which everyone is following.When they will stop following and copy each other and find their own way of developing games thats when it wont be risky anymore.Hint > Metro 2033/Last Light,Witcher series.East europe last front where proper PC games were made.

 

 

Top kek

[MageTank]

 

Top kek

Lets not forget that Metro LL was released in 2013, and recieved an HD remake in 2014, that included all DLC's too. Things i complained about earlier in this thread. No game company is innocent as far as i am concerned. Most of the companies that i know of are adopting this practice, because it works. Release a sub-par game that is hardly finished for $60 to meet a peak sales dead-line, finish it with patches and DLC. Once game reaches its peak sales, and starts to deminish in purchases, re-release it with a new texture pack, include all aforementioned DLC, and make more money on the exact same game. 

 

This practice will continue for most of the foreseeable future. As long as it continues to make a lucrative profit, i do not see this practice going away.

[Toddwjp]

i think one of the main reasons game development is getting more expensive is because alot of games are trying to do too much with what they have leading to overworked devs and delays which in the end cost money and quality, and less quality means less sales to cover larger costs

[Clyne]

Didn't they publish the Mafia series? 

Yeah but the second one is crap. 

They only publish the second one, not the first one.

Well at least they had a good link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iQlsu9hiiA

[Opcode]

Yeah but the second one is crap. 

They only publish the second one, not the first one.

Well at least they had a good link.

I thought Mafia 2 was an epic game. It has the same open world feel like GTA meanwhile being stuck in like the 60's.

[Clyne]

I thought Mafia 2 was an epic game. It has the same open world feel like GTA meanwhile being stuck in like the 60's.

Wasn't as realistic as Mafia 1 IMO

[Opcode]

Wasn't as realistic as Mafia 1 IMO

Never played Mafia 1 tho now looking at it the graphics certainly did see a massive overhaul in the second series. Needless to say I found Mafia II quite addicting as I like open world games. I think it only took me like 2-3 days to beat it the first time.

[Mindtrickz]

Source

 

Did take two make a game? I know they own rockstar but have they ever made a game that was successful?

 

 

Take Two is the parent company, a bit like EA, and they own many studios that develop games. Rockstar is a saubsiduary of Take Two; so in that sense every game by Rockstar is a game by Take Two. Just as Dragon Age is a game by EA even though it was developed by Bioware.

[Mindtrickz]

Yeah but the second one is crap.

 

Mafia 2 was awesome. Fans and critics both loved.

[Zulkkis]

Lets not forget that Metro LL was released in 2013, and recieved an HD remake in 2014, that included all DLC's too. Things i complained about earlier in this thread. No game company is innocent as far as i am concerned. Most of the companies that i know of are adopting this practice, because it works. Release a sub-par game that is hardly finished for $60 to meet a peak sales dead-line, finish it with patches and DLC. Once game reaches its peak sales, and starts to deminish in purchases, re-release it with a new texture pack, include all aforementioned DLC, and make more money on the exact same game. 

 

This practice will continue for most of the foreseeable future. As long as it continues to make a lucrative profit, i do not see this practice going away.

 

60$ is pretty low when you consider the costs. The price is 60$ because then it makes at least some sense for retailers to start selling the product. The price has been stuck around this mark for a long time, and people are more willing to accept a 60$ game with DLC rather than a 80$ game with everything included. Hell, a lot of the stuff that DLCs are wouldn't be included anyway, because it's meaningless fluff. Or then you'd access them through cheat codes, as it'd break the game anyway.

 

A lot of people shun on Gamestop for selling used games. The thing is that Gamestop wouldn't exist if it only sold new games. The margins on new games are laughable, though for used games, it's ridiculously high.

 

The HD re-remakes of Metro LL and the like are essentially GOTY-versions with some graphical improvements. The exist because new consoles exist. Tomb Raider (no PC though) was put up on PS4 / Xbox One, Deus Ex got a Wii U version, Sleeping Dogs had a definite edition launched for the new consoles. They often just launch the definite edition instead of a GOTY for PC, because it requires minimal effort (which in turn means minimal resources) to make that port. It's deemed profitable. You can't sell it for peanuts because then people would be overly sensitive about the price difference between consoles and PC. Metro at least offered discount on the redux editions for the owners of the original versions.