Let's say that including benefits, a developer's salary is about $100k. Maybe a small team of 8 people worked on a game like The Thaumaturge for 3 years. Before you even factor in contract work like voice acting, that would put the development budget at $2.4M. If the game cost $20, they'd have to sell about 120k copies to break even on that investment, which is far from guaranteed. By pricing the game at $35, their break even point is nearly half of that. This is a moderately budgeted game, not a AAA game with microtransactions.
Even an experienced team like Mimimi games, who made smart development choices by iterating on what they built before to keep costs down, releasing critical successes several times in a row, ended up closing down because the money coming in was too tight. Their games ranged from $30-$50 and had every sale, bundle, giveaway, and promotional opportunity you could think of.
If the game cost $20, they'd have to sell about 120k copies to break even on that Investment,
Far more actually. You have to deduct taxes, steam's cut etc. from those 20$.
8 full time 100k salaried employees is quite a bit more than "small team." Doom was 6 people. That many people are simply not required to make the games that are being produced; they can choose to size down any time they want. If they want to go "all in" on making a "AAAA" game, then they need to deal with that reality and make a game that is actually worth $60.
Their games ranged from $30-$50 and had every sale, bundle, giveaway, and promotional opportunity you could think of.
Perhaps that's part of the problem? Maybe they should have priced their works more fairly from the start and not rely on bundles and givaways which surely aren't going to make them more money.
My point is, the "average" game is absolutely not worth $30. Most games should flop because they're overproduced trash, and we should return to smaller, more artistic-focused development with a smaller scale, more consumer friendly pricing, and where the (few) devs get more slices of their pie.
I'm sorry that you don't enjoy video games enough to pay $30 for most of the good ones, but I hope one day you can sit down with a calculator and realize why it must be that way.
I'd gladly pay $30 if they are worth it, most games are simply not worth it. Recently I've put over 75 hours into Atom RPG the last two weeks, and it's $15 full price, and the developers have released a spinoff and announced a new project, so they seem to be doing fine.
Hopefully you can sit down with a calculator and figure out that things can be better.
The value that I get out of games isn't measured only in hours, especially since it's easy to inflate a game's length.
That's true, I'm using hours per dollar as a shorthand for value, but on the flip side if video games are going to be a couple hours of one-time fun, they gotta expect to have a price point similar to movie theaters which have a similar experience, which is like $10-$15
Video games are often afraid to be only a couple of hours these days, often to their detriment, but if you multiplied a movie's runtime by 2-3x for some extra production value in your game, you end up at that $35 price point easily for a game that's 5-10 hours long. Even for a direct comparison to Atom RPG, I'd rather pay 2-3x as much for a Wasteland game to get what I'm looking for, and Wasteland games aren't exactly short. Neither is V Rising.
Video games are afraid to be only a couple hours because they are afraid of charging less than $10
If your game is short, doesn't offer replayability, and doesn't have any novel gameplay to truly set it apart, then youtube Lets Plays offer real competition of getting basically the whole package.
but if you multiplied a movie’s runtime by 2-3x for some extra production value in your game, you end up at that $35 price point easily for a game that’s 5-10 hours long
That's making a couple assumptions though, that price point is for large studio releases and non-matinee prices. If I go see a movie on a Tuesday afternoon, it's only $7, a perfect price for an average small game.
Even for a direct comparison to Atom RPG, I’d rather pay 2-3x as much for a Wasteland game to get what I’m looking for
Atom RPG isn't exactly a Wasteland game, it leans pretty heavy on classic Fallout, which while inspired by Wasteland, have diverged noticeably in the end product. So if you wanted to get what you're looking for in this case, Fallout 1 and 2 are $10 each, or you can get a bundle of 1/2 and Brotherhood of Steel for $20 (more like brotherhood of steal amirite).
Video games are afraid to be only a couple hours because they are afraid of charging less than $10
I would love to live in a world where we get FPS campaigns that are about 8 hours long, are fulfilling, and cost $60. That used to be the norm, and we were happy with that. A Let's Play is not a substitute.
So if you wanted to get what you're looking for in this case, Fallout 1 and 2 are $10 each, or you can get a bundle of 1/2 and Brotherhood of Steel for $20 (more like brotherhood of steal amirite).
That assumes I don't care about things like better resolutions and frame rates, voice acting, modern considerations for how people actually interact with games, etc. I've also played Fallout 1 already.
That used to be the norm, and we were happy with that
Then you should be supportive of deflation in the video game industry, instead of making excuses for why we should pay more for less
Again, "more" is often to the detriment to the value of the game, because adding hours is easy. I'm saying that, on a AAA level, games were worth more to me when they were shorter. We're currently paying less for more. But at below AAA levels, I'm often served extremely well for $35.
I'm not talking about about adding hours, I'm talking about adding quality.
But at below AAA levels, I’m often served extremely well for $35.
yes, good games exist at that price point, but the average game is not good, and is not worth that.
You mention things like better resolutions, better frame rates, better voice acting, more modern, more better, etc, but none of those things are what makes games good or worth more money. AAA games with cutting edge graphics and star-studded voice acting are not automatically good games, and in fact it frequently has an inverse effect where focusing so much time and money on stuff other than the game leaves a shitty game that will be forgotten about in months; that would absolutely not be worth $30, despite having all your superfluous qualities
No, they don't automatically make a game better, but if I'm choosing between two games that are similar in themes or mechanics, I'm leaning toward the one with voice acting and better presentation. That's worth extra money to me. It's far easier to retain story elements when they're acted out. Production value is still value. Not only did I get a killer RPG for $60 in Baldur's Gate 3, but I also got some killer performances to help sell it. That extra production value is worth extra money. I could play the previous two Baldur's Gates for pennies on the dollar, and I did, but I would certainly say I got more value out of the game that costs more. In V Rising's case, I know of no other action RPG/loot games that have been combined with survival games in this way, playing with independent movement and aiming instead of mouse pointers, so that's worth the money to see. I think we're done here, but your sense of value is just very strange.
Let's say that including benefits, a developer's salary is about $100k. Maybe a small team of 8 people worked on a game like The Thaumaturge for 3 years. Before you even factor in contract work like voice acting, that would put the development budget at $2.4M. If the game cost $20, they'd have to sell about 120k copies to break even on that investment, which is far from guaranteed. By pricing the game at $35, their break even point is nearly half of that. This is a moderately budgeted game, not a AAA game with microtransactions.
Even an experienced team like Mimimi games, who made smart development choices by iterating on what they built before to keep costs down, releasing critical successes several times in a row, ended up closing down because the money coming in was too tight. Their games ranged from $30-$50 and had every sale, bundle, giveaway, and promotional opportunity you could think of.
Far more actually. You have to deduct taxes, steam's cut etc. from those 20$.
8 full time 100k salaried employees is quite a bit more than "small team." Doom was 6 people. That many people are simply not required to make the games that are being produced; they can choose to size down any time they want. If they want to go "all in" on making a "AAAA" game, then they need to deal with that reality and make a game that is actually worth $60.
Perhaps that's part of the problem? Maybe they should have priced their works more fairly from the start and not rely on bundles and givaways which surely aren't going to make them more money.
My point is, the "average" game is absolutely not worth $30. Most games should flop because they're overproduced trash, and we should return to smaller, more artistic-focused development with a smaller scale, more consumer friendly pricing, and where the (few) devs get more slices of their pie.
I'm sorry that you don't enjoy video games enough to pay $30 for most of the good ones, but I hope one day you can sit down with a calculator and realize why it must be that way.
I'd gladly pay $30 if they are worth it, most games are simply not worth it. Recently I've put over 75 hours into Atom RPG the last two weeks, and it's $15 full price, and the developers have released a spinoff and announced a new project, so they seem to be doing fine.
Hopefully you can sit down with a calculator and figure out that things can be better.
The value that I get out of games isn't measured only in hours, especially since it's easy to inflate a game's length.
That's true, I'm using hours per dollar as a shorthand for value, but on the flip side if video games are going to be a couple hours of one-time fun, they gotta expect to have a price point similar to movie theaters which have a similar experience, which is like $10-$15
Video games are often afraid to be only a couple of hours these days, often to their detriment, but if you multiplied a movie's runtime by 2-3x for some extra production value in your game, you end up at that $35 price point easily for a game that's 5-10 hours long. Even for a direct comparison to Atom RPG, I'd rather pay 2-3x as much for a Wasteland game to get what I'm looking for, and Wasteland games aren't exactly short. Neither is V Rising.
Video games are afraid to be only a couple hours because they are afraid of charging less than $10
If your game is short, doesn't offer replayability, and doesn't have any novel gameplay to truly set it apart, then youtube Lets Plays offer real competition of getting basically the whole package.
That's making a couple assumptions though, that price point is for large studio releases and non-matinee prices. If I go see a movie on a Tuesday afternoon, it's only $7, a perfect price for an average small game.
Atom RPG isn't exactly a Wasteland game, it leans pretty heavy on classic Fallout, which while inspired by Wasteland, have diverged noticeably in the end product. So if you wanted to get what you're looking for in this case, Fallout 1 and 2 are $10 each, or you can get a bundle of 1/2 and Brotherhood of Steel for $20 (more like brotherhood of steal amirite).
I would love to live in a world where we get FPS campaigns that are about 8 hours long, are fulfilling, and cost $60. That used to be the norm, and we were happy with that. A Let's Play is not a substitute.
That assumes I don't care about things like better resolutions and frame rates, voice acting, modern considerations for how people actually interact with games, etc. I've also played Fallout 1 already.
Then you should be supportive of deflation in the video game industry, instead of making excuses for why we should pay more for less
Again, "more" is often to the detriment to the value of the game, because adding hours is easy. I'm saying that, on a AAA level, games were worth more to me when they were shorter. We're currently paying less for more. But at below AAA levels, I'm often served extremely well for $35.
I'm not talking about about adding hours, I'm talking about adding quality.
yes, good games exist at that price point, but the average game is not good, and is not worth that.
You mention things like better resolutions, better frame rates, better voice acting, more modern, more better, etc, but none of those things are what makes games good or worth more money. AAA games with cutting edge graphics and star-studded voice acting are not automatically good games, and in fact it frequently has an inverse effect where focusing so much time and money on stuff other than the game leaves a shitty game that will be forgotten about in months; that would absolutely not be worth $30, despite having all your superfluous qualities
No, they don't automatically make a game better, but if I'm choosing between two games that are similar in themes or mechanics, I'm leaning toward the one with voice acting and better presentation. That's worth extra money to me. It's far easier to retain story elements when they're acted out. Production value is still value. Not only did I get a killer RPG for $60 in Baldur's Gate 3, but I also got some killer performances to help sell it. That extra production value is worth extra money. I could play the previous two Baldur's Gates for pennies on the dollar, and I did, but I would certainly say I got more value out of the game that costs more. In V Rising's case, I know of no other action RPG/loot games that have been combined with survival games in this way, playing with independent movement and aiming instead of mouse pointers, so that's worth the money to see. I think we're done here, but your sense of value is just very strange.