Thoughts on Jim Sterlings video about Advertisements in games?

[skywalker0957]

Oh, it's coming. Games are costing more and more to make, but you can't keep charging more for them. Who is going to pay £100, £200, £300 for a game? Loot boxes are being shut down by governments, minimal content with chargeable DLC is getting panned by audiences. Game houses need to do something to claw the costs of development back and get into profit.

Maybe a way to cut down on development costs in general would be to focus less on the marketing element which has gotten so overblown I would imagine that it is probably 1.5 or 2 times the budget for actual research and development for the game itself. I am aware that the market is far more competitive now than it used to be but it still stands that a quality game will sell well. I think people are burnt out on being nickled and dimed constantly after they buy a game and more often than not the product being delivered at least in the AAA sphere is under cooked and unpolished. Eventually people will stop paying for things which I think the industry is starting to feel now as more and more games are coming out to lack luster sales.

I also believe some games budgets are just too large for the audience they are trying to target. Dead Space I feel is a good example of this or many recent Capcom games where as in order to earn back the money spent is almost unfeasible given the type of title it is. Dead Space for example was a survival horror game which is a niche market so putting millions upon millions into marketing and development may not always be the best idea when it will be very difficult to make it back. Not ever game is CoD levels of audience appeal where it is more feasible to earn back money spent from sales alone.

Those are just my thoughts on this though.

[Anthony]

I'd be fine with it IF was tasteful and in moderation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tGXEATdxIc

Billboards on buildings or out on highways that could be rented wouldn't be too bad. It'd make more sense than game makers having to create fake companies and ads to go on them. But covering a character in ridiculous advertisements is a bit much.

[Sneed]

I don't watch Jim Sterling, but I have an issue with most people talking about the introduction of ads to SFV: None of them play fighting games. As a long time fighting games fan, when given the option between having to buy a new game for every balance or roster update like in the Street Fighter II days or even the SF4 days or the King of Fighters [current year edition] days, and having free balance updates with individual, optional DLC I can choose from and advertisements to make that cheaper? I will definitely take the latter. It's an objective improvement no matter how I look at it.

I don't even get the "it doesn't fit argument". The only part of Street fighter that has ever taken itself seriously is the story mode of SFV where there are no ads. The select screen has always had that "e-sports" feel to it, like a tournament or official competitive setting where you would expect some of the participants to be sponsored. I'm not saying it's better because of it, but to me it just doesn't feel necessarily out of place. I get that people think it's a slippery slope if it goes unchecked and that's true, but that doesn't mean that the implementation in its current format is bad or malicious. Oxygen is bad for you in excess, that doesn't mean you have to stop breathing.

And I want to reiterate how optional the DLC is in fighting games. They are NOT MOBAs, something that Jeremy said in his video on the issue really came up as uninformed when he said turning off ads would put such players at a "disadvantage" against other players. That's completely wrong most of the time. It takes a good deal of time and effort to get good with just ONE character in a fighting game. People don't "counterpick" like in MOBAs for free, there is definitely an associated risk to switching to a character that is not the one you're the most comfortable with, most players don't take that risk. When people are good with a variety of characters at once and switch between them for fun, they are probably not playing competitively whether online or in locals, and they are probably having fun whether they are winning or not. It's not a disadvantaged situation.

Not having all characters available right away is more of a flavor issue where it's possible that the character that is ideal for YOU (regardless of how good they are in the game) is locked behind a paywall. That's entirely possible and it's a whole different issue that's going to be there whether you have ads on or off.

[Aidy]

I don't think that games themselves are costing more to make, I think it's more that games are costing more to market, additionally I think a lot of the shady stuff going on (especially the glorified gambling) is due to publishers don't just want some money they want all the money (as Jim himself keeps saying) and the game industry has proven that it can't self regulate.

Games are now costing the same amount of money as blockbuster movies. Difference is that huge numbers of people are paying £10 or whatever to see that movie, then you have the DVD\Blu-Ray sales, then you have the TV royalties when it starts to run there. With games you have a much smaller number of people buying them, and there's no real additional markets. The additional market is parasitic game-shops re-selling second hand games for £1.99 less than brand new copies and none of that money goes to the developer. The game shop will same the same game 5 times, get £250 in their tills yet the people that spent the money making it only get paid for one copy.

[kpnut]

Oh, it's coming. Games are costing more and more to make, but you can't keep charging more for them. Who is going to pay £100, £200, £300 for a game? Loot boxes are being shut down by governments, minimal content with chargeable DLC is getting panned by audiences. Game houses need to do something to claw the costs of development back and get into profit.

I don't think that games themselves are costing more to make, I think it's more that games are costing more to market, additionally I think a lot of the shady stuff going on (especially the glorified gambling) is due to publishers don't just want some money they want all the money (as Jim himself keeps saying) and the game industry has proven that it can't self regulate.

[Kraneloran]

I wonder where their actual margin is and what the margin is they want others to believe they have. Either way, have been following Jim F Sterling S for quite some time, and neither to him, nor to most of his audience this developement will be a surprise. Who knows, maybe one day people will join me in simply rejecting to pay money for any product that wants you to be an indoctrinated little guinea pig, so they have to face that they will tell the truth one day: That they never knew why people actually bought their games and simply told themselves very hard that its because of some marketing executives idea implemented into their product.

[Aidy]

Oh, it's coming. Games are costing more and more to make, but you can't keep charging more for them. Who is going to pay £100, £200, £300 for a game? Loot boxes are being shut down by governments, minimal content with chargeable DLC is getting panned by audiences. Game houses need to do something to claw the costs of development back and get into profit.