One-on-One Discussions with Gamers: AAA Developers & Crowdfunding Solutions

In recent one-on-one discussions with gamers, SDGT Entertainment delved into the challenges that many AAA developers are currently facing. The myth of being "too big to fail" is one that these developers need to get over, as it's becoming increasingly clear that alternative routes must be considered to ensure long-term success. Concord could've been morphed into a single player mission based adventure. If it were me, I would've wanted to see Firewalk give the game a secondwind by taking this route, and even let them fly free with the title under the conditions that it remained a Playstation exclusive (in terms of consoles) for a solid period of time. 

IOI (IO Interactive) comes to mind as far as being a dev team being able to take their baby (the Hitman franchise) and soar, verses being wiped off the map. Hitman lives on and the team continues to make content like... The Splitter featuring Jean-Claude Van Damme as an exclusive Hitman target. They have other IPs in development, but... they took what they had and continued to build without trying to pump out title on top of title. Instead they adapted, married Hitman 1 to 3 and served up Hitman: World of Assassination. The additional adventures can be purchased for... Hitman: World of Assassination (initially released in Q1 2021), and this is one way to keep a game fresh while the developers figure out their next move. You can dive into Hitman with a free starter pack... right now, and play The Splitter free for a limited time!

I'm not saying Concord would've been able to last, especially with the track record and fanbase Hitman has, but... all that work didn't have to go to waste.

The Myth of "Too Big to Fail"

The notion that large developers are immune to failure is a dangerous misconception. The reality is that even the biggest names in the industry can falter if they don't adapt to changing market dynamics and consumer expectations. This was echoed by Chris J., an Ohio native visiting Orlando, who expressed his frustration with the current state of the industry:

"I hate when companies nickel and dime us for extra content that should've been in the game in the first place," says Chris J.

Not everyone will be able to go live with each title for online multiplayer action. The playerbase will have to come from somewhere and there are some badass games that a number of gamers aren't willing to part with just yet. Grand Theft Auto Online, Fortnight, CSGO, Minecraft, even COD Mobile are still ticking. I won't say run in fear when it comes to making online games, but... you have to know when to take a step back and do your homework to identify and take into account what warms someones heart enough to make that a purchase + microtransations would be okay vs a free-to-play setup or... additional DLC that adds to a complete game. These discussions also included Sims 4, which a couple I didn't get a chance to quote, had a major reaction about. They love Sims, but said similar to what I have in the past regarding how limited part 4 felt. We agreed that it was better off being a free-to-play game from the beginning. It took nearly a decade for that to occur, but they eventually adapted to the situation. I guess the $39.99 wasn't going to cut it anymore, especially with the cost of the DLC.

The Problem with Greed

Greed doesn't guarantee a continuous flow of money. Developers need to understand that their revenue comes from gamers with a fluctuating percentage struggling to make ends meet. Investments in gaming must make sense for these consumers. The big developers can play mind games with themselves, but reality will always keep it real with them, whether they like it or not.

When it comes to developers who are hesitant to revive fan-favorite games because they want to rake in piles of money on what appears to be the safe bet, it's understandable to seek success. However, the same gamers they want support from are the ones some don't seem to believe in. Even reaching out for crowdfunding for beloved games seems to be a step too far for some publishers.

Crowdfunding as a Viable Option

Newlyweds Trey and Diana S., honeymooning in Orlando, shared their thoughts on crowdfunding:

"I've given money to Kickstarters before, they just have to present it well and make the rewards worth it. I'll even pay a buck or two to get my name posted on a backer list. I don't have faith in the big developers to do Kickstarters bro, they're stuck up," says Trey S.

"If it's my job and I want to keep that job, I would listen to the customers," says Diana S.

Overall, if gamers are willing to put up the money for a game based on a calculated cost, it should be a no-brainer for developers to give the people what they're willing to invest in (if the goal isn't made thats the indicator to keep it moving). Giving gamers what they're willing to pay for seems to make too much sense for some publishers. Hopefully, this article... ruffles some feathers in the right way and helps more developers get over themselves if they're running into a wall.

 + Sophi 

Support us below!

Stellar Anime Figurines!

Hey Blu: Is AI stealing tech jobs? Possibly... but more Indie Devs may be the result!

I'm responding to a portion of an email that was sent this week because... I think it would make for an interesting post sent by... Will Anurak. Shout out to you.

"With the advent of AI, game developers are beginning to think seriously about replacing employees with artificial intelligence and I think it's a good thing. After all, AI can work for cheaper salaries, and it doesn't take vacations or sick days. What's not to love?" - Will A.

Not to be sarcastic, but... the AI doesn't work for a dime, but maybe that was what you were trying to say. Speaking of salaries, the people working for those salaries... need those salaries because they need the ability to pay bills, eat, and all that good stuff. If AI did it all, we'd be done for! It's a give-and-take when you think about it. Let's say that the majority of jobs were AI in software, and AI bots in manufacturing/services, where would the money come from in order to generate any sort of revenue to keep the doors open? People need a way to make a way or they would be no way other than to go back to the basics and farm, tinker, and barter to cover our daily needs.

This is why we have great respect for the essential workers because everything would break down without them, Will and they need to be paid in order to have a reason to clock back in. It's not all about the money. I actually thought about this as a kid when we'd think about someone having all the money in the world. We'd go back and forth because... money wouldn't matter if no one else had any.

"Of course, there are still some issues to work out. For example, AI might not be able to create the next great AAA game on its own. And smaller games might suffer if all the big studios start using AI, since budgets would shrink." - Will A.

Sadly, when it comes to some developers, these issues are the only thing stopping them from massive layoffs. I hope they turn away from such thoughts and instead use AI for fillers. I understand that there are smaller developers who don't have a way to make a way without... AI, because that's the only way they were able to get off the ground, but... slamming the door on employees is a bad idea.

Truth be told, when it comes to some stores like... The Dollar Tree (for example), I'm totally for self-checkout options. Add some self-checkout kiosks in there, have one person on the register, and let the other person stock/step in when needed. I've seen these workers running back and forth with boxes sitting in aisles, long lines for a worker who has to call someone from stocking, the office, or the storage room for help. Based on that... I feel like self-checkout kiosks would help relieve some of the stress and help them get to become more efficient (not get rid of them).

I've seen people leave stores because lines were too long, and I've left stores because I was pressed for time. That's money that could've been made, so the self-checkout options should pay for themselves in a short time even if the investment could affect the bottom line initially. It can be done in a roll-out type of way to cover sections of states based on need... and the video/managers would be proof of need. This is one example how AI can help and not hinder opportunities.

"But overall, it seems like AI is the wave of the future for the game industry. So if you're thinking about getting into game development, you might want to learn how to code for AI too." - Will A.

I only dabble a little, if any with code, but... code isn't my thing at all. I'm on the creative side. Anyway, I think it would suck for developers to do this unless they absolutely need to do this. If it does happen, it's safe to assume that more indie devs would pop up comprised of industry veterans ready to serve up some eye-catching titles, and I hope that results in more doors being open to those in need of opportunities based. I still don't see if happening in a way that would just replace dev teams... but I can't forget about the massive layoffs that occur, so it's hard to say what will happen. AAA studios may want to think twice though because they could essentially create more competition for themselves.

Support us below!

Dear Developers: Bugs

This is one of those topics that goes beyond one platform, one generation... no matter who the audience is, and that is bugs. Bugs... do just that, bug gamer's if they affect game play for the worse. It doesn't matter the size of the developer... granted smaller developers get more of a pass, especially if the game is more ambition than a small indie title. That said... no one gets a pass if a game has been released and goes un-patched, that's annoying, especially if the game is still being sold like fully functional games are.

There are fun bugs, but the ones that stand in the way of gameplay should result in the game being temporarily free until... it gets fixed. There could be a free window to play... like how games have those free weekend's on Steam. That would be motivation to fix the game asap.

As a matter of fact... it may piss a lot of developers off, but games released without a disclaimer of still being development (which there are a few on Steam)... I think all platforms should do a free window until it's patched. Some games may not be able to do that since the experience can be enjoyed in one sitting... but in that case they shouldn't be available to play or buy. It would be cool if developer could decide between not having the game available for sale or a play window, until they swat those bugs.

I'm not deliberately trying to make myself public enemy #1 with this post, but there is a silver lining.

Think of the reviews, the word of mouth, the detoured sales and your overall reputation when it comes to future games. This isn't our first dance with this topic, but I was reminded of it... when I saw a fellow gamer, Gunn3r... playing Mercenary Kings on Steam.

I inquired on whether the game had been patched since the last time I had played... which was quite awhile ago (granted many games have to be played). He did a bit of playing and testing it out, only to get back to me saying that there are still problems with the game (main when he plays in full screen).

I still have to check it out myself... but that game was released back in 2014! I mention this game for the purpose of including all games in a similar space... don't let your efforts go to waste.

On the flip side... there are situations that occur in development teams that never reach the public. Arguments between teammates, legal disputes, team mates leaving the project. So there are things that can affect the project beyond a developer merely choosing not to get it done, but there should be efforts to seek new members to fill those voids... because someone is still collecting a check as long as the game is being purchased.

A game like Mercenary Kings doesn't have to stop at the initial missions... because it's one of those multiplayer games where more can be added on to further and enhance the gamer's experience. I'd personally take and expand over the course of 4 years based on crowd funding. That would extend the life of the game and... pave the way for a new installment (if it makes sense based on new ideas and tech). Anyway... developers, think about this stuff, especially if you're just starting out and haven't considered the downside of incomplete game releases.

Support us below!

Save it yourself w/ tips from IT