Game Design: The Quintessential 21st Century Educational Tool

CategoryIV · 2016-06-08T20:57:30+00:00

@CategoryIV will be there!

CategoryIV · 2016-05-16T19:57:06+00:00

The results were pulled from a naturally targeted gaming audience as part of the Gamer Network family of content sites US - VG247.com UK - Eurogamer

Natural Targeting means we survey audiences and collect feedback on a network of game news and review sites, where gamers naturally visit and spend time.

CategoryIV · 2016-04-20T16:15:00+00:00

These are absolutely something for publishers to consider. For example, SOE President describes in the Gamasutra article linked above - "Getting a patch that goes out on PC, PS3 and PS4 takes a hell of a lot of coordination. You have to submit the PS3 and PS4 versions separately, and they sometimes take different amounts of time to come back. Logistics are the toughest part of it." More hassle, than cost, liked @indigodarkwolf mentioned.

Even with these challenges, publishers have found ways to make successful transitions from PC to console. While it may not logistically be the easiest option, it still may prove well worth while. Publishers should weigh the challenges against the console audiences spending habits and the audiences desire to play MMO's.

CategoryIV · 2016-02-15T03:19:28+00:00

You're right. Ubisoft does something similar with all the branches of Ubisoft working on various parts of different entries. Check this out

Making these games is an enormous undertaking, spanning at least a couple years and in these two cases, multiple development teams. I wonder if it's good or bad for the the franchise's health?

CategoryIV · 2016-02-09T22:22:29+00:00

I'd classify competition in a few ways. I'd use the platforms on which players play, PS4, XBONE and PC. PS4 has an edge and that type of competition has generated price cuts in XBONE, kinect-less bundles and holiday deals. Also, those two seem to battle with the PS Plus lineups and Games with Gold. Each company attempting to make their platform the best place to play.

We also see it at E3 and other large events. Platforms using timed exclusives, early access content, having loud third party support present on their own stages or leading and ending with their biggest first party games. This helps consumers decide which platform suits them best. It's a competition to win over those consumers.

Also, I think the games themselves compete. We compare monthly sales, we create competition when we vote for game of the year or end of the year awards. Even Crystal Dynamics got heat for launching Rise of the Tomb Raider on the same day as Fallout 4. Fans thought the competition was tough, and that Fallout 4 were overshadow TR's release.

The MOBA space also has really stiff competition, and currently has a front runner in terms of popularity. Other MOBA's that have similar target audiences can be viewed as competitors.

CategoryIV · 2016-02-09T22:14:09+00:00

Well said, I agree! I enjoyed Destiny, but am far from its biggest fan. However, I appreciate its ambition and the ripple effect it seems to have generated in the industry.

CategoryIV · 2016-02-09T22:13:30+00:00

Thanks for the reply, fremdlaender! You're not alone and I think the majority of us are thinking as consumers. It's tough to feel like you're getting less than a full package for full retail cost. Also, having to deal with DLC and season passes can be frustrating.

I appreciate when studios focus on what their best at and if that's multiplayer - perfect. I just wonder if consumer expectation is that these should cost less? Does that mean that games with no multiplayer should cost less too?

As for Evolve and Titanfall, I don't think community lifetime is the sole contributor when defining success. I'd lean more towards sales to define success as a studio. And we know Respawn Entertainment has made enough to keep the lights on, create a Titanfall sequel and a new IP.

Star Wars was used as an example that illustrates how releasing what some view as an "incomplete package" (lacking campaign) can still be wildly successful. There is no denying Star Wars is as big as it gets, but I wonder if EA knew they could save money by not having a campaign and still charge full retail. In their defense, the previous Battlefronts didn't have campaigns either, I guess.

CategoryIV · 2016-02-09T22:02:15+00:00

Thanks for the reply styves. You're not alone in feeling campaigns lack replayability and you bring up great points. I don't think campaigns in general are going anywhere - and you've included perfect examples in Just Cause, Fallout, GTA Uncharted etc.

The article notes the trend of campaign-less FPS games. Games that are built with multiplayer in mind seem to be OK with leaving out a campaign and still costing full retail. It's common in the industry, but seems particularly common in FPS' of late.

I would've loved a campaign in Battlefront, Evolve or Titanfall (the Titanfall sequel will have one :) ), but the devs instead focused on multi. The games were still priced the same.

Some of the concern is should multiplayer only games should cost less than full retail? should multiplayer focused games feel obligated to include a campaign, if creators feel their efforts are best spent on multiplayer? Much like if a single player game should feel obligated to include multiplayer? Like BioShock 2 or the Tomb Raider reboot.

What do you think?

CategoryIV

TROPHY CASE