Thoughts on Out of Beta’s recent blog post

Recently my friend Clockwork (his character is Bryce in our comics) posted a blog that we often re-publish on our own website (with

Someone named Tobold posted a response.

This person has an opinion and they are more than welcome to it.  I disagree with this opinion however…

To summarize, Clockwork thinks that the quality of games can suffer if you structure them around making money rather than being a good game.  The response took his opinion to an extreme, accusing him of only wanting game developers to have enough money to keep the lights on.

I dislike people who take things to an extreme simply because they disagree with someone’s opinion.

There is one thing this Tobold person says that I think makes his argument very shaky.  “If a game comes out at a certain price with a certain amount of content, you should decide whether that content is worth that price. Whether the development studio is profitable or not should not figure in that decision.”

My question is this: How do I know if the content is worth it unless I experience the content beforehand?

Even if I had a demo of the game, these demos will never include the ‘extra downloadable features’ this discussion is about.  By including them, they somewhat defeat the purpose of downloadable features.

We can debate what companies can do until the sun comes down and never agree.  I am just going to cut right to the point.

Tobold’s opinion would work just fine if we were discussing buying a car.  Video games are considered art by the United States Supreme Court, so the economics of art should apply to video games.  If Tobold would step back and take a look at how the economy works for art, he would realize the error of what he’s saying.  The price of art is never determined by the maker, but by how much money people are willing to pay for it.  This makes Jimquisition and ClockWork’s opinion not an attack on the choices of a company, but an opinion of people trying to put a price on the art they are considering purchasing.

Quality is really the determining factor for price in the art world.  Its about time investors and developers caught on to this fact.

Out of Beta: Phantasms of Commercialization

Monday, January 19, 2015

Phantasms of Commercialization

So while I was ranting about a quote from Jim Sterling’s video about Evolve’s DLC the insightful Talarian asked:

outofbeta twitter

Sadly the question requires more than 140 characters to answer so I delayed for time and scrambled over here to hash something out. The question makes a good point, it’s difficult to say when something was cut because the developer ran out of time because theoretically the developer would throw everything in if time and money weren’t a factor and when it was a feature that was simply planned to be added later.

The triple-A video game development model is an entirely commercial thing, but we players like to indulge in the illusion that developers are cool people who aren’t trying to attach to our wallets like a mosquito. Many of them aren’t, but the modern reality of keeping a game studio open means the studio has to figure out ways to pay its bills. So every studio has to at some point ask itself how it’s going to get a return on their game. That was never in question, we live in a commercial world. However, some of those take it a dozen steps further and stop making it about “Lets aim for the stars and make the next WoW!” and take it to “So how can we maximize profit off the sheep players?” The trick is not making it obvious where on that spectrum your company lies. When you are using every possible means to generate revenue from players, we get suspicious.

I think it comes down to the intention of the developers when they are making the choice as to whether or not include a piece of content. If the developer is genuinely out of money to dedicate and needs to release, I see no problem with cutting content that they simply can’t pay for. If they are being held to a strict release date and can’t postpone any further I am also less critical. Though in “the olden days” plenty of developers would postpone releases to finish a game; these days it seems marketing and corporate controls when things get released, not whether the game is finished and tested (I’m looking at you Assassin’s Creed: Unity).

However, if the developer has already finished the majority of the content piece and will have it ready for release soon after and hold it back purely to sell it for more later, then I start to get a little annoyed. What constitutes an acceptable time period or amount of content is entirely subjective of course. I mean, in the case of Evolve they are literally increasing your eventual cost for content if you fail to pre-order. Now in some situations ordering something before release can be good, but in most of those the quality of the product is highly likely. The video game industry on the other hand has routinely been shown to release shoddy products after large amounts of hype to encourage pre-orders.

Planning to expand your game in the future isn’t a crime, but at the same time, charging people an upfront fee that is only getting them a relatively small portion of the intended total content (with a penalty if they do not pre-order) breaks that consumer illusion that the company isn’t seeking to exploit us. Your price model should reflect that intention, which should mean charging a smaller initial fee.

Developers should aim high. At the risk of sounding idealistic there is nothing wrong with wanting to be the next WoW or LoL, but there is a difference between trying to make something great and trying to nickel and dime your customers. Where that line lies is subjective, you the player have to decide whether you are getting the value your money is worth.

Posted by Clockwork at 10:06 PM

via Out of Beta: Phantasms of Commercialization.