Final Fantasy XV has to sell 10 million units to be considered a success. (source) Let that sink in. The only FF game to do those kind of numbers is FF7.

The only reliable numbers we have for Destiny are what was revealed in the lawsuit: 6.3 million (source) Even with numbers like that, we can't get significant content (despite buying it for year one) and we are instead treated to microtransactions.

I'm pretty sure we are already in, or will be in soon, a world where the most innovative, boundary pushing games will either be so expensive they can't be made, or they will be too big to fail. Forget VR and 4K gaming. They've got to figure out how to keep pushing games forward while actually being able to pay people…

This is going to be bad for the industry, and the wall may be closer than people think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Final_Fantasy_XV

I don't think you have to be big to innovative or boundary pushing.

I don't think you have to be big to innovative or boundary pushing.

I suppose it's possible, but nearly all games that offer huge leaps are among the most expensive games in their respective genres at the time.

Games based heavily around narrative (Heavy, Rain, life is Strange etc) may be the exception, because writing a better story doesn't cost more money. But creating more sophisticated interaction definitely does.

https://twitter.com/KazHiraiCEO/status/715562937344204801

Doesn't look groundbreaking at all, "actual gameplay"-wise.

There are a LOT of awesome nifty stuff going on with the engine IN REAL TIME, which my programmer side stares in awe, but that usually isn't enough to sell a game...

I'll be satisfied with 5 more years of games similar to the ones we've got now. I don't need anything revolutionary, just evolutionary. I don't really need innovation in this regard. Just slowly figure out how to use console hardware slightly better, and I'm cool.

With preorders and first month sales, Bungie pulled in 550 million. This number also doesn't include the money Sony put in for their special content.

The rumored cost of production for the game is 500 million.

So at bare minimum, Bungie made 50 million and has budget for their live team to cover 2 years. Xbox's installed user base is something like 76 million. Playstation is something around 25-48 million. At $60 dollars a game, a 500 million AAA title needs 8.4 million buyers. That's only about 7% of the overall installed base. A 7% take rate for a game by a well known developer with a string of successes is not out of the question.

By comparison Gears of War sold 6.4 million over its total run. COD MW 4's total sales are 9.4 M.

Bungie is competing with the big dogs, at the top of the market for the highest quality games. This is always going to be a tight market with lots of volatility. It's easy to mismanage yourself out of business like Silicon Knights. In light of that, the long term deal with Activision is a smart move to secure funding ahead of time, so even if Destiny 1 was a flop, the studio still had a source of funding to make a sun singer rez move for Destiny 2.

From an industry perspective there is lots of room for games, from F2P and low cost independent runs to these AAA titles. The barriers to games development drop every year as standard tools and assets become more common place. Look at how many companies provide licensed physics models, graphics engines and art stock. It used to be you had to develop all of that yourself, now even Google is working on a free engine. The market also supports different modes, from stuff on phones and tablets to our more complicated AAA titles. The market is very diverse, with lots of options. Heck, look at 343 making Halo tablet apps as backup to the main titles. If Bungie had a phone game that let you assign your guardians to strikes in an RTS style format, while you played your ghost and managed support tasks from above, how many of you would buy that as well? If it gave you loot in game?

I don't think you have to be big to innovative or boundary pushing.

I suppose it's possible, but nearly all games that offer huge leaps are among the most expensive games in their respective genres at the time.

Sources, please.

Portal, Rocket league, MineCraft, and Limbo are recent games that come to my mind that were very innovative and successful, and made by small teams with small budgets.

Games based heavily around narrative (Heavy, Rain, life is Strange etc) may be the exception, because writing a better story doesn't cost more money. But creating more sophisticated interaction definitely does.

You can, like, hear yourself when you talk....right?

Sources, please.

History.

Portal, Rocket league, MineCraft, and Limbo are recent games that come to my mind that were very innovative and successful, and made by small teams with small budgets.

Of those, only Portal pushed gaming forward in a meaningful way. Limbo did not advance the puzzle platformer and was actually a regression for the genre. Rocket League is standard party game fare. Minecraft is bested by any 3D modeling / CAD app ever.

Portal was developed by Valve using the Source Engine, which they spent tens of millions of dollars creating. There's nothing small or cheap about the tech that went in to Portal.

Minecraft is bested by any 3D modeling / CAD app ever.

If Bungie had a phone game that let you assign your guardians to strikes in an RTS style format, while you played your ghost and managed support tasks from above, how many of you would buy that as well? If it gave you loot in game?

I've been wanting something like that for quite some time :)

http://destiny.bungie.org/forum/index.php?id=51864

Minecraft's sheer volume of calculations being done at once and what they entail is amazing.

Sources, please.

History.

Oh, Lawd.

Portal, Rocket league, MineCraft, and Limbo are recent games that come to my mind that were very innovative and successful, and made by small teams with small budgets.

Of those, only Portal pushed gaming forward in a meaningful way. Limbo did not advance the puzzle platformer and was actually a regression for the genre. Rocket League is standard party game fare. Minecraft is bested by any 3D modeling / CAD app ever.

Portal was developed by Valve using the Source Engine, which they spent tens of millions of dollars creating. There's nothing small or cheap about the tech that went in to Portal.

Minecraft is bested by any 3D modeling / CAD app ever.

Well, pssh... Destiny can't hold a candle to Microsoft Word when composing sonnets, either.

This has to be the stupidest argument you've made on this forum, ever.

Wait, I take that back... it's probably been beaten. :)

Minecraft is bested by any 3D modeling / CAD app ever.

Well, pssh... Destiny can't hold a candle to Microsoft Word when composing sonnets, either.

The purpose of playing Destiny is not to write. The purpose of playing Minecraft is to build stuff out of blocks. Minecraft is a building game. But other software, such as Maya or Cinema4D or AutoCAD, lets you build things more easily, and with much greater control. Making the enterprise in Minecraft is just hopelessly silly when you could have done it better and more easily in a 3D program.

Do you giggle hysterically to yourself when you make arguments like this?

Hint: The blocks interact with each other in clever ways, if you know what to look for.

Was the "games aren't interactive because the computer code doesn't change" argument made here or HBO?

- No text -

I also haven't really enjoyed a Final Fantasy game since VIII. Lots of people I know loved IX and X, but those games didn't do it for me. My favorite is still VI. I enjoy this article:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-disappointing-reasons-final-fantasy-losing-all-its-fans/

Was the "games aren't interactive because the computer code doesn't change" argument made here or HBO?

That wasn't the argument, but it was on HBO. The argument was that there is no such thing as "emergent gameplay" because the game code is static, thus already determining the possible interactions. Emergent phenomenon in simulations are brought about because of inaccuracies in the simulation. Since games aren't trying to simulate reality, but rather the reality of the game world, the simulation is by definition 100% accurate, leaving zero room for emergent phenomena.

In retrospect, I've softened my stance on this because I guess you could count emergent phenomenon arising from hardware errors (such as floating point rounding) as being legitimately emergent.

I also haven't really enjoyed a Final Fantasy game since VIII. Lots of people I know loved IX and X, but those games didn't do it for me. My favorite is still VI.

I'm with you, but XIII was not so bad once you get past the insanity that is the 10 hour tutorial. I say that in relative terms, because JRPGs are bad games. The only reason to play an FF game is for the story.

- No text -

Minecraft is bested by any 3D modeling / CAD app ever.

Well, pssh... Destiny can't hold a candle to Microsoft Word when composing sonnets, either.

The purpose of playing Destiny is not to write. The purpose of playing Minecraft is to build stuff out of blocks. Minecraft is a building game. But other software, such as Maya or Cinema4D or AutoCAD, lets you build things more easily, and with much greater control. Making the enterprise in Minecraft is just hopelessly silly when you could have done it better and more easily in a 3D program.

But... that's like all games! I think Bernard Suits put this really well

"To play a game is to engage in activity directed towards bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by rules, where the rules prohibit more efficient in favor of less efficient means, and where such rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity…playing a game is the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles.”

In retrospect, I've softened my stance on this because I guess you could count emergent phenomenon arising from hardware errors (such as floating point rounding) as being legitimately emergent.

Floating point rounding isn't a hardware error, it's a known mathematical error implemented in hardware. While it sometimes differs by processor (i.e. when the floating point hardware isn't using IEEE standard behavior), it's typically a deterministic element, and one that a programmer can usually know the behavior of.

Regardless, you're playing with semantics. Nobody talking about "emergent gameplay" is talking about the logical possibility space of a bunch of code. They're talking about player execution versus what appears to have been design intention, and things like that. Maybe you don't want to partake in a discussion which refers to such things as "emergent gameplay", but then you're just insisting on speaking another language when it's obvious what people mean by their words.

At any rate, as far as things like minecraft are concerned, I feel like you're placing too much emphasis on the end post. The picture that people generate of some thing in minecraft isn't what people think of at interesting in and of itself; it's that someone generated said picture in minecraft. (And more broadly speaking, there's a heck of a lot more to minecraft than those activities. To suggest that it's only significant insofar as it's a clunky 3D CAD program is bizarre.)

Minecraft is a building game. But other software, such as Maya or Cinema4D or AutoCAD, lets you build things more easily, and with much greater control. Making the enterprise in Minecraft is just hopelessly silly when you could have done it better and more easily in a 3D program.

The purpose of playing Destiny is not to write. The purpose of playing Minecraft is to build stuff out of blocks. Minecraft is a building game. But other software, such as Maya or Cinema4D or AutoCAD, lets you build things more easily, and with much greater control. Making the enterprise in Minecraft is just hopelessly silly when you could have done it better and more easily in a 3D program.

How does this comparison make any sense to you?
"Minecraft is a building game" ... Exactly, but Maya, C4D, AutoCAD and others are not GAMES; they are purpose-built 3D modeling and rendering and animating tools...they also cost several orders of magnitude more than Minecraft.

I honestly don't know what Minecraft was "designed" to do exactly, but I do know industry-level CAD - I use it on a daily basis - and Minecraft is not intended for that purpose. Simplifying a bit though, Minecraft is digital LEGOs. With your Enterprise-argument, you're essentially saying "it's silly to build with LEGOs when things like sculpting clay and CNC milling machines exist". Except that NO ONE would ever say that because LEGOs are not intended for the purposes that sculptures use clay and machinists use mills. They're not even on the same PLANET, let alone the same 'ballpark'.

"it's silly to build with LEGOs when things like sculpting clay and CNC milling machines exist".

If you are an adult, then yes that is true.

Minecraft's sheer volume of calculations being done at once and what they entail is amazing.

No doubt, however it does pale in comparison to the math going on inside an industry-level CAD program.

That said; those programs aren't designed to be $25 GAMES that can be played by near-toddlers. To compare the two would be like comparing THIS to THIS.

"it's silly to build with LEGOs when things like sculpting clay and CNC milling machines exist".

If you are an adult, then yes that is true.

That could be true. It could also be true to say "it's FUN to build with LEGOs, even though things like sculpting clay and CNC milling machines exist", or "it's a challenge to build with LEGOs when things like sculpting clay and CNC milling machines exist".

And even if it is "silly", sometimes silly is fun too!

I can only conclude you don't like silly fun challenges.

That could be true. It could also be true to say "it's FUN to build with LEGOs, even though things like sculpting clay and CNC milling machines exist", or "it's a challenge to build with LEGOs when things like sculpting clay and CNC milling machines exist".

And even if it is "silly", sometimes silly is fun too!

I can only conclude you don't like silly fun challenges.

I can only speak for myself, but building stuff from something like wood is more fun and more challenging than building something from Legos. Plus you can eat dinner on it.

(It sounds cooler anyway) :p

- No text -

With preorders and first month sales, Bungie pulled in 550 million. This number also doesn't include the money Sony put in for their special content.

The rumored cost of production for the game is 500 million.

So at bare minimum, Bungie made 50 million and has budget for their live team to cover 2 years. Xbox's installed user base is something like 76 million. Playstation is something around 25-48 million. At $60 dollars a game, a 500 million AAA title needs 8.4 million buyers. That's only about 7% of the overall installed base. A 7% take rate for a game by a well known developer with a string of successes is not out of the question.

And Activision got... nothing?

It might be just me, but I find the "Game of Life"-esque calculations of Minecraft a lot more interesting than the vast majority of the geometric calculations Maya/Blender and similars make. Pure CAD, though, those truly are beasts, I admit.

You need to buy/build an engine. You can, however, build an automobile out of LEGO. It has several engine modules and programmers, controllers and sensors. Hell, you can make completely autonomous vehicles using only LEGO pieces and clever programming.

Same thing holds with the Minecraft/CAD comparison. You can't make a moving car in Blender without adding some physics plug-in, while you can in Minecraft, as well as all sorts of moving machinery or clever circuitry and traps.

To consider both LEGO and Minecraft simple, crude and limiting is to completely ignore their potential complexities.

Sources, please.

History.

Portal, Rocket league, MineCraft, and Limbo are recent games that come to my mind that were very innovative and successful, and made by small teams with small budgets.

Of those, only Portal pushed gaming forward in a meaningful way. Limbo did not advance the puzzle platformer and was actually a regression for the genre. Rocket League is standard party game fare. Minecraft is bested by any 3D modeling / CAD app ever.

Portal was developed by Valve using the Source Engine, which they spent tens of millions of dollars creating. There's nothing small or cheap about the tech that went in to Portal.

From an indie game dev standpoint, you are irreversibly wrong here.

Minecraft was created by a game dev who loved writing video games. He quit his day job working in the game industry, to try and make his own game. It was 80% of a clone of a bunch of other indie games at the time. Right place, right time, and all that. Minecraft in particular is interesting because Notch handed development off in the middle and backed off -- because he wasn't done yet, the game was super crazy popular, and he didn't understand why. He was afraid he would ruin it. Had he not released it in a pay for the alpha/beta kind of way, minecraft as we know it likely would have never happened.

Portal was conceived and developed as a final project in a college by IIRC 4 people. Gabe newell interviewed them, had them show it off, and hired them all on the spot. Then they re-made it into what is now the first portal.

Both of these were essentially home-grown due to the love of games, by gamers. Not by big studios. Big studios did what they did best -- publish and finance at some point.

Dunno about rocket league or limbo, didn't play those.

Doesn't look groundbreaking at all, "actual gameplay"-wise.

There are a LOT of awesome nifty stuff going on with the engine IN REAL TIME, which my programmer side stares in awe, but that usually isn't enough to sell a game...

The free one they just released? I honestly think they dropped the ball with it. I played the demo you got for pre-ordering some other Final Fantasy game (which I admittedly cancelled the pre-order for after I go the code), and that demo was much better. The free demo gives you no idea how to use the combat system, and no real fights to test it out. The boss fight is the only scene where you can use your real combat from the full game, and it's so poorly constructed that you never even learn how to fight in it. I can say, I really enjoyed the older demo, not sure why they didn't release something similar.

Not meant to attack you, just sick of seeing the figure in news articles.

Source for it NOT costing anywhere close to $500 million.

For clarity, Activision said they are spending $500 million on Destiny, but they were speaking of Destiny as a franchise (and with Activision talking about it, that includes marketing).

- No text -

Portal was conceived and developed as a final project in a college by IIRC 4 people. Gabe newell interviewed them, had them show it off, and hired them all on the spot. Then they re-made it into what is now the first portal.

And did you play narbacular drop? It was shitty and primitive (which is fine, they were students). So Valve took them in, and used its resources to make what is now a classic.

That four person team didn't even get the mechanics right. You could shoot portals through portals rendering the game stupidly easy. Valve decided to make it so you couldn't, thus actually making the game a challenge.

- No text -

- No text -

Floating point rounding isn't a hardware error, it's a known mathematical error implemented in hardware. While it sometimes differs by processor (i.e. when the floating point hardware isn't using IEEE standard behavior), it's typically a deterministic element, and one that a programmer can usually know the behavior of.

Yup, and I get to fix one of those errors today. :)

Portal was conceived and developed as a final project in a college by IIRC 4 people. Gabe newell interviewed them, had them show it off, and hired them all on the spot. Then they re-made it into what is now the first portal.

And did you play narbacular drop? It was shitty and primitive (which is fine, they were students). So Valve took them in, and used its resources to make what is now a classic.

That four person team didn't even get the mechanics right. You could shoot portals through portals rendering the game stupidly easy. Valve decided to make it so you couldn't, thus actually making the game a challenge.

Yup, I played narbacular drop. It was a lot of fun, and yes, it needed spit & polish. The innovation didn't come from Valve, the spit & polish came from Valve, the innovation came from a small number of people with the initial concept.

Is it just me that's bothered by the clock in that image? Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, but that clock isn't broken. It's just wrong.

Portal was conceived and developed as a final project in a college by IIRC 4 people. Gabe newell interviewed them, had them show it off, and hired them all on the spot. Then they re-made it into what is now the first portal.

And did you play narbacular drop? It was shitty and primitive (which is fine, they were students). So Valve took them in, and used its resources to make what is now a classic.

That four person team didn't even get the mechanics right. You could shoot portals through portals rendering the game stupidly easy. Valve decided to make it so you couldn't, thus actually making the game a challenge.

Yup, I played narbacular drop. It was a lot of fun, and yes, it needed spit & polish. The innovation didn't come from Valve, the spit & polish came from Valve, the innovation came from a small number of people with the initial concept.

I mean, the only reason anyone has even heard of it is because of Valve. It's not a classic, but a footnote. Without Valve it'd just have been forgotten. Precisely because they had an idea, but not the resources to properly execute. I am not diminishing their creativity, but simply acknowledging you also need a great deal of money plus great ideas to make a cutting edge game.

Also, why 57?

Portal was conceived and developed as a final project in a college by IIRC 4 people. Gabe newell interviewed them, had them show it off, and hired them all on the spot. Then they re-made it into what is now the first portal.

And did you play narbacular drop? It was shitty and primitive (which is fine, they were students). So Valve took them in, and used its resources to make what is now a classic.

That four person team didn't even get the mechanics right. You could shoot portals through portals rendering the game stupidly easy. Valve decided to make it so you couldn't, thus actually making the game a challenge.

That seems to counter your usual philosophy that developers should work to make the game work completely around existing mechanics rather than limiting players.
Shooting a portal through a portal makes sense, as the portal opens up complete access to a new point in space, so Valve should have designed the game around the fact that you can shoot portals through each other, no? They should make it fun and challenging as-is, per the Law of Cody.

"it's silly to build with LEGOs when things like sculpting clay and CNC milling machines exist".

If you are an adult, then yes that is true.

Take for example the Soarin' ride at Disney. I'm certain Disney pays for CAD programs, and yet the design for Soarin' was created with an Erector set initially. Why would you build something with an Erector set instead of using CAD, or milling machines? I can think of a few reasons:

• Simpler tools allow you to iterate faster
  
• Simpler tools have constraints, which in turn sometimes drive creativity
  
• Simpler tools are cheaper

You may be misremembering. In one of a stunning string of retroactively relevant acts to DBO years ago, James May made a LEGO house that featured a working sink, toilet, and shower, but not bathtub. Here is a photo of his bathroom.

Yup, I played narbacular drop. It was a lot of fun, and yes, it needed spit & polish. The innovation didn't come from Valve, the spit & polish came from Valve, the innovation came from a small number of people with the initial concept.

I mean, the only reason anyone has even heard of it is because of Valve. It's not a classic, but a footnote. Without Valve it'd just have been forgotten. Precisely because they had an idea, but not the resources to properly execute. I am not diminishing their creativity, but simply acknowledging you also need a great deal of money plus great ideas to make a cutting edge game.

In my mind, you don't need to be publicly known (50 million users) to be a cutting edge game. That's just a bonus. I never played narbacular drop, but from what I hear, they DID execute. They had a revolutionary game that no one had thought to make and people played it! That's a revolutionary game! Valve did provide the resources to add more value to it and promote it to more people, but ultimately it's the original designers, not Valve that made it cutting edge.

Portal was conceived and developed as a final project in a college by IIRC 4 people. Gabe newell interviewed them, had them show it off, and hired them all on the spot. Then they re-made it into what is now the first portal.

And did you play narbacular drop? It was shitty and primitive (which is fine, they were students). So Valve took them in, and used its resources to make what is now a classic.

That four person team didn't even get the mechanics right. You could shoot portals through portals rendering the game stupidly easy. Valve decided to make it so you couldn't, thus actually making the game a challenge.

That seems to counter your usual philosophy that developers should work to make the game work completely around existing mechanics rather than limiting players.
Shooting a portal through a portal makes sense, as the portal opens up complete access to a new point in space, so Valve should have designed the game around the fact that you can shoot portals through each other, no? They should make it fun and challenging as-is, per the Law of Cody.

You can set your own rules in your game world. Not being able to shoot portals through portals also makes 'sense'. But if you allow that to happen, you completely gut possible puzzle design. The game is far far more interesting and challenging with that limitation. What you can't do makes what you CAN do more important.

Portal was conceived and developed as a final project in a college by IIRC 4 people. Gabe newell interviewed them, had them show it off, and hired them all on the spot. Then they re-made it into what is now the first portal.

And did you play narbacular drop? It was shitty and primitive (which is fine, they were students). So Valve took them in, and used its resources to make what is now a classic.

That four person team didn't even get the mechanics right. You could shoot portals through portals rendering the game stupidly easy. Valve decided to make it so you couldn't, thus actually making the game a challenge.

That seems to counter your usual philosophy that developers should work to make the game work completely around existing mechanics rather than limiting players.
Shooting a portal through a portal makes sense, as the portal opens up complete access to a new point in space, so Valve should have designed the game around the fact that you can shoot portals through each other, no? They should make it fun and challenging as-is, per the Law of Cody.

You can set your own rules in your game world. Not being able to shoot portals through portals also makes 'sense'. But if you allow that to happen, you completely gut possible puzzle design. The game is far far more interesting and challenging with that limitation. What you can't do makes what you CAN do more important.

I actually agree with Cody on this one.

Yup, I played narbacular drop. It was a lot of fun, and yes, it needed spit & polish. The innovation didn't come from Valve, the spit & polish came from Valve, the innovation came from a small number of people with the initial concept.

I mean, the only reason anyone has even heard of it is because of Valve. It's not a classic, but a footnote. Without Valve it'd just have been forgotten. Precisely because they had an idea, but not the resources to properly execute. I am not diminishing their creativity, but simply acknowledging you also need a great deal of money plus great ideas to make a cutting edge game.

In my mind, you don't need to be publicly known (50 million users) to be a cutting edge game. That's just a bonus. I never played narbacular drop, but from what I hear, they DID execute. They had a revolutionary game that no one had thought to make and people played it! That's a revolutionary game! Valve did provide the resources to add more value to it and promote it to more people, but ultimately it's the original designers, not Valve that made it cutting edge.

Cutting edge games get played because they are cutting edge. Especially in the age of the internet, word spreads fast. People thirst for quality, and if it's out there it will be found.

Assuming that is correct, then that makes Destiny even more solvent. if Activision envisions the 500 million budget over a 10 year life, that is only 50 million a year, or 250 million per "main" release.

Portal was conceived and developed as a final project in a college by IIRC 4 people. Gabe newell interviewed them, had them show it off, and hired them all on the spot. Then they re-made it into what is now the first portal.

And did you play narbacular drop? It was shitty and primitive (which is fine, they were students). So Valve took them in, and used its resources to make what is now a classic.

That four person team didn't even get the mechanics right. You could shoot portals through portals rendering the game stupidly easy. Valve decided to make it so you couldn't, thus actually making the game a challenge.

That seems to counter your usual philosophy that developers should work to make the game work completely around existing mechanics rather than limiting players.
Shooting a portal through a portal makes sense, as the portal opens up complete access to a new point in space, so Valve should have designed the game around the fact that you can shoot portals through each other, no? They should make it fun and challenging as-is, per the Law of Cody.

You can set your own rules in your game world. Not being able to shoot portals through portals also makes 'sense'. But if you allow that to happen, you completely gut possible puzzle design. The game is far far more interesting and challenging with that limitation. What you can't do makes what you CAN do more important.

I actually agree with Cody on this one.

Of course, because he's also countering his usual argument by saying what we've repeatedly told him. A game world can be more fun by the limitations imposed on players. That's the basic idea behind "honor rules" and such...

Yup, I played narbacular drop. It was a lot of fun, and yes, it needed spit & polish. The innovation didn't come from Valve, the spit & polish came from Valve, the innovation came from a small number of people with the initial concept.

I mean, the only reason anyone has even heard of it is because of Valve. It's not a classic, but a footnote. Without Valve it'd just have been forgotten. Precisely because they had an idea, but not the resources to properly execute. I am not diminishing their creativity, but simply acknowledging you also need a great deal of money plus great ideas to make a cutting edge game.

In my mind, you don't need to be publicly known (50 million users) to be a cutting edge game. That's just a bonus. I never played narbacular drop, but from what I hear, they DID execute. They had a revolutionary game that no one had thought to make and people played it! That's a revolutionary game! Valve did provide the resources to add more value to it and promote it to more people, but ultimately it's the original designers, not Valve that made it cutting edge.

Cutting edge games get played because they are cutting edge. Especially in the age of the internet, word spreads fast. People thirst for quality, and if it's out there it will be found.

So you are saying that if a game is cutting edge enough, that word of mouth is all that is needed? I have some indie dev friends that would disagree.

I agree that games can flourish with word of mouth, but most still need a marketing boost. Regardless of this, a cutting edge game isn't defined by how many people play it. It should be defined by whether it brakes the edge of how we perceive games to be played and enjoyed and so on.

Cutting edge games get played because they are cutting edge. Especially in the age of the internet, word spreads fast. People thirst for quality, and if it's out there it will be found.

So you are saying that if a game is cutting edge enough, that word of mouth is all that is needed? I have some indie dev friends that would disagree.

I agree that games can flourish with word of mouth, but most still need a marketing boost. Regardless of this, a cutting edge game isn't defined by how many people play it. It should be defined by whether it brakes the edge of how we perceive games to be played and enjoyed and so on.

You'll also run into a lot of different reactions based on personal taste. Speaking for myself, while I appreciate any game that breaks new ground or has cutting-edge features, that is never enough on its own for me to enjoy it. More often than not, my favorite games are sequels. I find a lot of new IP are rough around the edges, or just don't quite have themselves totally figured out, but the sequel comes along and nails it. This was particularly true for me back in the 360 days: Assassin's Creed 2, Mass Effect 2, Gears of War 2, Bad Company 2, Transformers Fall of Cybertron, ODST & Reach, Splinter Cell Blacklist... almost every single one of my favorite games on the 360 were sequels. Even with franchises that predated the 360 (Halo, Splinter Cell), I found that it took developers more than 1 shot at the new hardware to really hit their stride.

Of course, that's just me. All I'm saying is that being "cutting edge" is not the end-all, be-all for everyone :)

That could be true. It could also be true to say "it's FUN to build with LEGOs, even though things like sculpting clay and CNC milling machines exist", or "it's a challenge to build with LEGOs when things like sculpting clay and CNC milling machines exist".

And even if it is "silly", sometimes silly is fun too!

I can only conclude you don't like silly fun challenges.

I can only speak for myself, but building stuff from something like wood is more fun and more challenging than building something from Legos. Plus you can eat dinner on it.

The big part that I believe you are missing about Minecraft is that you don't spawn into an empty white room and just make stuff out of thin air. The game puts you into a fully-realized 3D world. You can quickly dig and make blocks out of stuff and start building basic things that way, but the real magic comes from a combination of exploration/resource management, survival (there are enemies that spawn at night who are a real threat until you build yourself some kind of shelter), plus the discovery that comes from figuring out the different ways that various materials interact with each other.

There's something very captivating about exploring this huge wilderness, finding a beautiful spot that makes you say "I bet I could build I really cool looking tower on top of that mountain", and then trying to figure out how to farm the resources you need to build it. So you come up with a basic idea based on the materials you have, but then as you're digging under the mountain to farm rock you fall into a giant cave with an underground lake or maybe a lava stream, and the possibilities suddenly explode because you now have access to a whole bunch of new materials you can use to create something bigger and better than what you'd originally planned.

I'm not personally in to minecraft, but you can't understate how significant this game is to kids who are in the 8-15 age bracket these days. To say "minecraft is bigger than mario" is an understatement. EVERYONE at that age plays it, talks about it, shares their creations with their friends, comes to school talking about the new locations they've discovered or creatures they ran into. It's actually become a hurdle that many game publishers are nervous about. Young kids aren't getting into videogames the way previous generations did, because it is impossible to get them to play anything other than minecraft. It is THAT big.

The sequels you listed are for the most part at the cutting edge of gaming on their release! I'm very fond of sequels too, as they can fix any flaws or imperfections in the original, as well as adding new things to make it even better.

No offense, but your indie dev friends disagree because they probably don't work for ID or Platinum. The indie developers that make the most impact are the ones with the most resources.

No offense, but your indie dev friends disagree because they probably don't work for ID or Platinum. The indie developers that make the most impact are the ones with the most resources.

His background work actually came from Borderlands 2, Battlefield 2, Homefront and Myth 3. So again, I think he would disagree.

No offense, but your indie dev friends disagree because they probably don't work for ID or Platinum. The indie developers that make the most impact are the ones with the most resources.

His background work actually came from Borderlands 2, Battlefield 2, Homefront and Myth 3. So again, I think he would disagree.

And where does he work now? I'm not questioning his credentials. Look at the team behind Golem. Industry giants, but I don't think lasting hopes for that game are so good despite their immense talent. (In fact, VR wouldn't even be a thing if not for huge companies investing in R&D for it).

Hell, John Romero, designer of one of the most influential indie games of all time (Doom), now makes shitty mobile games!

No offense, but your indie dev friends disagree because they probably don't work for ID or Platinum. The indie developers that make the most impact are the ones with the most resources.

His background work actually came from Borderlands 2, Battlefield 2, Homefront and Myth 3. So again, I think he would disagree.

And where doe she work now? I'm not questioning his credentials. Look at the team behind Golem. Industry giants, but I don't think lasting hopes for that game are so good.

I actually don't know :-) I guess I shouldn't have said "Friend" I just have talked and helped him test his indie game for the last 6 months or so. So I know some of his history as well. And one of the big topics is how a game can define a genre and/or create a new genre and how you market that. It's a tough job for an indie game, but it's totally doable!

No offense, but your indie dev friends disagree because they probably don't work for ID or Platinum. The indie developers that make the most impact are the ones with the most resources.

His background work actually came from Borderlands 2, Battlefield 2, Homefront and Myth 3. So again, I think he would disagree.

And where doe she work now? I'm not questioning his credentials. Look at the team behind Golem. Industry giants, but I don't think lasting hopes for that game are so good.

I actually don't know :-) I guess I shouldn't have said "Friend" I just have talked and helped him test his indie game for the last 6 months or so. So I know some of his history as well. And one of the big topics is how a game can define a genre and/or create a new genre and how you market that. It's a tough job for an indie game, but it's totally doable!

It's doable, but much less so than in the past. I think Quantic Dream did it, but they also spent millions of dollars doing so. I can't really think of any more recent examples.

No offense, but your indie dev friends disagree because they probably don't work for ID or Platinum. The indie developers that make the most impact are the ones with the most resources.

His background work actually came from Borderlands 2, Battlefield 2, Homefront and Myth 3. So again, I think he would disagree.

And where doe she work now? I'm not questioning his credentials. Look at the team behind Golem. Industry giants, but I don't think lasting hopes for that game are so good.

I actually don't know :-) I guess I shouldn't have said "Friend" I just have talked and helped him test his indie game for the last 6 months or so. So I know some of his history as well. And one of the big topics is how a game can define a genre and/or create a new genre and how you market that. It's a tough job for an indie game, but it's totally doable!

It's doable, but much less so than in the past. I think Quantic Dream did it, but they also spent millions of dollars doing so. I can't really think of any more recent examples.

Twitch and youtube is the new advertisement for indie gamers.

They had the same problem with Tomb Raider and one of the Hitman games. Reviewed well, sold well (in the millions, at least), but weren't making GOTY gamgbusters, so they were considered failures.

It's an almost industry-wide problem at this point, at least in the "AAA" space, and I'd say it's terrible for the industry. Big budget games need to sell an extraordinary number of copies just to cover their costs, let alone be seen as a success, which typically leads to one of two things -

• The game is homogenised, designed by committee and built to apeal to the most focus groups at once leading to a jack of all trades game that does everything but doesn't do any one thing well enough to really resonate with anyone
  
• Or the game is riddled with microtransactions to try and make up for "poor" sales.

if you're really lucky you get both.

Then you get smaller or indie teams who know their audience, know what they can expect to sell and make a game that caters to that audience and does it well. They won't ship 10 million units, sure, but they don't need to. A great "double-A" example is Demon's Souls. They knew their audience wouldn't be huge and released a smaller run of a game built by a smaller team to appeal to a niche audience. 3 games (and a remake) later, the franchise is doing extremely well.

Meanwhile triple-A development is bloated by extraneous multiplayer modes (because you need multiplayer to appeal to the CoD fans), needlessly powerful graphics engines that take 6 years to develop (and will be replaced in 2), celebrity cameos and licensed music, while enormous dev teams stuff in so much nebulous "content" in the form of collectibles and shallow sidequests just to pad out wishy-washy games to create the illusion of "value for money".

I love videogames as a hobby. I hate videogames as an industry.

It's an almost industry-wide problem at this point, at least in the "AAA" space, and I'd say it's terrible for the industry. Big budget games need to sell an extraordinary number of copies just to cover their costs, let alone be seen as a success, which typically leads to one of two things -

• The game is homogenised, designed by committee and built to apeal to the most focus groups at once leading to a jack of all trades game that does everything but doesn't do any one thing well enough to really resonate with anyone
  
• Or the game is riddled with microtransactions to try and make up for "poor" sales.

I'm humorously reminded of an attitude in the film industry now when it comes to big budget movies. The sentiment isn't "make a great movie!" but rather "Don't fuck it up!". So rather than aiming for excellence, they aim for mere competency. Particularly when it comes to comic book movies.

- No text -

- No text -

Portal was conceived and developed as a final project in a college by IIRC 4 people. Gabe newell interviewed them, had them show it off, and hired them all on the spot. Then they re-made it into what is now the first portal.

And did you play narbacular drop? It was shitty and primitive (which is fine, they were students). So Valve took them in, and used its resources to make what is now a classic.

That four person team didn't even get the mechanics right. You could shoot portals through portals rendering the game stupidly easy. Valve decided to make it so you couldn't, thus actually making the game a challenge.

That seems to counter your usual philosophy that developers should work to make the game work completely around existing mechanics rather than limiting players.
Shooting a portal through a portal makes sense, as the portal opens up complete access to a new point in space, so Valve should have designed the game around the fact that you can shoot portals through each other, no? They should make it fun and challenging as-is, per the Law of Cody.

You can set your own rules in your game world. Not being able to shoot portals through portals also makes 'sense'. But if you allow that to happen, you completely gut possible puzzle design. The game is far far more interesting and challenging with that limitation. What you can't do makes what you CAN do more important.

I actually agree with Cody on this one.

I'm pretty sure Korny's point wasn't that Cody was WRONG here, but that Cody was directly contradicting previously put-forth (and put forth in Cody's trademarked 'this is the absolute truth' style of presentation, whether he means it that way or not) argument.

Which, unfortunately, is just going to make this conversation devolve into a Bad Cody/Good Cody argument, instead of an interesting discussion about game design theory. :(

Final Fantasy XV has to sell 10 million units to be considered a success. (source) Let that sink in. The only FF game to do those kind of numbers is FF7.

The only reliable numbers we have for Destiny are what was revealed in the lawsuit: 6.3 million (source) Even with numbers like that, we can't get significant content (despite buying it for year one) and we are instead treated to microtransactions.

I'm pretty sure we are already in, or will be in soon, a world where the most innovative, boundary pushing games will either be so expensive they can't be made, or they will be too big to fail. Forget VR and 4K gaming. They've got to figure out how to keep pushing games forward while actually being able to pay people…

This is going to be bad for the industry, and the wall may be closer than people think.

...But feel you on this overall note here.

It's a related feeling with movies, too. They can make huge swaths of money and considered a failure before the opening weekend is over. It's an industry now that needs a franchise with a perfected routine and heaps of licensed auxiliaries to be successful. We'll see infinite Star Wars sequels but a movie like the first Star Wars was in its timeframe will probably not happen in this current climate. Maybe on TV, but chances on the screen seem slim to me right now.

Similarly, I look now mostly to smaller games that innovate on different levels than graphics and complexity, and am instead surprised when a big game comes along that captivates me (it still happens, just not as often). Hell, I don't even think voice acting should be a standard for games, and I think making the graphics a reality-engine for every type of experience misses so many opportunities for great art. With graphics that suggest and stimulate instead, the player gets to build the world in his head, making it better than anything an engine could do. The more realistic the graphics, the harder it is to imagine it as something more, and the more easily distracting the flaws are (dead eyes in Ass-ass-in games for example). I don't need a fancy remake of FFVII because Cloud's voice and looks were perfect in my head. His Mako-infused eyes were full of passion and confusion in my memory, because I contributed to the experience as much as the work did.

It's sort of like putting circles in your painting that are cropped off by the edge of the canvas. The effect is, mentally, your brain completes the circle, extending the image into new dimensions that it couldn't be on its own.

...I think I switched topics, didn't I? Anyway, I thought sharing some level of agreement with Cody Miller was worthy of note. :)

It's a related feeling with movies, too. They can make huge swaths of money and considered a failure before the opening weekend is over. It's an industry now that needs a franchise with a perfected routine and heaps of licensed auxiliaries to be successful. We'll see infinite Star Wars sequels but a movie like the first Star Wars was in its timeframe will probably not happen in this current climate. Maybe on TV, but chances on the screen seem slim to me right now.

The film industry is a pretty different story, and the trends are somewhat comparable but there are very important differences. I fear for the future of games, but not movies if that makes sense.

The more realistic the graphics, the harder it is to imagine it as something more, and the more easily distracting the flaws are (dead eyes in Ass-ass-in games for example).

This is exactly why games must necessarily get more and more expensive and costly to make. It does not work the other way though! If your graphics are crude, then incredibly complex or realistic mechanics will feel completely out of place and hurt the experience just as much. The mechanics and aesthetics must grow together, and this is becoming harder and harder.

It seems right now aesthetics are out pacing mechanics. So I predict more Bioshock Infinites in the future - games that look amazing and suggest a great world only to disappoint you when interaction is limited and the world seems fake as a result. Ideally, future consoles would focus more on CPU than GPU power in order to facilitate such a catch up.

Which, unfortunately, is just going to make this conversation devolve into a Bad Cody/Good Cody argument, instead of an interesting discussion about game design theory. :(

Even if Korny is 100% right (which I am not sure about, since I don't know what he is using as his example), I am allowed to grow and change my mind as I learn. His point is completely meaningless in the scheme of things and has no bearing on game design (which as you say is the interesting question here). This idea that I am firm and unwavering regarding truth isn't correct. I've changed my stance on many many things over the years, in part due to posts by people like Leviathan and yourself.

Which, unfortunately, is just going to make this conversation devolve into a Bad Cody/Good Cody argument, instead of an interesting discussion about game design theory. :(

Even if Korny is 100% right (which I am not sure about, since I don't know what he is using as his example), I am allowed to grow and change my mind as I learn. His point is completely meaningless in the scheme of things and has no bearing on game design (which as you say is the interesting question here). This idea that I am firm and unwavering regarding truth isn't correct. I've changed my stance on many many things over the years, in part due to posts by people like Leviathan and yourself.

Heh. I actually appreciate that - it's nice to see you acknowledge when you've been convinced by other arguments. :) What I meant by 'absolute' wasn't so much 'I don't change my mind' but more what Kermit has tried to explain to you over the years - it's the WAY you say things, more than WHAT you say, that sets certain people off. I've been asked, many times, why you aren't permabanned from every b.org forum there is, and the answer, past "we don't really do that to ANYONE", is that you DO enjoy conversations, and you DO learn from people who argue with you... even though the way you present your argument makes it really sound like you don't. You've always been a content over presentation type of guy, and I actually appreciate that... but the downside is, you'll be judged harshly by folks who don't appreciate the (lack of) presentation and aren't really willing to listen to the content because of that.

::shrug:: This is nothing new. We've had this conversation many times. I'm simply clarifying because of your last two sentences above.

Which, unfortunately, is just going to make this conversation devolve into a Bad Cody/Good Cody argument, instead of an interesting discussion about game design theory. :(

Even if Korny is 100% right (which I am not sure about, since I don't know what he is using as his example), I am allowed to grow and change my mind as I learn. His point is completely meaningless in the scheme of things and has no bearing on game design (which as you say is the interesting question here). This idea that I am firm and unwavering regarding truth isn't correct. I've changed my stance on many many things over the years, in part due to posts by people like Leviathan and yourself.

Heh. I actually appreciate that - it's nice to see you acknowledge when you've been convinced by other arguments. :) What I meant by 'absolute' wasn't so much 'I don't change my mind' but more what Kermit has tried to explain to you over the years - it's the WAY you say things, more than WHAT you say, that sets certain people off. I've been asked, many times, why you aren't permabanned from every b.org forum there is, and the answer, past "we don't really do that to ANYONE", is that you DO enjoy conversations, and you DO learn from people who argue with you... even though the way you present your argument makes it really sound like you don't. You've always been a content over presentation type of guy, and I actually appreciate that... but the downside is, you'll be judged harshly by folks who don't appreciate the (lack of) presentation and aren't really willing to listen to the content because of that.

::shrug:: This is nothing new. We've had this conversation many times. I'm simply clarifying because of your last two sentences above.

Just have a coding wizard work up a plugin to translate all my posts into Kermit speak, and I'd say problem solved. :-p

Just have a coding wizard work up a plugin to translate all my posts into Kermit speak, and I'd say problem solved. :-p

This'll end well.

Even if Korny is 100% right (which I am not sure about, since I don't know what he is using as his example), I am allowed to grow and change my mind as I learn in my opinion. His point is completely meaningless in the scheme of things and has no bearing on game design (which as you say is the interesting question here) in my opinion. This idea that I am firm and unwavering regarding truth isn't correct in my opinion. I've changed my stance on many many things over the years, in part due to posts by people like Leviathan and yourself in my opinion.

- No text -

- No text -

The film industry is a pretty different story, and the trends are somewhat comparable but there are very important differences. I fear for the future of games, but not movies if that makes sense.

I fear for both, but that might just be morning Levi talking. :) I'm usually more optimistic in the evenings...

The more realistic the graphics, the harder it is to imagine it as something more, and the more easily distracting the flaws are (dead eyes in Ass-ass-in games for example).

This is exactly why games must necessarily get more and more expensive and costly to make. It does not work the other way though! If your graphics are crude, then incredibly complex or realistic mechanics will feel completely out of place and hurt the experience just as much. The mechanics and aesthetics must grow together, and this is becoming harder and harder.

I agree, if the mechanics and story fit better with a realistic style, but it really depends on the specific game and it's inspiration. You can have complex mechanics and more stylized art direction that doesn't require high cost. Unrealistic art styles do not hamper realistic interactions and emotions, they just highlight different aspects of it.

It seems right now aesthetics are out pacing mechanics. So I predict more Bioshock Infinites in the future - games that look amazing and suggest a great world only to disappoint you when interaction is limited and the world seems fake as a result. Ideally, future consoles would focus more on CPU than GPU power in order to facilitate such a catch up.

Only played an hour or two of Bioshock Infinity, so I cant say, but I agree with the notion. Not a perfect analogy, but I'd rather have Halo 2's graphics if that means I could play through the opening battle in the Tip of the Spear cinematic.

I fear for both, but that might just be morning Levi talking. :) I'm usually more optimistic in the evenings...

LOL.

It would have zero effect on 95% of the posters here, so no one would notice. Besides, who could compete with Taylor Swift?

- No text -

"it's silly to build with LEGOs when things like sculpting clay and CNC milling machines exist".

If you are an adult, then yes that is true.

why do you even play video games then? Why play Destiny, when you can play paintball or airsoft? Why play forza, when i can drive a real car? Your whole argument is nonsense. Sometimes i wonder if you are really this dense, or just a huge troll. #makecodygreatagain

*scooters off*

why do you even play video games then? Why play forza, when i can drive a real car?

I actually used to be a navigator in rally racing, so to answer your question, I play video games because you can't be doing cool shit all the time. Plus, video games can take you to worlds where you can't go in real life, which is why Destiny is better than paintball.

- No text -

I saw the Katy Perry 3D concert movie in theaters. Twice.

I saw the Katy Perry 3D concert movie in theaters. Twice.

I would have looked exactly like your DBO avatar the entire time ;)

I saw the Katy Perry 3D concert movie in theaters. Twice.

I would have looked exactly like your DBO avatar the entire time ;)

True story time:

I worked on the episode of the Simpsons where she appears live action with all the puppets. This random girl appeared on set and was wondering around. I wasn't sure who it was. She goes into makeup and doesn't come out. It turns out it was her. She looks so utterly and completely different without being done up I didn't recognize her at all. She was very… normal.

She was nice, and actually pretty funny. The mouths didn't open till she came out of makeup, done up, in that incredibly tight latex red dress.

What did you think of that movie? I also saw it in the theaters twice with my girlfriend. I'm struggling to remember what actually happened in it, other than one particular show when she was crying for some reason but had to put on a happy face.

- No text -

- No text -

What did you think of that movie? I also saw it in the theaters twice with my girlfriend. I'm struggling to remember what actually happened in it, other than one particular show when she was crying for some reason but had to put on a happy face.

I felt kind of bad for her. The way the film was put together made it seem like all of her dressing up and fantasy stuff was the result of her parents not letting her play candyland as a kid, and now she could live out what she missed in childhood. So suddenly it all makes sense.

I actually used to be a navigator in rally racing, so to answer your question, I play video games because you can't be doing cool shit all the time. Plus, video games can take you to worlds where you can't go in real life, which is why Destiny is better than paintball.

If that's really your argument, then you just unraveled your own premise: there are plenty of things you can do in Minecraft that you cannot do in CAD. Likewise, there are tons of things you can do with LEGOs that you can't in clay or on a CNC mill. It works both ways.

In CATIA or NX, I may be able to loft a beautiful 3D model of a new aircraft in a few hours, with perfect curves and gorgeous lines; but can I make a giant circuit out of lava-blocks that plays music with binary switches? NOPE.

I don't think you have to be big to innovative or boundary pushing.

I suppose it's possible, but nearly all games that offer huge leaps are among the most expensive games in their respective genres at the time.

Games based heavily around narrative (Heavy, Rain, life is Strange etc) may be the exception, because writing a better story doesn't cost more money. But creating more sophisticated interaction definitely does.

This is generally a false claim. The bigger the game with the more money involved, the more likely it is to be less innovative and to stick to the formula that the company knows will make money. This is why Madden is the same + 1 feature every year. And CoD, and Tony Hawk, and Guitar Hero, etc etc etc.

Companies would rather ensure that they're going to get their money back.

It's why most MMORPGs in the last 10 years have been WoW clones in one way or another - WoW made money and the investment to make an MMO is huge. Stick with the winning formula, say the suits.

Now, you and I know that's *not* a winning formula, but the people who pull the strings in these matters - the purse strings - are not gamers. They don't understand, at all, what makes game X good and game Y bad. They're business people. When I worked at Activision our CEO was the former CEO of Maytag. She didn't know squat about gaming and she didn't care. She knew how to make shareholders happy, and that's all she did. "Oh, Ninja Gaiden is coming out for Xbox? Don't we have a ninja game? Awesome, push up Tenchu: Return from Darkness to release on the same day." Terrible stupid dumb awful decision making. But the shareholders ate it up. Competitor has ninja game? We have ninja game too! Stock wins! Of course, the quarterly report would show "surprising" losses and "disappointing" sales of the ninja game in question, but that report was months later and the new christmas lineup was announced just beforehand in order to temper a decline in market value.

But I digress.

The more money a company invests in their game, the more they want to guarantee success and ROI. The biggest budget games are almost never groundbreaking, or they're "groundbreaking" for AAA titles but are actually mimicking successful indie game mechanics of another game. This is a LOT like the film industry. Your tentpole films are almost all remakes or spin offs or sequels with straightforward plots and known IPs. Even massive films like Avatar they knew would be decent because (a) Cameron's history and (b) Pocahontas did pretty well and it's pretty much the same story.

We're NOT doing pretty girl popstars two years in a row!!! We have to balance out this year's madness with something in the opposite direction like Frank Zappa or Ween so that DBO doesn't explode or get accidentally deleted by one of its admins in a fit of rage whose username starts with L.

That's not like a threat or something... It's a promise. -_-

- No text -

This is generally a false claim. The bigger the game with the more money involved, the more likely it is to be less innovative and to stick to the formula that the company knows will make money. This is why Madden is the same + 1 feature every year. And CoD, and Tony Hawk, and Guitar Hero, etc etc etc.

Companies would rather ensure that they're going to get their money back.

A failure for a large company is less costly than a failure for an indie studio. As an indie, if you game doesn't sell it could mean shutting down the company. A larger studio or one with a big publisher can take a hit. The profit motive is far more important in the indie world.

Even if we grant your premise, at least that would mean large publishers are at worst being stagnant. Smaller studios go backwards with games that could have been made in and belong in previous decades.

The major shifts you see in design almost all come about by a company who has a lot of backing to create something new. Indie games are generally more risk averse than AAA!

Why hasn't kickstarter created a revolution of industry leading game titles? After all, with that there is zero need to make a profit.

A failure for a large company is less costly than a failure for an indie studio.

In the sense that a large company can survive the hit, sure.

But consider on a project by project level: investors are usually more willing to take a risk when there's less money on the table, regardless of whether the company is big and will survive or not.

I know someone who has worked at lots of small medical startups. An enormous fraction of those companies appear out of nowhere with some interesting research pitch, do the research, and then dissolve and sell off their patents and whatnot if they don't get far enough to establish future profitability (i.e. produce a very marketable product). Occasionally one succeeds, and the investors get a huge return, and when they fail, well, some of the money comes back and it often wasn't a huge loss.

After all, with that there is zero need to make a profit.

If a kickstarter game breaks even, that implies that the developer was actually underwater for a while until a certain time after launch. An independent developer can't live a smooth survival off of non-profitable products. Unless the dev starts off with a lot of capital and can cushion the instability, they absolutely need to make some degree of profit.

Which, unfortunately, is just going to make this conversation devolve into a Bad Cody/Good Cody argument, instead of an interesting discussion about game design theory. :(

Even if Korny is 100% right (which I am not sure about, since I don't know what he is using as his example), I am allowed to grow and change my mind as I learn.

Good Cody! In order to grow, and change your mind as you learn, you need to admit at each and every step that what you know or think you know right now may be wrong.

His point is completely meaningless in the scheme of things and has no bearing on game design (which as you say is the interesting question here).

Bad Cody. I love how you literally pulled a Jekyll-and-Hyde moment in the same paragraph. How do you not have whiplash after writing that?

This idea that I am firm and unwavering regarding truth isn't correct. I've changed my stance on many many things over the years, in part due to posts by people like Leviathan and yourself.

You are absolutely firm and unwavering regarding the truth you think you know at the time, right up until you change it, whereupon you because completely intransigent in your new position and abandon the old one, either pretending that the change never happened, or chalking it up to character-building and kissing ass, as you do above.

If a kickstarter game breaks even, that implies that the developer was actually underwater for a while until a certain time after launch. An independent developer can't live a smooth survival off of non-profitable products. Unless the dev starts off with a lot of capital and can cushion the instability, they absolutely need to make some degree of profit.

Presumably, the asking price for a kickstarter game is what is required to pay the salaries of those working on the game. Why does my game have to turn a profit if everybody gets paid their salary by the backers?

This idea that I am firm and unwavering regarding truth isn't correct. I've changed my stance on many many things over the years, in part due to posts by people like Leviathan and yourself.

You are absolutely firm and unwavering regarding the truth you think you know at the time, right up until you change it, whereupon you because completely intransigent in your new position and abandon the old one, either pretending that the change never happened, or chalking it up to character-building and kissing ass, as you do above.

You're just mad I didn't name you as a source of change :-p

What you said doesn't make sense. If I am unwavering, how can I ever change my mind?

intransigent

Dude, use words people actually know. It makes communication easier. :-)

Presumably, the asking price for a kickstarter game is what is required to pay the salaries of those working on the game. Why does my game have to turn a profit if everybody gets paid their salary by the backers?

If the asking price is what's required to pay the salaries, you'd turn a profit if you sold even a single copy.

But even that kind of sucks in the event of a market failure, because there's no post-development cushion; you can't support the game and everyone suddenly has no income and needs to find another job.

Presumably, the asking price for a kickstarter game is what is required to pay the salaries of those working on the game. Why does my game have to turn a profit if everybody gets paid their salary by the backers?

If the asking price is what's required to pay the salaries, you'd turn a profit if you sold even a single copy.

What?

Not even close.

https://www.shrm.org/research/articles/articles/pages/metricofthemonthsalariesaspercentageofoperatingexpense.aspx

Salaries range between 20% and 50% of all expenses, varying by sector.

For an indie game startup the percentage may be higher, but it is not 100%. Ever. Even for a sole proprietor. In fact, especially not for a sole proprietor, because they usually get paid last.

What?

Not even close.

https://www.shrm.org/research/articles/articles/pages/metricofthemonthsalariesaspercentageofoperatingexpense.aspx

Salaries range between 20% and 50% of all expenses, varying by sector.

For an indie game startup the percentage may be higher, but it is not 100%. Ever. Even for a sole proprietor. In fact, especially not for a sole proprietor, because they usually get paid last.

Okay, I'll modify that to "all expenses during the development period", which I think is what Cody was implying, even if the language was obviously imprecise.

Presumably, the asking price for a kickstarter game is what is required to pay the salaries of those working on the game. Why does my game have to turn a profit if everybody gets paid their salary by the backers?

If the asking price is what's required to pay the salaries, you'd turn a profit if you sold even a single copy.

But even that kind of sucks in the event of a market failure, because there's no post-development cushion; you can't support the game and everyone suddenly has no income and needs to find another job.

You either do another kickstarter, or you get financiers :-) If your game was good neither should be hard!

This idea that I am firm and unwavering regarding truth isn't correct. I've changed my stance on many many things over the years, in part due to posts by people like Leviathan and yourself.

You are absolutely firm and unwavering regarding the truth you think you know at the time, right up until you change it, whereupon you because completely intransigent in your new position and abandon the old one, either pretending that the change never happened, or chalking it up to character-building and kissing ass, as you do above.

You're just mad I didn't name you as a source of change :-p

Good god, no. Claude can take that bait if he likes but leave me the heck out of it. You can keep any real or imagined credit for altering your own opinions anything I've ever said might ever have had, and we'll recognize any actual agreement between us as coincidence :)

What you said doesn't make sense. If I am unwavering, how can I ever change my mind?

You're unwavering until you waver. That's my point. You put up a false front of confidence in your beliefs right up until it is unsustainable, and then you put on a show of being open minded and growing as a person and solidify your new belief. You did it right here, in this thread, where you claimed to understand that it was necessary to accept the fact that sometimes you're wrong about things and to be willing to change your mind, and then in the very next breath proclaimed the absolute wrongness and irrelevance of someone else's opinion.

So you've either actually got way more confidence in your opinions than is warranted, or you actually have less, but feel it necessary to project that confidence when expressing your opinion, either because you feel no one will pay attention to it unless you do, or because you feel it necessary to attack other positions pre-emptively to gain an advantage in an upcoming argument. Only you know which, I suppose.

You did it right here, in this thread, where you claimed to understand that it was necessary to accept the fact that sometimes you're wrong about things and to be willing to change your mind, and then in the very next breath proclaimed the absolute wrongness and irrelevance of someone else's opinion.

Because it's true? Korny's ad hominem has no bearing on the point at hand regarding Portals through Portals. You should know that; it's a classic logical fallacy.