If anything, they are crazy low. Other AAA titles have run much higher costs.Gilrond said:
If you don't produce into mass markets where a million unit sales is kind of a minimum expectation, you don't understand how much first-class professional (read, "expensive") marketing is needed.
Also, do not forget that this is not paid for out of development capital.
Guy N'wah: I see, you answered above that marketing expenses include those spent after the sales begin. So if you count only those which are spent before the product is out, they should be lower.
That is not what I said. What I said was marketing expenses aren't borne by the developer. They're borne by the distributor and recovered through sales discounts. Whether any of those $25 million costs are incurred before or after sales is not something CDPR stated and not something I stated. The point is, the distributor has to front them. CDPR doesn't pay them until there are sales.Gilrond said:
Distributors would be a worthless pack of parasites if they didn't bring anything to the party. What they bring is deep pockets for promotion and creative staff that knows how to promote games. The importance of a distributor lies in this, not whether they get into catfights with you over DRM.
@LordWooFakFak64:
First of all, CDP has ~20 years of experience as a publisher/distributor, so one would think they know how the business works.
Having a budget for marketing larger than the budget for production is nothing new nor uncommon in games industry or elsewhere. You may think that it's about diverting resources from production (ergo the game will be less than it might've been), but the bottom line is what's most important in the business. There will be no resources to spend on the production should the income not be sufficient. Bigger production budgets are possible only when the company's income is also bigger, and sadly a good product does not usually sell well by itself.
Plus I find it likely that at least some part of the marketing budget will cover various kinds of merchandise, which could bring some additional profit.
And, there is no single piggy bank where all the money is, both for production and marketing. As Guy said, marketing will be up to distributors, with them financing it, and only then it will be deducted from CDPR's income. So it's not as if CDPR is diverting any money from production.
As for lets plays, I think you overestimate their reach. It's all well that you check them before making a purchase, but you're a bit too small a sample to be called representative. TW2 had quite a lot of lets play videos, and had some exposure on the most prominent Youtube gaming channels, but it's still easy to find people who've never even heard of TW. (Well, at least it was easy few months back
) So I wouldn't overestimate the influence of such communication channels where broad audience is considered.
And I want to point out the fact that even though the game is being developed in Poland, which implies lower production costs, the marketing is targeted worldwide, so the budget must include higher work and material costs, like the ones expected in Western Europe or North America.
First of all, CDP has ~20 years of experience as a publisher/distributor, so one would think they know how the business works.
Having a budget for marketing larger than the budget for production is nothing new nor uncommon in games industry or elsewhere. You may think that it's about diverting resources from production (ergo the game will be less than it might've been), but the bottom line is what's most important in the business. There will be no resources to spend on the production should the income not be sufficient. Bigger production budgets are possible only when the company's income is also bigger, and sadly a good product does not usually sell well by itself.
Plus I find it likely that at least some part of the marketing budget will cover various kinds of merchandise, which could bring some additional profit.
And, there is no single piggy bank where all the money is, both for production and marketing. As Guy said, marketing will be up to distributors, with them financing it, and only then it will be deducted from CDPR's income. So it's not as if CDPR is diverting any money from production.
As for lets plays, I think you overestimate their reach. It's all well that you check them before making a purchase, but you're a bit too small a sample to be called representative. TW2 had quite a lot of lets play videos, and had some exposure on the most prominent Youtube gaming channels, but it's still easy to find people who've never even heard of TW. (Well, at least it was easy few months back
And I want to point out the fact that even though the game is being developed in Poland, which implies lower production costs, the marketing is targeted worldwide, so the budget must include higher work and material costs, like the ones expected in Western Europe or North America.
http://www.google.com/think/articles/youtube-marketing-to-gamers.html
There is for you a link in english with a pdf to read if you are really interested talking about youtube and gaming. It is a study made by google i found it interesting that gaming on youtube is growing bigger each year (brand content and community content approximatly 50/50 in term of views). This is a bit out of subject but hey thats for your study i guess.
And where did you saw i was talking about zero cost game promotion? If i made a mistake in my numbers im sorry i saw that on a very serious belgium news site, i didnt made them but that doesnt matter you gave us the right numbers. And i dont want to spread fear into the forum thats kindof ridiculous seriously..
@darcier:
I agree with you, but we all know that most of people who will buy the game wont be 18+ and trust me those know how to use internet, better than me (and i knew windows 3.1, amiga, etc...).
They know how to search what they are looking for.
There is for you a link in english with a pdf to read if you are really interested talking about youtube and gaming. It is a study made by google i found it interesting that gaming on youtube is growing bigger each year (brand content and community content approximatly 50/50 in term of views). This is a bit out of subject but hey thats for your study i guess.
And where did you saw i was talking about zero cost game promotion? If i made a mistake in my numbers im sorry i saw that on a very serious belgium news site, i didnt made them but that doesnt matter you gave us the right numbers. And i dont want to spread fear into the forum thats kindof ridiculous seriously..
@darcier:
I agree with you, but we all know that most of people who will buy the game wont be 18+ and trust me those know how to use internet, better than me (and i knew windows 3.1, amiga, etc...).
They know how to search what they are looking for.
Another thing to underestimate is how many people watch Let's Plays to determine if they want it. A lot of people watch them for the personalities playing the games. AH releases videos of games I'd never play myself, but I watch them for the entertainment value brought on by the players.
The article basically shows that there's more and more videos about games on YT, and that they're being watched by more and more people. Which is all good, but it's not the crucial point of the issue. Specifically, it does not tell us a thing about how big part of all gamers population are the gamers in the article, i.e. regularly using YT to find out about games. There is the statement about 95% of gamers turning to online videos on YT, but the statement is incredibly flawed as gamers are defined "as YouTube visitors who had at least three visits to a specified set of video game websites in the previous quarter". So 95% of Youtube visitors being gamers (who are defined as Youtube visitors themselves) seeks gaming videos. Wow. It could be on a meme.
Obviously YT being part of Google that's doing research on how attractive YT is for marketing strategies has nothing to do with it
/>
Obviously YT being part of Google that's doing research on how attractive YT is for marketing strategies has nothing to do with it
Guys, let's not make the devs sit together in an emergency worrying if their finances are arranged well enough!
Joke aside: What defines Triple A anyway. If I spend 20 million on making a game, am I automatically considered triple A? Or does it stand for quality? If the latter is the case I have doubts with some games they call triple A. It's pretty misleading then.
Joke aside: What defines Triple A anyway. If I spend 20 million on making a game, am I automatically considered triple A? Or does it stand for quality? If the latter is the case I have doubts with some games they call triple A. It's pretty misleading then.
It is a marketing business term nothing more. AAA titles are expected to sell well. Sad.
A triple A title is the equivalent to a Hollywood summer blockbuster. It has a huge budget (including a very large marketing budget), a high level of mainstream hype and will likely be reviewed favourably.
A triple A title is the equivalent to a Hollywood summer blockbuster. It has a huge budget (including a very large marketing budget), a high level of mainstream hype and will likely be reviewed favourably.
Only in the case where spending more money on production is necessary to meet some criteria for making the product.slimgrin said:
I find this term not useful at all and it is misleading. Most imply by AAA some projects with huge budgets. But it doesn't really imply anything about quality. So it doesn't help you to evaluate something on its merits. I really have no idea why should you care more about the budget, than about the end result. So whether it's AAA, BBB or indie or what not. That's not what makes something good for you.Senteria said:
AAA does imply that the game will have high production values. Not necessarily that the game will be engaging or play well, but at least that it will use the best technology the developers can use, that it will look as good as other first-class games of the same season, and that all details down to and including the packaging are under creative control. It also implies that the game will be professionally promoted in an effort to assure sales of enough copies to cover costs even if it's a flop.
So, no, it doesn't imply that the game is good, but it does imply that it meets certain industry qualities even though those do not equate to goodness. It can be used misleadingly, but it is more or less well defined and not inherently misleading.
So, no, it doesn't imply that the game is good, but it does imply that it meets certain industry qualities even though those do not equate to goodness. It can be used misleadingly, but it is more or less well defined and not inherently misleading.
My point is that if the game isn't good in your perception, why should you care about "industry qualities"? Any amount of money spent on promotion and visuals won't make it better as an end product, if for example the end result is dull and boring and etc. Quality doesn't only refer to available tools and marketing. Quality encompasses many aspects including creative talent and desire to make something really interesting (rather than really profitable because many people are going to buy it). Therefore AAA term is somewhat misleading. It mostly describes the amount of resources available for the project creation and promotion (i.e. a lot of them). But it doesn't really describe many other aspects which are valuable for players. Resources can be wasted if those who apply them have no clue how to use them, while others with way less resources can create a masterpiece.
What are industry qualities? Compare it with AAA movies. Such movies may have battle scenes with hundreds, if not thousands background actors, set in exotic locations, have huge sets build just for the purpose of filming. Sure, it requires a lot of work and money, but it is not something a B or indie movie can afford. Such movie can be a flop, but still it contains something no indie movie would have.
The same with video games, only in terms of a scale and artistic quality of 3D environments, quality and complexity of animations, quality of video cut-scenes, quality of a sound track, and so on. Sure, such game may still be flops, but no low-budget or indie will be able to create such assets. There are good low budget or indie games (though I personally never liked any indi game I tried, they all looked like student exercises to me), but they are good despite being simplistic, or having sub par tech, and not because of it.
The same with video games, only in terms of a scale and artistic quality of 3D environments, quality and complexity of animations, quality of video cut-scenes, quality of a sound track, and so on. Sure, such game may still be flops, but no low-budget or indie will be able to create such assets. There are good low budget or indie games (though I personally never liked any indi game I tried, they all looked like student exercises to me), but they are good despite being simplistic, or having sub par tech, and not because of it.
A lot of spent resources and used super computers don't make every film an Avatar. You need James Cameron after all. Yes, more resources give more potential. But what you value in the end isn't the potential, but the actual result.