The Cost Of Doing Business (The Jimquisition)

[@hairychris444]

Whenever I read "AAA" I read it in your voice now. Thanks for that.

[@lordofgangstas]

hairychris444 Don’t you mean “TWIPPUL-AYYYYY”

[@darkolli]

TTTRRRRIIBBLE AYY

[@NatrajChaturvedi]

hairychris444 me too lmao

[@MentalParadox]

I prefer "player choice"!

[@hairychris444]

Yes. The utter bastard. Thank god etc.

[@devilmikey00]

If you ever find yourself defending a corporation regarding money related issues then follow these steps 1) Look up their yearly fiscal reports for the previous 5 years 2) Be shocked how full of shit they are as you marvel at how many billions they've made in pure profit. 3) Then look inward and self reflect upon realizing you've been played for a fool by a corporate PR department. Seriously unless you have a personal financial stake in one of these businesses your default mode of thinking should be utter and complete skepticism about every written or said word coming from them. They want us to believe games are too expensive and needed to be chopped up and sold in micro-transaction sized bits? Then they have to PROVE IT. They need to give us detailed cost reports for every single big game out there if they expect us to swallow this load of horse shit they are shoveling.

[@Roxor128]

Even if you HAVE spent a few thousand bucks on shares in them, your default mode of thinking should be scepticism. When the Commonwealth Bank (one of Australia's big four banks) was found to have incompetently handled the monitoring on its ATMs for potential money-laundering, my immediate reaction was "Fine them $10 billion!" (for scale, they have a market capitalisation on the order of $100 billion), and I have $6000 worth of shares in them. I don't really care if a third of my portfolio gets wiped out as long as the idiots get punished.

[@mikeandyholloway]

In case anyone was wondering, EA made over 4 Billion last year. Four. Billion. Dollars. How's that for "Extra Credits"?

[@Zullv]

Absolutely true. How is this even an issue? You can find any big publisher's fiscal year report and they are always making shitloads of money.

[@xIronMikex]

PIN THIS MANS COMMENT please Jim!

[@jodypschaeffer]

As an animator, seeing industry people disregard actual voice talent in favor of overpriced, under-qualified Hollywood actors is a source of never-ending frustration for me.

[@cielphantomhive4622]

Jody Schaeffer Boston but they’re hip and cool and the kiddy’s will love them :D

[@Lugbzurg]

David Hayter > Whoever that new guy was

[@clearlynotaneldritchhorror8798]

Lugbzurg I had never played a MGS game before Phantom Pain but the second I heard the voice in game they replaced David Hayter with I thought who the hell is talking and had to kept looking all over the screen trying to figure out witch character voice that was.

[@xmm-cf5eg]

I still want to beat the shit out of Kojima for hating David Hayter basically since the start of Metal Gear games with voiceacting. I like MGS and hate Konami, but very few people are ever critical of Kojima's bullshit perspectives on things.

[@phillipharrison8463]

Shows how out of touch AAA publishers are with their audience. Is an A-lister such a draw that it justifies their fee? If yes then Hollywood voice actor costs are a non-issue. If no why the hell do they hire them?

[@SkillUp]

No disrespect to Extra Credits since I really like their stuff, but that video really didn't paint a very robust or balanced view of this situation. It lacked basic research rigour. Many of their points are disproven by a quick glance at publicly available annual reports.

[@ZeroKitsune]

I normally love their videos and I genuinely wonder what was up with those, I feel like they usually do better work than that.

[@Rebby2000]

I think part of the what's going on with them is that they all are, or have recently been, actively employed on the dev side of things. Iirc, at least one of them doing so in the employ of a AAA dev, though I could be wrong about that part. Either way, there's a degree bias in there both because of self preservation and not wanting to burn bridges they might very well need later on. That said, they really, really don't seem to get what should be included in budgets given they were basically listing start up costs.

[@fehoobar]

Extra Credits being shallow and based on mostly 'well I think...' ? Say it ain't so! Honestly, 99% of their videos are like that, poorly researched thought pieces that work well in giving small glimpses into the ecosystem, but like Jim points out, they have a distinct bias and are probably afraid to step out of their box in fear of retribution.

[@alritedave]

Skill Up Extra Credits are alright, but they're too close to the industry to be objective IMO.

[@Triandel]

Quick glance at annual reports? xD 20% is not "massivly" proffitable, for a company that needs to keep investors... For example Activision blizzard stock is traded @ 65 dollars, microsoft is traded @85 but there are 5 times as many microsoft stocks in existence that they gurantee a certain equity % on, which would put Activision blizzard in direct competition with for example microsoft for investor money, which is their lifeblood. And that is not to mention that 65 dollars with the amounts of stocks available, is really shit compared to for example apple microsoft or google... even sony is doing shit atm. I know you think Jim goes ohh so far into detail, but he is mostly using anecdotal evidence when there is factual evidence available. Further more if its such a profitable business, then why are there not springing new triple A producers up everyday and factually they are doing the opposite, and have been doing so since the gaming industries inception... even with the most of the world having legislated against monopolies... just look at the recent lawsuit against AT&TTW ..

[@JimSterling]

I mentioned it in the video but I want to reiterate it in the comments. It seems so telling that the demands of the majority shareholders are always totally forgotten when the behavior of the "AAA" industry is defended. The demands of "gamers" will be talked about all day long, but the people publishers are *really* trying to please get conveniently left off the table.

[@NotAGoodUsername360]

Jim Sterling "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

[@Buster_real]

If they don't want to talk about something, maybe talking about it will reveal something incommodious...

[@disinformatique]

Anyone defending the pathetic current AAA industry players are shills and collaborators.

[@mrECisME]

'Like Every Company Ever' (Well Public Company Anyway). If you think a game is too expensive or don't like loot boxes etc. don't buy it, share price goes down, they will change their behaviour. viva capitalism!

[@Vivi2372]

Refusing to buy their games because of predatory consumer practices doesn't necessarily mean the share price will go down.

[@Slick_Tails]

You see, even IF it was true that games were incredibly expensive to make and micro-transactions were absolutely necessary to ensure profit... I don't care. It's not the customer's job to prop up the industry; it's up to the industry to convince us to part with our cash. If gamers all around the world decided on a whim to stop buying games and the industry crumbled into dust, not a single consumer should feel even the slightest bit of guilt or shame. Not. One. Bit.

[@LosgehtsFCB]

Exactly. I'm glad someone said it. AAA corporations tell us it's *our* fault if they aren't making enough money and that we *need* to buy their games, regardless of quality. No. It's up to them to make something worth spending our money on. We owe them nothing.

[@Slick_Tails]

комиссар из чееки брееки Yup. The people who insist that we as gamers should "pay up" to support the industry and use sob stories of developer bankruptcy seem to forget that companies go bust around the world, all the damn time. From restaurants and pubs to book publishers, plastic manufacturers, dairies, newsagents, movie studios, breweries, supermarkets, department stores, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers... It's called "competition." Not everyone can be a winner. Should we all collectively feel shame because we didn't give any money toward the million or so businesses out there? Should we weep the loss of Blockbusters? No matter who our money goes to, someone is missing out who probably put all their effort, blood, sweat, tears, time and money into their work. Should we collectively feel guilt and attempt to help those who subjectively work the hardest even if we have no need or interest in their products? Or do we buy the things we want? Pretty simple, really. So developers can go ahead and spend 1 billion dollars on a game with photoreaslitic graphics, realistic physics and Hollywood voice talent... But if it looks boring I'd rather play Tetris instead. I certainly never asked them to spend all that money.

[@LosgehtsFCB]

SohJinh Yep. You summed it up perfectly.

[@PinkManGuy]

The thing is, I actually do weep for blockbusters, more for the implications that it brings. It feels like now that the games industry is as big as it is, they don't need to cater to the "filthy poors" who won't (see: can't afford to) buy a brand new copy of a game. Renting Call of Duty each year allowed me to play it with my peers and not be left out, whereas if I had have needed to buy it, I would not have been able to afford it. I grew up not exactly poor but not wealthy either, so it was either rent a game twice a month or wait for a sale. Now that I work as a technician I have plenty of disposable income, so it's no longer MY problem. That said, with the loss of physical media I cringe at all the children of today who are excluded from playing games with their peers, because they have no choice but to buy the game, and it's just not viable to their home finances.

[@Slick_Tails]

@@PinkManGuy In terms of renting games there are options like Gamefly, if I'm not mistaken.

[@VidyaBros1]

I remember when Iwata took a paycut to avoid firing anyone. What a humble humble man and I miss him so much. I cried so much when he died. He was one game industry person who actually cared for his fans and his employees. He had a huge heart. I didn't agree with every decision he made but I still appreciate the things he has done for games we all grew up with.

[@kyotheman69]

Nintendo still does shitty practices, but at lease they keep their employee's and make them happy, Nintendo is like only "creative" company left, Nintendo is marketing cardboard give it to Nintendo to think outside of the box instead playing it "safe"

[@Sniperbear13]

if only other company's had that heart. not JUST game publishers/developers at that.

[@Lyrikle]

It's less thinking "outside" the box and more what they could do with the box, use it's cardboard to make switch add ons that's what.

[@DaSquareful]

Squishy Blue yeah I think LABO is actually a great idea, the 3D modelling community has been creating and sharing hardware mods for years now and thats definitely a potential foothold for the switch

[@VidyaBros1]

kyotheman69 To be fair only Nintendo can come up with an idea like that and make it somehow work. I won't get Nintendo Labo when it comes out but I am excited for those who are excited for it. If I had kids I would probably get it for them.

[@NachtBogen]

*remembers massive evolve monster that was dragged around to cons and live action destiny trailers that told us nothing about the game* yep can't figure out why marketing costs so much.

[@lnsflare1]

Nacht Bogen To be fair, that was mostly developed as a sex toy.

[@NachtBogen]

lnsflare1 huh that would explain the weird sexual urges I got around the thing

[@ManoredRed]

To me, trailers without gameplay might as well just be a few minutes of a dude farting in front of a green screen for all the good they do for my interest in the game.

[@Gamemaster13000]

Iwata took a pay cut to adjust costs? Man Iwata really is the Avatar, when the world needed him the most, he vanished.

[@coreylineberry8557]

jpc1918 Hence why Pokemon GS Actually existed.

[@TiStardust]

Stop Hating On Aqua And the cult icon EarthBound!

[@noterictalbott6102]

That EA Battlefront loot box spider was great.

[@noterictalbott6102]

So much talent all around.

[@somerandoasshatontheintern8337]

agree. that was hilarious.

[@Silly_Cat_Menace]

I'm a massive arachnophobe but even I, in my absolute fear, could see past the fear and was just absolutely mind blown by how amazing these artists are. A huge congratulations to all the artists involved! I'm now terrified of opening my mouth now, though.

[@planescaped]

Shove those loot boxes down that throat more and more...

[@AegixDrakan]

Speaking as a writer who got to witness voice recording for an indie game... You'd be surprised at the sheer amazing talent you can get with standard union actors. Getting big celebrity names for millions of dollars is stupid when you can get actual pros who know their business for a hell of a lot cheaper.

[@kainhighwind2]

Yeah, but Nolan North doesn't draw in the casual crowd like Peter Dinklage does. Gotta get that fantasy fanbase interested in our sci fi game!

[@tenyearsinthejoint1]

Like when kojima hired Kiefer Sutherland to say a few lines in MGSV

[@TheNzFox]

It is unlikely that that same casual crowd even know who is doing the voice acting of a game before they buy it. I am a 'hard core' gamer, and I can count the number of times I have known a voice actor was in a game (before playing it) on one hand, sure after they start speaking it can be 'hey...isn't that Doug Cockle?!?!' but that doesn't affect the purchase.

[@raymondthrone7197]

There's this weird perception in the industry that because people care about actors in movies, even voice-actors in animated movies, that they'll care about actors in video games. It sounds logical enough I suppose, but I don't think any visible evidence whatsoever has backed up that assumption. I personally suspect that since text is still the primary mode of expository information transfer in most video games, players just don't go into games with the presumption that the voice acting is an important part of the game. They might hold that opinion while and after they've finished actually playing it, but it isn't part of their initial biases guiding their purchase.

[@doctoradventure413]

I have a friend who voiced the main heroine in Goodbye Ren (it’s a Japanese game and it might not be out yet) and they’re not even a girl they’re a 17 year old male and it was his first time voice acting and he’s already being interviewed for other voice roles

[@MrJWTH]

Iwata was also a skilled game designer so that likely put him in a different boat than other executives.

[@darkmega97]

Always nice when the guy in charge actually has a fucking clue about what he's working on

[@liwendiamond9223]

It the only way to run business as far as I'm concerned. You pick your best people who know the trade, you put them in charge. Effective. Low Overheads. Reliable. And they actually sometimes have a soul, unlike all the douche bags who come out of Business Academy with a Devil's Degree In Screwing People For Money.

[@0ctopusComp1etely]

That burn was savage. And very satisfying.

[@TehBurek]

A masterful programmer also, as hardcore as anyone else on the team. When deadlines come knocking, he'd come down to the trenches to help the team fix whatever's left, squeeze those extra bytes and CPU cycles out to make the game fit and run well. He's truly an inspiration, if there ever was one.

[@Sonichero151]

What did we as a species ever do do deserve such a man........

[@mitchellhorton9382]

Lol. Jim asks for a fan made modification to an asset assetflippers use all the time. Fan makes a superior game to all the asset flippers in a week.

[@pjc_cahill]

^^^ that.

[@TheRogueWolf]

Amazing what someone with actual talent can do when they apply that talent!

[@Strange_Bard]

Heck if it wasn't too expensive I'd probably pay for a copy just to support that pure raw talent.

[@therealbahamut]

But games are TOO EXPENSIVE TO MAAAAAAAKE! Point disproven by our winner, wouldn't you say?

[@plasmaoctopus1728]

I think also people don't seem to mention.... AAA game devs are probably some of the biggest sources of content recycling. Just look at how similar assets and weapons in games like battlefield and cod are similar even when they change the fucking time period entirely.

[@Denji2006]

Okay, so if games are "too expensive to make", then why are giant multi-million dollar game companies always seemingly making bad financial decisions, yet somehow survive and make profits? (Based on that logic)

[@DragonNexus]

See also why are games so expensive to make and yet every year they make and boast about record profits. Or at worst "profits are lower than before". People see the phrase "Profits are down" and kinda assume that means they lost money. No no...they still made more money than they spent. Hence the word "profit". They just didn't make as much as they wanted to.

[@xxCrazyIzzyxx]

The same way other massive businesses do it; a combination of enough money built up that stupid choices aren't felt and the people on the top tiers of the corporation have NO fucking clue how the business they are in actually fucking works. Every idiotic corporate choice seems like a good one until the alarm sounds and everyone up top needs to start getting their golden parachutes ready. Speaking from personal experience so I'm a bit biased and bitter.

[@jackmcallister1256]

Because they are required by law to satisfy the investors in that company if they are a publicly traded company. As such investors inspect a return on their investment in that company which equates to the price of that company's stock going up. The value of a company's stock goes up when it makes a considerable amount of money and goes up further the more the make. So investors expect a maximization of profit for these games being released. So the company tries to find as many ways to monetize it to please the investor's unrealistic expectations of growth and income. I remember hearing about investors and members of the board of directors at a big company, think it was EA, complaining about about most talk was about games and not the actual act of doing business, increasing profits, etc. This is the type of person these companies have to please, the unpleasable, the ever insatiable investor who will jump ship at the slightest provocation of something not being enough.

[@Yal_Rathol]

xxCrazyIzzyxx which probably explains why nintendo isn't in the same boat as everyone else. their CEO's have always been part of the industries they stick their fingers in, not just men in suits. look at iwata, started as a programmer, ended as CEO. had a stint where he was tired of CEO and wanted to program again.

[@ZombieBarioth]

Yal Rathol He also seemed have a much easier time dealing with investors. I doubt he ignored them like some people like to think, rather Nintendo is such a consistently profitable company (seriously, the Wii U losses were their first recorded net losses) that he probably had a fair bit of leeway. If he said everything would be ok or this or that needed to be done they were probably more willing to believe him. Although they also do own the majority of their own shares, so they have more say than other companies too.

[@Hobobatman1000]

My favorite argument for the cost of doing business is "the gamers' demand for better graphics". You know, because I've always wanted to pay $100 plus in-game microtransactions for a game that runs at 20fps at minimum settings and crashes every time it tries to load over 100 props or a dozen NPCs.

[@blondbraid7986]

What, doesn't everyone want a game that's guaranteed to melt your computer? :P

[@ImaTroper]

To be fair that WAS the major selling point of crysis. Then again that was a 60 dollar game so nvm.

[@Superschokokeks]

Crysis is a good point, but its graphics were waaaaaaaaaaaay ahead of its time. It's still look very pretty today and the gameplay - at least the first half was more or less unique (linear.. sandbox/open level (more so than crysis 3) with super abilities) for its time. Most of the AAA games nowaday doesn't look much better than the year before and the competition (but what will you do if you reach reality more and more and more... isn't much room to improve) and the gameplay is lackluster.. and has season pass and microtransaction

[@Beatdoof]

That's you though. I'm sure there's a lot of untalked about hardcore gamers who love spouting "4K GRAPHICS RAARGHRAARGH" and can run these games perfectly on their expensive as shit rig. Not justifying the bullshit AAA industry pulls, but let's not pretend nobody plays AAA games.

[@Sonichero151]

And god knows I would gladly buy a game I cannot even fucking run on my PC because the graphics are so shiny and detailed that my potatotop's graphics card cries and craps itself to death if I even try to get to the start menu.

[@annme_87]

Judging those horrid spiders must have been such a daunting task. So much awesome talent to choose from. You're all freaking amazing. Congrats to the winner and runner up. You really earned it.

[@nickalotdegit]

I would definitely buy "The Sterling Saint and The Wrath of Spider McCider". And frame it.

[@jintarokensei3308]

I also made a game, but I think I may have sent it to the wrong email. Also I was 1 day late. 😑

[@thomaster8870]

Was there a horrid spider wearing rolerbllades?

[@jintarokensei3308]

Thomaster шлепанцы nah, a pirate clown with an explosive afro. Goal was to blow up EA or Activision.

[@josephineparsons78]

Half of these things are massively grotesque and disgusting and I actually love them

[@unvergebeneid]

Marketing is the point I get the least. You pay an amount X on marketing to increase your sales by some amount > X. If you're spending more on marketing than the expected increase in revenue, you're clearly doing marketing wrong. If, however, the marketing _increases_ your bottom line, then it's obviously worth every penny and _decreases_ the net cost of making a game, not increases it. Similar arguments could be made about the other costs as well: there's a sweet spot for graphics spending for example, so hit that sweet spot and stop complaining.

[@lemeres2478]

paul marketing mostly just makes sure women are in skimpy clothes, makes sure everything is grey and brown, and makes sure everything is more like call of duty in order to appeal to the whims of 12 year olds that they are not even targeting as their audience.

[@darkmyro]

honestly, graphics never matter, people think it maters, but its one of those things that is least important to a game. Graphics might be a selling point, but they never equal sales. The wii out sold everyone and it had the worst graphics of any console of it's generation. The game boy outsold every handheld it went up against, many of which were graphically better.The PS2 had worse graphics than the xbox and it vastly out sold it. both the NES and the super NES out sold every system they went against. Now this isn't to say increases in graphical fidelity aren't worth going after, but I can get a copy of super Mario brothers and have just as much fun as I can with something like assassins creed. Graphics don't matter.

[@lordythegreat88]

thats it, if you play CoD you know every November there will be a new one. Don't need a 100k appearance from RDJ to let you know

[@howell2010]

I don't know if this is true or not, but it is something that was brought up to me about something else by someone not in games at all. He said Marketing is a tax write-off. You pay for it now, and get it back at the end of the year. I don't know if it is true, but if it is, I feel like that would put a whole new angle on this.

[@lordythegreat88]

So basically taking the piss to avoid paying taxes. Could've donated to charity instead lol poor form if true

[@lemeres2478]

"Microtransactions are player choice" "But if the players don't choose to buy our microtransactions, then we will not have enough money to buy little timmy a new leg, and we will ahve to put down all the puppies because we cannot afford to feed them"

[@julianx2rl]

NO! NOT THE PUPPIES!

[@bass-dc9175]

Meanwhile MHW lead dev: "Our focus is on wanting to get people to play our action game and feel the kind of satisfaction that comes with the achievement you get with completing a hunt and getting rewards. We want people to have the experience that we've made for them rather than the option to skip the experience." No Lootboxes, No Pushed Microtransactions, No Paid DLC (Free DLC instead) 60$ for the full game and you actually GET the full game. Sold more copies than any game released by capcom since 2009 (And matching Resi 5, slowly surpassing it, which would make it the best selling capcom game since 1991) Yes: A Tripple-A Game, on a new engine, With massively improved graphics with Free DLC with custom made quests did NOT require microtransactions.

[@ironrose6]

julianx2rl Quick, feed them Timmy's good leg!

[@ingamingpc1634]

You're right micro transactions are players choice and I choose not to buy them

[@kingwilson2399]

I said this on Extra Credits video and I’ll say it again... The fact employees have to sleep in their offices and then get laid off is wrong- especially considering the massive tax dodges a company like ActiBlizzard proveably has. A TON of their money is being hoarded away in off shore accounts until some law they’d like to dip their hands in comes up. Companies like Blizzard are just making the bare minimum that people who are already hooked on the brand will accept and not using any of their precious Lobby money to spread the success among workers. It’s a fucking -joke- that a share holder will make more money than a real, talented game dev who looses sleep and family time while that corporate son of a bitch is sitting back watching the money come in. Working conditions for all game devs world wide are deplorable, and the sooner fans and workers realize this, the better. I hope one day creators of media and consumers of it can come together and find a way to better balance buisness, art and basic human needs.

[@miguelyampolsky9164]

I'm a fan of Extra Credits, but Jim in this one puts the better argument. The thing that the people who defend the fact that games should be more expensive are missing the point of economics. The price of what you create is not defined by you, it is defined by the amount of money people are willing to pay for it. If you have a product and "industry wisdom" says you can't raise the price then it can mean 2 things: that people won't pay more for the product (in which case you can't raise the price) or that the "industry wisdom" is wrong and you should raise it. Since the price of games hasn't risen then we can assume that the industry is correct in not rising the price. The point Im trying to make is that if rising the price of games were viable they would have already done it, we live in a capitalistic society for god's sake

[@AegixDrakan]

Not to mention that in a capitalist society, the shareholders REALLY pull a lot of strings. Anyone remember "Horror games are dead"? The gamers didn't decide that, the shareholders did. They were like "Horror games don't make us as much money as action games, therefore, we won't make any more horror games".

[@MrLordDorfmann]

Corporations are kinda like feudal kingdoms in the sense that occasionally you get CEO that's a decent human being (like Iwata). The problem is, at best what kind of leader you get is completely random, and often the odds are very bad because selfish and greedy people are better at becoming and remaining CEOs. The whole system needs to be burned to the ground.

[@clresseg]

Facts.

[@bdz_4206]

Ohh, nice observation, well put! It's the scarcity mindset. The basic assumption when using a monetary system. A Resource Based Economy is a proper alternative and hopefully we'll get skip the whole burning the system to the ground thing.

[@thriceandonce]

Visuals are important to me. That doesn't mean I want everything to be 100% hyperrealistic. It just means I like things looking nice. And that can be done with a lot of other art styles, damnit!

[@budakbaongsiah]

Sylv Aine Art direction matters more than graphical fidelity, right?

[@wadespencer3623]

I think the best looking Zelda games (that I've played) are Minish Cap and Wind Waker, neither of them the most graphically powerful in the series, just beautifully animated with strong art direction.

[@Marinealver]

I said it already, Andromeda would have been fine if it looked more like Mass Effect 3. The "Improvements" made there made the game look terrible even though it was the most graphically proficient game at the time.

[@backtoklondike]

The resolution of the first Paper Mario on N64 is crappy as hell, otherwise that game could've been released today with no one noticing

[@TheSweetSpirit]

One of my absolutely favorite looking games ever is Hyper Light Drifter. And no, I'm not saying it's a perfect game. I would have much preferred if the storyline was... more of a storyline and less of a weird silent journey. But I still loved it.

[@CrossfacePanda]

That was a metric fuckton of cool looking spooders at the end there. Holy shit, Sterling fans! You’re one talented bunch.

[@captainjohn3634]

Right? The one at 20:43 is absolutely brilliant. Nice job Brendan Milos!

[@PancakemonsterFO4]

Johnny 23:10 was hilarious, wish the artist would make a whole parody on jim sterling while including this scene

[@WickerBag]

I'd love to buy that Vitruvian Spider on a poster/t-shirt

[@Draconicrose]

Visuals in a game are extremely important to me! Stardew Valley, Rimworld, Minecraft, they all have great graphics because they picked a style that wasn't brown realism and ran with it as much as possible.

[@AAhmou]

I think he means by "visuals" sheer graphical quality (4K, hd textures, good shadowing, lighting and even sometimes graphics based on granulometric environments), which can influence but is not to be confused with a game's artstyle.

[@Draconicrose]

A. Ahmou I know, I was making a play on that.

[@vleessjuu]

For real. Good graphics are 90% about artistic direction and 10% about technology. All of those games that sink horrible amounts of money into their graphics still look boring to me. Graphics ARE important for a game. It's what you're looking at all the time. But that doesn't mean you need more polygons, pixels and other stuff all the time.

[@hoodedman6579]

I don't agree that Minecraft has "great graphics"; it is very unique and colorful, and I certainly respect that, but I would much rather look at most other games.

[@cixlo]

What if your playing a horror game? What if your playing a sad depressing game with a sad story?

[@SsnakeBite]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If AAA companies want to keep using the (blatantly horseshit) excuse that games are too expensive to make to justify the use of abhorrent business practices, then they need to answer these three riddles: - If you make zero profit from the games alone, then where do you get the massive amounts of money you need to invest in order to setup and maintain loot boxes and microtransactions system from, as it requires not only content but also complex infrastructures to monitor and deliver that content? - If the games themselves don't make you enough money to keep your company afloat, why not do what every company ever normally does and raise your prices? (Note: for the purpose of this riddle, we'll ignore the fact that the claim that the price of core AAA games hasn't increased in years is questionable at best) - And last but not least, even if you were truly hard up for cash in spite of the 60$ minimum core price, the season passes, DLC, micro-transactions, loot boxes, sponsorships, merchandising, tax breaks, tax evasion, refusal to properly pay your employees and the support of thousands of shareholders... how does it justify resorting to exploitative, psychologically manipulative methods that enable addictive behaviour and may well drive some people to debt? Why should we ignore morals and decency just because massive international companies taking no financial risks are telling us they don't making enough money?

[@TheNzFox]

don't forget to add -how do you justify having 8-9 figure profits from games without microtransactions while claiming it's not viable to make them

[@michaelandrews117]

Also don't forget to add that, according to SkillUp's research, EA spend less money on games now than in 2007-09

[@The_Queen_Chrysalis]

Most of the cost back then was to pump out physical copies of the games, now since plastics have gotten cheaper the price to make a game disk and put it in a case has fallen dramatically, not only that but game manuals are pretty much gone and the instructions are built into the menus or stored on a website somewhere, further reducing the cost for physical copies, THEN to sweeten that deal most people tend to buy digitally from those cards at stores with just the code on them or directly from the digital storefront meaning you don't even have to bother with a disk and packaging since you can infinitely copy and paste the game data at the fraction of a penny's worth of electricity. The reason game prices don't go up? Because they're making more now per game copy than ever before, if they wanted to stick to the price ratio from before they would have to lower the price of games.

[@opydoesstory6532]

What really annoyed me about the continuity about the EC-videos was that they ended the first one by saying, in no uncertain terms, that there only were two choices: nickle and diming the player base or raising the cost of games across the board. Then they bring up stuff like PUBG which gets dismissed as a lucky strike so that one doesn't count, and Hellblade, where they acknowledge that it accomplished a whole lot with a smaller budget and that "there is much that can be learned from that", and then just leave it, like that too doesn't really count. What the fuck was the point then of saying that there are only two paths forward when there are demonstrably a whole bunch more if the game industry would just slow down for two god damn seconds and do some introspection? It seems to be more like there are more than two paths the industry could take, but only two that it WANTS to take.

[@alexfulton5880]

yeah, pretty much. it's typical of corporate culture stockholm syndrome though, they see something which clearly constitutes evidence that things aren't exactly how they have been led to believe, and respond basically by not actually responding to it, by sort of acknowledging that it exists but then basically being unable to examine or discuss it, because it simply does not fit into their view of the world, so they just can't contextualize it meaningfully, and therefore proceed without having learnt anything from it. EC are good people, but they're clearly the high achieving types who haven't been dragged into the gears of any of the corporate machines they've interacted with. Hellblade is absolutely an example for where the industry is really headed- if others can achieve what they have, and personally I have been waiting for this to start happening since well before Hellblade was announced, the old AAA publishing industry will find itself scrabbling over the crumbs of the market, while lighter and better managed shops self-publish their work online and basically crap all over them in every way possible. the next move, I predict, will be Steam finally losing its market share as less shitty alternative platforms become more attractive to both users and developers. then, once online distribution is actually a vital and competitive space, we might start to see a second indie game renaissance, of independently produced 'feature' games (you know, like feature films). the first one having ended with the first indie gaming gold rush, and ultimately the demise of steam (trust me, it's coming). one can hope, anyway.

[@alexfulton5880]

that's some interesting logic at work there, given that the AAA publishers have always been absolutely hostile to all attempts to compete with them or level the playing field in any way, saturating the largely compliant games media with marketing for their titles, while at the same time buying wholesale any new studio which looked remotely like it meant business. it isn't the least bit surprising that only a few exceptional titles have managed any (major, widely visible) success in that area until recently, especially given the kool-aid most people who come into contact with the industry start swilling with vigour. also, it's pretty disingenuous to assume that he could only _think of_ six titles, simply because that's the number of examples he chose to give, presumably the ones people were more likely to have heard of. and don't forget that it's a shitload easier to be financially successful if you aren't investing twice the production costs into marketing- but you'll likely get far less media attention, good product and financial success aside. and you'd better believe the industry put PR resources into cultivating the illusion that everything they do is inevitable, and that their vision of success is the only one that's valid. that makes for an environment where most people with the ability to succeed there are put off from ever really trying. and I don't think Jim is suggesting that this is some kind of third way that everyone should be following. I think he knows better than to even imply that such a thing exists. he's pointing out that there are more *potentially viable* paths to success out there than those which are widely recognized at the moment, and that there is plenty of material evidence available as to their viability already right in front of us. you can't say Hellblade isn't proof that a game can be produced in the way that it was and be successful, because it IS a game produced that way, and it HAS been, critically and financially, a huge success. and that's all the assertion is- that alternate models of financing and producing a large game project not only exist but have been proven to work at market. "lightning in a bottle" is a bullshit term in all cases of its use. it's not an explanation of a phenomenon, it's an excuse and a rationalization for not bothering to really consider it at all, because it doesn't fit with your working model of How Stuff Works. it is the absolute definition of mentally sweeping inconvenient shit under the rug, because that's easier than considering its real implications.

[@ZombieBarioth]

Well you're missing something here. Its not that there's only two paths, its that those are the only two realistic options, because the companies are basically too busy playing chicken. Nobody wants to be the first guy to take the necessary steps, they're waiting for the competition to make a move, which is exactly what THEY are doing too. So, obviously nothing is getting done, its a stand-still. Anyone seen the episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where they fight over putting away the suitcases? Even when things start to stink like cheese (literally) nobody wants to touch them. Its like that.

[@Bobson_Dugnutt_Esq]

I think celebrity voice actors have more to do with pleasing shareholders and the press than with actual people who buy and play games.

[@devilmikey00]

BlueTravesty It's also the gaming industry trying to paint itself as more legitimate and attract non-gamers to the product. It's nonsense since if you don't game already you aren't going to do it because you saw RDJ in a CoD ad but some marketing exec thinks it will.

[@Akriashi]

I didnt even recognize that was RDJ, I just thought it was just another small-time actor

[@goldenbrigain7031]

are shareholders that dumb?

[@Earthstar_Review]

Shareholders may not care enough to really think about it.

[@TheDeadUnlucky]

Honestly I think the fact that we have to have debates over how the video game industries budget and incomes truly exemplifies just how cloak and dagger it is.

[@smjaiteh]

Look, when random dudes in college can make fully functional game alphas as school projects while working part time jobs and taking 15 credits a semester, for almost no money at all... I don’t buy the idea that multimillion dollar corporations can’t afford to sell video games at $60 a pop. Let alone with expansions, dlc, cosmetic microtransactions, sponsored deals, and season passes. Those things I actually don’t mind. Don’t break games, rush them, incentivize (or in the case of COD, force) pre-orders, make them pay to win, manipulate the progression systems or encourage gambling through lootboxes or trading economies. And IF you do that, don’t be surprised when people don’t buy them, and don’t whine when people complain about them.

[@km5405]

their sale data reflects that as well ... its a petty excuse they throw up.

[@The_Joend]

They can't afford it because they dont just want to break even or do moderately well, they want all of the money ever conceived ever. Anything less is a failure of the system and we should feel bad for not supporting the AAA industry. We made devs poor and games shit. Woe is us.

[@JimSterling]

As I said last week, it looks to me like "games are too expensive to make" insofar as they're too expensive to please the majority shareholders who demand maximum cash for minimum product. If not for these demands, we wouldn't see such ludicrous situations as games selling millions upon millions of copies and getting classified as "disappointments."

[@SicSemperBeats]

Tell that to Bethesda (rpg studio) they make the least technically sound games in the AAA market. Their excuses are that the games are large, but botw, Witcher 3, even gta v are all pretty much clean of any regularly noticeable bugs that make for a bad experience.

[@tyrongkojy]

No microtransactions AT ALL. That good will is GONE.

[@NexLegacyAccount]

Satoru Iwata is a shining example of what a game company, even a massive one, should strive to be. Of course he was profit-driven, but that wasn't his PRIMARY drive. He did it because he genuinely enjoyed it and was passionate about it until the very end.

[@wokeupinapanic]

Which has been the number one reason that Nintendo has been so successful since they entered the home console market; they are passionate, and actually give a fuck. Iwata was just another passionate and dedicated man, and the industry as a whole is worse off having lost him. Nintendo aren't the best, they do stupid things, make mistakes, and a bunch of little things I really don't like. But at the end of the day, they really do give a shit about the work they do and their customers. For a while, I hated how stuck in the past Nintendo was, but now... Now, I actually yearn for it. The day "DLC" was announced for the new Xbox 360 console, it felt like a death knell to me, whereas everyone else was clamoring for it. It felt like loot boxes and "charging for ammo" and other nickel and dime tactics were right around the corner. And Nintendo has avoided nearly all of the pratfalls. It is amazing, and makes me happy to own a Switch.

[@bobjoe109]

@@wokeupinapanic Another reason why Nintendo does so we'll is they make games the whole family can enjoy: Mario Party, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, etc. Great party games and great family games.

[@Randomizer411]

I'm a 3d artist and I can tell you that high fidelity photorealism is the most expensive aspect of any game. Stylized graphics often work so much better because they're cheaper to make, sometimes more marketable due to the interesting visual style, and don't require tons of horsepower just to render. That being said, the real money maker when it comes to video games is positive word of mouth. That and a loyal consumer base. Nintendo will always be around because they've chosen not to participate in the graphics wars. They found a simpler and cheaper method and cultivated a rabid fan base who will buy whatever they give them (me included lol)

[@DeathBringer769]

Nintendo showing you don't to push the graphics and marketing budgets to overly inflated extremes to make a successful game/product, unlike many of these other stubborn AAA companies... Don't get me wrong. Nintendo still has their share of issues (like their KZbin stance.) But at least they get some stuff right still.

[@Randomizer411]

Deathbrewer yeah I agree. I think there's a balance to be had. A game that's visually stunning and beautiful needs a reason to be. In character design, you have to reflect the personality through the clothing and color choices. I think a game's art style should do the same. What does a photorealistic art style say about the experience? If it's just there to look pretty then it isn't essential.

[@MrBigCookieCrumble]

I've always prefered stylized graphics as you call it, like cartoony graphics or what's the english word.. animated? As well as pixel art. Because in 5 even 10 years from now that good pixelart game is *still* gonna look like good pixelart, good stylized cartoony graphics and animated stuff is *still* gonna look as good in 10 years. It ages very well. Realistic graphics on the other hand are gonna look like crap in 1-2 years because the newer, better engines and computers are gonna be able to render stuff so much better than before.

[@Durandurandal]

Some talented indie dev should make a JRPG set during the 2nd Graphics War between the Empires of Sony'Plystach and Mycrow-Sahft.

[@SuperfieldCrUn]

Hyper-realistic graphics also tend to age like shit, so creatively, it's a boon as well. Even Metroid Prime, Nintendo's most "realistic" major sub-franchise, is stylized enough that the first Prime game's visuals are utterly timeless.

[@EngineerLume]

The budget EC gave for the minimum cost of making a AAA game was $75,000,000 (Seventy-Five million), or a fairly standard budget for a mid 90's film. If people spent $15 on a movie ticket, then a movie with that budget would need to get 5,000,000 people (Five million) to break even. If people spent $60 on a game, the game would need about 1,250,000 people (One million Two hundred and Fifty Thousand) to break even. I get the strange feeling the latest Call of Duty can SNEEZE and sell that many copies.

[@android19willpwn]

I mean, that's assuming all revenue goes back to the devs. Taxes and retailers can easily eat at least a third of that. Plus that's not including ANY marketing budget, and while I agree that marketing is generally excessive for big games, you still need something. But let's assume a pretty reasonable budget of $10 million, that's still a only a little over 1.5 million sales to break even. Pretty easy for games that big. Point stands, but your estimates were a bit off.

[@starfreek101]

Something to consider is taxes are figured after expenses, taxes could be mitigated quite a bit. Also consider using the 7 million number from the video multiplied by 60(lowest price for release) and you get 420 million. If they hadn't made the mistake of putting free to play micro transactions in their full price game, they would probably have sold closer to the 13 million of the previous games coming out to 780 million. They were certainly making a large profit at those numbers. They lost mine, and thousands, if not millions of others perches with this move. Personally I won't be buying another EA game.

[@miguelpereira9859]

Then again, you have games like Senua's Sacrifice and Dark Souls that didn't spend nowhere near that much and were able to deliver

[@Ten80pete]

I don't know Jim: I just recently had my family cast in brass. They might be just a little better than your vest now.

[@alritedave]

Denam ....

[@ManoredRed]

They also need holes to eat, poop, etc.

[@OkSharkey]

especially etc * waggle *

[@ArchmageOfAnarchy]

Turns out, spending all your money on marketing and developing tat for loot boxes is an unnecessary cost

[@dominikmagnus]

who would've thought...

[@amirgarcia547]

BlossomOfThorns Or trying to create a 4K HD 1000080P 90FPS graphics engine.

[@DaybreakPT]

Crono Sapien 90 FPS?? 500 FPS or you’re not “competitive” because someone else has 501 and we just can’t have that, can we?

[@Marmotus]

Just to let you know, the Unreal Engine is completely free to use. The only money you may have to pay when using it is 5% of what you make from the game minus the first $3000 every quarter year. That's a good fucking deal.

[@nexuszen769]

Everyone like this comment. Fucking vital, and it conveniently gets missed out.

[@wtrbns]

But in the case of AAA-games, that's a big expense. 5% of revenue is not the same as 5% of profit. If making + advertising their game costs 20 000 000 $, than their projected revenue should at least be 20 000 000$, meaning the projected cost for using the Unreal Engine is AT LEAST 1 000 000$.

[@ArioDragon]

What , you want them to lent it for free? They take very little , considering they give you an already built engine , that you can customize. I dont need to remind you that there were SHITLOADS of games on UE3?

[@kodekristian]

Any cost, no matter how small, is still a cost, and the word "free" implies that there will be no costs whatsoever, at any point before, during or after production. Even if you needed to pay only 1 cent per every 100 million sales, it would still not be "completely free to use". It might well be a very good deal, that much is up to interpretation, but to claim it is free is just factually incorrect.

[@ArioDragon]

You can't really expect them make new games , improve the engine and cetera for free. That much is the fact.

[@Latinkon]

Fun fact: According to the MPAA's 2016 Theatrical Market Statistics report, the movie industry earned an estimated total of $38.6 billion. Can you guess how much the video game industry earned as of June 2016? Based on a Newzoo Games' report, it earned a staggering $99.6 billion. Yeah, games are too expensive to make than the AAA films that cost $150-200 million somehow can't be a financial success to the point micro-transactions and lootboxes are brought in to offset the losses....

[@MrToonhawk]

Thank you for featuring me as one of the runners up (21:48) and congratulations to the victors. I especially don't mind losing to the font person, that's the sort of mad thinking I like to see. I've uploaded the full 30 second entry to my own youtube channel for anyone who is interested, cheers!

[@Canadamus_Prime]

In general I like Extra Credits because I always thought they wanted better out of the industry and then they came out defending these horrid tactics. I just couldn't believe it. And yeah, Star Wars is a license to print money and shit diamonds. If you can't make a profitable Star Wars game without the microtransactions and lootboxes then you shouldn't be in this industryl.

[@DeathBringer769]

You know what they say, the path to hell is paved with good intentions... They might have good intentions, but be misguided or misinformed/ignorant on certain issues. The question is whether they are *willfully* ignorant about certain things, if they have some self-interest in defending the industry, or if it's really just misguided good intentions... Hard to tell sometimes in this world. I don't know for sure but they seem like decent people that just bought into the industry's bullshit too deeply, thinking they are the ones helping gaming with their arguments when I would claim they are actually serving the opposite purpose. It's sad when, at the end of the day, most of us just want good games, but we're going at each other instead of working together to go after the *real* issues/perpetrators here.

[@android19willpwn]

probably my favorite thing people were saying during the pre-launch lootbox controversy was that it was all just a clever ploy by EA to get a bunch of publicity for the game. Because a game in one of the most popular genres, made by one of the biggest game publishers, using one of the most widely-known IPs, and which already had a huge marketing budget really needed that kind of self-destructive publicity stunt to get noticed.

[@Canadamus_Prime]

Well like I said I like Extra Credits so I'd prefer to give them the benefit of the doubt. I just think of a few years of ago when they chastised EA for their marketing campaigns of Dead Space 2 and Dante's Inferno. And other videos where the spoke out against predatory tactics and treating people like "whales." And then their last 2 videos came along and it was like a punch to the gut. I don't know what their motivation was for suddenly toeing the party line so to speak, but it sure came as a shock to me.

[@TheGoryan]

Extra Credits left their intentions really clear with this line of their first video on the topic: "(...)we're going to have to learn to live with lootboxes or microtransactions or whatever other model the industry attempts next, and by 'learn to live with' I don't mean 'put up with predatory crap', I mean we're going to have to find a way to reward developers for making good suplementary income systems that aren't overly agressive or in any way required to play competitivaly. Monetizations systems that leave you satisfied and actually increase the enjoyament of the game you're spending dozens of hours on, even if you chose to spend very little." Basically their opinion is, in very blunt words, that the AAA industry IS messing up with predatory systems, but at the same time we, costumers, shouldn't expect then to keep the exact same price forever, mostly because inflation is a thing.

[@tomfranck8821]

Defending? How is a "these are some numbers about how much making games costs" the same as a defence? I don't recal them ever saying these practices are desirable or otherwise positive. I understand they didn't declare publishers the devil itself but that ain't an agreement nor support.

[@LuqmanHakim-xi9qz]

Have you ever heard someone say, "hey, (popular celebrity) is playing a role in this game, we should buy this game!"? I haven't.

[@Avrysatos]

Luqman Hakim never.

[@blondbraid7986]

How AAA executives think people work: Person A: I don't think I will buy this game, I don't like the genre, I find it visually unappealing and I've heard that it's riddled with bugs and has lackluster gameplay. Person B: Yeah, but it has one of the Kardashians or some other overrated celebrity doing voice and mo-cap! Person A: OMG CAN'T WAIT TO BUY THIS GAME!!!!

[@Cryster99]

@@blondbraid7986 to be fair there are probably a lot of lonely people who would pay for a video game with kardashian mo-cap. particularly if it was in a Quantic Dream "game"

[@autobotstarscream765]

What about the Shaq-Fu games and Duck Dynasty for the 3DS?

[@thesatelliteslickers907]

Keanu reeves?

[@OjoRojo40]

Quoted from the EC video: "Game developers tend to live in their workspace". "You don't want your expensive employees running out to buy a soda and miss 15 minutes of work"! You better have them poop in place so they don't make you lose another 15 minutes of your valuable time. Nice exploitation busine$$ you have there, congrats AAA companies :)

[@ironmilutin]

Why do you think some places need to have suicide prevention nets installed?

[@AegixDrakan]

I made the point on their video that proper management and treating your talent well saves more money than crunch. I worked at Nine Dots for the summer. We did amazing things on a low budget and with a really small team, and ZERO crunch. The idea that you need to have 900 people living at work around the clock for 6 months at a time to put out something good, with a gargantuan budget is nuts. Yes, you'll need a lot more than the small team we had if you want photorealistic graphics. But even if you do, extended crunch time will always cause the team to burn out and produce LESS work than if you treated them well.

[@evillecaston]

Gotta love the gaming industry. Shady business practices? It's okay, because it's the free market. Failure to meet expectations? The market is rigged against us! Pick one and stick with it, please.

[@MereleFerele]

It really annoys me that they use capitalism as an excuse when it benefits the publishers, but ignore the consumer side. Okay, let's take video games as only a business and businesses exist to make money. But the flipside of looking at it in such a stark capitalist way is then we, as buyers of a product instead of consumers of art, shouldn't give a single fuck. The point of a business is to make money; the point of a customer is to get the product we want at the price we want to pay. So you can't tell me games need to make money because it's a business, and then try to pull my heart strings to explain why I should give them more money. Businesses don't care about the consumer's feelings until it impacts their bottom line (although the constant inability to learn from these outrages show they don't care even then), but I should care about theirs? I doubt if I sent EA a very heartful letter about how much I love games and want them to cost less they'd give a fuck. If I look at publishers as businesses trying to make money instead of artists sharing their artistic vision - and that's what they want otherwise they wouldn't blatantly compromise their artistic vision in favour of (self admitted in the case of Battlefront not meeting expectations due to them!) game ruining microtransactions - then why on earth should I care about their success? If they fail to make money, well, that's just business.

[@alritedave]

MereleFerele No. The point of s business is to earn a sustainable amount of money. You achieve this by providing quality goods or services for a competitive price (except in certain circumstances).

[@NodDisciple1]

"A market will bear what a CUSTOMER will pay for it."

[@0ctopusComp1etely]

You're on the right track, and yes, ultimately you don't have to choose to support a business if you don't like it's practices. I would tweak the customer's goal to "get quality products we want at REASONABLE prices". Let's be honest- most of us would pay nothing for everything, or at least a vast majority of things, if we had no consequences for it. That doesn't make us customers- that makes us thieves. Pretty sure that's what Matthias was trying to get across too. I do wholeheartedly agree that businesses should be raised or lowered by their own merits. That's what Capitalism is supposed to be: strong businesses with satisfactory services survive, while others don't. Pretty simple. Businesses start providing unsatisfactory services or goods? Don't support them, and spread the word. Eventually the business will either adapt to the demand or die. I personally hope AAA gaming industry chooses to adapt on the whole, as there are still some strong righteous businesses that make plentiful profits, so it CAN still be done. Only time will tell.

[@Clairvoyant81]

The only argument you need against the "games are too expensive to make" is the simple fact that the gaming industry has been the fastest growing entertainment industry in the past two decades, probably still is and will most likely continue to be for the foreseeable future. If their product was too expensive to make to be lucrative, they wouldn't be growing.

[@Clairvoyant81]

Not that hard to understand: 1. The gaming industry is the fastest growing industry around. 2. If games were too expensive to make in order to make money, it wouldn't be.

[@MartoLun]

AAA game publishers should release their development costs. Just like movies do. That way, we can do the math. Want us to support you because your games "aren't profitable anymore without microstransactions?" Then show us the proof.

[@magmia54]

MartoLun That's probably why they don't release the numbers. I'm confident movies cost more to make than games because movies can cost up to $300 million. From the two videos I saw from SkillUp and Superbunnyhop, game budgets have gone down while their profits have gone up. Publishers avoid taxes and establish development studios in places where it's cheaper to live so they don't have to pay high wages and don't pay royalties from what I hear. I mean, big budget movies generally need; more employees, higher wages because these people live in places with high costs of living, and to top it all off, royalties. All the while the price tag for a video game is at $60 and more people are playing games than ever; I think the highest selling entertainment properties of all time are video games, GTA 5 and one of the COD games. Movies have a price tag of about $10 or so with cheaper prices for children and seniors. So a family of 4 adults would cost around $40-$50 or so and these movies are making they're money back. With less local co-op AAA games around, a family of, let's say, 4 siblings who wanna play a game would cost $240. I can't believe games would cost more to make than movies.

[@hkr667]

That will get you... exactly NOWHERE. Look up "Hollywood accounting" if you want to know why. They'll probably make up a bill of $50 million for 'ip licensing' or 'external consultants' and on paper they lose money. Better believe the lawyers at EA and the like are making shitloads more than game developers.

[@MartoLun]

Movies are worldwide, videogames are not. Videogames also cater to a much smaller audience, and have a much more restrictiver barrier to entry, requiring you to acquire some hardware beforehand. These factors make them far more common in developed countries, like the USA, Western Europe, Japan, etc. Your average blockbuster movie can be shown anywhere, as long as it doesn't clash too much about a specific country's law or culture. Adding subtitles for a movie is far easier than localizing a videogame, so the costs of adapting a movie are far lesser. For example, The Avengers, released in 2012, had a budget of more than 200 Million dollars, and it brought 1500 Million dollars in revenue. And countless more in toys and merchandise. There have been videogames with budgets of 200 Million, for sure. Some older games like Skyrim easily passed 100M, so you'd expect most big-name franchises to For those games to make a profit, at 60 USD each, they'd have to sell 3 million copies. Which is quite a lot, something only the biggest studios can boast of reaching. according to SteamSpy (which granted, is innacurate information, but it's only information we have) only 87 games on steam have ever broken 3 million sales.

[@miguelpereira9859]

@@MartoLun Movies still cost more. It's actually insane how Hollywood is still afloat, if your movie costs 200M to make it need to do like 700M at the box office worldwide to generate a profit, and this is often not the case. Just the CG teams in big blockbuster movies go into the thousands, game developers are always in the hundreds, and that is not taking into account the all of the other labour in movies that has to be paid, most notoriously acting. Also movies often shoot on location and abroad which piles up cost. There's a reason the games industry is worth more than double of Hollywood

[@hyenaholicproductions9033]

It infuriates me that people stick up for these big companies and say that prices go up because the cost of the game is going up. Sure, tech marches on. And we like nice graphics and big worlds to play in. But the actual detail of the graphics - the perfection, the animation, the movement - is NOT something we demanded, it's something these companies used as a selling point. And if it's a selling point, then it should be upon this point that the game sells more copies to make more money, not by actively raising prices.

[@stoffhimel]

In all honesty, most of those details get lost visually anyways. Could they have not done Laura croft's hair with out doing each hair individually? Please.

[@Milkbutter]

People sticking up for companies that fuck them in the ass is not unique to gaming either.

[@Tamaki742]

That's why I love RPG maker horror games, they don't have the best graphics or the most complicated programming. But I love how much potential the games gave despite it. They have some of the best storytelling, characters, and gaming elements.

[@hazukichanx408]

Yeah, I can't help buying a "AAA" game now and then on a major steam sale, sometimes even a minor one, if the overall content interests me; Shadow of War, for instance. But just seeing all the sleazy lootbox-mongering and the way they try to tempt people to buy packs with "at least one legendary orc of X type" or whatever, when the heart and soul of the game is to organically encounter and recruit those special, cool orcs in the game world... kind of ruins the experience for me. If that's the cost of tiny polygonal refinements that I won't even see with the graphics as high as my current machine can handle, then by all means, publishers, stop pushing for those refinements. I mean, even a game like Double Dragon Neon seemed to be rocking a polycount that was waaaaay beyond what was actually visible, let alone needed for the characters to look good. Great graphics can be a visual feast, but they're not everything and they're not worth all this microtransactionating and lootboxification bullplop. =_=;

[@hyenaholicproductions9033]

Photo-realistic graphics make me feel uncomfortable anyway. Guess it's the Uncanny Valley at work.

[@kasino007]

I will never be able to say “Triple AAAAyyy” the regular way anymore. Thanks Jim.

[@Jakewake52]

So what kind of batteries does your remote take? Twriiiiple aaaaayyyyeee?

[@DaybreakPT]

Jakewake 52 “Trapple eeeeyyyyy”

[@sirdiealot7805]

It's nice to see this debate. The arguments brought forth by ExtraCredits are weak and they didn't back them up with any numbers anyone could check. We can't check your point of view either, but the sole fact that the AAA companies are very profitable make your point of view more believable.

[@Regdren]

We can at least check the statements to shareholders that Jim is referencing. Of course there's no proof that thsoe are truthful but they do at least provide a nice contrast with statements made to non-shareholders.

[@JimSterling]

Yeah, I just responded to someone on the ol' Jim Sterling subreddit who argued Extra Credits' "dominated" this argument because they had all the facts and figures which... they didn't. They had *some* estimates which I am happy to agree with for the sake of argument, but beyond that there was just as much assumption on their end as mine. Thanks to the obfuscating way in which "AAA" publishers conduct business, we're all working with scraps of intel. Because their video was presented in a detached manner and I wore my disgust on my sleeve, I am well aware my video will be more easily written off as emotional guesswork, but hey, that's just a cost I incur when doing business. :-)

[@krillin6]

Sir Diealot We CAN look at what Jim uses for his arguments. He uses their own words against them. He just points out the bullshit most people aren't aware of.

[@Sniperbear13]

Jim Sterling didn't Extra Credits also mention that the reason they(game publishers) don't publish the numbers is so the competition can't use it against them or something along those lines?

[@Hjernespreng]

@Accelerator It's a completely bullshit nonsense argument with no rooting in reality. What they don't want used against them is whenever they LIE about the actual numbers to their customers-

[@nfzeta128]

The big problem here is that businesses in general are trying to shed all the disadvantages of having a proper relationship with their customers while keeping all the advantages. Before maybe customers - regulars especially - used to somewhat support the practices of their favourite businesses, however this is because those businesses made a good few of those practices to service their customers needs better. *Now*, businesses try to drain the wallets of their customers while also begging them to treat them like their less than fortunate family member and be understanding and supportive (financially) of the 'hardships' they are going through. *Now*, only the shareholders are considered customers when it comes to the 'positive' side of the customer to business relationship and even that is tarnished by them being master to slave instead of customer to business, and that's also only with the biggest of those investors, regardless of how ignorant they are of the actual business market in question. It boggle the mind how people do not see the fault in arguing basically on the basis that we should pity businesses for doing bad business, or at least lying and pretending they are doing bad business just to do 'better' business by robbing customers.

[@ianaddyman1006]

EA to customers: HUR DUR STER WURS NEEDS MYCROWTRANSACSHUNS BECUZ GEMS R TOO EXPANSEEV EA to shareholders: The lack of sales in micro transactions will not effect battlefront 2's sales expectations.

[@DeathBringer769]

It's almost like EA's first goal before they speak is identifying their audience and crafting their message purely for psychological manipulation. If their first priority was the TRUTH (like they try to claim) then the message to BOTH sides would be the SAME, ALWAYS. But that's just considered "bad business" so what do we all know, talking about morals, ethics, and transparency... such silliness, right?

[@ironmilutin]

What i love the most is that they "blame the microtransactions controversy" for their lack of sales... Gee, i wonder who saw that one coming.... oh wait, EVERYONE DID. Also the fact they cut them as a last ditch effort 2 save face, and that just fucked them over further is amazing, not only did they drop the "much needed" source of revenue, but they also exposed how bullshit the balancing was.

[@Pyke64]

Jude White won the spider contest: EA chocking on lootboxes.

[@Chezzers.]

Agreed, got a proper laugh out of me

[@jthompson6189]

That EA spider was awesome.

[@fosphor8920]

+Romano Coombs Dude... Just waw xD

[@MordredViking]

Kudos on the spider-thing, that's the kind of audience interaction (and promotion of talent) we need more of!

[@Arlekienen]

Round of applause to the absolutely mind-blowing talents in the contest. What a fantastic batch of creativity. And, of course, bless Jim for the contest. Art is really underappreciated these days, so seeing a contest where artists are rewarded makes me happy.

[@ironmilutin]

i love what the winner came up with... a whole game on a spider where you're part of the spider, enemies are a part of the spider and the levels themselves are parts of the spider... fucking brilliant

[@AhsimNreiziev]

+

[@Arlekienen]

Iron M yeah. It's absolutely amazing what people can do when they actually put in some effort and fresh thoughts. Really gives me hope, seeing good work around.

[@fgregerfeaxcwfeffece]

But marketing is the most important thing, i am just here because of the TV Advertisement where the kelloggs humunculus threatened to kill ALL the puppies if i don't subscribe.

[@DaemonCaedo1]

We get the sob story about how expensive it is because there are so many brainless people that will believe them and/or work as unpaid shills for them when they say it. And then the graphics issue. Seems like the loudest, most obnoxious people in gaming are the ones that get listened to. The ones that scream graphics make the game. Idiots.

[@bass-dc9175]

Meanwhile Monster Hunter World: No Lootboxes, No Pushed Microtransactions, No Paid DLC (Free DLC instead) 60$ for the full game and you actually GET the full game. Yes: A Tripple-A Game, on a new engine, With massively improved graphics with Free DLC with custom made quests did NOT require microtransactions.

[@sharkymcshark3392]

What I don't understand is how Hellblade, a game made by a tiny team, with some of the best graphics I've seen in a game, that cost only 30€ at launch, can be a called a success by the devs without any DLC, season passes or micro transactions. Sounds like those thing aren't necessary to have a game make money to me.

[@DragonNexus]

It's almost like sensibly planning out and budgetting for the creation and development of your game and then marketing it in a cost effective manner is a good way of turning a profit on your project.

[@AegixDrakan]

Actual good management helps a lot too. I worked for an Indie studio (Nine Dots Studios) for a few months, and I saw us do some amazing things with a small budget, a small team, and zero crunch time. Because we were managed sanely, and because they hired the right people for the right jobs, and because they planned for the costs properly. Time will tell if the project sells a ton once it's out, but for a studio told "You cannot possibly do what you're doing with that budget and no crunch time", we proved the naysayers pretty damn wrong.

[@mantistoboggan1503]

Hellblade has always been the most convincing argument to me. How tf can you not make a Star Wars game, and not only that, a reboot of a classic and well loved star wars game series, that can make a decent profit on the sales on the same planet as Hellblade being a success without any of that going for it or any excess monetisation. Fucking ridiculous

[@thevgmlover]

9 minutes in, I completely forgot that this was because of Extra Credits' video. XD

[@SakuyaFM4]

Which is a good thing. He mentioned that it's more of a general rebuttal to those arguments, and not just against Extra Credits.

[@dvt1393]

Never heard of Extra Credit. Is their content worth checking out? Jim seems to have some respect for them, but he tore their video apart in this.

[@Felix-nc9br]

They do alot of neato vids ranging from historical events to book genres. But they usually stick to game stuff like explaining inner game mechanics and concepts. To be honest I really like their Extra History series

[@Above_Average_Joe315]

Daniel Terrazas yes definitely check them out. They tend to stay away from stuff like this, and mostly focus on other things in the game industry.

[@thevgmlover]

They inspired me to make another article on my Wordpress blog, at one point. Definitely check them out!

[@Shajirr_]

A physical game, on a disc, in a box, which was shipped, and stored, costs 60$. A digital game, which has no physical form, no disc production cost, no storage cost, no distribution cost (unless sold on someone else store), no shipping cost, nothing, still costs 60$. Guess where all that money is going to, and who is profiting from it? Because it isn't the consumers.

[@meachew]

Shareholders and publishers

[@MichaelLaneMonkeywrench]

"Crystal Pringles Engine"

[@Feversome]

11:43 Jim that's horseshit, not bullshit!

[@aboutrainbow8614]

Congrats to the winners of the contest! There must of been so much talent to choose from. It was an honor to participate, Jim! Hopefully as I improve as an artist, you'll have more unique contests like these. The concept really challenged me to try something cool- Hopefully I can use the character I designed for some sort of story.

[@bruhb7611]

ExtraCredit love to look at the bright side even when when they are actively being robbed in broad daylight. It's kinda like that web comic where the main character is happy when his bike got stolen because the thief would be more happy with the stolen bike than him.

[@Vanlifecrisis]

Toàn Khánh they aren't being robbed tho. In fact, the thief comes to pay them, to find out how to better steal.

[@bloodmachine6049]

It;s a problem when they are looking on everyone's bike being stolen that they are looking on, and they can just buy a new one.

[@jiffyb333]

What fabulous Artistry, hats off to so many talented artists proving that assets can be a beautiful Baseline.

[@RoverStorm]

So I wondered "exactly how much have companies made on those big games anyways?". GTA5 cost (inflation adjusted) about 300 million today-which includes ALL costs, like jaaniitors and health benefits, etc. It's retail price was 60$. It sold 85 million games. That is 5.1 billion dollars. 300 million to make. 4.8 Billion dollars of pure profit. Scraping the barrel" MY ASS! Btw, rumor was that the original sale target for SWB2 was 10 million copies...

[@TheCassiusTain]

then again, GTA set up for success from teh start, as teh GTA franchise is one of the best selling franchises in the world. Other game studios can't count on their games selling more than 3 million copies. This however does not mean that I defend those buisines models, nor the craze for Graphics that is still ongoing.

[@robbybevard8034]

Retail price is 60$ but they don't get all of that. There's middlemen, be they Sony/Xbox digital store, or the manufacturing company and then the retailers. Plus, copies go on sale. A safer guess is probably closer to 20-30$ a copy before sales, maybe more digitally if they have a better deal there. They still made crazy amount of money off that game, but not 5 billion. At least, not all of that went directly to the publisher.

[@miguelpereira9859]

@@robbybevard8034 But that is still not counting the microtransactions of the online component which make Take Two and unholy amount of profit

[@colin3ds1]

@@TheCassiusTain this isnt about those games though This is about studios like EA,activision, that have established franchises that do sell Those are the games that add these microtransactions and lootboxes And are starting the price increase while somehow indie games are the ones gaining popularity with a cheaper price, a tighter budget, and a lot less staff and marketing So what gives there?

[@TheCassiusTain]

@@colin3ds1 A game that was made out of passion with the goel to create a fun, challenging or thought invoking experience will always surpass a game thats sole reasonf or existence is to make money

[@zake64]

Can you imagine how much people would riot if movies had micro transactions? You go to the theater and the movie you watch is only 30 minutes long and seems unfinished. Understandably, you demand a refund, but you’re told that you need the season pass to watch the rest of the movie.

[@LordXadro]

The micro-transactions are the drinks and snacks and in some cases the 3D glasses, purely optional ;P

[@thatnoobnextdoor]

To be honest a lot of movies now do seem unfinished because everything is trying to spawn a franchise.

[@Malicos]

Isn't that HBO's business model?

[@IGotDiabeetus]

James Black But it's PURELY COSMETIC

[@demeonsix2348]

Zake64 I hate microtransactions but movies do it too. Back to the future, lord of the rings, star wars etc.

[@VelkanKiador]

Oh Jim, my Mondays would be miserable without you.

[@ronyncato7206]

I'm glad I'm not subscribed to Extra Credits. Then again, I'm disappointed that I can't unsubscribe from them as a result.

[@VelkanKiador]

I am still a fan of their show extra history, but I do take anything they say about the game industry with a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge grain of salt.

[@Katy133]

To me, it's very interesting to see Extra Credits and Jim Sterling talking about this subject because I watch both of them and their discussions are so different. It's kinda fascinating listening to them talk about the same subject in different ways, you know? Jim, thank you for touching upon voice actors and how they're being replaced by "all-star actors" to ill effect. As an animator and game developer, voice acting is super-important to me, and I wish good voice actors' work was appreciated more. Also, WOW! Kudos to everyone who contributed to the spiderhead competition! :D

[@skylarsimes8]

Katy133 i saw EC as well but EC keeps saying they are so pro consumer yet they slober corperate cukture when jt comes to stuff like this. They clearly dont understand game budgets

[@Darkstar1484]

It's something that disappoints me when I watch ECs videos. I get it, they are all active in the industry so I view it as a sort of self preservation requirement. They don't want to risk losing work or connections in the industry that employs them. But it does make things harder on some fronts because it makes it harder to be able to trust some of what they say when it comes to things that are genuinely complex questions like games trying to prevent piracy and how it should be handled.

[@frosty6845]

USAFace666 one of the members of the EC crew is a former EA employee lmao

[@grovepunk3520]

USAFace666 Isn’t EC the company the Digital Homicide guys set up and stole the name from ECgames ?

[@singami465]

No, EC has basically no experience in game development and game design. The have one (ONE) guy that once worked on Call of Duty and Farmville. He doesn't disclose his position, meaning he probably was a junior designer at best. Knowing how EC usually peddles bullshit and is a laughing stock of the industry (the "guy that puts watching Extra Credits in his CV and thinks he's a designer" is an actual gamedev meme), it's not surprising they got *another* topic wrong.

[@HadesWTF]

You're the Batman of video game journalism Jim. We need you, but we don't deserve you.

[@alritedave]

HadesWTF Fatman*

[@DancaniaX]

Is it just me or is Jim getting more and more steampunk in his appearances?

[@alensavic8357]

Duncan Fenwick eventually he will just morph into a condescending hipsters mustache.

[@AnakinTheWeird]

I'm more focused on him getting thinner o.O

[@WhoTookMyMirr]

AnakinTheWeird yeah he's really been dropping weight, he looks fantastic.

[@robbybevard8034]

He's slowly re-branding away from the dictator persona to more of a carnival showman. Has been ever since the new intro graphic.

[@REVJHD]

Games are doing what the Cola wars did in the 80's. Dumping all the budget into ads, licensing and foreign markets who don't know better. Modern gaming is in its "crystal pepsi" phase.

[@Suichimo]

Hell, Jim, I wouldn't even call Mark Hamill an exception any more. He has done pretty much just voice work since his time, originally, as Luke Skywalker. It's only been in the last few years where he has made a return to live action work with stuff like Flash and the new Star Wars Trilogy.

[@hazerddex]

Suichimo and besides luke he's most know for his work as the joker

[@theSHELFables]

Mark Hamill was The Guyver. Never forget The Guyver.

[@RippahRooJizah]

I thought David Hayter was The Guyver! Yes I know.

[@rjbutt6097]

theSHELFables he was in guyver not guyver

[@theSHELFables]

True. Edited.

[@JohnnyBurnes]

Never forget, in one fell swoop, Activision raised the cost of PC games to $60 and the price of Map Packs from $10 to $15 with CoD:MW2 because....They could. Assassin's Creed 2 soon followed, and a new standard was made.

[@otakon17]

18:28 .... Mr. Sterling, bringing up Mr. Iwata like that damn near brought a tear to my eye. Mr. Iwata was in the trenches, he was a developer first and a business man second, he knew the true costs. I wish we had more like him in the game industry now more than ever. RIP Mr. Iwata, you are still missed.

[@DrHyde-hj3ym]

I hear all this bullshit from the industry and shove Horizon: Zero Dawn in their face. New IP, almost no marketing (I only knew about from the badass cover art), no microtransactions, no weak ass DLC, an actual expansion (anyone remember when the first Dragon Age did Awakening), and the only loot boxes were ones acquired in game with in game currency, sells over three million copies. Seriously, how long are they going to keep claiming poverty and lying to us? Did the Battlefront 2 and Destiny 2 disaster not show that consumers will only put with so much? With games like Minecraft, PUBG, Horizon, Hellblade, etc., the excuse that new IPs aren't profitable is stupid. No amount of marketing was going to make the generic Call of Duty sequels interesting nor was it needed. The player base was already there.

[@MaXF25]

"almost no marketing", this is not true because the game was shown at two E3. 2015 and 2016, if i recall correctly.

[@DrHyde-hj3ym]

Tasiam Moros I generally mean tv spots, tons of magazine coverage, etc. What you usually find with your Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto sequels. I haven't paid much attention to E3 since it's gotten shall I say...tacky.

[@MaXF25]

I don't live in a country publishers consider worthy to advertise, so if it is heavily advertise in mainstream media in USA i wouldn't be able to know. The only mainstream advertisement i recall seeing was some BF2EA booths in a shopping mall. "did it have live action trailers, celebrities cast over experienced voice actors, and commercials everywhere?" As far as i know it didn't. But you are pointing out an issue that i didn't mention, i simply said it had two presentations at E3 never mention how they were done. I get why you did it though. The presentation showing actual gameplay are more cost effective than making cinematics with motion capture and hiring professionals. Case in point: /watch?v=hMhfWLgEJdM

[@xerzy]

It's not like E3 marketing costs _that_ much when you just have to approach a company like Sony and ask them to play your trailer. Don't know the numbers nor how much extra marketing they've used, but I doubt distributors and console companies ask directly for anything at all for displaying games at E3 as part of a dealership. Perhaps we should be talking about "almost no marketing *costs"

[@Uldihaa]

I just want to point out that when it comes to what "AAA" game publishers tell their investors about profits vs what they say to us the consumer about those same profits, only investors are legally guaranteed honesty.

[@hal900x]

Think of it: in just this moderate sized fanbase there are thousands of talented people, hundreds of them who were willing to enter, and dozens with the kind of creativity to be showcased. Most of these put the AAA industry to shame in terms of originality and especially cost effectiveness. The whole contest is a rebuttal to the cost argument. Would have liked to see an entire video dedicated to the entries.

[@talesfromthenuzlocke1619]

hal900x someone make a fully animated version of the battlefront 2 spider and send it to Andrew Wilson

[@natanaru]

Style will always trump realism. Something could be fucking photorealistic , but if it has no style to , it will just be fucking boring. Look at Monster Hunter World, it's realistic looking , but it has style. Something like Beyond two souls had no style and looked dull as a result.

[@blondbraid7986]

Thank you for saying this, it doesn't matter if a game has the best graphics in the world if the entire game is confined to ugly industrial corridors and everything is brown and grey. A turd isn't going to magically be beautiful just because it's in HD.

[@mariochaosspear]

Mario Odyssey and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 were absolutely beautiful games despite a few major graphical issues. They were able to make up for their shortcomings by having really frikken good art direction.

[@Arlekienen]

"Realistic" games also age incredibly poorly. A creative style, like in Darkest Dungeon or Undertale, makes a game timeless, since it isn't bound to the quality of the technology at the time. You'll be able to pick these games up in several years, and they'll still look great, while photorealistic ones will inevitably look mediocre.

[@spluddrott]

Jim sterling The Gaming Tsar!

[@PaulSoth]

Gaming Tsar Bomba

[@ZergrushEddie]

The biggest thing for me is if the games were too expensive, have 'em cost 80 bucks. But to me, once the whole craze with lootboxes started, it was pretty clearly just a "we can make unlimited money off of that thing that already made us money and all we have to do is be willing to utilize predatory gambling practices!" Hell, look at how many of these games have cosmetics behind loot crates. Why not just have a store where you can directly buy the skins? Because that would earn the company a lot less money than having people spend 60 dollars on 50 crates and go "oh, I hope I get that one Legendary skin!"

[@ArioDragon]

Finaly there are people that see this bs. Overgay can burn in hell. As is Activision Blizzard.

[@nobodys_winds6580]

It's only one cost, though. You get it once, and that's it. Lootboxes are good for business because you have to buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and oh god video games are going down the drain arent they

[@metademetra]

ZergrushEddie What I'd do is have the skins there, with a scale in price for more complex ones. But then I'd add a lootbox with the cost of the cheapest skin. I would go "Hey you could buy the skin you want for ten bucks, or you can have a 10% chance or whatever to win it for half off."

[@warc9]

Hat In Time made profit on a budget of 296,360$

[@SLKibara]

The Cost is losing respect from your customers.

[@tenaciousrodent6251]

Unfortunately, the section of the customer base that even seems to care about respectability isn't all that large. See BF 2...

[@Ghost140]

Take-two/Activision: "Whats that? We can hear you over all the money our micro-transactions (GTA5/Overwatch) are making!" "Wha? Respect?" "LAWL!!!!!!"

[@SuperDanielHUN]

Lucky EA, they don't have to worry about losing that anymore, or really nor will they ever have to in future xD

[@munchmandrifta]

Jim... Do you have a Mic in my head, LoL, when I watched Extra Credit's Vid, which almost, ALMOST, made me back pedal, on my arguments that AAA publishers are pretty much lying about "games costing more to produce since 10 years ago", I then rethought it and came up with almost all the same arguments in this vid (especially the "Hollywood Actor" argument), but you actually can provide more clarity, research and all round integrity, thank you sir, keep up the good work.

[@GophersVids]

Is that the Tony Hart music at the end?

[@wargamingrefugee9065]

If so, it would explain the pre-roll commercial I just watched.

[@JimSterling]

What art gallery is complete without it? :-)

[@holysecret2]

Gopher hi Gopher :)

[@Mf_Cooldawg]

Jim Sterling. No it was disgusting. I was trying to eat you fatty sweat bag. good video.

[@squabbbb]

Now this would be an interesting Collab...

[@Safersephiroth777]

Games like Divinity Original Sin 1&2 cost less than most AAA games, are of the best RPG's ever, they don't have microtransactions and are so successful! How is that possible? Also nice Spiders all of you.

[@BloodyBobJr]

Safersephiroth777 Larian studio wanted to make a good game from the start and not a business model to extract money. I'll happily buy their games now cause they seem to honestly care about their customers( I mean they gave Dos 1 enhanced to everyone for free who bought the 1st one, that blew me away).

[@DenzaMan]

It also helps that the people who "invest" via kickstarter, are only doing it because they want "a good game" and trust/hope Larian deliver. The people who bought in to the kickstarter only get one end result, and that's the game itself, and if it does well then Larian will keep making games. With AAA games investors buy in with only the desire to make a profit out the other end, and if it doesn't look like they're making a profit (or enough of one), they stop investing.

[@BardicLasher]

Look, man, I played through both those games, and they're great, but it's a pretty tall order to call them among the best RPGs ever.

[@Jamie-kg8ig]

I think that the team that made Wasteland 2 and is making Wasteland 3 ought to be included in the same boat.

[@Safersephiroth777]

You are correct. I played Wasteland 2 and man it was awesome.

[@KaletheQuick]

"Thank god, for you." ugh, me heart! MORE DEV CONTESTS!

[@RockSplitter]

I sub to both Jim and Extra Credits. Surprising to see them overlap, but glad it's more of a discussion and not an argument.

[@Roxor128]

I'm subbed to Extra Credits, but not Jim, but I am a regular viewer of The Jimquisition. I just don't subscribe to Jim because the only one of his shows I'm actually interested in is this one, so it's easier to leave a tab open on his video uploads page and check it every now and then (usually on Tuesday or Wednesday) than it is to wade through the flood of notification emails I'd get if I subscribed.

[@WitheredSpirit]

Jim didn't even began talking about the fact that great games create fans, which can lead to more money by selling merch and other non-video game items.

[@BigFearedBalloon]

Good point. I would happily pay for merch and wish more companies would. At this point in time, I want to see Nintendo make a Bubblaine Fountain Glass. Though I guess the problem with Merch, is the fact it's kinda hard to sell merch of realistic games since there isn't much to latch onto.

[@mantistoboggan1503]

Portal. I mean for a small game how much money have Valve squeezed out of it from merch etc?

[@BuzzaB77]

the irony is the AAA games need millions spent on marketing because the games aren't usually good enough at the core to spread from their own quality.

[@Beatdoof]

BuzzaB77 Gotta please the investors and all. Of course if the game is still good I'd say it's forgivable though imo.

[@TerryHesticles87]

Wow, when you tweeted that there were too many talented people, you weren't joking...that Horrid Spider showcase was insane!!!

[@MrTheophenes]

Seriously, shout the hell out to everyone who went in on that weird spider competition. Even the non-winners (and some people who went outside the rules for artistic reasons) created some brilliant stuff, stuff I'd happily pay money for. If you're looking for commissions on weird shit, hunt some of these people down (everything in the montage is credited) and see what they're up for. Best way to support a good artist is to make it so they can buy some grub later.

[@saijones6821]

MrTheophenes Holy crap there were so many incredible entries. I made the spood with the teddy bear and the dress toward the end. I'm always open for commissions. :P

[@rainylupin]

I love coming back to this video just to see all the Horrid Spiders. So much creativity! It really gives me hope for the future of imagination in artistic media

[@Z3phlar]

This might be the most important video Jim has made to date.

[@retroxify]

I say that every Monday.

[@KookaburraPunk]

I'm a subscriber of both Extra Credits and the Jimquisition and I am really enjoying both your videos on monetization. It's a dialogue about the industry and I find it informative. Thanks for the effort you both put in :)

[@Niarro]

Both of these videos have been pretty good, but I do sort of get the feeling that they're talking about different things. Jim's pretty explicitly pointing out the issues on the corporate side of things, issues that I think stem from larger publishers behaving as large corporations do when beholden to shareholders. And by so doing he's generally ignoring the dev-studio side of things, since they have very little or absolutely no control over any of the issues he brings up. Whereas I got the impression that the Extra Credits side of things was talking about the developer studio side of things, specifically. And it seemed like they were generally ignoring the publisher/corporate side of things.

[@stubbyfoamz1]

Niarro Moreau I think dev studios have more control then they think they are just to scared to flex for more control.

[@BroadcasterRed]

Yeah but the question still remains...are games too expensive to make?

[@thrownchance]

I only saw their video game cost video, and basically all their numbers are completely wrong. So I don't know why the hell someone would subscribe to such a channel.

[@foxybingo1112]

Amber Haas Nice to see a semi discussion between two people with opposing views that doesn't descend into a competition to see who has the loudest voice

[@Changetheling]

I'll say it again in case no one figured it out: David Hayter's absence was the Phantom Pain. EDIT: And hearing about how great Satoru Iwata was always makes me cry.

[@ZILtoid1991]

Late stage AAA gaming... If anything, photorealistic graphics actually took away the emotion that was present in many games. Many comic artist use stylization to allow greater space for emotions, and in the case of manga once the big eyes got more popular many struggled with more realistic styles.

[@ianjohnston5205]

What better way to end a video about the "AAA" industry than with a segment on horrid spiders.

[@EvilExcalibur]

Ah the ever so important perspective

[@WraithMagus]

Jim, thank God for your making this video. I tried to articulate several of these points in response to their video in the comments. (Their website's forums apparently just don't matter anymore....) One thing I tried to go into in greater detail, though, was how much they tell people that they either don't exist, or are a "vocal minority" that doesn't matter. (And whoever writes through the KZbin account named ExtraCredits actually used this line to respond to someone saying this!) For example, players who enjoy single-player only and don't like forced multiplayer gimmicks "don't exist", and when mobs of those people speak up, they are "a vocal minority" that doesn't matter. "Nobody" plays RPGs the likes of which Black Isle used to make before it was basically reformed as FPS maker BioWare, so when Pillars of Eternity comes out as something that makes millions on Kickstarter as exactly that, it's "lightning in a bottle that could never happen again", like when it gets a sequel. The real reason: "Only" hundreds of thousands, or maybe "just a few" millions of people are desperate enough for an RPG that they'll throw hundreds of dollars at one sight unseen, not the tens of millions they demand to be worth their time and 900+ staff and 4k graphics treatment. I know you like to go after Bethesda from time to time, and how it doesn't fix Skyrim, but I remember reading about how Skyrim was made with a team of about 60 people, and one of the things Bethesda spokespeople say is that they basically just prefer doing those "smaller" projects, so they aren't going to try doing some of the insane budget nonsense that EA or ActivisionBlizzard does. Incidentally, this makes it less than a third the size of a "small" team by Extra Credits' standards, and for that matter, CD Projekt Red only had about 120 people on Witcher III... So when Extra Credits tries to use example AAA games to shield the AAA industry, guess which games it tries to pull out to defend EA? Why, it's the Witcher III! It's the game from the company that explicitly advertises itself on how different it is from EA and how EA's stunts are indefensible being dredged up to defend the practices of EA! Because that's not *blatantly* *self-defeating* at all! I don't know what's wrong with Extra Credits. Maybe EA has their dog kidnapped and at gunpoint or something, but for the past year or so, they've been basically making nothing but arguments that are directly contradicted by the videos they've made in past years. I can't wait for the video that comes out saying how there's only one type of player, or that the first five minutes of gameplay don't matter, or how we need to have less diversity in our games!

[@ZeroKitsune]

I always hate it when people resort to saying that someone's opinion is a "vocal minority" without any kind of evidence to back that up. I mean I can't expect random commenters to have this kind of information at their fingertips, but when the spokesperson for the Extra Credits account starts saying it, that's a lot worse. Going this route inevitably ends with both sides calling the other a "vocal minority" and asserting that their side is clearly representing gaming as a whole, and nobody actually has any statistical data to show, at all. I suspect this data doesn't actually exist, so nobody actually knows for sure in the first place, but that puts a lot of holes in it as evidence to support any kind of argument. Also I'd be curious to know some examples of videos they've released lately that contradict earlier videos, because I haven't noticed any, and I watch their stuff.

[@WraithMagus]

If you are using the idea that a minority that wants something different as some sort of slur, though, you're basically already failing at business. I could write up a whole lot on the concept, but Jim already made (and remade) a "Perfect Pasta Sauces" video on the whole concept that trying to force everything to be one-size-fits-all is just business malpractice. The claim is that these games need 2 years development time and 500 full-time staff because that's what it takes to make the game "everyone wants", and a "mere" 100,000 people willing to throw collective millions at a game even if it is made to much lower fidelity and with a team of a mere dozen or so members is just not worth doing. Nevermind that you can make a larger profit margin making 10 times the number of games at 1/10th the cost selling to 1/5th as many people apiece, it doesn't matter as long as it's not EVERYONE playing the SAME game. They don't want to make money if it's not *ALL* the money. I'm not calling anyone else a minority as an insult. I'm saying there's no reason there should be a competition, we should all be able to play our own thing, THE WAY WE USED TO before graphics became some false idol that made the cost of producing Halo 4 somehow ten times the cost of producing Halo 1 or 2. The only reason it "costs so much" to make video games that they're FORCED to resort to building a slot machine first, and then making some game fit around it is because they start from the assumption that nothing less than individually bump mapping every fleck of mud on the mud flaps of a semi trailer for perfect showcasing in a trailer video in 4K resolution is what "everyone wants". Meanwhile, I go back to playing strategy games like Crusader Kings or Hearts of Iron that are overglorified spreadsheet simulations with a map of Europe to stare at when I drop all the charts.

[@XxTaiMTxX]

What is wrong with Extra Credits is that despite saying they are "game designers", they are actually anything but. Anyone who has spent roughly 200 hours trying to design a "fun" game will tell you that most of their practices and opinions are... well... either wrong... or misrepresentative of the entire process. What they are is a marketing team. This is clear and obvious from any of their videos. They tout "easily marketable" aspects of a game. That Skyrim opening that doesn't let the player interact, but informs of them of the state of the world and provides a thin player motivation (which you can accept or ignore) to join a particular faction in the Civil War conflict? Oh, it's "boring". It's "not how you do video games". Why? Because the player isn't "playing" the game. Well, no. We're listening to a conversation, getting to know characters and the story and history. Extra Credits isn't interested in anything to do with Lore or Story or anything at all. Not in any game. They're only interested in what is easily marketable. Look at their discussion on "how to do a shop right". What is it? It's a discussion that you "don't sell power", but you sell items to players that make other players want to spend money. Extra Credits have never designed games before. They've designed monetization and marketing strategies. Nothing more. Nothing less. Even worse? You can tell from several of their videos that they've never even PLAYED VIDEO GAMES before. They know less about game design and designing fun than most average Game Design Forum Users. What they know is marketing. What they know is how to design a game to get players to spend. They don't know how to design a fun system to use. They don't know how to design interesting mechanics. They don't know how to innovate anything. But, they could market it for you. They could help you design a game for the Lowest Common Denominator. Doing all the things the AAA Industry already does and is obvious they're doing without the Extra Credits expertise. They can teach you to "play it safe" and "appeal to the widest audience possible". That's it. They can teach you how to market your game to make a lot of money. But, if you're interested in designing a video game because you want to have compelling gameplay... a die-hard fanbase... want to tell great stories... innovate the industry... Well, you won't learn anything from them. What you learn from Extra Credits is the EA way of doing things. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[@DarkwyndPT]

I really wish this was a very mature world where 2 persons with different POVs can have an adult discussion, but there's bound to be assholes who are going to attack EC for this unfortunately...

[@SpaceBearEngineer]

Marco Rocha Depends on what you mean by attack. At first I wasn't planning to comment on their video, but I decided that leaving ignorance flourish in silence was ALSO not a mature response. So I pointed out that it's somewhat odd to talk at length about how a certain business is "too expensive" to release content that customers want, with the implication that customers should silently accept inferior content without complaint and should pay corporations more money...I guess because we...feel bad for them (??) while ignoring that those corporations paid their executives eight figure salaries...

[@Captain_Marvelous]

Someone on Twitter already called Jim a cunt for this video.

[@theresastarmanwaitinginthe5149]

*Sees length of the video* Time to grab some popcorn and a nice cold can of Coke. Crack that open and enjoy a Jim Sterling video.

[@superpippo93x]

There's a starman waiting in the sky There isn't enough popcorn in the world for a Jim Sterling video. I mean, metaphorically. I can't prove it >.>

[@johntrellston9514]

Amen brother

[@timothyhilditch]

Sees Starman, Calls him out on using like bots

[@TactileDot]

I understood that reference. Gimme a cookie. or some popcorn.

[@johanboen1474]

did you regret getting those when the spiders arrived?

[@lemeres2478]

about the flash in the bottle- game companies can replicate that by having many bottles. They can aim for a large amount of small, modest budget games. If one of those takes off, the company can then devote its attention to that and aim to make profit from it. A scatter shot method. If you look at EC's videos, they did an examination of something that did this- Warhammer 40K. Gamesworkshop gave parts of their IP to a large amount of companies in order to make games. They game large chunks of the IP to reliable teams, and then gave small parts to the smaller, untested ones (like giving them just the orks in order to make an iphone game). This allowed them to preserve the value of their IP, as they would only bet the whole thing on sure cases. But if the smaller company did well, they would pump advertising into that and give it a boost so it made more profit. And the small ones that fail? They are allowed to fade into the background without much fuss (so everyone forgets about them). Later, they might give the small but promising devs larger chunks to work with. this allowed them to have a ton of bottles to catch that lightning. This is the value of diverse, modest investments- it allows you to find talent and market trends, and thus you can then shift your focus quickly in order to full grasp taht opportunity. While Gamesworkshop had an IP to center this plan around, and they could reduce marketing costs by using their own stores/fanbase... it is not impossible to replicate the general strategy.

[@TheAmazingDolph]

Life's good when the Jimquisition is over 20 minutes