What is the deal with publishers blaming fans for a game not coming?

[Azureth]

Anyone else noticed this? When they talk of a game series many like they're always like "Well, if the fans show support we'll consider making it" or "well, the fans didn't show support so we scrapped it" a good example is the new Mega Man Legends game that didn't even release a beta like they said they would. Why is it our responsibility? Either commit to making a game or don't.

 

[eurin]

Seriously?

When they say fan support, they mean "copies sold". They didn't think enough copies would sell, so they stopped pumping more money into development. They aren't being withholding dicks, just so they can have fans beg with petitions and facebook groups. That isn't the support they mean.

 

[Azureth]

Yeah, but often they hype a game up only to later be like "well, there was no interest" or whatever even though many are.

 

[Demon10000]

They need to sell a game. Just becuase you and your 20 closest friends are interested (and 10 will probably pick up used copies at gamestop while 5 others will probably wait until it hits the bargain bin), it doesn't mean they will sell millions of copies to pay for development, licensing, production, etc...

It's rather expensive to release a game. They need to be 100% sure they are going to be able to sell it. And if they don't think they are going to be able to, they pull the plug. It just makes sense.

 

[Azureth]

I understand all that, my point is why bother teasing the fans such as Capcom did with MML3 even stating they would release a beta but never did?

 

[Parmenides]

I understand all that, my point is why bother teasing the fans such as Capcom did with MML3 even stating they would release a beta but never did?

You know the answer: money. If it looks like they won't be able to make enough (or maybe if a more lucrative project comes their way), then they switch gears and focus their efforts elsewhere. Fan interest is only a way to try to gauge the return.

 

[Bigbacon]

I would loved me some MML3.... Loved the first 2 and the Tron Bonne game.

 

[QES]

I feel they pulled mml3 too early for the reason of not enough interest. they could of just done the first beta like an open beta and judged interest level off of that

 

[jhokie]

Either commit to making a game or don't.

Someone doesn't understand business.

If at any point during a game's development finishing the game and selling it is projected to be an unprofitable event, then the game should be scrapped. End of discussion.

 

[Parmenides]

Someone doesn't understand business.

If at any point during a game's development finishing the game and selling it is projected to be an unprofitable event, then the game should be scrapped. End of discussion.

Well actually, if the project is at or near the end of it's development cycle, it would be a greater loss not to release it at all.

 

[mak10z]

Square has been doing this kind of shit for years to Chrono Trigger fans Begging for another Chrono Game. Every time they re-release CT for PS1 or DS they always dangle the god damn possible sequel in front of the re release to get people to re-buy the game. fucking assholes

(and I mean another sequel beyond Chrono Cross.. like the trademarked / then dropped Chrono Break)

 

[jhokie]

Well actually, if the project is at or near the end of it's development cycle, it would be a greater loss not to release it at all.

Apparently you missed the part of my post that stated if.... finishing the game and selling it is projected to be an unprofitable event

 

[Parmenides]

Apparently you missed the part of my post that stated if.... finishing the game and selling it is projected to be an unprofitable event

That doesn't cover the "won't be profitable, but we are about 95% done so we need some sales to recoup a portion of the loss" scenario (i.e. a choice between no profit/small loss vs. an enormous loss). That's what I was getting at. Anyways... not worth making a big deal over.

 

[LuminaryJanitor]

That doesn't cover the "won't be profitable, but we are about 95% done so we need some sales to recoup a portion of the loss" scenario

Yeah, it does. At any point in any project of any type, you need to ignore how much you've already invested when making these decisions. Whether you're 1% done or 99% done, it's 100% irrelevant. The only things you need to consider are how much more you expect to spend, and how much more you expect to earn.

 

[LeviathanZERO]

MML3 was cancelled because Kenji left the company.
Nobody wants to say it, but he was the reason the project started in the first place. With him gone, they have no direction and its easier to just blame the fans and deem the project unprofitable.

Go Capcom.

 

[singe_101]

Yeah, it does. At any point in any project of any type, you need to ignore how much you've already invested when making these decisions. Whether you're 1% done or 99% done, it's 100% irrelevant. The only things you need to consider are how much more you expect to spend, and how much more you expect to earn.

IMO the other poster is right, if it's 95% done a game should be released to a) generate attention, name recognition, reviews, etc. and b) to give the staff a sense of completion instead of rampant frustration and regret. Even if they are just there for that project and then leaving, they could come back or spread the (true) word around the industry that it's bad to work there and have hard work trashed.

I mean even if the game is a turkey, like Deus Ex: Invisible War or Far Cry 2, at least they know what NOT to make. And they can be part of steam bundles to raise the price by $1, cancelled projects can't.

 

[LuminaryJanitor]

IMO the other poster is right, if it's 95% done a game should be released to a) generate attention, name recognition, reviews, etc. and b) to give the staff a sense of completion instead of rampant frustration and regret.

If it's 95% done, you could be looking at less than a million dollars to get it done and out the door. If the game is such a steaming pile of shit that you don't expect to sell even 50,000 copies, then you probably should scrap it, even at that late stage. Intangibles like worker morale can still be given a dollar value (albeit not a very precise one) and factored in to the equation.

And say what you will about FC2 and DXIW, but they both still turned a profit.

 

[Stone Cold]

Maybe some insider could help me out on this, but I would guess the last 5% of game code takes 50% of the whole development time. By the 95% mark, they should have a very good idea how much the public will like it. So, at the 95% mark, if it doesn't look like it's going to sell well, the company can save a lot of money by trashing the title.

 

[limitedaccess]

Some things to considers as well, games are intellectual property and often use other intellectual property in their development. This means that they are often subject to additional licensing and royalty fees beyond the costs directly associated with development.

Development costs are also not the only costs to actually bring a game to market. Distribution, advertising and support also costs money.

Also you can do damage to your brand name as well, so completion and release does not necessarily lead to positive recognition as suggested. For instance with DXIW being brought up, even being so far apart, it gave many people negative perceptions of how DXHR would turn out.

Also by not releasing it does keep your options to exploit that particular intellectual property more open. For instance you could develop a separate game without worrying about over saturation.

 

[Riddleofsteel]

I understand the developers in this case. Any game series or dev house could easily drum up millions of "do want" votes from the peanut gallery in a poll or a twitter post for a sequel to a past game. But you can't count on nearly that many that will guaranteedly slap their cash down when it got released. It's a huge gamble.