DBC14 Modification Discussion

[Alberts]

... for the 200 people with PC copies...

My arguments are all geared towards the console sales which subsidise it.

----------



Having not been able to ask everyone who bought a copy of both games whether they would have bought the next one if they could have had access to mods... Yes. Yes it is an assumption. Although I prefer to think of it as a projection based on market knowledge.

So what is the market knowledge based off then?

The key to moving units is to offer a better service than the previous game, even FIFA does this after so many years. If a game can't offer something that modders can't I don't understand why the game would continue to be made (well, apart from milking it for profit, but all that is doing is milking the good will from the customers).

The key strategy should surely be like any game series:
- Quality of the product
- Quality of after market support
- Market differentiation
- Improvements each iteration
- Good will with customers

If you want market research then surely games like Football Manager are worth considering. Having a large degree of moddability, steam workshop integration and such has not hurt sales one bit, and continued support in terms patches, updates and discussion with the community has seen get a huge market share for what would seem is a fairly niche market (in depth football management simulation).

Ashes 2009 and IC 2010 felt like a punch in the face in comparison. Waiting for patches that never came for Ashes 2009, unless you bought the PC version (which I did). From there, instead of masses of improvements, the patched game with a new roster was seemingly repackaged, with some touch ups, as IC 2010. Don't get me wrong, there were some improvements, but surely not enough to justify another full release when they left the previous one without after market support for the console customers. Ultimately they didn't even release a PC version. What did the blame not releasing the PC version on, piracy...

I think a lot of my pent up rage about untrustworthy developers came from that, and ultimately having forked out for 3 games I ended up feeling like I was swindled, but I grit my teeth on that one.

This is why I hail Big Ant about how they have in general went about things. They've been brave, innovative and actually supported the game since release.

 

[Snowy]

So what is the market knowledge based off then?

I'd hazard a guess and say it's because he has actually worked in the industry. Just a stab in the dark...

My god there is a lot if hot air in that dissertation of a post

 

[Alberts]

I'd hazard a guess and say it's because he has actually worked in the industry. Just a stab in the dark...

My god there is a lot if hot air in that dissertation of a post

Working in the business doesn't always make good business knowledge. Being success in business suggests it's the case, but it's been a long time since there's been a successful business in cricket gaming it seems, although hopefully Big Ant fix that.

If you don't like my "dissertation" (it's not that long mate) of a post, then explain what you disagree with. Did you really enjoy how Ashes 2009 and IC 2010 were handled, did you like the lack of any after market support for the consoles, did you like IC 2010 being left without the PC support?

 

[Chief]

Working in the business doesn't always make good business knowledge.

Absolutely agree with this.

----------

it's been a long time since there's been a successful business in cricket gaming

Absolutely disagree with this.

 

[BigAntStudios]

Yes, it's all about definitions....

 

[Mr Snrub]

I do agree to an extent with what Chief is saying about being able to control a proportion of the modifications to your game. The problem is that it swings both ways. You can kill a potential franchise with too much in the way of limitations.

It's just speculation, but I suspect that if there had been an International Cricket 2011, with the gameplay, graphical, environmental and optional "improvements" trending the way they were from '09 to 10, that there might've been a reasonable drop off in interest.

International Cricket was boxed off in the customisation and options area to an extent of looking cheap and very, very narrow. It seemed to showcase a development team that had not enough decent long term ideas to work with, so was limiting things to a certain amount of what they had, so as to have save something for the future.

I'm fairly sure a good number of the sales of International Cricket 2010 were down to people returning after Ashes '09 to attempt to support cricket gaming and they really were on the receiving end of a very average product with little depth as their reward for that loyalty.

 

[MattW]

I'd like to know how many people would have got IC2010 if the patch to AC09 was actually delivered.

 

[cricket_online]

I'd like to know how many people would have got IC2010 if the patch to AC09 was actually delivered.

I would have bought it regardless but again I'm a cricket tragic and have bought nearly every cricket game released on a console.

 

[Mr Snrub]

I'd like to know how many people would have got IC2010 if the patch to AC09 was actually delivered.

I suspect more than Chief might give the audience credit for. When you deliver and give the fans some of what they want, appear professional, show that you support your product, many of them want to come back and buy again.

If you have a good experience, you're willing to part with money for another good experience.

That's why I feel Chief's perspective on limitating how much you allow the fans to do with a game is to a certain extent why they didn't build on their audience with IC2010.

It's not as though people expect to sell less because it's the second game in a series. Nor is it likely that cricket is a specific, peculiar audience where you sell 250,000 in game one and expect to sell less next year. It couldn't have been brand fatigue either.

As he said there was only 10% of the promotion involved and I'm not sure what was going on here, but a poor audience interaction in other places and on Facebook etc. Overall the game didn't promise much or seem like there was much new about it.

 

[grkrama]

Yes.
AC09 = 250k units.
IC10 = 220k units (in a non-Ashes year with 10% of the publicity: a perfectly acceptable drop.. and a game that, so so many people tell me, was merely a "patch").

If AC09 had been updatable with mods: we'd have sold half that number of IC10.

From a business perspective, for me, you *have* to keep control of your game. It just doesn't make sense not to.

I will take your word on numbers Chief,but the fine line there is you guys held on the official patches that were supposed to be given with that game, im sure if you guys had released the patch , IC 2010 would have lost sales with or without mods.
I think we can agree there is a lot of difference between mods and patches.One is fine tuning other is fixing and adding stuff thats much more vital to the game.


That is not actually good practice imo if you have sights set for more than the next iteration, as was relevant to the whole skepticism going into AC13.......only a very shortsighted bussinessman would go for it.

Also on that point what do you think is the saturation point for cricket games now is it still 250k odd units or much more, i was thinking somewhere near a million units .

 

[Alberts]

I do agree to an extent with what Chief is saying about being able to control a proportion of the modifications to your game. The problem is that it swings both ways. You can kill a potential franchise with too much in the way of limitations.

It's just speculation, but I suspect that if there had been an International Cricket 2011, with the gameplay, graphical, environmental and optional "improvements" trending the way they were from '09 to 10, that there might've been a reasonable drop off in interest.

International Cricket was boxed off in the customisation and options area to an extent of looking cheap and very, very narrow. It seemed to showcase a development team that had not enough decent long term ideas to work with, so was limiting things to a certain amount of what they had, so as to have save something for the future.

I'm fairly sure a good number of the sales of International Cricket 2010 were down to people returning after Ashes '09 to attempt to support cricket gaming and they really were on the receiving end of a very average product with little depth as their reward for that loyalty.

What killed Ashes 09 and IC 10's series was the utter contempt shown after market. They produced a passable, but still buggy and poorly balanced game, then left it at that and, as Chief is saying, made sure that it wouldn't be open to modders. The fact that I needed to drop good money on the PC version to play the damn patches for Ashes 09 is damn near comical, judging from the response from myself and my friends they burnt their good will with that nonsense.

To be honest, pretty much everyone I knew who bought Ashes 09 bought it because it was a cricket game, and they are rare as hens teeth. What should have happened is that they supported it with patches, fixed it, then looked to a new version. I even remember one of my friends asking why they made the players look realistic, as a fantasy costume would have made more sense as he though "they're using the general idea of cricket, but there's no way they thought this was realistic". He basically turned his nose up at the series and scoffed at the suggesting that he'd buy from them again.

They burnt the customers, and to be honest IC 2010 seemed to only sell on the basis of being a cricket game, but they'd already damaged their market. If they'd actually supported the game the series may well have still been alive now, but I guess we'll never know.

This idea that moddability would stops sales by the way is comical. Games like Football Manager and Paradox's entire collection are hugely moddable, and they are selling magnificently. The key is making a bond with the community and proving that they won't be screwed. After the latest expansion for Europa Universalis IV they managed to get their first patch out in less than a day when something was wrong. They also patch their improvements in expansions into each new patch for everyone with the base game, only keeping a small number of features locked. But then again, they are a business that actually works with their customers, rather than just leading them on, making the game restrictive and feeling unfinished... I mean, you wouldn't want people to actually be satisfied with the product or customer support?

I guess the proof is in the sales though. Paradox interactive were a small company, making games for a niche market, and through treating the customer with respect and allowing a thriving modding community they grown remarkably and the market for their games is bigger than ever. The Football Manager series, with is also moddable, sells about 800,000+ units per year, and is doing better year on year. It just seems short sighted to have help back the patches for Ashes 09, and particularly to be against the modding community. If anything, the only real market left for cricket games in the Dark Ages that Big Ant are dragging us out of, was the modders of games like Cricket 0X series. Yes, there are tragics like me that would buy any ol' rubbish, as long as it's a cricket game, but many would have been burnt by Ashes 09, which is telling through the drop in sales for IC 2010, although there might be differing opinions there.

 

[Chief]

What killed the series was that they stopped making them...

Bit of a stream of conscious coming, but...

Patches, in those days, cost huge amounts of money on console and were only ever generally done if something incredibly serious was wrong with the game. Like category 1 bugs only (basically things that make it unshippable: repeatable hangs, progression issues). The only bugs in AC09 by industry standards (but not here) were category 3 at best: *maybe* the run-out issues were nudging a category 2. Even without the turmoil at the developer I doubt a console patch would have been sanctioned (or even remotely arguable). By IC10 launch I had moved on, but I suspect a similar story applies - the only serious issue was apparently the online issue, but knowing how many online players there were on AC09 I suspect that there was not enough evidence for them to justify fixing it, especially as that was around the time that Codemasters pulled out of all games other than racing: there was no long-term benefit for a large short-term cost.
It was such a shame. Like I said before, you want a revolution/evolution/revolution/evolution model: every 2 years you get a MAJOR update, and an interim version focussing on polish and improving what is there. I feel that 2011 would have been very, very good and the one I really wanted to make.

As developers we desperately wanted to do it: we spent many late nights in the office working after-hours on those PC patches, including live-patching into PC members computers when they had issues to try and fix them, but that was because there were a few dedicated people basically doing it because they wanted to, rather than employed to.


For me, the saturation point for sales of a cricket game is probably about 300k. Using AC09 as the example (we had ideal market conditions; good point in the hardware cycle, huge marketing, ideal license, positive reviews, releasing simultaneously to the Ashes series (which was a very good one!) etc etc) I think that's about as good as it gets.
Maybe there's an updraft in PC sales now Steam is more established, but I don't think massive. And the above isn't including the Wii version (which doubled that number) because I think we just hit the Wii at exactly the right time and hit a completely different, casual audience: that would be an incredibly difficult thing to repeat.

The PC version of IC10 was not "held back" for any other reason other than AC09 did not sell enough copies on PC to justify even printing the disks. It was SHOCKINGLY low.

 

[Munkeymomo]

Out of interest Chief, how much of an advantage does steam give this type of game? Not having to produce physical copies (and ensure you make a number which 1) won't sell out but 2) will get close) and relying on download only (which sidesteps supply/demand issues, must entice devs (or publishers, more likely) to take greater risks with games like that. Including PSN/XBL etc you have the same potential market for DL only. Or do you think digital copies harm the eventual sales/marketing output due to public preference for game shops/physical discs?

I only ask because I'm procrastinating from work.

 

[Chief]

Out of interest Chief, how much of an advantage does steam give this type of game? Not having to produce physical copies (and ensure you make a number which 1) won't sell out but 2) will get close) and relying on download only (which sidesteps supply/demand issues, must entice devs (or publishers, more likely) to take greater risks with games like that. Including PSN/XBL etc you have the same potential market for DL only. Or do you think digital copies harm the eventual sales/marketing output due to public preference for game shops/physical discs?

I only ask because I'm procrastinating from work.

Digital is definitely the future. It won't be long before you don't see discs. It's cheaper, environmentally more sound, generally more available. When did you last buy a CD? We just need to catch up. It needs one big digital only title to push it over the edge I reckon.

I think Steam is a great help: it's a trusted platform, loads of infrastructure, piracy prevention, community hub - all stuff we didn't have before. I think by IC11 we'd have been digital only through Steam: the platform was ready by then.

 

[whiteninness]

It's also taken a while for the standard level of internet to be sufficient for downloading games in a reasonable length of time.