Joe Tang (Joe Tung) was a leading producer Halo 3, Halo: Reach And Destiny, then for eight years he worked on League of Legends, And now he founded his own studio and is engaged in the conditionally paid royal battle Supervive. In an interview with PC Gamer Tang He expressed a provocative thought: in his opinion, the model of games-services is better than traditional releases for both players and developers.
It always seemed to me that the model of boxing releases for $ 60 makes us make decisions that do not correspond to the interests of the players. The key interest was: “How to sell as many copies as possible in the first 48 hours?".
One of the strongest aspects of the services of services is that you can play for a long time, think about long-term solutions in favor of the player. How it intersects with the interests of the company? In my opinion, [model of games-services] allows you to make much, much, much better decisions in general.
Joe Tang
Trailer Supervive — Games from the studio Joe Tanga.
Among the examples of decisions in boxing releases, which are not made in the interests of players, Tang He called demo versions for presentations on E3: there, they say, there are enough things that would never fall into the final version of the game.
I am ready to argue that any developer who worked on boxing releases for $ 60 before the abolition of E3 has a special story about the build for E3. Like, “let’s add as many non -existent nonsense to our build for the next three months, because we have a large show on E3 ahead, and this is our only chance to talk with the audience before we go to the release”.
Ready to argue, a huge amount of efforts for the sake of E3 were thrown into the trash because they were raw shortfalls, but people had to work hard and make big sacrifices to somehow integrate it into the build. But much did not get to the game because of the nature of which these things are created. This is my favorite example of very important decisions that do not in the interests of players.
Joe Tang
The creators Halo there really were a special relationship with demonstrations on E3: for example, in 2003 they formally showed a real presentation Halo 2, but still the iron of the first xbox could not pull all these beauties.
Game Joe Tanga Supervive, Obviously, the following problems avoids: it was announced outside E3, it first passes a limited beta testing and only by the end it is transferred to the CB. All microtransactions in the game are exclusively cosmetic and do not give gameplay advantages.
Among the gameplay features Supervive — A mixture of royal battle with management and characters as in "Mobs". Basically, 10 teams of four people face the regime, each hero has a main fire, four abilities and a passive feature, and on the map there are accidentally changing conditions and biomes with their monsters and bosses.
June 26, 2024 Clickolding — Thriller about how you are in a room with a stranger. And click. Click. Click ..
June 26, 2024 A circulation A Way Out exceeded 9 million copies
Supervive
The best comments
Well, extremely conditionally — yes, right. The only problem is that few people do. How many over the years we have seen those who have not "taken off"?
And, there is a “small” problem — many people are already sick of this phrase
So, and when instead of a holistic plot game, I get an artificially sawn donate shit, what is my benefit?
On the one hand, in his www.primespielhalle-casino.co.uk words, it makes sense, and on the other, for some reason, he forgets that the games are the same for the same $ 60 moth on the release and they are also trying to “sell them in the maximum circulation in the first 48 hours”
Everyone wants to earn money as Genshin, but are everyone ready to invest $ 100-200 million a year for support?
It always seemed to me that the model of boxing releases for $ 60 makes us make decisions that do not correspond to the interests of the players. The key interest was: “How to sell as many copies as possible in the first 48 hours?".
It seems to me, or for an answer to this question, it is necessary in many ways to comply with the "interests of the players"?
… History about build for e3. Like, “let’s add as many non -existent nonsense to our build for the next three months, because we have a large show on E3 ahead, and this is our only chance to talk with the audience before we go to the release”.
What, damn it means "the only chance to talk to the audience"? You were banned on the Internet? Forums, server discord, dosages of development, beta and demo versions, social networks, comments under your videos in YouTube, God forgive
… were raw shortfalls, but people had to work hard and make big sacrifices to somehow integrate it into the build. But much did not get to the game.
Well, yes, we did not have a whole galaxy of games, that because of such a false marketer we burned out, regardless of their relentless quality.
As usual, it is better to release an unfinished folger for Fulprais, and then think about the "long -throe interests of the player". and think exactly while the player is involved. And if not involved, then okay. then does not want to be finished
I’m interested in it, they themselves believe in this nonsense, having seen enough of the graphs and other astrological forecasts, or they just want to rinse the brains?
Service game is just an option for a model of support and distribution.
Not for all games and genres, such support is suitable.
And it all depends on how the developer reacts to this, and how it will work.
There are good games services, there are good games in early access, there are good boxes for $ 60.
And there are bad ones. And this is not a drop on the distribution and support model. Not a drop.
So the commentator did not understand that for developments we all know so profitable, but he still tried to push that the players are better (not at all) and there are no excuses
There are many, but their key problem constantly consists in the same rakes: complete focus on the loot, and similarly, complete ignoring adequate support, monetization and involvement. For some reason, effective managers look at their successful neighbors on the desk and write off only the phrase “Game Service”, and then they sit and with a serious face are perplexed where they are crap, sometimes not even understanding what to do with their own project and how to work with it further.
In terms of money, I absolutely agree. Calculate more support costs. Sing brought it to mind, and went to a passive income, but I think the service devotes in terms of profitability.
my problem is that he rubs us that this is good for players. And here I do not fundamentally disagree. The recipe for the game of the service is simple:
1) Make the game
2) Break her mechanics
3) Create a store for the sale of fixes to what has broken
4) pray to the one in whom you believe there that he will shoot
5) Feed people with promises what will be better next
And somehow I personally don’t really like to play in a deliberate crowbar. subjective)
I apologize, and what is rational? the service brings money only while alive. single from the time of release to the thermal death of the universe or withdrawal from sales, depending on what will come earlier. But from your service, another service can take the audience
And what is the rationality?
Let’s see how many months is his Supervive with such a model will bend. But they will still think that services are better)
Actually actually. Complain about bugs in the gazebo games? “Well, this gazebo, fashion will be fiking!". You complain about the bugs in the first stalker “oh stalker play in Vanilla? You are generally moron Karoch. Fashion is corrected! We must play with mods! By the way, a great game and a masterpiece, yes. But don’t play without mods!". Just okhrenic logic.
And he takes into account that there are people who do not play games services, this is, as it were, cuts the audience.
So far, the only right way is still — “doing well”, and this is not only the good work of Igrodelov, but also their marketers and planners. If all the components will do their work as they should, and will not be mistaken, they will be completely competent in their business, then it does not matter if the service or the singlepler is a service.
It is from there that the ears grow up at the failure of Prey, which was incorrectly advertised to the public, hoping to cover a large pile of gamers, speaking about Shuan, with which Prey was not. It is from there that the ears of the failure of Suicide Squad are growing, which was forcibly made in the service format due to the fact that the “uncles” from the leadership who do not play the games and know about the industry only on loud headlines from the category “Game-Service Neum brought 100,500 million money to its creators”, they already consider it a reason to make another game-service, because there are such headings and there are such headings Everyone also wants (a lot of Denyag). I hear the ringing, and where does it come from — I don’t know.
Yeah, swimming and knowing. When this crap will die?
Only games that “just tried to sell as much as possible in 2 days” as a result were more common than some of the current projects simply due to the fact that the studio had one chance not to be able to use at least somehow. And now more and more often whether you like it or not, the phrases “fix with patches” sound, “the potential will still be revealed”, “everything is ruined with a new fix — we are waiting for the next”.
Maybe with the early games there is a “surviving error”, and now more often there are cases when projects that would bury the studio in the past manage to survive (the same unfortunate No Man’s Sky, shunk Fallout 76 or reborn by the phoenix Fortnite), but you are still watching the current day He is drowning, not understanding the need to develop, because the publisher will be thrown by the publisher on Shishi from the 100th set of cosmetics of the spring-summer season (Siege and Warzone for a long time are not so fresh, Quake Champions, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Team Fortress 2, Phasmophobia in a very suspended state are located For a long time, about the stillborn Concord, and not to talk, as well as other small attempts for services, which become more justifying the poverty of the game on the release).
Doubtful, in short, a statement.
I wonder how it is blessed if, after the release, his game-service is forgotten after a month or earlier, as it often happens today.
And how is the distribution model related to its argument about the harmfulness of builds for E3? Well this is about marketing, not monetization.
