Take-Two going through layoffs, Private Division and other labels affected

[J.Random]

14 minutes ago, DarkNounours said:

You are not buying the game, your are buying a promise of what the game could be one day.

You're exactly opposite of being right. When you're buying an EA title, you're buying it as is, in its current state, with no obligations from developers or a publisher to ever fulfill any promises they made in promotional materials.

[Moons]

12 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

For me any game purchase is an investment. But I like to think of it as investment in my time. If I clocked in at least the same amount of hours as the price I paid [in local currency, so multiply the $ value by 4 or so], that was a great investment. There are few exceptions of course like story driven titles that are short but are valuable in other ways, but you get the idea.

I dont get that? If you buy a released game and it is buggy you can simply refund it.

I also dont see games as an investment of my time - since i play games to have fun not to invest time.

To me that argument makes no sense at all. So the best purchase you ever made is your doormat since you use it daily for a decade? Or your work-office chair since you sit on that 8+ hours a day? Or that nail you used to hang up that picture that holds that picture 24/7 365 days a year?

 

If a purchase is worth it to me is defined by:

- am i having fun with it

- how are the costs compared to other similar items

- how is the quality of the product

 

But may i sell you your next chair for 5k? Because if you use it for lets say 7 years 6 hours a day - that would mean you only pay 0,32 USD per hour - what a bargain!

 

Sorry i really dont understand when people started with this weird metric for buying games - especially since this pretty much makes grind-mechanics seem like a good thing.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Moons

[Wheehaw Kerman]

3 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

For me any game purchase is an investment. But I like to think of it as investment in my time. If I clocked in at least the same amount of hours as the price I paid [in local currency, so multiply the $ value by 4 or so], that was a great investment. There are few exceptions of course like story driven titles that are short but are valuable in other ways, but you get the idea.

Agreed.  Price is a terrible way of measuring the value of a computer game.  Fifty bucks may be the difference between eating the rest of that week or not for some people, and others won’t buy a bottle of wine below that price point, but the best measure of value of a game is in the cost per hour of playtime.  A movie in the theatre comes out at about $10/hr.  Streaming it runs maybe $2/hr  A nice dinner for two can run $150/hr/person easily.  KSP1 is at a fraction of a cent per hour for some of us,  jank and bugs and long dev time and all.

Once you get into the better than streaming a movie territory, whinging about price starts sounding silly, and starts becoming a bit of an own goal in some respects.  I’m at that point with KSP2 already.

[Kerbart]

26 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Or perhaps, it wasn't dictated by team's success or failures, but purely a financial decision. Paul himself said he wasn't cheap. So it was one him or few others or someone more critical to future development. We don't know and won't know because it's a detail that no company will share.

Agree that we don't know, but it's not good. Maybe it's a cost cutting operation and they just fired an effective and well-respected leader. Surely that'll affect his team in a negative way. And maybe it's because he wasn't, and the current state of the project is far removed from what it could have been. That's not good either. Either way, how likely is it that the dev team's mind is on fixing bugs today?

[The Aziz]

1 minute ago, Moons said:

I dont get that? If you buy a released game and it is buggy you can simply refund it.

I have yet to refund my first game, (but I had a game refunded by a company because of their mistake, thanks Microsoft!) I rarely purchase on day 1 but when I do, I know what kind of game I'm getting into. Bugs can be fixed, poor gameplay not.

6 minutes ago, Moons said:

I also dont see games as an investment of my time - since i play games to have fun not to invest time.

And if I have a lot of fun, means I'm likely to spend a lot of time in it. Good investment! It's a result, not a cause.

8 minutes ago, Moons said:

So the best purchase you ever made is your doormat[...]

You missed my word there. Game purchase.

[The Aziz]

We'll see in a few hours when the work day starts out there in Seattle.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

5 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

nder capitalism no good deeds go unpunished

Ever heard of China or Russia? 

[Wheehaw Kerman]

15 minutes ago, Moons said:

I also dont see games as an investment of my time - since i play games to have fun not to invest time.

To me that argument makes no sense at all. So the best purchase you ever made is your doormat since you use it daily for a decade? Or your work-office chair since you sit on that 8+ hours a day? Or that nail you used to hang up that picture that holds that picture 24/7 365 days a year?

The thing that your missing here is that unlike doormats or chairs, the sole purpose of playing a game IS to have fun, and hours spent in a game is a measure of the entertainment return you got for the game’s price.  It’s also a good measure of how much you enjoy the game, if you can afford other options.

Unless you’re the sort of person who will intentionally waste money and time on boredom and misery, of course.  

Edited March 8, 2023 by Wheehaw Kerman

[Moons]

10 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Agreed.  Price is a terrible way of measuring the value of a computer game.  Fifty bucks may be the difference between eating the rest of that week or not for some people, and others won’t buy a bottle of wine below that price point, but the best measure of value of a game is in the cost per hour of playtime.  A movie in the theatre comes out at about $10/hr.  Streaming it runs maybe $2/hr  A nice dinner for two can run $150/hr/person easily.  KSP1 is at a fraction of a cent per hour for some of us,  jank and bugs and long dev time and all.

Once you get into the better than streaming a movie territory, whinging about price starts sounding silly, and starts becoming a bit of an own goal in some respects.  I’m at that point with KSP2 already.

Yeah i dont think so at all.  A price is the perfect vaue for games since you can simply compare the price of diffent games with each other. Just for a second lets pretend gaming companys now use your metric as a metric to price and make their games.

That would mean - the game with the most grinding mechanics but addictive mechanics would be the game with the most value and that open world grind games are way too cheap - so modded skyrim should probably cost a huge ammount of money looking at the playtime of some players?

 

I also for example have mobile games i played a lot - you proabbly too - would you seriously suggest that snake etc. should cost a lot of money?

3 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

The thing that your missing here is that unlike doormats or chairs, the sole purpose of playing a game IS to have fun, and hours spent in a game is a measure of the entertainment return you got for the game’s price.

Unless you’re the sort of person who will intentionally waste money and time on boredom and misery, of course.  

But looking at time per USD simply makes no sense to me. So lets take some random mobile game you probably play when bored - on your way to work etc. - do you really think time played compared to price is a good indicator to define its worth?

 

Looking at KSP2 in its current state - would you seriously argue that the product is worth its price right now just because you spent some hours playing it in this state? Would you argue that if they stopped development right now and never release a patch it would have been worth it due to your metric?

Edited March 8, 2023 by Moons

[The Aziz]

2 minutes ago, Moons said:

you can simply compare the price of diffent games with each other.

And where that leads me? Expensive Jedi Fallen Order was crap (IMO), and dirt cheap Terraria gave me loads and loads of fun. What the price comparison exactly does?

[Moons]

2 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

And where that leads me? Expensive Jedi Fallen Order was crap (IMO), and dirt cheap Terraria gave me loads and loads of fun. What the price comparison exactly does?

Jedi Fallen Order was to expensive for what it offered - because other games at a similar price offered more. Terraria had a good price-content ratio and was priced the way it was because it was cheaper to produce since it doesnt use very advanced graphics etc.

I think the more appropriate way to use it is picking similar games in similar states. For example Sons of the Forest - game after The Forest - graphics look good, lots of features missing, lots of bugs - es beeing sold at 30 USD at EA - seems reasonable and in line with most other EA games that sell at a way lower price than release and in a rather early state.

 

When looking at KSP2 i dont see many other EA games at that price - especially not that early in development - at 50 USD id can actually buy full release games - even AAA games therefore the price doesnt seem appropriate for the game as it is now.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

11 minutes ago, Moons said:

Yeah i dont think so at all.  A price is the perfect vaue for games since you can simply compare the price of diffent games with each other. Just for a second lets pretend gaming companys now use your metric as a metric to price and make their games.

That would mean - the game with the most grinding mechanics but addictive mechanics would be the game with the most value and that open world grind games are way too cheap - so modded skyrim should probably cost a huge ammount of money looking at the playtime of some players?

 

I also for example have mobile games i played a lot - you proabbly too - would you seriously suggest that snake etc. should cost a lot of money?

No idea what Snake is?

The other thing you’re missing is that hours played per game, especially for an individual, is a perfectly objective measure of how much they enjoy that game.  We choose how to spend our leisure hours.  In my case I choose to do a lot of things instead of game - skiing, hunting, fishing, kayaking and so forth (and if you thought KSP2 was expensive, try a box of .45-70 - although that doesn’t just produce fun, it also reduces grocery bills, so you have to calculate the ROI differently).  Gaming is just something I do when it’s too dark, cold, rainy or illegal to do better things.

But measuring apples to apples and games to games, there’s no better measure for any of us of the value we get out of our games than the time we put into them.  And since we buy those games to have fun in our leisure time,  dollars per hour is a perfect way  to calculate and compare ROI.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Wheehaw Kerman

[Moons]

5 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

No idea what Snake is?

The other thing you’re missing is that hours played per game, especially for an individual, is that they’re a perfectly objective measure of how much they enjoy that game.  We choose how to spend our leisure hours.  In my case I choose to do a lot of things instead of game - skiing, hunting, fishing, kayaking and so forth (and if you thought KSP2 was expensive, try a box of .45-70 - although that doesn’t just produce fun, it also reduces grocery bills, so you have to calculate the ROI differently).  Gaming is just something I do when it’s too dark, cold, rainy or illegal to do better things.

But measuring apples to apples and games to games, there’s no better measure for any of us of the value we get out of our games than the time we put into them.  And since we buy those games to have fun in our leisure time,  dollars per hour is a perfect way  to calculate and compare ROI.

One of the first mobile games?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_(video_game_genre)

 

I wouldnt say that the ammount of time i spend in a game is a good measurement of how much i enjoy the time actually playing it. People spend a lot of time in game with grind-mechanics - does that mean they enjoy the game more than a shorter game where the shorter individual time spent is way more fun? I have games where i spent hours ingame trying to mod and optimize them - is that a good measurement of fun?

People spend hundreds on hours on games with loot boxes or even virtual slot machines - is the time spent really an objective measure of how much they enjoy it?

Also you called it "objective" - it isnt - if at all its highly "subjective".

 

If you fish for 8 hours and dont catch a single fish that day (not even a bite) - does that mean its still a great fishing day you enjoyed because you spent 8 hours?

Edited March 8, 2023 by Moons

[Periple]

1 minute ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

hours played per game, especially for an individual, is a perfectly objective measure of how much they enjoy that game

I disagree! Two of my all-time favorite games are pretty short and I think I've only put about 30-50 hours into them each.

If I had to rank the games I've played in order of how much I enjoyed them, I think there would be some correlation with hours, but it wouldn't be a very strong one until I got well past the top 10.

[Wheehaw Kerman]

3 minutes ago, Moons said:

One of the first mobile games?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_(video_game_genre)

 

I wouldnt say that the ammount of time i spend in a game is a good measurement of how much i enjoy the time actually playing it. People spend a lot of time in game with grind-mechanics - does that mean they enjoy the game more than a shorter game where the shorter individual time spent is way more fun? I have games where i spent hours ingame trying to mod and optimize them - is that a good measurement of fun?

People spend hundreds on hours on games with loot boxes or even virtual slot machines - is the time spent really an objective measure of how much they enjoy it?

Also you called it "objective" - it isnt - if at all its highly "subjective".

 

If you fish for 8 hours and dont catch a single fish that day (not even a bite) - does that mean its still a great fishing day you enjoyed because you spent 8 hours?

Well, I can’t speak for those people, but barring cases of addition, dollars per hour is absolutely a measure of time they chose to spend on having fun, and in the cases of addiction, it’s time they spent being entertained.  In all cases, it’s time spent on entertainment, hence dollars per hour is a good measure of ROI, although to my point, in some cases the quality of that entertainment could be better.  

To your question about fishing, yes.  Absolutely yes.  It is not all about the fish.  It’s about getting in, enjoying nature, the camaraderie, the hope, the photos and only incidentally the meals.  I remember few computer game moments (most of those are in KSP).  The moment that trout with a tail the size of my bleeping hand broke itself off at that outfitter’s in Quebec back in 2003 is still clear as day in my mind.

[Moons]

7 minutes ago, Wheehaw Kerman said:

Well, I can’t speak for those people, but barring cases of addition, dollars per hour is absolutely a measure of time they chose to spend on having fun, and in the cases of addiction, it’s time they spent being entertained.  In all cases, it’s time spent on entertainment, hence dollars per hour is a good measure of ROI, although to my point, in some cases the quality of that entertainment could be better.  

To your question about fishing, yes.  Absolutely yes.  It is not all about the fish.  It’s about getting in, enjoying nature, the camaraderie, the hope, the photos and only incidentally the meals.  I remember few computer game moments (most of those are in KSP).  The moment that trout with a tail the size of my bleeping hand broke itself off at that outfitter’s in Quebec back in 2003 is still clear as day in my mind.

I did fish in the past - but a day without any bites would definitely not be as much fun as a day with bites and a big catch.

I think we just dissagree - i neither think that people spending time automatically means them having fun - nor do i think it says much about the quality and vlue of the game.

 

Looking at some friends they spend a lot of time on grindy mobile games in their spare time - neither does it seem as if they are having fun - nor is the quality of those games any good. I also wouldnt argue that someone sitting in front of a one-armed bandit for hours is actually having fun.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Moons

[Wheehaw Kerman]

10 minutes ago, Moons said:

I did fish in the past - but a day without any bites would definitely not be as much fun as a day with bites and a big catch.

I think we just dissagree - i neither think that people spending time automatically means them having fun - nor do i think it says much about the quality and vlue of the game.

 

Looking at some friends they spend a lot of time on grindy mobile games in their spare time - neither does it seem as if they are having fun - nor is the quality of those games any good. I also wouldnt argue that someone sitting in front of a one-armed bandit for hours is actually having fun.

I think you missed the distinction I was drawing between fun and entertainment.  Bad entertainment is a thing.  But even so, it still looks good compared to the unpleasantness of boredom, or having to actually think about our circumstances and existence and face the yawning empty void that inevitably awaits us all, then :).

 

30 minutes ago, Periple said:

I disagree! Two of my all-time favorite games are pretty short and I think I've only put about 30-50 hours into them each.

If I had to rank the games I've played in order of how much I enjoyed them, I think there would be some correlation with hours, but it wouldn't be a very strong one until I got well past the top 10.

So there’s ROI measured objectively in terms of dollars per hour, and then there’s quality of experience - high quality experiences often have bad ROI in terms of hours played.  KSP kinda hits that sweet spot of high (for a game) quality experience and excellent ROI.

[tstein]

1 hour ago, Periple said:

Moons, there is no conceivable situation in which all of those things will be true. Budgets are done one FY at a time, so there's no way funding is "secured" beyond that. There is no way that EA sales won't have any effect on the funding. While it's possible that no further layoffs are planned, that means diddly-squat because that plan can change next Wednesday. And there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that they'll change the EA to a prepurchase in the way you would want.

Just wait for 1.0, man (or until it's on discount, if the $60-$100 price is above your range). You'll save yourself a lot of anxiety and have more productive things to do with your time than gripe about it here!

Not 100% true. Commonly you are right, specially  for smaller software products,  but some projects have  pre allocated funding for more than one year in large companies. They just pass for a review at end of each FY and if nothing out of ordinary happens they continue. Usually when a company says  the funding is secure it means the company long term forecast already predicts these costs allocated for X years.

[tstein]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Ever heard of China or Russia? 

The difference is that  in Comunism no deeds go unpunished.. good or bad (remember equal suffering for all )

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

We'll see in a few hours when the work day starts out there in Seattle.

Anyone know why they're (or any studio) posting changes and candidates to Steam? 

Why not do the work in house and then distribute a final approved patch just the one time? 

[tstein]

Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Anyone know why they're (or any studio) posting changes and candidates to Steam? 

Why not do the work in house and then distribute a final approved patch just the one time? 

Because they are using  automatic  build and deploy. That is rather normal in non mission critical software (i.e non healthcare, non military etc...)

[LameLefty]

[snip]

The stuff discussed in this thread is not new for any company in the world when economic conditions shift and investors get nervous. Middle managers and a few leaders take the obvious falls, lower level people get pressured to work harder with often (not always) some layoffs. Alternately, there are no layoffs but staffing levels are reduced through attrition (those who leave are not replaced).  People buckle down and hopefully hang on until financial and economic conditions improve. I would venture to say the very same thing has happened to more than a few of the people on this forum if they are old enough to have worked for a decade or more.

Edited March 8, 2023 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[thewhitemetroid]

The argument of value is moot to begin with. Value from the consumers perspective is subjective. I agree with all sides of the argument here because valid points are made, but no single argument can cover the use case for all individuals. As an example.

Moons, you argue that dollar per hour of play cannot be used as a metric because of grindy games and how that can't be fun. I disagree. To you it is not fun or worth your time, to me it is. I like grindy games because I get a sense of accomplishment out of the work I put into it to get the results that I was expecting. Some games do it better than others, thats the risk.

I like the dollar/hr metric but it isn't the only one. I have played many games that were short in my opinion but gave me such an intense experience that ill remember forever. Some games have a value of nostalgia, there are too many ways an individual can measure value. It depends on what is important to them.

What I do think is worth noting however is that for this particular case, I find the $50 too high for the product I received. I understand its EA, blah, blah, blah, but you cannot know what you are getting until you throw the money on the table and hindsight is 20/20. I don't regret it, don't get me wrong. I'm in, I want to see this succeed, I'm absorbing the risk. However, we can now take a global view with critic reviews, user reviews, low player counts, refund stats, and even long time hard-core players having a critical take on it. It hard to argue that the game has lived up to it's "value". It has left a somewhat bad taste in my mouth, but there is still time for redemption. Its too early to throw in towel, they haven't even launched the first patch. By the way, where is that damn thing, need to drop soon. Anyway I'm going to remain hopeful but the situation is not good at this time.

[LameLefty]

It might also be they are using both distributed development and offsite testers, all of whom would have access to depots and builds separate from what’s available to customers through the Steam consumer interface. 

[Periple]

3 minutes ago, LameLefty said:

offsite testers

Bingo.

Steam is a handy way of distributing builds for that. You already have the pipes in place so you just give them the keys to the channel and they get them automatically.