KDC2's development budget was ~$40 million

One steam comment mentioned they're basically using the same engine as before, that would certainly help, and probably lower system requirements as well. Sounds like both these game require large time commitments, which
puts me off of looking into them more.

rms

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 10:12:02 -0700, "rms" <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net>
wrote:

KDC2's development budget was ~$40 million

One steam comment mentioned they're basically using the same engine as
before, that would certainly help, and probably lower system requirements as >well. Sounds like both these game require large time commitments, which
puts me off of looking into them more.

rms

It is extraordinarily rare that I buy an SP game on release day, but I
did in this case based on early reviews and honestly I kind of wanted
to support a non-woke game.

I ended up refunding it after a little under 2 hours of play, because
cutscene after cutscene just puts me off. I want to play, not watch
movies. So I started skipping them, but began feeling like I was
missing important elements.

For those who don't mind sinking dozens of hours a week into watching
cutscenes and who are as much into the story as the gameplay itself, I
guess I can see how its a great game. It felt really polished and
impressive, fun and immersive. When I was playing it was fun... I
just don't like being held back from playing and forced to spectate.

It could be that the first few hours are a tutorial of sorts.. I got
that impression the first time at the alchemy table (my god what a
chore.... fun the first time you do it maybe but I was concerned I
have to do all that shit every time I craft a recipe?). But I wasn't
going to take a chance on finding out the entire game is hundreds of
hours full of cutscenes I'm not interested in, not at the $60 price
point.

It's weird because since I refunded it, something about me wants to
give it another chance, but at the moment with all of the other ways
I'd like to spend my time I think I'd like to do that at the $30 price
point or so.

I also have KCD1 already (I think I got it free or extremely cheap)
and never loaded it up. Lol.

I do think that for someone who doesn't have a lot of other hobbies
and a shortage of time already, honestly it did strike me as a special
game, so I kind of do see what all the fuss is about.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 06/02/2025 15:45, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

But as important, KDC2's success proves that not only are
single-player, non-'live service' games still popular, they're also financially viable. You/don't/ need to make a $500 million game to be successful. KDC2's development budget was ~$40 million, and it looks
as good as anything Ubisoft or Electronic Arts shits out. Is it a bit smaller? Is the gameplay perhaps not as refined? Maybe. But I'd rather
a dozen 'slightly imperfect' games released per year to one of EA's
mammoth annual blockbusters.

Yep, the impression I get is that triple-A developers have almost backed themselves into a corner in which they feel they have to produce 'mega'
games as that's just what they do and those budgets also effectively
force them to be risk adverse. You'd think they'd have woken up by now
and realised that just throwing money at a game isn't a recipe for
success and instead is often a recipe for getting a studio closed down
or 'restructured'.

Saying that like you I and tempted to buy it but have held of so far as
my anchor point for what a game is worth has shifted downwards as there
are just a lot of games that I've really enjoyed in the £10-£20 bracket.

[Meanwhile, EA is suggesting that "Dragon Age: Veilguard" might
have been more successful had it been released as a live-service
game. Because the lack of 'shared world features' in DA:V was
what held it back, right?]

Yes I saw that and well what can you say, just how out of touch are
they. Then again I'm sure the grand formages will be the ones carrying
the can for this costly mistake and not the dev's :-)

From what I've read about the game it's not that it's a bad game but
that it's just an ok game compounded by things that people liked about
the series, such as good writing and meaningful choices, aren't there. I
can't say it bodes well for the next Mass Effect as it sounds that a lot
of the talent that understands how you make a good Mass Effect game have
been told their services are no longer needed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/02/2025 15:07, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

TL;DR: live service games are a very smart move... but the triple-As
really need to diversify. But they don't, which is why they're having problems and why mid-tier publishers are making a comeback.

If you get it right then there's lots of money to be made but get it
wrong they can be studio killers. As you say one of the problems is the
whole model is based around the live service game becomes the game you
play and you play it a lot. The model also has the problem that it
focuses on what can we do to get players to open their wallets not
improving the overall game experience.

When I look at the early days of World of Tanks new content was really
centred around the likes of new maps, tech. trees and nations. What it
ended up with was paid for premium tanks and a shift to making those
premium tanks just better than tech. tree ones.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 16/02/2025 17:55, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

More, some companies -- with Ubisoft and Bethesda being the most
obvious examples-- have am entire process for how they develop and
sell their games. It's why their games often look so much the same;
it's not just the re-use of their engines, but the entire development
process --from the pre-dev visualizing, to how the assets are built,
to the back-n-forth between programming and game-dev-- is a tested,
almost assembly-line methodology. It's not fixed in stone, but changes
are costly and... well, why bother if people are going to buy the end
product anyway?

I think a lot of the big studios have kinda painted themselves into a
corner as the big budgets that are expected leads to, as you say, a low
risk strategy. Then there's the issue of are they even capable of
developing a game that isn't based on an existing IP or just the same
type of mechanics they almost always have.

How long that is substantial for before people tastes start changing, I
don't know. Then you have live services, how many people have being
burnt by them and are now wary of pumping a reasonable amount of money
into a game only to find out that a year later the servers are shutting
down and no you don't get it refund.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)