The strategy works. On games that sell well and maintain players. Brink’s attrition rate was extreme. It’s price dropped rapidly. In the grand scheme of things, it wasn’t well received by consumers. Otherwise, they’d still be playing…
It’s a good strategy if you’ve got an audience to sell to. I’m not disputing that it works as a strategy, it just won’t work for Brink because of the game’s reception.
Edit
Nice stealth edit, there. Let’s not confuse being realistic with hating, please.
Sometimes supporting the product is continuing to keep it in the public eye through various marketing efforts. This would be one. Another is the new Clan update and Steam sale. Like I said before, its a safer business strategy to work on future Brink projects because it has some Brand identity. Regardless of what you feel about attrition, much of which is more pronounced on the PC, and has been from the get go, it still is a viable product. You have to look at it purely as how it generated money. That’s the key.
How long would you go on supporting it? When do you decide that enough money has been spent, that rate of return is too risky and that you should work on and then promote your new game instead?
Re: Clan update and Steam. The Clan feature was late. The Steam sale was literally giving the game away, or as near to it as possible; and yet despite thousands of players trying it for free and potentially buying it; it’s almost back to it’s previous numbers (currently less than 800).
As mentioned earlier, the core experience has to be there for people to want to continue to play. Marketing the game isn’t cheap and to do so when the likelihood of seeing a return for your investment is very low, there’s really no incentive.
[QUOTE=*goo;388157]How long would you go on supporting it? When do you decide that enough money has been spent, that rate of return is too risky and that you should work on and then promote your new game instead?
Re: Clan update and Steam. The Clan feature was late. The Steam sale was literally giving the game away, or as near to it as possible; and yet despite thousands of players trying it for free and potentially buying it; it’s almost back to it’s previous numbers (currently less than 800).
As mentioned earlier, the core experience has to be there for people to want to continue to play. Marketing the game isn’t cheap and to do so when the likelihood of seeing a return for your investment is very low, there’s really no incentive.[/QUOTE]But, the update is essentially the same game. What I am proposing is an extended version. We do know that there were various cut scenes edited out of the game. It can’t be beyond the realm of possibility to support it in this way. Why not? Yes, it did poorly on PC, which you keep bringing up, but I am clearly talking from the experience of the Xbox. Where it sold the most copies by far. Its not even close. Based on my research, its closing in on a mil copies sold on Xbox alone. That’s where I think the value is in support. I should just come right out and make that clear.
Regardless of whether you or the handful of the people still playing still enjoy the game doesn’t justify a re-release. Quite frankly the whole concept of, “release the game now and then package all the DLC up later” only works if there is a substantial amount of DLC that would be more convenient to get in one package in the first place. Brink has maybe one “substantial” (if you count two maps as being substantial) DLC and the rest are cosmetic pre-order bonuses.
Whether or not the game is on PC or console has nothing to do with it. Brink was not well-received on any platform, and does not have a dearth of content to choose from. A re-release would be a bad idea both for the developers who have no spare funds/reputation to spend on such a thing, and the players who already feel as if they got the short end of the stick. “Copies sold” does not equal “customers satisfied”. For all you know those people buying the game could have all returned it the same day in disgust.
Brink recently had a steam sale where it was $5 and all the DLC was on sale. There was a free weekend and a moderately large influx of new players. Hardly any of them have stayed, and it’s safe to assume a small amount of people actually bought the game. If selling the game for five bucks isn’t enough to coerce people into buying it, what makes you think releasing a $60 “super special edition” is going to work?
In other words, I don’t care if YOU in particular enjoyed the game yet paid more for it. I enjoyed the game too. You can’t say that people would receive a special edition well if the game wasn’t well-received in the first place, though, and I for one would not be very happy if they started re-selling the game with special goodies that I never got. I’m not buying the same damn game again for the same price. I’m not one of those idiot consumers who’s happy to throw money at any game that bombed when it gets re-released twice in the same year. I’m not comfortable with nor fond of the nickel-and-diming model that the game industry uses these days in the first place.
Maybe if you released two or three expansion packs, and then re-released a comprehensive collection edition of the game two years down the road, that would make sense. But keep in mind that Brink came out earlier this year and now it’s on store shelves for essentially a third of its price on release or less. Brink doesn’t have a lot of DLC in the first place, so it’s safe to assume that people are holding out on buying the game because they don’t want to actually buy it. Releasing the game again isn’t going to do anything but waste everybody’s money.
TL;DR *goo is right. Maybe you should actually read and think about what he is saying from a realistic point of view, instead of “I personally want to see this happen so it should.”
And just in case you missed it or wish to ignore a perfectly valid point again, PC vs. Xbox makes no difference. You can’t say you speak for all the Xbox users out there. I’m confident that the attitudes of disappointment expressed here towards Brink are universal across all platforms, or at the least, the sentiments towards the idea of spending money twice on the same game with the same shallow amount of content.
Wolfnem… it doesn’t take an expert to know that initial sales are not part of the equation in what your proposing. The success of the type of additional content/editions is entirely dependent on the current state of the game… and just because you can find “full” games on xbox does not mean the game has a population that is standard among other titles, especially considering how new it is. Your propositions are common to games that are long-lasting successes and still have the ability to procure a wider-audience. Brink made PC sales when it sold for 5 dollars… that’s the best bet at increasing the player base temporarily, but any additional content in games requires a large/dedicated fan base; Brink haz none.
[QUOTE=gold163;388159][/QUOTE]
Well, platinum hits and GOTY is usually at a price around $20, not $60. I think the ball is obviously in Bethesda’s court. Perhaps they have plans for it,or don’t ever want to talk about it again. I don’t know. Doing an Extended cut wouldn’t be something they would do based on what you’re saying. You obviously can be 100% right. Just trying to get a gage on how dry the well has gone. Perhaps this game will just get little tweaks here and there going forward. Whatever.
I’d like to know where these claims of console success are substantiated in both retail sales and player numbers.
Okay, a couple of things.
1] I rebutted Steam because YOU mentioned Steam first. Happy for you to go back through my posts and point out where I specifically talk only about the PC version that you didn’t instigate. Why would you resort to suggesting I’m talking about the only platform that’s not outlined in your OP?
2] An extended version that you suggest wouldn’t work. If the core game is exactly the same but there’s more cutscenes, I’d love for you to explain how they’d market that.
3] The X360 version sold most, PS3 behind it is probably right. But. Attrition is still present on those platforms. There’s not only the cost of packaging the ‘new’ game, there’s the cost of certification too. I’m led to believe, for example; that on X360 Microsoft gets approximately £10 per copy as royalties - whether that game is sold or not (would need to go find the source, before you ask). The costs of bringing something to market would be huge and taking the experience of the game into consideration - I’d still eat my hat if they didn’t lose money. Particularly when Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 is now in people’s consoles, both pushing their own content. Where would you spend your money?
Side point: Happy for you to provide figures on sales numbers. Please note it’s widely considered that VGChartz is highly unreliable.
I still wonder what Bethesda’s plans are considering that sub-par games like Homefront are getting a sequel. Some kind of bonus content besides the pre-order packs would help the game and a few more maps. Just trying to brainstorm a way to do it besides free on steam where it wasn’t very popular to begin with. It had more of a chance on xbox or ps3 ultimately based on sales.
A sequel is very different from bonus content. A sequel brings in money, bonus content does not unless there is a big market. There is no big market with Brink.
The fact that homefront was sub-par (dunno for myself, never played it but these are your words) and gets a sequel only makes a Brink sequel more likely, as Brink was also sub-par.
Basically, I’m looking for more content. So however it comes about, I am all for it. I was looking over the Bethesda Forums, and I am not alone in this respect. Also, any bonus content would be good. More levels or customizations would be cool. As well as more maps. Extended play. Labs is such a good map, some more like that would be good in-conjunction with the Clan update.
The only information about the XBOX360 and PS3 players that we have, are the userreviews. And they are not positive, so why would splashdamage create more content for the consoles, if most of the people don’t like the game at all. You can say that most people that like the game don’t write a userreview, if so where the heck are they? I have only seen 3 clan matches beeing played on the consoles. That doesn’t look like the consoles have a big playerbase. And you can see on a regular base people complain on this forum that they can’t find full matches.
[QUOTE=Ruben0s;388260]The only information about the XBOX360 and PS3 players that we have, are the userreviews. And they are not positive, so why would splashdamage create more content for the consoles, if most of the people don’t like the game at all. You can say that most people that like the game don’t write a userreview, if so where the heck are they? I have only seen 3 clan matches beeing played on the consoles. That doesn’t look like the consoles have a big playerbase. And you can see on a regular base people complain on this forum that they can’t find full matches.[/QUOTE]Most of the people who enjoy the game, aren’t spending as much time on the forums and making reviews like the haters were, they are instead playing the game. The community is small. That’s true. But was able to find full games because I networked to compile a solid group to play with. Obviously, not everyone is gonna be willing to go to that extent to find people to play with, so that’s a major fault with the game when that’s the case. But for me, I was able to play in full rooms. That’s when the game really shines. Its a shame that it never took off more.
But it too has high level of attrition of players. The community for Gears 1 multiplayer was small once Halo 3 and COD4 came out. Very small. I know, similar to Brink, I was part of that community. Gears of War doesn’t even have its own dedicated section of the forum at Epic, there’s only Gears 2 and 3.
Currently, less than 70k players are playing Gears 3 total. And that’s after 2 million pre-orders and 5 million copies sold. Where did all those millions of people go? MW3. I think Brink is a fun game. With more content it could be even better. Obviously, it may never get any. I am sure you won’t lose any sleep over that. Hey, there’s always something else like Quake Wars, right?
Here’s the Xbox Top 20 List for November. (LIVE Activity for week of November 21st). This is something I tried to point out when everyone kept bringing up Steam Counts and player attrition. Games now are about Brand recognition. Games that are new, get bought yes, but aren’t ultimately played consistently on the level of games that have long standing brand recognition. A game like Brink is starting from the ground level, with a community that has to build itself, which is something I always realized would be the case, even before I picked the game up. This is why I pushed to find people to play the game with. Obviously, I am not the only one that did that. There are others.
Xbox 360 Top LIVE Titles (based on UU’s)
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
Call of Duty: Black Ops
Skyrim
Battlefield 3
FIFA 12
Modern Warfare 2
Halo: Reach
Gears of War 3
Madden NFL 12
Saints Row: The Third
Assassin’s Creed Revelations
GTA IV
Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary
Forza Motorsport 4
Batman: Arkham City
NBA 2K12
Halo 3
FIFA Soccer 11
NHL12
Call of Duty 4
Every single game on this list is a sequel. Man, its kind of sad. I’d hate to be a game developer who thinks people will play their new fresh game. LMAO.
A game like Brink just has no chance! But if we don’t support games like Brink, all we are gonna end up with is re-treads. Now, Brink is far from perfect, but at least it tries to do its own thing. I’d like to see more content for it, even though I know its not gonna show up on a list like this xbox one.
