Economics of a 2D Adventure

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Zonk on Wednesday October 20, 2004 @05:45AM from the put-the-hampster-in-the-microwave dept.

Thanks to The Grumpy Gamer (Ron Gilbert of Monkey Island fame), for his excellent look at The Economics of 2D Adventure Games. "First, this is only a thought experiment. This is not something I am planning on doing, or even have a huge interest in doing, so please don't feed the rumor mills. Second, this article contains gory and gruesome details about the games business and, in particular, marketing and distribution. If you'd rather remain blissfully oblivious to the horrors of what goes on behind the scenes, this is the place to stop reading. If you're one of those people that can't help but stare at a car accident, read on."

29 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The first thing I noticed by loopback_127001 · 2004-10-20 06:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

In the budget was this: Testing Subtotal: $30,000 In case anyone wants to ever wonder why the game industry releases consistently buggy, shitty product, there's your answer. Testing. ALL the testing for 1 year. $30k. Half the salary of a single developer. I would assume that's either for hiring a single real person at 30k to do the testing, or else to pay 30k to a contractor service for some amount of hours of testing. I think it's interesting, especially given that the stated numbers are from his experience in the industry. Perhaps in this specific case, with a known engine and no cutting-hedge technology, spending such a tiny amount of testing of the game could work out, if you also have the developers and everyone else playing the game / testing along the way as well. Overall, a really interesting breakdown of how things would work for even an extremely simple game idea, and how much money is involved.
1. Re:The first thing I noticed by AltaMannen · 2004-10-20 06:17 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I don't think it was assumed testing is full time for the full time of the project.
  
  Until you have something "playable" the programmers and designers can do all the testing and that is going to take a certain amount of time.
  
  Also, going with the publisher approach may mean that they have an additional testing team that goes under "publisher overhead". Most titles today have way higher testing costs than $30k, but this is a low-budget project.
2. Re:The first thing I noticed by TwistedSquare · 2004-10-20 06:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Though they did say they would be using an existing engine, which should reduce the amount of testing needed by quite a bit to my mind.
3. Re:The first thing I noticed by hollismb · 2004-10-20 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  You also have to remember that the person who's developing something is also testing it as well, independent of the budget.
4. Re:The first thing I noticed by loopback_127001 · 2004-10-20 07:55 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I both 'agree' and 'don't agree'.
  
  First, the agreeing! I think you're 100% on point about the publisher test team, since publisher's have their 'acceptance tests' that a game must pass before it can be declared gold, and their test team is a part of that overhead.
  
  The idea of test coming into the product to test something that's already playable is very likely a common approach (I don't work in the game sector, but it's a common attitude in other places in the software industry, so I feel pretty ok making that assumption). But as anyone who has had to sit through a presentation on test knows, bugs found at the beginning of the design/implementation phase are a lot less costly to fix than ones at the tail end of it all. Having test involved in design and planning meetings at the early stages can make a huge difference in the final quality of a product.
  
  With a 2d point/clickita adventure game specifically, I don't think test would necessarily provide much in the way of useful feedback, but let's consider that for a moment. If your game is going to be an extremely simple, single-solution / single-path adventure game, that 30k number is quite reasonable.
  
  But if that's the case, what do you need all 4 programmers for? you'll really only need the Lead Programmer (who can tweak engine issues) and probably 1 junion dev, and perhaps an intern or some other nearly-free work. Heck, have a junior-junior dev who is also your tester, and save money in BOTH areas.
  
  Now if your game is going to have multiple solutions to puzzles, multiple paths, 'ideal' endings, and all the other things that are often looked for in modern games, test's job (and development's) becomes much more complex, including reviewing the game's relative difficulty, if following unexpected branches break forward progression in the game, etc. And in that case, 30k is not going to be enough, and everyone would benefit from having Test involved at a very early stage to provide feedback on the design and planning.
  
  It's also worth noting that "testing" is just considered a monobloc expense, and not an actual person/position, which goes to the heart of the problem in the games industry. "testing" isn't a job, it's a commodity you buy. You hire programmers to make your product, but you pay for the testing of your product.
5. Re:The first thing I noticed by spyrochaete · 2004-10-20 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know first hand, but I've read in a few places that game testers love their job and do very well at it. They bring forth many more problems than are fixed due to budget constraints and marketing pressure to release a game as early as possible. Also, companies don't like supporting or expanding upon finished products because it costs them money.
6. Re:The first thing I noticed by raisedbyrobots · 2004-10-20 09:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I agree. When was the last time you found a bug in a 2D adventure game? That's because it's just a new story on top of the same engine. As long as you make sure you can play through the entire game, you're pretty much fine. Really the only testing you need on the playable product is to play through the whole game a few times to make sure it's possible to win. The only real bugs that can occur then are broken room or item objects in the game. In most of these cases, the worst that happens is the user can no longer win, which is a valid choice for some adventure games. (Although recently most adventure games stay away from that.) On the off chance that there is some massive unintended error, the company can just patch it. Most users probably won't notice the bug at all and will be fine without it. No one is going to get pissed because they lost a death match over a bug.
  
  Believe me, adventure gamers are going to be much more tolerant of bugs than players of other genres. These guys are used to dying for incredibly inane reasons. They've been trained to save every ten minutes in case something goes wrong. Click on a honey comb? Bees kill you. Walk over an ant hill? Fire ants. Look at old woman? Turn to stone. Unprotected sex with hooker? Death by horrible STD. Anyone who's played through a few * Quest games knows what I'm talking open.
7. Re:The first thing I noticed by Unoti · 2004-10-20 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  There's more kinds of defects that are possible in a game than just technical bugs.
  Some crucial kinds of questions the testing needs to tell the development team includes: Is it too hard? Is it too easy? Did you get stumped anywhere? Was it boring anywhere? Did the storyline make sense to you, or was it unclear in certain places?
  It won't take long for the development team to get so far into the weeds on the project that they won't be able to answer questions like those for themselves.
  Putting together a test plan that figures out what kinds of issues like these need to be addressed is going to take some thought and attention from competent individuals. That sort of thing costs money if you need to be confident that you have a quality product. Drop the funding, and your risk have having a pile of poo increases.
8. Re:The first thing I noticed by cgenman · 2004-10-20 13:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Bugs at the beginning of the design / implementation phase are generally the responsibility of the designer / programmer. We're not generally talking about the more sophisticated test casing and automated test script generation of the larger software industry, we're talking about people in their early twenties working for 10 dollars an hour or less. This is not to say that's how it should be: I've been pushing for more automated test solutions from programmers at the company where I work, and it has been yeilding tremendous results. But the fact of the matter is, you don't need playtesters until you have a playable. Up until then extreme coding practices and careful design implementations are what you have to rely upon.
  
  It's also pretty safe to assume that if you hire competent people a remote tester is going to get 30% or less of the bugs of an in-house tester, and will be less able to oversee their correction. In case you didn't know, publishers will have a team of QA on their premisis roughly equal in size to the developer's QA team, devoted to each individual game. Perhaps it's the difficulty communicating with the dev team, or the generally 400% turnover rate, but remote publisher QA is terrible. I'm baffled as to why this practice persists, and why we haven't just moved to a publisher pays for in-house model (with, of course, requisite spot-checks). It's not like the publisher has a team devoted to checking all of the artwork in a project all day long... Take the butcher's word for it, and put those QA developers where they belong.
  
  Testing is starting to get the attention it deserves as a discipline. The company I work at is going to a one designer - one artist - one tester model for level development, which should help communication immensely.
  
  3 testers for the final 4 months of a project this size at 30k is reasonable.
  
  But if that's the case, what do you need all 4 programmers for? you'll really only need the Lead Programmer (who can tweak engine issues) and probably 1 junion dev, and perhaps an intern or some other nearly-free work. Heck, have a junior-junior dev who is also your tester, and save money in BOTH areas.
  
  I noticed this too, but remember that programming includes scripting, which in a game without level designers means that some of those "programmers" are essentially on world layout. You also have object generation, input, and placement, tools development, effects generation, scripting cut scenes, etc. etc. In most other places a designer would do much of the jobs listed above. It might behoove them to add a team member to the schedule for that very purpose.
  
  As a side note, be careful with your interns: They may be making 10 dollars an hour, but once you hit crunch they may be putting in 80 hour weeks... or the equivalent of a 52k per year salary. Better to pay them a reasonable amount up front.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
9. Re:The first thing I noticed by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-21 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Testing is for sissys!
Not what I thought... by Bluesman · 2004-10-20 06:24 · Score: 4, Funny

From the title, I thought the article was going to be about how you can easily rack up 250 rupies for the blue ring in Zelda by going to the money making game and hitting reset only when you lose.

Hey! Why don't they fund the new game that way?

--
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
other scenarios by JackBuckley · 2004-10-20 06:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is an interesting article, but the situation is quite hypothetical--the odds of someone trying this development model for a 2D point-and-click graphical adventure are slim. For real fans of this genre (who also might want to make a buck) it might be more interesting to relax some of the assumptions about part-time or hobbyist programming staff and the infeasibility of internet distribution (and/or even a shareware model). Developer/publishers like Spiderweb Software (makers of the Exile series, among other Ultima-type RPGs) help with the back-end stuff for small-time or hobbyist shareware developers. Similarly, sites like Home of the Underdogs promote and help sell "scratchware" games. The real question to me is, can a scratchware/shareware/late night after work development team make enough money to break even (given the real and opportunity costs of creating the game)?
Thought Experiments and Current Experience. by Musenik · 2004-10-20 09:00 · Score: 5, Informative

First, Ron Gilbert deserves a lot praise for his explanation of the lost way of 2D games. I worked three years for Sierra Online, porting 10 titles to the Macintosh. He's right on. More recently, I've been working on a 2D adventure game that should go gold, next week.
Thank Mr. Gilbert for observing that there are many other routes than his traditional approach. But this is the computer game industry, and tradition applies mostly to last week. The route we've taken is to design a game specifically for the women segment of the downloadable audience. They are largely unfamiliar with adventure games. For that reason, we hope to stand out among the billion puzzle games.
Building 'The Witch's Yarn' cost, out of pocket, $10,000, including legal fees for the distribution agreement. That does not cover the principal developer's salary, but it did pay for the art, animation, proofreading, testing, sound engineering, and music licenses. Guerrilla developers can make real products (mac, pc, linux simultaenous) on real tight budgets. (the trick was to build a text adventure game that looks like a 2D adventure game - think comix)
Now, $10,000 is all one should spend to build a game for the downloadable market. The biggest game portals charge the most money to sell your game, even more than the retail channel! Fortunately, you don't have manufacturing costs. A good selling game, might earn a developer $100,000, but less than $50,000 is more likely.
Of course, who knows what'll be true next week.
This troll gets a 1.3 out of 5... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 10:11 · Score: 0

Ratings:

Offensiveness - 3/5
Ability to evoke emotional responses - 1/5
Cleverness - 0/5

Overall score: 1.3/5
I think he should rethink the "PC Game only" part by Thag · 2004-10-20 10:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

In particular, the Game Boy Advance is the #2 console, and would be both cost-effective to develop for and well-suited to a 2D adventure format.

You could easily do Monkey Island on it.

You're going to have to go through Nintendo, but you'll have to go through a distributor on the PC side too.

Jon Acheson

--
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Re:I think he should rethink the "PC Game only" pa by cgenman · 2004-10-20 13:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm sure you could get Nintendo on-board for an innovative, broadly approachable 2D adventure game for the Nintendo DS. I'm sure at this point they're desperate for games that could be ready by launch next year, and might be willing to take the larger risk to have an expanded launch lineup, especially with a proven team.

--
The ______ Agenda
Interesting but probably not that useful by mistersooreams · 2004-10-20 14:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

This must be a pretty encouraging article if you are a small company or single person about to embark on developing your first 2D adventure game, but honestly, how many people is that? The article is interesting for its insight on budgets (other people have already mentioned the tiny testing budget) and other nastiness in the games industry, for sure. But most Slashdotters interested making their own adventure game would be well advised to check out something like Adventure Game Studio, which has a friendly interface and very handy scripting language. Sorry if this seems like an offtopic plug for AGS, but really, there's a lot of good adventure game creation tools out there (not just AGS), and they're probably more useful in practical terms than this article.

That said, it's nice to hear that Ron Gilbert still has adventure games on his mind...

--
apterous.org
Re:I think he should rethink the "PC Game only" pa by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 15:03 · Score: 1, Informative

Since I've had to deal with some of these issues, being a game developer myself..

Remember, one of his major reasons for not going on the console was that to do a console title, the console maker gets a big cut of the profit pie, on top of the cut already being taken by your publisher, which is taken no matter if you're distributing on the PC or on a console.

Also, it is harder to develop/debug for consoles than on the PC, and you'll have to invest in development hardware (XBox dev kits, Playstation 2 Test kits and Tools, etc), which are EXPENSIVE.
Why so expensive? by creaturespeaker · 2004-10-20 15:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

You could reduce costs by a huge amount if you used something like Multimedia Fusion: http://www.clickteam.com/English/multimedia_fusion .htm You don't have to do nearly as much testing because programs made in Multimedia Fusion always work on a wide variety of computers. Heck, you could probably even use Adventure Game Studio to make a commercial 2D adventure game (although you would be more limited then you would be using Multimedia Fusion)! Try thinking outside the box a little! =)
1. Re:Why so expensive? by creaturespeaker · 2004-10-20 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I made a mistake with the link: http://www.clickteam.com/English/multimedia_fusion .htm Most of you could have probably figured that out though, RIGHT?.
2. Re:Why so expensive? by creaturespeaker · 2004-10-20 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  Correct link:
  
  http://clickteam.com/English/multimedia_fusion.h tm
I think the point he's trying to illustrate.... by rsilvergun · 2004-10-20 16:38 · Score: 1

is how the economics of the situation have removed the genre from store shelves. So, yeah, this isn't the best dev model for 2D point and click games...

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Re:I think he should rethink the "PC Game only" pa by antin · 2004-10-20 22:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not only that, but the DS with its touch-screen would make adventure games easily playable. Playing on a d-pad or even with a control-stick would get tedious as you sent your cursor all around the screen looking for hot-spots. The touch-screen would be preferable even to a mouse for such a game.

And as most adventure games seem to make use of large inventories, the second screen would even get a useful purpose.
Re:I think he should rethink the "PC Game only" pa by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 22:18 · Score: 0

DS is an interesting option, actually... the touchscreen would permit real point & click interaction. And Nintendo do a history of releasing adventure games (Maniac Mansion on the NES and Clock Tower on the SFC in the classic 2D style, but dozens of others in a less interactive first-person perspective).
Re:I think he should rethink the "PC Game only" pa by The_Rift · 2004-10-20 23:29 · Score: 1

You're right.

And what's more Nintendo agrees with you
Re:I think he should rethink the "PC Game only" pa by DeadScreenSky · 2004-10-21 11:51 · Score: 1

A problem with that is cartridge expenses are murder on small developers. Another problem is that non-franchise/non-sequel games simply don't sell to GBA owners in any real numbers.

--
There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion. -- Francis Bacon
Re:I think he should rethink the "PC Game only" pa by mistersooreams · 2004-10-30 16:13 · Score: 1

Let me be one of the few people to support you on this. I don't think Monkey Island itself would be a great choice, but certainly a Game Boy point-'n'-click game could be really successful. You'd probably have to come up with an efficient way of using the D-pad to do the 'pointing' part, but I think that's a pretty minor problem to be honest. However, the hardware is now there for a great adventure game. A good opportunity, I'd have said.

--
apterous.org