This is wrong for all games and extremely wrong for most modern games. Digital distribution and keeping people employed both cost money. But even discounting that, the moment there is a server involved it costs money for the game to exist.
Took me a minute to even parse this. If I get this, you’re saying permanent employee costs and server costs are “essentially nothing”? That’s pretty much 100% of the budget of a videogame right there. If everybody stays employed the month after shipping the game has MORE operating costs than the month before shipping the game. It’s just hopefully making enough money at that point to make up for both.
It’s crazy how little of an intuitive understanding people have of how this works.
Alan Wake 2 (for example) did not spend a decade in development, but somehow blow “pretty much 100% of the budget” after launch.
You can maybe salvage that sentence fragment by insisting we’re talking about multiplayer-only “live service” crap that goes on for years and years after launch… but the topic you named is distribution. The marginal cost of software is essentially zero. Supporting customer N+1 is a rounding error. Valve basically has a monopoly on PC game distribution and only employs a couple hundred people. Do those salaries cost money? No shit. But relative to, conservatively, half the money spent on PC games? Fraction of a percent.
“Keeping people employed” takes a lot of money because making a game takes a lot of people a long time. Shipping is the cheap part. Has been since CD-ROMs. In many infamous cases, people were not kept employed once their game shipped, because all those people were not necessary to make all of the money off of the game.
No, we’re not talking about “multiplayer-only live service crap”. There is cost to running an offline game post-release, too. Marketing, sales, business development, customer support, patches, DLC… games aren’t done when they’re done, games as a service or not. Hell, in the average game release today the real stress starts at launch, once crash data and live bug reports start to pour in. The days of putting a thing in a cartridge and calling it a day are loooong gone. And no, the cost of those things is not “marginal” or “a fraction of a percent”. Patches are full development cycles.
And yeah, if you have any servers running, that’s an extra bill to pay. People don’t realize how huge that bill can get. For a multiplayer game that can build up pretty fast, which people don’t think about or know about because secrecy in this industry is a bit of a disease for multiple reasons.
But even discounting that. Even if you were right about those costs and efforts, which you’re super not. Your costs don’t go down at all once a game is done. Because like you say, salaries cost money. That’s all the money making games costs. Games are made by people sitting down in front of a computer and doing what they do. Artists, coders, project managers, QA… none of those people stop being paid the day a game ships and they are the bulk of the costs of development. There are some big one-off costs in marketing and depending on the game you may have contracted out a ton of money in external assets, music, VA, localization and that type of thing from external vendors, but your in-house guys are your in-house guys, and those costs are flat.
Unless, as you mention, you fire everybody after each gig. Which you could do. That’s how movies are made, mostly. But not how games typically work, and most people in the industry think layoffs are bad and value job security. If you’re running a tight ship, you probably have a plan well in advance for your full time devs to go on to do different things immediately, but keeping the lights on and everybody paid IS why games cost so much money, whether you’re in active development or just shipped a game.
Software costs nothing to copy and paste, only to design.
This is wrong for all games and extremely wrong for most modern games. Digital distribution and keeping people employed both cost money. But even discounting that, the moment there is a server involved it costs money for the game to exist.
If a response would be satisfied by inserting the word “essentially,” please do not make that response.
Took me a minute to even parse this. If I get this, you’re saying permanent employee costs and server costs are “essentially nothing”? That’s pretty much 100% of the budget of a videogame right there. If everybody stays employed the month after shipping the game has MORE operating costs than the month before shipping the game. It’s just hopefully making enough money at that point to make up for both.
It’s crazy how little of an intuitive understanding people have of how this works.
Alan Wake 2 (for example) did not spend a decade in development, but somehow blow “pretty much 100% of the budget” after launch.
You can maybe salvage that sentence fragment by insisting we’re talking about multiplayer-only “live service” crap that goes on for years and years after launch… but the topic you named is distribution. The marginal cost of software is essentially zero. Supporting customer N+1 is a rounding error. Valve basically has a monopoly on PC game distribution and only employs a couple hundred people. Do those salaries cost money? No shit. But relative to, conservatively, half the money spent on PC games? Fraction of a percent.
“Keeping people employed” takes a lot of money because making a game takes a lot of people a long time. Shipping is the cheap part. Has been since CD-ROMs. In many infamous cases, people were not kept employed once their game shipped, because all those people were not necessary to make all of the money off of the game.
No, we’re not talking about “multiplayer-only live service crap”. There is cost to running an offline game post-release, too. Marketing, sales, business development, customer support, patches, DLC… games aren’t done when they’re done, games as a service or not. Hell, in the average game release today the real stress starts at launch, once crash data and live bug reports start to pour in. The days of putting a thing in a cartridge and calling it a day are loooong gone. And no, the cost of those things is not “marginal” or “a fraction of a percent”. Patches are full development cycles.
And yeah, if you have any servers running, that’s an extra bill to pay. People don’t realize how huge that bill can get. For a multiplayer game that can build up pretty fast, which people don’t think about or know about because secrecy in this industry is a bit of a disease for multiple reasons.
But even discounting that. Even if you were right about those costs and efforts, which you’re super not. Your costs don’t go down at all once a game is done. Because like you say, salaries cost money. That’s all the money making games costs. Games are made by people sitting down in front of a computer and doing what they do. Artists, coders, project managers, QA… none of those people stop being paid the day a game ships and they are the bulk of the costs of development. There are some big one-off costs in marketing and depending on the game you may have contracted out a ton of money in external assets, music, VA, localization and that type of thing from external vendors, but your in-house guys are your in-house guys, and those costs are flat.
Unless, as you mention, you fire everybody after each gig. Which you could do. That’s how movies are made, mostly. But not how games typically work, and most people in the industry think layoffs are bad and value job security. If you’re running a tight ship, you probably have a plan well in advance for your full time devs to go on to do different things immediately, but keeping the lights on and everybody paid IS why games cost so much money, whether you’re in active development or just shipped a game.