Current Events > Amy Hennig: People ask for story based games but aren't buying them

(+) Yeah! (+)

They Just Watch Them

https://wccftech.com/hennig-people-ask-story-based-games/

Amy Hennigs Star Wars game in development at Visceral was one of the most anticipated titles among action/adventure, single-player fans. As you probably recall, the project was canceled a while ago as Visceral Games was closed down by Electronic Arts.

This happened at least partly because Hennig and her team were developing a largely linear game, as the publisher eventually admitted.

The game director and writer, known mainly for her work on the Legacy of Kain and Uncharted series, has been silent on the matter so far. She finally opened up a bit while talking with Campo Santos Founder Sean Vanaman of Firewatch fame on the current challenges within the game industry (via Polygon), though, diving into hot topics such as rising development costs, loot boxes, games as a service and whether gamers actually want linear single-player titles anymore.

I think were in an inflection point right now. Obviously what happened with our Star Wars project didnt come out of the blue. A lot of too-dramatic articles were written about it the death of linear story games and all that kind of stuff but look, there is a real problem: this line weve been running up to for a lot of years, which is the rising cost of development, and the desires, or the demands even, of players in terms of hours of gameplay, fidelity, production values, additional modes, all these things. Those pressures end up very real internally. If it costs you, say, $100 million or more to make a game, how are you making that money back, and making a profit?

And the $60 price point cant change, right? Theres a lot of negative press around monetization, loot boxes, games as a service, etc., but these things are trending now in the industry, especially for larger publishers, as an answer to the problem of rising development costs. Budgets keep going up, the bar keeps getting raised, and it starts making less and less sense to make these games.

There is also this trend now that, as much as people protest and say, Why are you canceling a linear, story-based game? This is the kind of game we want, people arent necessarily buying them. Theyre watching somebody else play them online.

Sales figures show she isn't wrong really.

I had to remove 'necessarily' from the topic title because of a weird KB limit so keep that in mind too. Full quote is in bold.
---

Yep, Bethesda had a great 2017 full of amazing single player releases, but I don't think any of them sold as much as they need them to. People are lame as hell.
---

If the market isn't buying your product, the solution isn't the make the same product but add loot boxes. This is like record companies going after grandmothers to stop piracy. It completely avoids the issue of not giving people what they want, and uses it as an excuse to force the market into a state it doesn't belong.
---

I do

s0nicfan posted...

If the market isn't buying your product, the solution isn't the make the same product but add loot boxes. This is like record companies going after grandmothers to stop piracy. It completely avoids the issue of not giving people what they want, and uses it as an excuse to force the market into a state it doesn't belong.

That isn't what she said though. She's saying that people ask for single player linear games and proceed to not buy them. Meanwhile Games as a service and post-launch monetization are trending across the market. That's not a model that suits single player story based linear games.
---

Feels bad man

I bought all of Bethesda's published single player games of 2017 and others like Uncharted Lost Legacy, Resident Evil 7 and some others I'm probably forgetting at the moment. I've found I enjoy these more than "hundreds of hours" open world games anymore.
---

I don't want story-based games.
---

The bar for success is too high because marketing budgets are INSANELY bloated, a lot of times for AAA games costing more than development itself. These people never address that for some reason.

People buy single player, story based games if they are good but they get labeled as disappointing or failures because the bar for success is artificially high.
---

Make it to where Let's Plays can only be watched on YouTube Red and give some of that money to the devs? Lol

I say this because fuck Let's Plays.

Anyone disagreeing obviously has never been involve in games development
---

Vyrulisse posted...

People buy single player, story based games if they are good but they get labeled as disappointing or failures because the bar for success is artificially high.

Single player games have an uphill battle in general.

An Early Access multiplayer game can sell over 15 million copies. A single player game will flop if it has technical issues (or any sort of issue that catches on).

Someone can watch a stream or video of a single player game and never play it. Meanwhile I think streams and videos benefit multiplayer game sales.

On top of this you need to invest everything into the game before it's released. If it flops it's done. A multiplayer game can be restructured, patched, re-released or simply cut off early.
---

Going just by what is in the first post, I dont think she is wrong. If the development costs are so high, as it is with many games now, then you do have to sell a lot of copies. Sure, some titles do sell, but I can see how the majority are either cancelled or end up sinking their development team because of lackluster numbers. Twitch streaming, free mobile games, and piracy arent going away anytime soon.
---

If it costs you, say, $100 million or more to make a game, how are you making that money back, and making a profit?

And the $60 price point cant change, right? Theres a lot of negative press around monetization, loot boxes, games as a service, etc., but these things are trending now in the industry, especially for larger publishers, as an answer to the problem of rising development costs. Budgets keep going up, the bar keeps getting raised, and it starts making less and less sense to make these games.

To answer her question, 2 million copies sold at $60 is $120,000,000, which by my math is $20 million profit if that $100 million it costs to make includes overhead and everything. So if a developer is going to use a movie budget to make a game they better bank on it selling at least 2 million copies. Shouldn't be that hard if it's a good game honestly.

She's right about story based games no doubt, but those other statements are a load of shit.
---

Darmik posted...

Vyrulisse posted...

People buy single player, story based games if they are good but they get labeled as disappointing or failures because the bar for success is artificially high.

Single player games have an uphill battle in general.

An Early Access multiplayer game can sell over 15 million copies. A single player game will flop if it has technical issues (or any sort of issue that catches on).

Someone can watch a stream or video of a single player game and never play it. Meanwhile I think streams and videos benefit multiplayer game sales.

On top of this you need to invest everything into the game before it's released. If it flops it's done. A multiplayer game can be restructured, patches, re-released or simply cut off early.

That's not entirely true. Telltale games pretty much singlehandedly showed you can cut risk by making things episodic. Pseudo-single player games like FROM titles also find ways to make the experience worth not simply watching. You've also got smaller titles like Hollow Knight which have massive ROIs. I think it's a bit of a misnomer to think that single player story games are dead because AAA companies can't find ways to innovate beyond "bigger and shinier".
---

This is a half truth.

The statement "They make no money" is an utter falsehood

The statement "They make less money than multiplayer, pay to win, paywall/loot box filled whale suckers." is true.

You can make a profit with story driven games if you put heart and soul into it, people do it over and over and over again.

The point is you need to accept that you will be making less than the top casual/Triple A games.

EA even admitted to their stockholders that Battlefront 2 made huge profits without factoring in lootbox and microtransaction components.

Don't let people fool you.

It's the video game equivlant of saying "the only way to be a successful movie that makes money is to be a brainless hollywood action movie."

Sure they make the most but that statement is a flat out lie.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

To answer her question, 2 million copies sold at $60 is $120,000,000, which by my math is $20 million profit if that $100 million it costs to make includes overhead and everything. So if a developer is going to use a movie budget to make a game they better bank on it selling at least 2 million copies. Shouldn't be that hard if it's a good game honestly.

That simplifies things a bit because you also need to share the cut with the retailer and the platform company.

But on top of that 2 million copies sold at $60 is not a guarantee if the game is good. I'm not sure if any of Bethesda's single player games in 2017 managed that. The prices dropped so quick.
---

Maybe if the story driven games didn't try their god damned hardest to be movies i would be more inclined to buy them

s0nicfan posted...

That's not entirely true. Telltale games pretty much singlehandedly showed you can cut risk by making things episodic. Pseudo-single player games like FROM titles also find ways to make the experience worth not simply watching. You've also got smaller titles like Hollow Knight which have massive ROIs. I think it's a bit of a misnomer to think that single player story games are dead because AAA companies can't find ways to innovate beyond "bigger and shinier".

There's a massive gulf between something from Telltale and an Uncharted game though. I'm also gonna add that even Telltale had pretty big staff lay-offs last year too.

Your other examples aren't really story based linear games.
---

Darmik posted...

s0nicfan posted...

That's not entirely true. Telltale games pretty much singlehandedly showed you can cut risk by making things episodic. Pseudo-single player games like FROM titles also find ways to make the experience worth not simply watching. You've also got smaller titles like Hollow Knight which have massive ROIs. I think it's a bit of a misnomer to think that single player story games are dead because AAA companies can't find ways to innovate beyond "bigger and shinier".

There's a massive gulf between something from Telltale and an Uncharted game though. I'm also gonna add that even Telltale had pretty big staff lay-offs last year too.

Your other examples aren't really story based linear games.

They are, they're just not ones that try to be movies. That's kind of my point. There are many examples of successful, profitable single player games that tell a story, and many do it by being something other than a series of cutscenes strung together with weak gameplay.
---

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Maybe if the story driven games didn't try their god damned hardest to be movies i would be more inclined to buy them

Some games are great at mixing them

Deus Ex and System Shock 2 spring to mind
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Maybe if the story driven games didn't try their god damned hardest to be movies i would be more inclined to buy them

Some games are great at mixing them

Deus Ex and System Shock 2 spring to mind

System Shock 2 and Half Life 1 are some of the best examples of story driven linear games.

And SS2 only has like 2 cutscenes in the entire game.
---

LPs are the worst. I never understood why people watch them. Please stop if you do.
---

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Maybe if the story driven games didn't try their god damned hardest to be movies i would be more inclined to buy them

this x100

case in point, look at the new God of War. Sony probably thought nobody would play an arcade-y action game in 2018 so now it's an over the shoulder third person game with an emotional story about a father and son. game is probably going to be complete trash and seems completely soulless
---

s0nicfan posted...

They are, they're just not ones that try to be movies. That's kind of my point.

Well no. Dark Souls is a pseudo-single player game like you said. That isn't really that focused on having a narrative. It's all gameplay focused like you said. Nobody was expecting Hennig's cancelled Star Wars game to be like Dark Souls. That's what she's talking about.

s0nicfan posted...

There are many examples of successful, profitable single player games that tell a story, and many do it by being something other than a series of cutscenes strung together with weak gameplay.

There are always exceptions. But it's clearly a segment of the industry that is constantly decreasing in relevance year by year. I don't think AAA narrative single player linear games are going to be a thing for much longer. They're either gonna need multiplayer, need to be open world, have a smaller budget or will need to be tied to a huge IP.
---

UncleBourbon33 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Maybe if the story driven games didn't try their god damned hardest to be movies i would be more inclined to buy them

Some games are great at mixing them

Deus Ex and System Shock 2 spring to mind

System Shock 2 and Half Life 1 are some of the best examples of story driven linear games.

And SS2 only has like 2 cutscenes in the entire game.

I was going to mention Half-Life but then hesitated because it really isn't Story-Driven.

There's just a lot of story in background details.

Were as Deus ex and System Shock 2 really ARE story-driven.
---

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Maybe if the story driven games didn't try their god damned hardest to be movies i would be more inclined to buy them

That's a very good point. To developers nowadays "story driven" means high paid voice acting, endless cutscenes and very little actual gameplay.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Maybe if the story driven games didn't try their god damned hardest to be movies i would be more inclined to buy them

Some games are great at mixing them

Deus Ex and System Shock 2 spring to mind

Prey is a great example and it came out last year.

Bombed bad. As did the last Deus Ex game. System Shock also seems to now be tied to indie developers.
---

Also kinda off focus since it's Indy but Thomas Was Alone is worth mentioning as a game that is gameplay focused and yet has a heartwarming story
---

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3-outgrossed-some-of-2017s-biggest-games-because-its-just-that-good/

Witcher 3 OUTGROSSED a lot of 2017's biggest games.

But yeah, nobody cares about single player games.
---

Jeff AKA Snoopy posted...

http://www.pcgamer.com/the-witcher-3-outgrossed-some-of-2017s-biggest-games-because-its-just-that-good/

Witcher 3 OUTGROSSED a lot of 2017's biggest games.

But yeah, nobody cares about single player games.

Witcher 3 isn't a linear game...

Open world single player games are fine. But they also require a really massive budget and have huge expectations.
---

I do. Let's play culture is ruining the game industry. :u

STOP WATCHING PEOPLE PLAY GAMES!!! Buy the damn games and play them yourself you mouth breathers! >:U You're screwing with the game developers!
---

KazumaKiryu posted...

Yep, Bethesda had a great 2017 full of amazing single player releases, but I don't think any of them sold as much as they need them to. People are lame as hell.

Yeah. like this Skyrim game sold so badly they had to port it 5 times lmao
---

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Maybe if the story driven games didn't try their god damned hardest to be movies i would be more inclined to buy them

so youre part of the problem, demanding games to have certain xyz in them or else you wont buy them and then rag about it on online forums

Great mindset
---

I will take a good single player game over a multiplayer one any day. I do enjoy multiplayer mind you. But if gaming goes entirely multiplayer, I'm done.
---

Darmik posted...

Prey is a great example and it came out last year.

Bombed bad. As did the last Deus Ex game. System Shock also seems to now be tied to indie developers.

I didnt know anything about System Shock 2, so had to look it up. According to Wiki, it was widely praised by critics, but it sold less than 60,000 copies after about 9 months. That cant possibly be good.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Some games are great at mixing them

Deus Ex and System Shock 2 spring to mind

I agree, there are a ton of story based games I love.

But I feel that, as of late, a lot of games have gotten *too* linear or focus too much on presentation over gameplay.

Do I think the new Star Wars game would have been like that? Probably. I feel that way about Uncharted and apparently this person wrote for Uncharted but I can't blame all of my issues with the game on the writer alone as I didn't actually find anything bad about the story, I just felt the gameplay in all of the games was boring. (minus 4 which I never played)

voldothegr8 posted...

To answer her question, 2 million copies sold at $60 is $120,000,000, which by my math is $20 million profit if that $100 million it costs to make includes overhead and everything. So if a developer is going to use a movie budget to make a game they better bank on it selling at least 2 million copies. Shouldn't be that hard if it's a good game honestly.

She's right about story based games no doubt, but those other statements are a load of shit.

Youre oversimplifying it. Honestly, how many games do you buy for the full $60? Likely only games that youve been highly anticipating and cant wait to play. If it looks good, but not must have, a lot of people wait for a price drop. I cant tell you how many full games that Ive bought for brand new (both physical and digital) for anywhere between $5 and $30.

That being said, a sale is still a sale. But if youre not selling for the full price, its gonna take that much longer to make back your money.

I feel like only a few games come to mind when I think huge sales in recent years. Yearly CoDs, GTA V, Fallout 4, Pokemon games, Dark Souls games, Witcher III, Destiny, PUBG, Overwatch, Super Smash Bros, and BotW. Out of all those I listed, only three of them are purely single player.

Not saying its impossible, but she definitely has a point. Like Unfair said, anyone developing a single player game needs to accept the very real possibility that they likely wont make as much as if they made a MP game.
---

Open world games have a unique problem of their own.

Potentially they have the biggest success potential. Look at GTAV.

But they need to have a massive development cycle and they need a massive amount of sales to make up for it. If the game doesn't hit it out of the park it could be a massive flop. If Witcher 3 flopped I doubt CDProjektRED would even be around anymore.

You could argue that all single player games could go for open world stuff and focus on making a great game. But the more games that do this the less likely they will succeed because of the competition. There's only so much room for open world games every year. That would lead to a scenario of a handful of games being smash hits while the rest flop.
---

SaccharineSmile posted...

so youre part of the problem, demanding games to have certain xyz in them or else you wont buy them and then rag about it on online forums

Great mindset

I don't demand anything from games. I play what I think looks good. I complain about Uncharted because I specifically did buy the first three and hated them.

Unfortunately, most games that come out these days don't look that good to me. That is doubly true of Multiplayer games, believe it or not.

This is, of course, focusing on AAA games. I play tons of Indie games and enjoy them funny enough.

Here are the top selling games in 2017 in the US

1. Call of Duty: WWII
2. NBA 2K18
3. Destiny 2**
4. Madden NFL 18
5. The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild*
6. Grand Theft Auto V
7. Tom Clancys Ghost Recon: Wildlands
8. Star Wars: Battlefront II**
9. Super Mario Odyssey*
10. Mario Kart 8*

Two games there are single player and they're both from two of the biggest gaming franchises.

Look at how much people whined about Destiny 2 and Battlefront 2 and it simply didn't matter because people still bought these games. Message boards were apathetic towards Ghost Recon and it still sold well.

Meanwhile if people complain about a linear game or are apathetic it probably won't stand a chance and will be DOA.
---

I'm READY for the bubble to burst. Maybe then real creativity can return.

This is why I laugh at Sony fanboys that fall back on their story driven exclusives.

For all the hype they get, nobody really gives a fuck about them outside of fanboys.

Youngster_Joey_ posted...

This is why I laugh at Sony fanboys that fall back on their story driven exclusives.

For all the hype they get, nobody really gives a fuck about them outside of fanboys.

Horizon sold well. Not top 10 for the year, but well
---

People are sick of paying full price for games in general. Especially when most games come out incomplete anyways.
---

most video games stories suck

like 99%
---

voldothegr8 posted...

If it costs you, say, $100 million or more to make a game, how are you making that money back, and making a profit?

And the $60 price point cant change, right? Theres a lot of negative press around monetization, loot boxes, games as a service, etc., but these things are trending now in the industry, especially for larger publishers, as an answer to the problem of rising development costs. Budgets keep going up, the bar keeps getting raised, and it starts making less and less sense to make these games.

To answer her question, 2 million copies sold at $60 is $120,000,000, which by my math is $20 million profit if that $100 million it costs to make includes overhead and everything. So if a developer is going to use a movie budget to make a game they better bank on it selling at least 2 million copies. Shouldn't be that hard if it's a good game honestly.

She's right about story based games no doubt, but those other statements are a load of shit.

Developers don't get $60 for every game sold. Why would stores even bother selling games if they were making zero profit?
---

That SW game OP mentioned was only shut down, because Effin EA couldn't think of a way to fist in microtransactions.
---

008Zulu posted...

That SW game OP mentioned was only shut down, because Effin EA couldn't think of a way to fist in microtransactions.

It had a pretty troubled development cycle too to be fair. It wasn't on track.
---