I’m not arguing that’s what games should cost. I’m giving context on why Silksong can afford to be 20 bucks but other games cannot.
I’m a bit confused about your math, though. How do you get 30 cents? Even assuming a single dev (which is not strictly the case) starting from Silksong you get five bucks instead.
Are you starting from Hi-fi Rush? If so it’s probably worth clarifying that the very next thing that happened to that team is they got shut down by Microsoft on the back of Hi-Fi Rush not doing that well (I’d argue for reasons unrelated to the game itself) and only got to keep running because Krafton bought them out.
So definitely a case against “games should be cheaper”.
It had 3 millions players in just a few months, which include GamePass download, which again is a very good result considering it’s an entirely new IP and without any marketing. If it’s purely purchased, 3 million copies is $90 millions in sales, guess what cannibalised the success.
Microsoft shut down studio for less, “not doing well” definitely isn’t why Tango is shut.
MS thought writing them off was a better choice than continuing to make that much money out of their investment.
I agree that MS a) marketed that game poorly, b) priced it incorrectly and c) tangled it too deeply with their GamePass dumping fiasco. It’s also true I don’t think that game would have gotten that many players even with that low up front price if it wasn’t given away to subscribers.
Oh, and for the record, 3 million copies at 30 bucks is not 90 million at all. After tax and whatever cut the store keeps it’s more or less half that, which then gets split between the dev and the publisher based on whatever agreement they have in place. So those 100 people plus all other dev costs, even as an indie studio with a publishing deal would have had to be paid from anywhere between 10 and 30 mill. The average gamedev salary has historically been somewhere in the 100K range per year, so you do that math.
Making games is expensive, you guys. It’s great if you can just noodle around with your friends for years because you made a fantastic hit with a skeleton crew and that’ll keep you going indefinitely, but you can’t build an industry on the assumption that everything you do will be a Hollow Knight-sized hit unless you’re Team Cherry.
There is absolutely a reason for games to cost 70 bucks. Which is listed above multiple times, you should go re-read those posts. They paint a pretty clear picture, if I say so myself.
On the MS question, it’s not relevant whether they made the wrong choice. The point is they thought they would do better this way. I guarantee they wouldn’t have shut down Team Cherry if they owned that. Pretty sure they’ll keep making Call of Duty. They may suck at understanding how to get a hit made, but they can still count.
They did not think what they made out of Tango was enough.
Hi-fi Rush launch price: $30
Tango Gameworks employees count: around 100 (in 2024)
Based on your take, Hi-Fi Rush should cost: $500
Reversing that, Silksong should cost: $1.20.
Stardew Valley should cost: $0.30
Idk the meth does checks out.
I’m not arguing that’s what games should cost. I’m giving context on why Silksong can afford to be 20 bucks but other games cannot.
I’m a bit confused about your math, though. How do you get 30 cents? Even assuming a single dev (which is not strictly the case) starting from Silksong you get five bucks instead.
Are you starting from Hi-fi Rush? If so it’s probably worth clarifying that the very next thing that happened to that team is they got shut down by Microsoft on the back of Hi-Fi Rush not doing that well (I’d argue for reasons unrelated to the game itself) and only got to keep running because Krafton bought them out.
So definitely a case against “games should be cheaper”.
It had 3 millions players in just a few months, which include GamePass download, which again is a very good result considering it’s an entirely new IP and without any marketing. If it’s purely purchased, 3 million copies is $90 millions in sales, guess what cannibalised the success.
Microsoft shut down studio for less, “not doing well” definitely isn’t why Tango is shut.
Yeah, and it wasn’t enough to keep the lights on.
That’s the entire point.
MS thought writing them off was a better choice than continuing to make that much money out of their investment.
I agree that MS a) marketed that game poorly, b) priced it incorrectly and c) tangled it too deeply with their GamePass dumping fiasco. It’s also true I don’t think that game would have gotten that many players even with that low up front price if it wasn’t given away to subscribers.
Oh, and for the record, 3 million copies at 30 bucks is not 90 million at all. After tax and whatever cut the store keeps it’s more or less half that, which then gets split between the dev and the publisher based on whatever agreement they have in place. So those 100 people plus all other dev costs, even as an indie studio with a publishing deal would have had to be paid from anywhere between 10 and 30 mill. The average gamedev salary has historically been somewhere in the 100K range per year, so you do that math.
Making games is expensive, you guys. It’s great if you can just noodle around with your friends for years because you made a fantastic hit with a skeleton crew and that’ll keep you going indefinitely, but you can’t build an industry on the assumption that everything you do will be a Hollow Knight-sized hit unless you’re Team Cherry.
This guy believe m$ close studio because a successful game “didn’t do well enough.”
Maybe that’s why m$ also shut down multiple game project and fired shit tons of people because "it didn’t do well enough.
I get your point, but man, it must be tiring defending multibillion corporations.
This guy believe MS like money.
This guy believe MS don’t give money away.
So if MS though that keeping something would make more money than not keeping it in the long run, MS don’t not keep it.
That’s what this guy believe.
M$ have the history of killing golden goose they just bought, we can believe what we want but that doesn’t mean M$ know what they’re doing.
And if they like money, they wouldn’t shoot their own foot.
But i digress, there’s no reason game should cost $70 is the original topic.
There is absolutely a reason for games to cost 70 bucks. Which is listed above multiple times, you should go re-read those posts. They paint a pretty clear picture, if I say so myself.
On the MS question, it’s not relevant whether they made the wrong choice. The point is they thought they would do better this way. I guarantee they wouldn’t have shut down Team Cherry if they owned that. Pretty sure they’ll keep making Call of Duty. They may suck at understanding how to get a hit made, but they can still count.
They did not think what they made out of Tango was enough.