Support NeoGAF

[DerivedDataCache]

A vertical slice is a game demo for publishers to make them green light a project.
It's a process that happens behind closed doors.

What if these early demo's were released on stores like PSN and Steam with an open poll for those that finished it.
Would you buy this game right now if it was available? Yes or no?

With all the talk how big budget games are unsustainable and tons of games like Suicide Squad, Redfall and Concord get green lit. Chances are, 90% would vote no.

And games like Elden Ring, Baldur's Gate 3, The Last of Us. 90% would vote yes.

Better to cancel early after 1 year and start on something new than push on for the next 3-5 years working on a project that's guaranteed to flop.

The Outer Worlds Vertical Slice

 

[Agent X]

I don't believe that's necessary. Publishers and developers just need to pay closer attention to consumers' desires. A lot of people aired criticisms of these games long before release, without ever having to lay a finger on the controller. If a game doesn't appeal to gamers, then they need to listen to the feedback and make improvements.

 

[menmustmow]

you're already getting that with Final Fantasy 7 ...

 

[i_mean]

It's called early access

 

[Bojanglez]

I think for GaaS this it makes sense to evolve a game via some kind of early access model, where the community engagement can be gauged and encouraged without making assumptions and spending years of development and millions of dollars. I think that model is probably alien and a bit scary to many AAA publishers, but it can yield good results. To be fair to Microsoft, they let Rare do this with Sea of Thieves and Grounded in my opinion to the benefit of those games. They may not of been able to make a AAA type of day 1 launch bonanza, but they mitigated risk and built solid games and communities over time.

 

[baphomet]

People even in this forum can't discern that alpha footage doesn't represent the final game.

Releasing an actual vertical slice to the public would be a terrible idea.

 

[thegame983]

Concord's problem is that they did show it to us.

 

[STARSBarry]

Concord's problem is that they did show it to us.

Oh god damn, but for real it would have done better if they just shadow dropped it one day. Not for very long mind.

 

[kungfuian]

I think for GaaS this it makes sense to evolve a game via some kind of early access model, where the community engagement can be gauged and encouraged without making assumptions and spending years of development and millions of dollars. I think that model is probably alien and a bit scary to many AAA publishers, but it can yield good results. To be fair to Microsoft, they let Rare do this with Sea of Thieves and Grounded in my opinion to the benefit of those games. They may not of been able to make a AAA type of day 1 launch bonanza, but they mitigated risk and built solid games and communities over time.

Yeah I agree 100%. Not into this genre myself but the idea of manufacturing day 1 GAAS hits seems flawed from the start. Kind of like playing the lottery only with years of effort and millions and millions of dollars on the line. From a risk stand point I know this is a bit unavoidable in all game development but with GAAS you have the opportunity to do the slow burn early access model which seems so much smarter. Seems simple enough, make an initial smaller bet, then ramp up and bet heavy if you gain word of mouth with gamers and think you have a winner.

And launch the damned things for free. If your game is really a GAAS free to play then attempting to recoup development costs at the expense of growing your audience seems soooo short sighted.

 

[Fafalada]

A vertical slice is a game demo for publishers to make them green light a project.

They do (noone calls them vertical slice though). Game publishers aren't The Netflix Executive - they tend to be very picky about when and how to spend their $.

Every GaaS I've ever worked on or been involved with had gone through 'many' stages of live-audience testing before even being publicly announced. Well beyond just simple vertical slices too at later stages. Similarly you'll usually also have several (by-invite) beta-stages run up all the way to launch after the game 'is' publicly known.
No big publisher releases these things 'blind' - as I've said in another thread - by the time Concord reached Open Beta there's absolutely no way anyone in Sony was surprised about what was about to happen - unless their entire publishing org is completely incompetent.
Eg. - over the 12 years development cycle (before it's release) - S&B has likely been played by significantly more people than Concord has players after launch.

Yeah I agree 100%. Not into this genre myself but the idea of manufacturing day 1 GAAS hits seems flawed from the start.

Oh you'd love to hear how a certain retail giant was 'strategizing' about this. But really - ever since GaaS started making big $ in the mid 00s - the idea of manufacturing GaaS hits using established IPs and other common 'AAA' trappings has been an obsession for the industry. And it never really left since.

 

[digital_ghost]

Knowing developers...

Hey buy our demo! It is $59.99. Upgrade to the full game for $100.

 

[intbal]

If they have reached sufficient code (and content) maturity to release a playable demo, they are too far along to make significant changes to the core nature of the game.
An early "vertical slice" of Concord, even if received negatively, would not have resulted in a dramatic reworking of the the game.

 

[ZehDon]

So, do literally all of the hard work to make a game, and let the public decide if you get publisher funding for it?

 

[badblue]

Alien: Colonial Marines had a vertical slice that looked pretty cool.

Look how that turned out.

 

[DeathGuise]

I think they should just abandon the typical corporate strategy of margins. That's really what's behind all the bad practices that cause flops like this.

During the 8-Bit/16-Bit era there were flops but they were usually just new ideas gone wrong or not implemented quite right.

 

[AmuroChan]

There's no need to overreact and reinvent the entire game development process just because Concord bombed. Plenty of devs know what they're doing and there are countless great games on the horizon.

 

[Jinzo Prime]

If they have reached sufficient code (and content) maturity to release a playable demo, they are too far along to make significant changes to the core nature of the game.
An early "vertical slice" of Concord, even if received negatively, would not have resulted in a dramatic reworking of the the game.

A vertical slice is very much not a demo, its pre-pre-alpha. It took Obsidian one year to build The Outer World's vertical slice and they didn't even know how to code in UE4.

Deadlock is sitting pretty wilth over 100,000 players and it looks like it is still in an alpha state. Asking for feedback early and often can mitigate or prevent another Concord from happening.

 

[violence]

We pay for the vertical slices?

 

[chakadave]

It already exists. And developers can use early access if they want.

It is part of the problem with no risk taking and too much money. Meanwhile there are smaller teams taking all the risk and making better games.

 

[mystech]

I’m not opposed to more game demos / public previews but I definitely don’t think that’s the true source of the problem here. The real root cause is big developers have continually ignored the voices of the core gamers who actually spend the money to keep them in business. In fact, many of the big developers and big game journalists seem to be actively against the core gaming audience who put them in business in the first place.

The solution comes down to common sense. Running a business where you actively ignore the feedback from your core customer base is not sustainable. Chasing trends with big budgets is not sustainable. The results are millions lost, thousands of layoffs and a console generation that feels very empty…

The failure of Concord coming right along side the massive success of Wukong should make things crystal clear. If we keep going this way, gaming itself is not doomed but we will definitely see a big switch to eastern developers having more control of the industry.

 

[CherryFalls]

if they pay me, sure. I wont be used as a focus group tester for free.

Here's a an idea, how about hire talented people and make something actually good.

 

[Ozzie666]

What’s the point if they are too arrogant or politically inclined to ignore feedback?

 

[DerivedDataCache]

We pay for the vertical slices?

Let's not give them any ideas . No I assumed demos would be free.

if they pay me, sure. I wont be used as a focus group tester for free.

Here's a an idea, how about hire talented people and make something actually good.

Let's be honest. If Playstation, Xbox, CDPR or Rockstar etc. would shadow drop a demo tomorrow of a new IP they been working on, it be the talk of the week.
You would check it out for sure.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Game companies used to have endless demos during the 360/PS3 gen. I think almost every game got one. And it was mandatory XBLA and even XBLIG had a trial.

I thought studios getting rid of 90% of them when the new gen started was due to the dev claim of "too much work and money to make a demo" More likely they got rid of them because they know their game is shit and will turn off gamers. Better to hook them in with bullshots and marketing pre-orders at full price.

 

[Punished Miku]

No. Only if you want safe crap shaped by idiots with loud voices instead of auteurs.

 

[DerivedDataCache]

They do (noone calls them vertical slice though). Game publishers aren't The Netflix Executive - they tend to be very picky about when and how to spend their $.

Every GaaS I've ever worked on or been involved with had gone through 'many' stages of live-audience testing before even being publicly announced. Well beyond just simple vertical slices too at later stages. Similarly you'll usually also have several (by-invite) beta-stages run up all the way to launch after the game 'is' publicly known.
No big publisher releases these things 'blind' - as I've said in another thread - by the time Concord reached Open Beta there's absolutely no way anyone in Sony was surprised about what was about to happen - unless their entire publishing org is completely incompetent.
Eg. - over the 12 years development cycle (before it's release) - S&B has likely been played by significantly more people than Concord has players after launch.


Oh you'd love to hear how a certain retail giant was 'strategizing' about this. But really - ever since GaaS started making big $ in the mid 00s - the idea of manufacturing GaaS hits using established IPs and other common 'AAA' trappings has been an obsession for the industry. And it never really left since.

Thanks for the insight. I actually didn't write it with live service games in mind.
But because of Concord flopping recently I'm guessing everyone is just gonna assume this is a reaction to that.

I just played Immortals of Aveum, kinda liked it, but because of poor sales there were massive layoffs.
Same with Forspoken and Redfall. One miss and it's over.
Such a shame. Feels like it all could've been avoided.
And now the studio that made Prey, my favorite immersive sim, is gone.

 

[DerivedDataCache]

No. Only if you want safe crap shaped by idiots with loud voices instead of auteurs.

I get what you're saying. If there was a The Last of Us 2 demo. I wonder if the public would've voted for it to be made.
But on the other hand. I don't feel like there are many auteurs left like Kojima and Druckman.

 

[DryvBy]

Episodic is a good/bad. The bad always comes when they don't finish a game because of interest. Telltale did the Bone series before they got big and there were only two episodes before they delisted it and cancelled it.

 

[A.Romero]

Besides all the other posts I'd like to add that it would be very hard to do a first vertical slice that can reflect the spirit of the game early. Most people can't see potential of a game, me included. That's why always wait when judging alpha and beta versions, or even trailers.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Besides all the other posts I'd like to add that it would be very hard to do a first vertical slice that can reflect the spirit of the game early. Most people can't see potential of a game, me included. That's why always wait when judging alpha and beta versions, or even trailers.

Doesn't that depend on the type of game? For example, you could take any 30 minutes from a modern 3D Mario game, and if that exerpt isn't fun, you can stop the production right there. Games thar are meant to be fun first and foremost and seen as toys rather than artsy "experiences" can be focus tested pretty well like this imho. Making games episodic would be another way to mitigate financial risks when investing into projects of that size.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

They do (noone calls them vertical slice though). Game publishers aren't The Netflix Executive - they tend to be very picky about when and how to spend their $.

Every GaaS I've ever worked on or been involved with had gone through 'many' stages of live-audience testing before even being publicly announced. Well beyond just simple vertical slices too at later stages. Similarly you'll usually also have several (by-invite) beta-stages run up all the way to launch after the game 'is' publicly known.
No big publisher releases these things 'blind' - as I've said in another thread - by the time Concord reached Open Beta there's absolutely no way anyone in Sony was surprised about what was about to happen - unless their entire publishing org is completely incompetent.
Eg. - over the 12 years development cycle (before it's release) - S&B has likely been played by significantly more people than Concord has players after launch.


Oh you'd love to hear how a certain retail giant was 'strategizing' about this. But really - ever since GaaS started making big $ in the mid 00s - the idea of manufacturing GaaS hits using established IPs and other common 'AAA' trappings has been an obsession for the industry. And it never really left since.

I think they had no choice but to launch it for sake of hoping by pure luck it caught on and generated lots of sales. The company seemed to be in a bubble doing their own thing for years and only got public opinion from a May 31 State of Play. By that time it was too late. It was hated and laughed at. So the beta was moot. The low player count for a free beta just solidified what gamers thought.

The game had a shit load of time and money spent on it, so might as well unleash it and hope for the best. Some game companies cancel games, some dont. This game wasnt cancelled.

In other industries (like mine), you dont do demos or betas. You do focus group stuff. At most, the product line gets approved a test city where a retailer agrees to sell it in a limited number of stores in return for being chosen as the test retailer. That doesn't happen often. But if it does, you track lets say 6 months worth of sales. Then based on that decide to roll out to everyone because sales are tracking well or cancel or adjust it and relaunch another time.

But what really decides sales potential is how well received a product is from the buyers at head office. If a product is widely accepted, the product is a go. But lets say some shitty products have hardly anyone willing to sell it. Then the product gets shut down and cancelled. Every company needs to figure out retailer acceptance asap so if a call can be made with ample time to make or ditch it, then no products are made. If it looks good it's a greenlight, then marketing tells supply chain to crank them out and get them ready to ship out to stores 6 months from now.

Concord's lousy gamer reactions were too late to adjust anything for a launch a few months later. They could had cancelled everything after May (I dont think preorders were even available till later). And they probably didnt even press discs yet. But they still forged ahead. A lousy decision. They should had never gone through with it. But as I said in my first sentence, someone greenlit to go through with it hoping to scrape up as much sales and mtx as possible before they knew wholeheartedly it was going to be a quick fate. When you got a first time studio making a big budget game as their first rodeo, the pressure was on. So launch it and cross fingers.

I just dont think anyone would think it would sell this bad. If the game sold 500,000 copies and called it a day that would be bad. But 500,000 x $40 = $20M. Wont cover dev costs, but that's a decent chunk to win back. Nobody expected 25,000 copies sold = $1M sales. And that assumes that is even accurate as I think (like many) thats way overinflated.

 

[Embearded]

No because a lot of people really think it's how the final game would play / look.
Check the wolverine threads here for example...

 

[jubei]

A vertical slice is a game demo for publishers to make them green light a project.
It's a process that happens behind closed doors.

What if these early demo's were released on stores like PSN and Steam with an open poll for those that finished it.
Would you buy this game right now if it was available? Yes or no?

With all the talk how big budget games are unsustainable and tons of games like Suicide Squad, Redfall and Concord get green lit. Chances are, 90% would vote no.

And games like Elden Ring, Baldur's Gate 3, The Last of Us. 90% would vote yes.

Better to cancel early after 1 year and start on something new than push on for the next 3-5 years working on a project that's guaranteed to flop.

The Outer Worlds Vertical Slice

I don't think I would trust consumers to accurately judge a vertical slice. Good studios use private QA sessions and get more valuable feedback than what this would generate, I feel. Proof of this is how Valve and Nintendo don't have the same problem as Sony, for example.

 

[Griffon]

It's called a demo.

Developers have been doing those for ages, be it on Steam Next Fest, during Kickstarters, or just to test the waters on Itch.
No need to vote or anything fancy like what OP suggest, with the download numbers the devs can gauge interest pretty accurately.

 

[A.Romero]

Doesn't that depend on the type of game? For example, you could take any 30 minutes from a modern 3D Mario game, and if that exerpt isn't fun, you can stop the production right there. Games thar are meant to be fun first and foremost and seen as toys rather than artsy "experiences" can be focus tested pretty well like this imho. Making games episodic would be another way to mitigate financial risks when investing into projects of that size.

Yeah, good points. You are right.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Oh god damn, but for real it would have done better if they just shadow dropped it one day. Not for very long mind.

They almost did shadow drop it, I think first gameplay reveal was in May and a beta was one month before full release.

 

[Mr.Phoenix]

The problem isn't that devs need a way to find out of their game will flop.

Every dev out there knows what a good game is, And have played a good game.

What their problem is is that they need to make good games.

 

[Loomy]

It's called a demo.

Developers have been doing those for ages, be it on Steam Next Fest, during Kickstarters, or just to test the waters on Itch.
No need to vote or anything fancy like what OP suggest, with the download numbers the devs can gauge interest pretty accurately.

I think that's part of the problem. By the time a demo comes out a lot of decisions have already been made that are hard or realistically impossible to undo.

A demo is a good marketing tool. Actual beta test early enough where feedback can be properly prioritized and addressed ahead of launch is something that more games could use.

OPs suggestion is overkill, but more games - especially MP games need public betas well ahead of release.

 

[Justin9mm]

It's called early access

Early access is QA testing lol

 

[Gp1]

The good old times...

 

[Dazraell]

I don't think this would work on a larger scale, but I remember something like this being used for indie games financed by crowdfunding campaigns as a way to draw more interest to their projects

 

[atyourservice]

Early access demos on steam pretty much cover this, I think. The wishlist feature also acts as a sort of "would you buy more of this at full market price".
It goes:
See a game you might like (screenshots, genre, gameplay snippet) that isn't out yet
See it's in early access (boo) but also has a demo (nice)
Play the demo for 2 hours. Immediately wishlist and get notified when it releases.

The number of demos on steam has increased in recent years for some reason and it's been great to quickly gauge my interest

I'm also pretty certain developers on steam use number of wishlists as a metric to express public interest and secure further investment from potential investors and publishers

 

[Laptop1991]

Should release demo's like they use to, but then again, that would show the game for what it really is and not what a lot of trailers promise, so they probably won't, i had this with Watchdogs 2014, and didn't get what was promised, i still feel ripped off.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Should release demo's like they use to, but then again, that would show the game for what it really is and not what a lot of trailers promise, so they probably won't, i had this with Watchdogs 2014, and didn't get what was promised, i still fell ripped off.

No doubt. No demo or beta tests keep gamers in the dark. Then they pray they scoop up enough pre-order copies before gamers see that it really is on launch day with reviews and streamers.

MoH Warfighter. That demo on 360 had to be one of the worst shooters I played that era. But hey! The marketing preview videos looked slick!

 

[mitch1971]

People even in this forum can't discern that alpha footage doesn't represent the final game.

Releasing an actual vertical slice to the public would be a terrible idea.