CRank: 5Score: 12020

User Review : Game Dev Tycoon

Addicting, but leaves you wanting more from the game

I've always been of fan of tycoon and simulation games. No matter what job is being shoved in my face, I'll likely find something to enjoy in it. I've been a one-man demolition crew in Demolition Company, lorry (Did I just say 'lorry'?) driver in the SCS Software games, manager of a nice few spots in Vegas in Vega$: Make it Big!, a ruler of a Banana Republic in the Tropico series, amongst too many others to mention. For a long time, however, I always wanted a game that give some sort of experience that reflects, at least to a degree, game development. That game is Game Dev Tycoon... or at least for the most part.

Before I get into the gameplay, I'd like to mention the more obvious things first. The sound is flamboyantly "meh". The music is mediocre and repetitive. I recommend turning it off. The only other sounds are mostly just little boops and bings. For whatever reason, I like these boops and bings, probably because they're boopy. And bingy. And I like boopy and bingy things, dammit.

The visuals are equally as simplistic, looking like a slightly more simplistic version of The Sims Social on Facebook. While there's something to be said for simplicity, these visuals get kind of tiring to look at after a while, which is simply made worse by the fact that there's only three locations in the game. You'll be staring at the first location for about an hour, the second for about two to four hours, and the third for however much longer you play the game. The character models mostly wear outdated clothes and some have weird hairstyles. The best way to describe the visuals is 'indie', which is basically a way of saying, "You can tell these guys didn't have a bunch of artists." For a two-man development team, I'd say the visuals and audio are servicable. They work with the gameplay, but they don't exactly complement it either.

Now to talk about the meat of the game which is, as in most cases (save for those Dear Esther kind of 'games'), the gameplay. The game starts you off in what I estimate to be about 1980 or 1982 in a garage by your lonely little friendless, necessity-less, ageless lonesome. Well, at least there's a DeLorean behind you, but you're too busy trying to set the world record for "longest time sitting in a chair without getting a blood clot" to walk over to it, get in, then go 88 miles-per-hour in that sumbitch. That takes effort and you'd also have to start the timer over for the world record thing. So, you know, screw that DeLorean.

Anyway, you basically start designing games revolving around a small number of topics. As you put these games out, you earn research point and money, both of which are necessary to creating a successful development house. Research points are used to research technology, new topics, and improve the skills of yourself and the employees you're later able to hire. Money is spent on developing games, engines, and is also needed to improve your employees' skills. It is also used for research, development, maintenance costs for MMOs, etc. Basically, these resources are REALLY FRIGGIN' IMPORTANT, BROFIEND.

Now, each game you create is made with three development stages. Each stage has you adjusting sliders to best fit the game or, more specifically, the genre that you've chosen. Put the sliders in the ideal position and you have a much greater chance of getting a higher average review score. Now, before I continue on and start talking about review scores, let me just say that sliding sliders around isn't the best mothersliding way to go about this, or at least it isn't what with the way they've implemented it. You see, most of the games you create will be self-published, save for the few publishing deals you make to try to make enough fans to make self-publishing medium-sized games profitable. Because it's self-published, you don't have publisher release dates constricting you, yet the game acts like you do in a weird way. So, let's say you're looking at one of the development stages and, for world design, you decide to have your game be open-world, have realistic weather and a dynamic world. Now you have to invest more time into world design in order to make the world design work 100%. If you're self-publishing, why can't you just push the release date of the game back until you've worked enough on world design? Why do you have to take time away from making the graphics and sound better for the sake of world design? It'd make sense if you were working under a publishing deal, but you aren't. So it's illogical. Case concluded.

Now, I mentioned review scores in the previous paragraph. Review scores are the be-all, end-all and if your game is reviewed like the turd it is, it'll sell like the turd it is. So you better hope the reviewers become incompetent and rate your turd highly or you're out of work, bucko. My problem with the review scores is simply the way they're handled. Basically, the game pre-calculates a total score for your game based on a bunch of behind-the-scenes crap (which can be read about on the game's wiki), then divides that total score into four numbers on a 1 - 10 scale. However, these scores are always right by each other. You can't have one reviewer give the game a 5, then another give it a 10. On the other hand, I have to complain about this: Getting a game with four 10s is hard. Pretty much every time I get really high numbers, one of the scores screws me over, usually by giving me a 9 while the other 3 give me a 10. Trying to get a game with an average review score of 10 feels nearly impossible and revolves around luck for the most part. Needless to say, it's really rather annoying.

I'd also like to say that the most employees you can have at any one point in time, excluding the R&D people, is seven. Seven game developers. I understand that they did this in an effort to allow for easier management of individual employees, but come on, man. Seven employees can't create two large-sized games in a year. Just saying.

I have to criticize how creating game engines work in the game, as well. After you do enough research, you can create a new engine. Unfortunately, you can't update the engine you have to, say, support open worlds. If you want an engine that supports open worlds, then you're gonna have to create a brand new damn engine. It's for this reason that your company isn't going to be a constant innovator in technology. It kind of sucks. Oh, and you can't use another company's engine to create your game, save for the first 10 minutes of the game before you've built your own engine. Yeah...

A big problem I have with the game is it's user interface. It feels incredibly touch-screeny. Honestly, I would've preferred a more informative, PC-centric interface because this really doesn't relay enough information to you easily. If the game wanted to make managing employees easier, it picked the wrong way to do it in some areas. Also, while the game lets you see the list of games that you've made (though I would appreciate information such as: The publisher, the audience you targeted, amongst others), it doesn't offer that for consoles. Once you discontinue a console, you'll never again be able to see how much it sold, the year in which it was developed, how much it cost to develop, how much it made, etc. There simply isn't enough information presented to the player and that's a damn shame.

That's another big problem I have with the game: There's simply not enough. There's not enough information, game consoles, employees, or ways to manage the company. You can't put your games into beta or have play-testers, or anything of the sort. You also don't have to worry about competition, though you can sabotage "competitors" at some points in the game. What effect that has, however, is not made clear. These "competitors" literally have pretty much 0% effect on how you run the company. You also don't have to buy your IP back if you created a series using a publisher. You're not able to buy dead IPs from a company and try to create your own game in the series. And I have to hit on that "only seven employees" thing some more. I'd like to create a huge developer with 200 to 300 employees. When it comes to topics, the game doesn't allow for a more in-depth decision on them. For instance, I had a developer that created exclusively simulation games on the PC. A lot of those simulation games were sports games, though not entirely. I instead had to create games with other topics because the game has decided that, well, creating two sports/simulators in a row is just boring because, you know, they're the same two games. Yes, because my tennis simulator and my football simulator are the same two games. With topics like 'sports', I'd like sub-topics for a number of sports (which includes crew! No love is given to crew, I swear). Same goes for post-apocalyptic; there could easily be nuclear/zombie/plague/biblical post-apocalypses, amongst others. Also, the topic you've chosen doesn't affect how you move the sliders. So a military simulation requires just as little effort put into dialogue as a hunting simulator. How very disappointing.

Anyway, while I have a looooong list of complaints with the game, I still like it a lot. It's addicting as you try to create that perfect game and watch your sales and profits skyrocket. Ultimately, it's still a shallow experience that has a lot to learn before it can really be considered an in-depth tycoon game.

Score
5.0
Graphics
4.0
Sound
7.5
Gameplay
7.5
Fun Factor
Overall
7.0
searchbuzz3983d ago

For the cost this game is epic.

AedanClarke3982d ago

It's also painfully unpredictable, which is a pain in the ass. It's fun, sure, but it relies almost entirely on its theme. After a while, the random nature of the scoring system really gets on your nerves... But, eh, I've put about 50 hours in the game, so whatever.

70°

The Gamesmen, Episode 247 – Zombies

Join Amras89 and Hardlydan for game talk and fun! This time, The Gamesmen talk about a terrible game, The Division 2, Devil May Cry 5 lens flare, and an Octopath Traveler prequel. Games discussed are Far Cry: New Dawn, Rocket League, Game Dev Tycoon, 7 Days to Die, and Far Cry 5.

Read Full Story >>
thegamesmen.com
paylituzu1868d ago

ผมกล้ารับประกัน หากทำได้ครบทุกข้อ ก็สามารถเอาชนะเกมคาสิโนได้อย่า งแน่นอน ใครที่กำลังอยากลองเล่นเกมเดิมพ ันต่างๆ ในคาสิโนออนไลน์ ท่านสามารถสมัครได้ 24 ชั่วโมง ดต่อสอบถามฝ่ายบริการได้ทันที เว็บเรายินดีให้บริการเสมอ http://gtzmn.com/gclub-roya...

100°

Game Dev Tycoon adds ultra hard mode where you combat piracy with DRM

Video games development simulator Game Dev Tycoon now has an ultra difficult "Pirate Mode" where your software gets pirated.
Emulating the real world problem of piracy, this advanced option will see reduced sales on all of your games. "Bankruptcy is likely", you are told.

Read Full Story >>
eurogamer.net
2235d ago
Princess_Pilfer2235d ago

Where you put DRM into your games, don't stop piracy at all, piss off the paying customers, and then get hit with credit card charbacks from keys bought with stolen credit cards and sold on the grey market and what's what actualy damages your income?

Because that' what happens irl. The pirate who doens't buy the game was never going to buy the game, and the pirate who does isn't a lost sale.

2pacalypsenow2235d ago

It might not be a lost sale, but it's theft.

I don't know about you but if I spent hours making something and someone just stole it. I would be upset.

kevnb2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

while that's true, piracy doesn't have the effect that people keep preaching and is a nice excuse for low sales. Pirates will download any hyped game just to see whats it like, or even sometimes just in case they want to later. Even bad games will get pirated a ton just so pirates can laugh at them.

2pacalypsenow2235d ago

Stealing is still stealing.

rainslacker2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

@Kevnb

So you're saying out of the hundreds of thousands of people that pirate, compared to the millions that would buy games, that none of those pirates would end up buying a game if they couldn't pirate it? If piracy were in some way actually eradicated, you believe that sales of games wouldn't actually go up? Would all those pirates just stop gaming if they couldn't get it for free? That seems unlikely.

Piracy probably doesn't hit the bottom line as much as publishers claim, but it certainly does take away from the bottom line, because it's rediculous to assume that everyone that pirates is just a thief, and not a potential customer.

One can try to rationalize it any way they want, but piracy is theft, and it should be fought. Never should anyone just say, "well, no harm no foul, they wouldn't have brought it anyways". That's just giving power to the pirate, and doing nothing to stand up for the publisher or developer.

Princess_Pilfer2234d ago (Edited 2234d ago )

But it has no impact on sales. So it literally is not doing harm. The people who want to pay for it, will. The people who don't, won't. You don't suddenly convert pirates if piracy is impossible, they just don't play your stuff. Which can actually be a net negative, in the case that they'd decided they liked the pirated game and end up buying the rest of the games in the series instead of ignoring them.

Saying "it's theft" isn't an argument.

The same people who decry piracy will often go do stuff like buy keys on G2A, which are quite often bought with stolen credit cards, and because the developers get hit with charge backs on those sales that does *actual* damage. Not pretend, maybe maybe not damage, real damage.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2234d ago
kevnb2235d ago

except in the real world piracy doesn't have the effect that everyone keep preaching.

Eulderink2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

xD lmao that they thing think that piracy = lost sales too retarded, if i don't have the money or don't find it worth it i won't buy it. piracy makes it just possible to have it without paying.

kevnb2235d ago

not to mention pirates tend to download everything they have any slight interest in which makes the numbers look inflated, the truth is most people couldn't be bothered to pirate games.

rainslacker2235d ago (Edited 2235d ago )

Yeah, but not all pirates are like you. It's reasonable to assume that pirates would indeed buy games if they couldn't pirate them. Maybe not all, or maybe not the ones that they pirate, but they would buy software or quit gaming, or stick to F2P. Those are their only choices if they couldn't pirate a game.

Pirates are diverse in their reasons for pirating. But I see why too much pride from some pirates who boast about it as if they are somehow justified for theft.

While not everyone who pirates would buy the game if they didn't pirate, it's absolutely stupid to assume that everyone who pirates would not buy games if they couldn't pirate. That means that it does affect the bottom line. It may not be as much as the publishers say, but it is something.

Why are so many people willing to justify theft? If you don't have the money, don't play. If you don't find it worth it, don't pay. Don't just download it because you still want to consume the media....which you apparently don't find worthwhile enough to pay for, but find enough there to waste your time on it.

Princess_Pilfer2234d ago

There are a number of flaws in your reasoning.

You assume that because someone pirates *some* games they pirate *all* games rather than pay for them. This is demonstrably false. Pirates (especially in wealthier nations) buy several times more games than the average consumer. This also unravels your second argument. Because Pirates tend to buy more games than anyone else, it's safe to assume if they couldn't pirate things they'd just ignore them, they *already* spend a lot of money on games and have no actual need to pirate.

See above. There have been studies. I'm not aware of any credible ones that suggest an actual profit loss of greater than 0.3% (without accounting for the pirates who become fans of the series and/or tell their friends about it and convince other people to buy the game btw.)

Something that isn't worth your money =/= something that isn't worth your time. I woulnd't pay for hollow knight because I'm pretty sure I won't like it, but I'd definitely try it for free if given the chance to see if I wanted to buy it.

rainslacker2234d ago (Edited 2234d ago )

There are flaws to all arguments on both sides of this issue because so many people tend to act like one anecdotal instance, tends to be indicative of the entire make up of people who pirate.

But when it comes to people who pirate, any of the reasons given exist within the spectrum. Common sense would suggest that a person who has played a game, particularly in full, is unlikely to buy it later. I know I fell into this category when I was a pirate. I used to be pretty active in the piracy scene, running forums where many gamers traded games constantly. I've seen all the excuses, and I knew enough of them well enough to know they were either full of sh*t, or they were more willing to buy games. I still brought a lot of games, but when I really got into it, I brought much less than I did before.

Yes, there are people who use piracy for demo purposes, or to get around annoying DRM, but from what I've seen, most just do it because they don't want to pay for games. That's why I think that the studies are not accurate. I don't think profit loss is anywhere close to what some of the devs or publishers claim, but I do think that they'd make more if people didn't have a choice except to buy, or not play. Again, that is just common sense.

In your hollow knight example, would you play the whole game and buy it if you liked it? If you would, I feel you fall into a minority of pirates

Anyhow, long comment made short, people have to stop looking at singular instances to make their arguments. Piracy has to be looked at from a whole and a wide spectrum. I don't condone piracy, but I'm find with people who buy a game, and then use the pirated version to get around DRM that causes it not to work. Or those who legitimately want to demo a game with intent to buy should they like it.

Princess_Pilfer2233d ago

I cited studies, I'm not relying on anecdotes. So no, there isn't a flaw in my argument.

https://archive.is/X1n3O
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
https://torrentfreak.com/fi...
https://torrentfreak.com/fi...
https://www.techdirt.com/ar...
http://piracy.americanassem...

Common sense is a logical fallicy. It means "I think it's obviously true and there for it must be true and I don't have to prove it." and isn't a valid argument. You can't discredit the findings of studies with "common sense," properly measured stastics don't care about your feelings or vague ideas on what pirates do or don't do. They don't care about mine either. If you want to disagree with them, read them and point out where the flaws are in how the study was designed.

Because here's the thing, studies *by govenrmnet bodies with a vested interest in keeping the megacorperations who compalin about piracy so much* still can't find a credible link between piracy and lost sales. It's just not a thing. The people who pirate any given product tend to fall into 2 camps. Those who were never going to buy it anyways, and those who will buy it if they decide they like it. Yeah, there is a small subset that will simply never pay for anything that they can get for free, but that's not most of them.

Also, there is no actual difference between a pirated copy of a game and one sold second hand, as far as the publishers/developers ability to make money. Limited supply (at least in wealthy countries) for the second hand copies of the physical product is simply a non-issue so that rebuttal doesn't work, and that's really the *only* rebuttal. Sure you can create a hypothetical scenario in which someone is trying to sell a 30 million dollar album and there are only 3 in exsistance but a copy gets leaked online so nobody wants to buy the album anymore, but that doesn't not reflect reality with either physical or digital goods, these companies create millions of disks and they're regularly traded in, so much so that gamestop throws away big piles of them on a regular basis rather than waste storage space on them.

rainslacker2232d ago

Studies based on respondants who already pirate, and will say that they would be willing to buy a game even though they pirate it.

Sorry, my own experience with most pirates is that they don't buy games they pirate. I've run BBS's and ran hubs where hundreds, if not thousands of pirates made their way through them each month. Most of them went there because they wanted free stuff. I knew some of them to be gamers, and they would buy games, but it was rare to find one that would buy a game after they play it.

That is enough of an anecdote to support my argument, because I know hands down that there are those that substitute buying games in favor of pirating. I always get a kick out of people that pirate and act like pirates are all of the highest moral caliber, or that people who are gamers wouldn't buy games if they couldn't pirate.

That is just illogical by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of what the studies show.

I don't dispute that publishers over-exaggerate the loss in sales, but I also dispute the pirates who act like there is a negligible loss to software sales because of piracy.

Princess_Pilfer2232d ago

Anecdotes are irrelivant.

Even EU the EU government has done studies that can't find the link, and considering the EU government has laws against piracy and stand to risk losing lobying money from the corperations if hey change those laws they have an incentive to cheat and say it *does* hurt sales, and even they can't find a credible link.

I never said *all* pirates will end up buying the game. I'm saying the overwhelming majority (as in 95% or higher) who do pirate the game, either end up buying it or would never have bought it in the first place.

That piracy has a negligable impact on sales isn't an excuse, it's just a fact. Your anecdotes don't matter, and neither do mine. Your experience is irrelivant. The facts don't care about it. Your anecdote is not a substitute for a stastical analasis where all the data points are kept track of and so protected from your biases.

rainslacker2232d ago

It's fine. I accept that many of them wouldn't buy the game regardless, because that lines up with my experience. I absolutely do not agree that many pirates end up buying the game. My experience in the pirating community just doesn't sync up with that. The vast majority just want free stuff that they aren't entitled to, and act like they only do it for demo.purposes. I have more respect for the pirate who is at least honest about being too cheap to pay for a game, because at least they're not muddying the waters

Princess_Pilfer2230d ago

The overwhelmimg majority of pirates who just want free stuff *woulnd't have bought the game anyways.* They didn't care enough to pay for it, so they don't pay for it. Still no impact on sales.

There has been 0 link shown between decreased piracy and increased sales. None. Not in music, not in movies, not in TV, not in games.

rainslacker2230d ago

Yes, but at some point, if the free software isn't available, that would mean that those pirates would have to buy games if they wanted to play. I may not make a difference for an individual title, but overall it certainly would. On top of that, the temptation is just too much for people who game, so they're going to buy something.

That's why the argument that pirates wouldn't buy anything isn't all black and white. I can't see millions of pirates suddenly just stop playing games. They would likely start buying them, and play less than they can through piracy.

Princess_Pilfer2229d ago

They'd simply not buy it. Again, there have been studies. There is 0 link between decreased piracy and sales. They'll buy and play the games they were already going to buy and play. (Pirates by 7x as many games as non-pirates on average.)

You're operating on the assumption that if someone pirates the simply don't buy games. this is provably false. Most pirates by way more games than anyone else and have no actual need to pirate to play games. They pirate things they wanted to try out, or were never going to spend money on.

rainslacker2229d ago

How can the studies show a correlation when there isn't any decreased piracy? The only way to study it is by using respondent data, and that requires people to be honest, which those same anecdotal people obviously not.

No.amount of reasoning can say that people simply would stop playing games if there was no piracy. It defies all logic.

As far as the rest, I'm operating on the assumption that the vast majority of pirates don't buy their games. I'm extending that to say that some, if not many, would end up buying some games if they couldn't get them for free. They wouldn't buy every game they'd pirate, but they would likely buy some, and with millions of pirates that adds up to an increase in sales overall, but maybe not any significantly measurable increase for an individual title

Consider that if even 5% would end up buying the game, for a game that has 100k copies pirates, that's 5k copies sold. Assuming the $60 price tag, that would end up being $30k. I dunno about you, but that's significant.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 2229d ago
60°

Game Dev Tycoon Receives Free Content Update on PC | GameLuster

In celebration of Game Dev Tycoon's iOS release, developer Greenheart Games released update v1.6 filled with brand new content. The last major update to the game, until now, was in 2014.

Read Full Story >>
gameluster.com