News from Thirdwire - remember them?

[Do335 382]

I disagree with the old 'pull a model off the net' way of quickly populating a DLC or EXP. Having done this a few times, I can tell you it is rare that a model not built from the ground up to be used in SF will work without a serious amount of time and effort to get right. In a LOT of cases, it's better to build the model yourself rather than trying to adapt from another source.

 

eh of course not, was just saying more impressed with source code changes. but come to think of it i'd rather he'd bought off the shelf sometimes for some of the default models ain't that accurate.

 

 

 

 

Do335, your math got me curious...I did a bit of research and found this:

 

http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/1279/game_developer_salary_survey_.php?page=1

 

It's an article that came out in January of 2014, which shows average game developer salaries for 2013. Interesting is that except for QA, in the Southern US, average salaries start at just over $60k and top out just under $80k. Again, these are AVERAGE salaries.

 

So, assuming a two man shop, and each of them earning $70k, you're talking $140k per year just for the salaries. Which would take about 4700 sales of $30 games to recoup. Of course, this doesn't include ANY other costs, like standard utilities, server costs, and anything else that an e-business/game developer requires. What I thought was interesting was reading the comments about the expansion/explosion of mobile gaming and how there is a lot of consternation that all other types of gaming (console, PC, etc) may be in serious trouble.

 

FC

 

thanks for the info, good to know they still make good money (although not as high as i'd liked...)

[ArturR 17]

C'mon with little effort he could do USAF/Euro Vipers or flyable Starfighter and obviously they would be money makers.

[Sheriff001 397]

There was, originally, a flyable F-104. I think licensing problems with Lockheed killed it.

[FastCargo 412]

I also think people are probably overestimating how much money he makes from the mobile games. In my experience and in that of some of my friends in the industry, the % of people who actually spend any money on your typical free-to-play game is only about 2-4%. It is bad enough that here at Killerfish Games we've specifically decided to avoid this type of business model.

You've got me curious...how is that working out for you guys? I'd be curious as to the costs (size of staff, pay scale, expenses) verses revenue. How much of that can you talk about?

 

There was, originally, a flyable F-104. I think licensing problems with Lockheed killed it.

I think that's what also killed the C-130 for a while...

 

I also think it's absolute horseshit that an aircraft paid for with tax dollars cannot be considered public domain for a virtual representation of it. Hey, you want a developer to acknowledge the source, sure (ie a simple 'Created by Lockheed' or some such), but license fees should be verboten on a publicly funded aircraft. That goes for things like the military services too. If I want to create a military looking model rocket with 'US AIR FORCE' on the side as a kit, that should be okay...if you want to have a kit builder put something like 'Not An Official Representation of a US AIR FORCE Weapon System' on it...sure. We pay for this stuff once...we shouldn't have to keep paying for it.

 

FC

[JediMaster 451]

Right, if it means they can't use "Lockheed" or "Grumman" in the marketing, on the box, whatever, fine. I don't mind if it says "F-22" and not "Lockheed F-22 Raptor". But the idea that the plane's shape is somehow proprietary and deserves to be paid for?

It's a ridiculous extension of the copyright laws as there is no way ANYTHING in a computer game or a model airplane is based on their work aside from the shape. And just look at how common some of those shapes are! How many people could honestly tell an A320 from a Boeing 737 if they were both fresh from the factory whitetails with no ID marks on them? Damn few! Yet Boeing and Airbus aren't locked in protracted battles over how their planes look alike from the outside!

[Z09SS 21]

Trade Dress is what you're talking about to give it a name.

 

Glock and H&K are somewhat famous for rigorously pursuing suits about things that look their guns.

 

Grumman is the company that started it for aviation, Lock-Mart jumped on the wagon.  Grumman didn't even do it over a plane they made many of, the TBF Avenger, or a plane they were currently marketing and supporting.  Dang near all of the Avengers were TBM by General Motors.

 

Right, if it means they can't use "Lockheed" or "Grumman" in the marketing, on the box, whatever, fine. I don't mind if it says "F-22" and not "Lockheed F-22 Raptor". But the idea that the plane's shape is somehow proprietary and deserves to be paid for?

It's a ridiculous extension of the copyright laws as there is no way ANYTHING in a computer game or a model airplane is based on their work aside from the shape. And just look at how common some of those shapes are! How many people could honestly tell an A320 from a Boeing 737 if they were both fresh from the factory whitetails with no ID marks on them? Damn few! Yet Boeing and Airbus aren't locked in protracted battles over how their planes look alike from the outside!