An Interesting Look at the Video Game Industry 361
Bamafan77 writes "USATODAY has an interesting article in their Money section on the video game industry. The centerpiece of the story is an overview of DigiPen, the only accredited video game university, but it also describes aspects of the video game industry in general including the explosive growth of the industry (e.g. Barnes and Nobles would've reported a loss without their Gamestop subsidiary) and how many universities not only fail to prepare students for the game industry, but still don't take it seriously. However, I believe things are slightly better than the days when Trip Hawkins (EA's co-founder founder) Harvard professor told him to stop wasting time with games."
Give it another 10 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
All in all, I'd say that most universities turn out computer science students who know how to program applications. Word processors and the like. I doubt that many universities take video games seriously because they only came onto the scene in my lifetime. Give it another 10 years and we'll see where things are at then.
Re:Me too! Me too! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course the video game industry will always thrive, just as the movie industry did in the 30's durring the depression. People needed an escape and those mediums provided the perfect way to do just that. These forms of entertainment will always do well any time when times are rough.
The game industry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I sound just like a million other people, but I imagine myself and all those other people will continue to say the same things until they no longer need to be said.
Job Demand (Score:4, Insightful)
But I'm happy making educational software [tomsnyder.com]
Would video game specific education be necessary? (Score:4, Insightful)
If I need someone to write a story, I'd hire an English major who studied playwriting.
If I need someone to make artwork, I'd hire a Fine Arts major
If I need a (virtual) space designed, I'd hire an architecture major.
And, if I need software written, I'd hire a math/engineering/computer science major.
Then, you'll get the job done right! I'm doing work for a company that a bunch of people with a degree in "Entertainment Technology" from a leading university. While many of these people are quite good, many times I feel we'd be better served if they hired smart math, engineering, fine arts, and English majors.
Re:Give it another 10 years... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you tell that to the person wanting to know how they can get into the industry though, they don't want to hear it.
For someone without programming knowledge school is a good stepping stone, but currently you have to turn to online resources and bookstores to find the real treasures.
It might be quite a while before we see real growth in the area too... the people who really get it are too busy doing what they love... many of the most qualified would probably be miserable teaching.
Re:Would video game specific education be necessar (Score:4, Insightful)
No you wouldn't. Then you'd hire an experienced artist who's done work that impresses you. You wouldn't punt them for lack of a degree. (If you did, you'd be making a serious mistake.)
The only reason I'm nitpicking this particular part of your post is that art is different from the rest of the professions you mentioned. A degree in art is very helpful for an artist, but it means zilch if you have no actual artwork to show. There are artists out there that can get by just fine w/o an art degree.
Re:Would video game specific education be necessar (Score:2, Insightful)
Repeat after me:
Having a degree in a particular field does not make you an expert.
Yes, there are people out there using their degree everyday. However, many people in IT either A) Don't have a degree, or B)Have a degree in something completely un-related to IT.
YOU HIRE THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB, NOT WHO HAS THE SHINIEST RESUME.
Re:Why should they take it seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a lot to making a video game. There's writing concepts you should know, art concepts to work with, physics concepts when needed, not to mention the fact that this all needs to be coded in whatever language is chosen. Some training _would_ be useful in this industry.
Unversity not needed to be that specific (Score:4, Insightful)
To say that Universities should offer training for video game programming is ridiculous.
The intent of taking Computer Science at University is not to even learn how to program. A person takes courses that teach programming languages in their first year and then after that it's assumed that you can program, regardless of the language. A person is there to learn about the science of computers: stuff like algorithms and design at the early levels of a degree and more advanced topics such as graphics, AI, distributed computing, etc in later years.
I would say that game development would be an application of various topics in to one. Software Design, Graphics, AI, etc. So in reality I think that a course on game development wouldn't be useful anyway because it couldn't get in to enough detail on enough of the involved topics.
After leavign university a person should be able to take their knowledge and do with it what they want because they have a general knowledge of many topics. Whether they apply that knowledge to writing an operating system, word processor or the next version of Quake is up to them to decide.
This is just my view of what a university education should give someone. For all I know other areas of the world view a university education differently...
my two cents(cdn)
Re:The game industry... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're on the right track, but there's more to it than that. The Game Industry does a far better job of ensuring customer satisfaction than the Movie/Music industry does.
-Game reviews are plentiful.
-Demo/rental versions are easy to acquire to try out.
-You can trade/sell a game to try out other ones. There's more entertainment for your buck.
-You have the time to sit down and enjoy the game at your leisure. (as opposed to being at a theater by a certain time...)
-Mods, mods, mods...
-A bad game isn't as bad as a bad movie. (Your mileage may vary...)
It's funny, if you think about it: Video games cost quite a bit more than movies. You'd think that the industry would be all over trying to get things like P2P shut down. But they don't. They understand that people are willing to pay for games, they just need reassurance that the game will do what they want. (Hence the popularity of Demo CDs...) If the *AA would learn from that example, then maybe they wouldn't be $1B behind the Game Industry.
Re:Give it another 10 years... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have programmed real-time video projects, yet received no training in college on real-time programming, graphics, video, etc. Would I have been able to do it without what I learned in college? Sure, but I would have had to teach myself for quite a while. The college education certainly made things clear-cut, and comparatively easy, for me.
What do you need to do video games? Programming experience, probably in C++... some linear algebra (so you can do the matrix multiplication that is so shmooper in 3D gaming), some Physics 101, OOP, Software Engineering, Computer Graphics... all standard for any decent school offering a CompSci degree. Really, you can do anything you want with computers with a CompSci degree.
The way I look at it, college prepares you for the video game industry as well as it prepares you for any other programming job. You can code anything as long as you sit down, think about the problem, and familiarize yourself with the tools you need to get the job done.
Re:Me too! Me too! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why should they take it seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)
The gaming industry is just fine (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Digipen (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and stay away from me at cocktail parties. I'm sure that a conversation that never strayed from the intricacies of video game programming would be almost instantly tiresome.
Focus on Video Games (Score:5, Insightful)
Similarly, Computer Science should not be taught as a course in game development. A student that is taught nothing but game development will fail miserably if they do anything else. And, in my experience, students of so-called video game schools know how to slap down code, but don't understand the workings of that code. You probably couldn't give them a original piece of code and have them understand it immediately.
However, a student who is taught the fundamentals of programming and the basis of computer science will be able to adapt to create games. He knows the foundation and will be able to apply it to a specific task. Furthermore, they will have the expertise to work outside of that field, should they not get a job as a game developer (a very real possibility).
A broad understanding of the fundamentals and foundations of Computer Science is better than learning a specific application. A good programmer will be able to adapt and could probably end up programming a better game than the one taught to just make video games.
Re:Give it another 10 years... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you learn the application of concepts instead of concepts, you're screwed no matter where you go.
I've taught myself how to make games by analizing how games work. I also taught myself how to code. My university is teaching me how to code well.
You don't need a university to teach you how to make games which is obvious since it's very unlikely that too many of those in the game industry went to DigiPen.
If "applications" (like Word, ect) geared university is going to screw you over when it comes to making games then a games based university is going to screw you over when you try to make a supporting app for your game project.
The fact is, you need a rounded understanding of concepts and it shouldn't matter where you start, you should easily beable to do both apps and games. Otherwise you need to come up with a new career idea because the concepts are very much the same.
I wasn't taught how to make games or apps. I was taught how to code. That's the way your education should be.
Ben
How to know you haven't grown up yet.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok..
-- better than what? You've given away your view as someone who thinks everyone should take gaming seriously. Everyone has the right to think games are worthwhile, or not.. oh what a dumb unenlightened harvard professor that guy must have been, huh? Just because there's a market for something doesn't make it 'worthwhile' or prove that Hawkins is the one in the right
-- I play Unreal with friends but I still consider it a waste of time
Re:The game industry... (Score:3, Insightful)
A kid that doesn't have many $$$ will not drop $59.95 on the latest game... he will buy 1 $19.95 older game and 1 $29.95 freshly old game. because he will have plenty of fun with GTA3 and it isn't worth paying full boat for GTA vice city.
This Christmas season when I was shopping last weekend showed me this.. Kids looking at the games and even though the parents are doling out the cashola... they cringe at the overpricing of the games..... and I quote 1 15 year old waiting for the cashiere to unlock the case, "They must be completely nuts to think anyone will pay $59.95 for these games."
and yes
Dumb kids spend all the cash on a "gotta have, gimmie gimmie" impulse... the smart kids are getting 2 times the games for the same or less money.
accredited != recognition (Score:3, Insightful)
I know people who have gone there, since I live near Redmond. The courses are extremely focused. True, it is a limited scope, but there still should be a broader approach. I.E. Why are only programmers and graphic artists being trained there? What about the directors and producers?
Also, let's say you spend 4 years there and go to work for a company which makes games. If you wanted to leave the field, you'd likely already be pigeonholed. If you get a broader CS or Comp Engineering degree, at least you have other openings.
Just something to think about, before jumping "willy nilly" into such a narrowly scoped environment.
Re:Would video game specific education be necessar (Score:4, Insightful)
And you'd have a great play, novel, or short story, and a terrible story for a game. Similar to what happens when you try to do the book-to-movie or game-to-movie thing.
And you'd have a wonderful painting, or drawing, or sculpture, but a terrible game setting/backdrop/sprite/model.
And you'd have a wonderful house, or building, or park, but you'd have a terrible, uninteresting game map. Few architects regularly build twisty quirky mazes with lots of secrets.
And you'd have a great set of algorithms, software design, and code, but terrible gameplay.
You see, there's a lot that goes into a game that has everything to do with game. The gameplay, the level design, the graphic design, the story: all of these must work for a game, the same way they must work for a book, or a play, or a movie.
All of the above skills might be prerequisites for game development team members. But there's a lot more you need to make a top-notch game. In a way similar to the development of fantasy, a game world must break logic and reality in just the right ways to be entertaining. The above majors are not trained in this: they're trained to make things work in the real world. Additionally, people who are not knowledgable in the area and moreover have never even played such a game have little idea about how things need to work. They will think things are fun or interesting and they will turn out dull, infuriating, or painful.
Frankly, this is the reason you're working for the company and not running it. Now, maybe the people they picked weren't the best of their bunch, but they at least made an effort to get people who have (hopefully) been trained how to make a good game.
Re:The game industry... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's also that little bit about having a unique key to open your game. That slows down the pirates enough to make it easier to pay the money than to spend the time getting the game free.
There is a truth to what you say though. I would much rather get Neverwinter for $50 which I know I'll play for many many hours than Eminem which I suspect I'll listen to a few times, rip to ogg and then not put on a playlist because I'm already weary of it.
Lies, Damn lies, Statistics and Comparisons (Score:4, Insightful)
That being said, I'm still impressed by the fact that the gaming industry exceeds box office revenues by $1 Billion.
Re:Is this Quote Accurate? (Score:1, Insightful)
Funny, yes. Ironically prophetic? No.
Technical immersion = bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The game industry... (Score:3, Insightful)
The game industry, in total sales, made more money than the US domestic box office.
You're forgetting some minor areas: World Box office, Video/DVD sales, PPV, cable, and Network TV.
These easily total to around $30-40 billion, without even beginning to touch merchandising or other revenue streams.
Games have come a long way, but Hollywood's still way out in front.
-Brett
But are they preparing 'em for Working Conditions? (Score:1, Insightful)
I work for a Very Large Game Company, and the project I'm on was going along at reasonable work hours & conditions, until this summer... when suddenly the producers & management apparently realized that they had no chance in hell of making the ship date.
Rather than pushing back the ship date (can't do that, shareholders might get upset), or being honest with the staff (give up any semblance of personal life 'till we're done, cuz you're not gonna have any), it was the death of a thousand cuts, and always "just one more" week of grueling hell. (Followed by another, etc...)
Evidently, this sort of management (and I use that word very loosely) isn't at all specific to my company, but (from what I can tell) is pretty generic to almost all of the game industry.
Why? Simple: there are lots of people who really want to write games (or at least, think they do), and are willing to put up with subpar pay and inhuman (and, in California, outright illegal) work hours in order to do so; once you burn out a group, there are plenty more ready to take their place.
Of course, you lose the senior and more-talented people doing this, but for most games, you really only need to have a single version that sorta kinda works; maintainability is rarely an issue, and anyone who has buys current PC games knows to start checking for patches on day 1.
(And yes, I'm posting this anonymously, because I fear retribution from my employer.)
The tension between academia and game industry (Score:2, Insightful)
Basically, the academics think the game developers are focusing too much on the here and now, and not really focusing on long-term research, and they are concerned that the increasing popularity of games will lead to less funding for their more long-term research programs. Whereas the developers always think that the academics are too stuck-up and fail to appreciate how they are being used in the real world, and want to see less of a disconnect between theory and applications.
As someone from both backgrounds, having made the switch from one to the other, I personally find them hilarious. I do agree that academia and the gaming world should work more closely together. Indeed, you are starting to see more and more papers in venues like SIGGRAPH being authored by games people from EA and the like, and the Game Development conferences are in many ways being more and more like SIGGRAPH, with paper presentations, etc.
There is no doubt that games, and related fields like movie animation, rather than stifling the state of the art, are fueling it. It's probably safe to say, that without games and gamers demanding more and more, SGI-quality graphics hardware on the PC would have nowhere been so cheap and ubiquitous as they are now. And, in many areas such as physical modelling, simulation, and interactive real-time rendering, there would have not been so many state of the art innovations as there have been now.
Game programmers, I dare say, are often the BEST at what they do -- writing efficient code, both space and time-wise -- VERY much true for the consoles, and even so for the PCs! Despite advances in hardware, game programming is probably the most difficult and more demanding field of software, and one that will continue to insipire future generations of programmers to do their best, rather than being complacent and writing inefficient "bloatware".
In short, the making of games has grown up from a backwater area of programming to a serious factory of intellectual progress. I look forward to innovation coming from both those in the ivory towers and those in the game studios, working hand in hand and side by side.
Re:Give it another 10 years... (Score:2, Insightful)
These can and are taught in school, but when most classes cover theory and small, 'neat', unrealistic examples, and little debugging or re-use of old code is done, I think folks miss a lot.
Most programmers I talk to agree: once you hit the real world, everything changes. You don't have time to do things all pretty, and you don't have a prof leaning over your shoulder reminding you to comment your code.
Bottom line: I think college is for becoming an all-around, mature person who can communicate and work well with others. Technical skills usually come from experience, regardless of the field. I think that's often a truth of life.
More techie-centric crap (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the day, which is probably where most of the guys you all idolize came from, designers and programmers used to be one in the same. Richard Garriot sat down and WROTE Akalabeth and the early Ultimas. Sid Meier (arguably the first "superstar" designer) wrote reams of code for Microprose in the 80s. Will Wright coded and designed the original SimCity. None of the above are coders now. (Garriot is out of the industry now, but his last few years of work was in design)
I know a guy that worked on Daggerfall (ok, so that's not a great accomplishment seeing as it was so buggy, but damn it he was a game coder), and I know a guy that worked on Everquest. They're coders. They didn't have anything to do with the design of the games.
If you can code a physics engine from scratch, great. John Carmack can. But iD hasn't released a game that was innovative in its design in years. John will sell the [insert name + Roman numeral here] engine and buy his Ferraris. But when LucasArts gets it and writes Jedi Knight II using that engine, THEY created the game, not Carmack. Carmack didn't do anything more than build a toolkit for other people to use. In another world he would have worked on libc or the C++ STL or on a tax calculation library or in Core Services for a financial institution.
Stop worshipping the programmers, go and seek out the best designed and written games, and the industry can be saved..
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Me too! Me too! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not convinced it has to be this way. The problem as I see it is that every game is made as if its going to be the number one hit game of the year. Which it never is, because it looks exactly like the number one hit game of last year, and there are now 10 different titles that look exactly like it. The business people who run everything are simply looking at other successful companies and doing what they do--but doing exactly what your competitors have already done is a recipe for failure in video games (and probably most software) as the economic picture you describe proves.
The solution is to start making cheaper games that appeal to fringe, niche groups. The game of the year may require the latest graphics technology and oodles of expensive artwork and massive marketing push--but a great game can still be made without the absolute best visuals. How much do you think these [popcap.com] games cost to make? How much do you think the Pokemon games cost to make? How many units does the average GBA game need to sell to break even? Cheap, successful games are possible, and I suspect we'll see way more of them in the future.
And we're all guilty of it, even the die-hards amoung us. Have any of you ever played a Pokemon game? Do you truely, HONESTLY know what it's about? Do you care? Probably not. Given a choice between being given the next Pokemon game for free, or BUYING the next installment of Grand Theft Auto most of our minds are already made up. It doesn't matter if the Pokemon games are fun or not. I wouldn't know, personally, and I doubt many of you do, either. That just illustrates my point further.
I'm not disputing your main point here, but to me at least, there isn't much difference between free and $50 relative to the true cost of the game, which is the time I invest in playing it. I'm sure if I took all of my Pokemon or Grand Theft time and worked at something productive instead I'd make enough to make actual cost of the game meaningless. If you like console RPGs, I highly recommend Pokemon. It has the depth of PC RPG with the simplicity of the console RPG. The battle system is much better thought out than, say, any Final Fantasy game. There isn't really any serious story, but its pretty fun to collect and build up the Pokemon.