Game Profitability Under Threat 102
The BBC has up an article looking at the dwindling opportunities for profit on games in the coming years. Soaring prices for game development, the increasingly-entrenched segmentation of the marketplace, and overwhelming emphasis on sequels means that it's looking increasingly dire for game development houses. While the success of the DS means that there's a wide market for games on that platform (witness Square/Enix's movement of the Dragon Quest franchise), the phasing out of the PS2 means that for the moment there is no 'leading platform' for game creation. The article talks about how the various game companies are responding to this challenge, as in Microsoft's reliance on exclusive deals and Sony's absorption of development houses into their infrastructure.
So what was this article about anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies will get their costs in line. Either it will turn out that increased costs from games going HD will be a myth or become a myth as tools improve (most likely), or smart companies will know where to make tradeoffs to get their costs down. Many studios will fail and go out of business, which has been par for the course for ages. Ideally, they'd figure out that marketing and licensing costs are the bulk of the budget and take the money from there, but I'm not holding my breath.
Ignores Online (Score:1, Interesting)
However, the introduction of online downloading has opened up another avenue for the small time developer.
don't focus on profit? (Score:3, Interesting)
This so-called "emphasis on sequels" doesn't seem real to me. I see the big companies pumping out sequels (EA being the most obvious), but I don't think they are doing it because it's what consumers want, only that it's easier to re-vamp a game than it is to come up with a new one. At least some people I know have gotten smart to this system, and if a new EA game comes out, they'll wait for the sequel cuz they know it's coming. Similarly, I buy every other FIFA game, since there isn't much of a difference between any two consequtive titles (not that there is that much more of a difference between any 3, but at least you get a graphics boost). The emphasis on sequels isn't something that is demanded by the market, it is created by the publishers. As a contrast to the EA games, consider Final Fantasy, where each game not only provides a different world, but a different style of gameplay, mini games, character development, etc. I know it's hard to change a sports game from year to year, but if you can't make anything new, maybe you shouldn't spend a lot of money making the same thing.
In a market where most games are just clones with different graphics, what do the companies expect? Come up with something innovative instead of remaking the same tired games. Katomari Damacy for $20 anyone? Innovation and a low price in box. So what if the graphics sucked. If you can't compete with the Gears of War in the graphics department, don't try.
As we look back at the most popular games, they are rarely sequels. Innovation is the key.
Re:Boo Fucking Hoo (Score:3, Interesting)
Well for the ones that really do suffer from this little piece of apparent hypocrisy, it's the very idea of handouts going to the poor that irks them.
It's why you'll hear this type of person rail against the idea of public healthcare, because they don't want to pay for someone else's health care. Yet they'll buy insurance, and do exactly that. The difference? With insurance, everyone else has paid the premiums too, so you at least know your money is going to help someone who is your economic equal.
This mentality is at its worst in the upper levels of corporations and government. They will see no hypocrisy in lobbying for and receiving tax breaks, tarrifs, or whatever other handouts while lobbying against anything that benefits the truly needy. Because business is good, poor people are bad. Helping business financially is good (spurs entrepeneurship!), helping poor people financially is bad (spurs depedence!).
Not to imply that being against handouts for the poor implies this kind of hypocrisy; there are valid reasons too. It's just this kind of hypocrisy is rampant and insulting.
Of course this is pretty off-topic. But there's not much to say about the topic itself except: Boo-fucking-hoo.
Start making fun games instead of amazing ones (Score:4, Interesting)
You're going to win because your game is just plain fun.
It doesn't cost a lot of money to make a game fun, it just takes a fun idea. If you insist on remaking the same games because you're afraid of loss, you've just painted yourself into a nice corner.
The problem is not the technology. (Score:4, Interesting)
By no means are developers ambitious in terms of unique gameplay. Rather, they're putting excessive amounts of effort into exploiting the latest graphics techniques, developing expansive storylines and introducing increasingly complex control systems. What I think they're trying to do is provide a more cinematic experience. They're trying to reproduce movies in a video game format. Hence the obsession with overly realistic graphics and the cinematic-type presentation. It's inevitable that games inspired by film will also command movie-sized budgets.
Needless to say, this doesn't necessarily translate into entertaining gameplay. I think many developers have lost sight of what constitutes good gameplay. However, I don't think they care. The average consumer is easily impressed by the cinematic patina contemporary games exude. Let's face reality, developers keep producing these games because they sell. The Wii demonstrates that there is a desire for something else. But Nintendo doesn't possess some sort of holy grail of unique gaming. The unique controller can only go so far. Many others have offered unique and compelling gameplay. PCs, outside of the FPS, RTS and RPG clones has offered tons of neat games for years.
Look at what indie developers are producing. And many of them are exploiting high resolutions to their fullest extent. Some of these games look phenomenal. Some have a unique visual style which enhances gameplay. I inevitably am drawn back to the Wii as compared to the other platforms. There is this prevailing opinion I see that expects the Wii to somehow solve all these problems. It won't. The system is hindered performance-wise and the controller while great for some games is nowhere near as flexible a device as some believe.
I predict that within a few years Nintendo will introduce an HD-capable Wii. I think it will be a smart move for Nintendo, but it will also mean anyone who currently owns a Wii and then gets the upgraded model will have likely spent $400-$500 on the two systems. Suddenly the pricing won't all that different from an Xbox360 or PS3.
I don't expect most large developers to change their ways. They may occasionally offer something different but the for the most part we'll see more of the same. Perhaps we'll see the game industry work more like the movie industry. Ultimately, the problem lies with the nature of business and the lack of consumers who can think independently.
Re:Demand geometrically modeled light switches ?!? (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a nephew that's 10 years old. Last time I saw him he was a toddler. His family flies into town and I ask if he likes video games and he says yes and figure a bonding moment is afoot.
At the time I was playing Megaman X 8. He thought it was kind of neat, but declined to play it. He pretty much declined to play anything in my library. I said a few things about the titles I had and what makes soandso a playable and good game, and the answer I got back was:
"It doesn't look real enough."
The industry has been favoring these amazingly realistic graphics and sound and marching upwards faster and faster with budgets but not taken such a big priority with gameplay. Ultimately it comes down to a lot of developers not caring much about it. You can't quantify gameplay in a screenshot or a one-liner on the back of a box. When video games started to be "cool" (let's be honest with ourselves: the cool kids weren't playing NES) was when graphics were starting to look "pretty good". The industry focus on eye candy has resulted in them painting themselves into a corner.
Literally. The diffused-reflection bump-mapped floor looks really really great. Too bad it's not any more fun to run across it.
Better tools, better languages needed (Score:2, Interesting)
Using licensed technology is a way out, but it forces you to do things in a certain way that may influence the game in many ways you don't expect.
Solid reusable tools are going to be more and more important. Scripting language support is also good but often a bit overrated; proprietary languages often suck. Using a single language such as Java or C# for everything is better. The performance hit is negligible and all the trouble with constantly keeping the interfaces up to date is gone.
Development practices in the gaming industry are still very primitive compared to, say, web development. It is only a matter of time and some more failed megalomanic projects before this improves.
Why Graphics are such a easy target (Score:3, Interesting)
Gameplay is much different. Throwing more designers won't nessacarily make the game more fun. No amount of hardware will make somethign instantly fun (sex toys are a notable exception). Many innovation seem out of place in other venues and every accuses you for ripping an idea off. And math doesn't determine is something is fun so you have a ironically more artistic thought proccess to come up with innovative gameplay.
Given these graphics will always advance steadily while gameplay waits for the occasional genius to spurt once in a while.