Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

How To Move Games Beyond Geek Culture 43

Posted by Zonk from the scratch-my-back dept.
The Lost Garden offers up a post theorizing how to break out of the circle of games by gamers for gamers. The current self-delusional state of mind, the author posits, is why the industry is having problems attracting parts of the mainstream audience. From the article: "We need take a step back and introduce some systems thinking to understand the dynamics of the industry. If we blame the publishers or the programmers or the consumers or the designers as individuals, we gain little understanding of the issue and manage to create a lot of denial, hand wringing and hurt feelings. The truth is that most individual actors in our industry are doing what they think is best. The result may be a degenerate system, but the individuals are operating with a clean conscience. There is absolutely no paradox here. Ultimately, I'm not concerned by individuals doing their jobs poorly. My concern is that they are fixating on an insignificantly tiny market when a much larger one awaits. By blindly devoting their efforts toward the current market, we starve the market expansion process."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How To Move Games Beyond Geek Culture More

How To Move Games Beyond Geek Culture

Comments Filter:

  • Gaming's potential "place" has limits (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) * <yayagu.gmail@com> on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @04:42PM (#14038367) Journal

    From the article:

    Lets take a different look at the original issue. The premise is this: The game industry is a highly interdependent ecosystem that is the natural consequence of historical starting conditions. It is not however the only form that a game development culture can take. It is almost certainly not the most profitable form

    It's this kind of wording, thinking, angle of viewing the world (i.e., highly interdependent ecosystem that is the natural consequence of historical starting conditions., wtf?) that illustrates the niche characteristic of the gaming community. Not many others think of interdependent ecosystems (especially talking about games), nor natural consequences of historical starting conditions.

    I have some loves in my life: classical music; bicycling and bicycle racing; and ping pong (yeah, I know, table tennis... and for the record I have a 1600+ rating in table tennis).

    All of these loves I often wondered why the rest of the world didn't see with my passion. I got busy with committees, tournaments, advertising, evangelizing, etc. To no avail. For the longest time I didn't "get it". But maybe older and wiser I do -- all loves are not for all people. Maybe that's what makes it such a cool world.

    Games is a niche world. It's a pretty cool world, but it's a niche world. It's a challenging world, but it's a niche world. I've mastered many games, but never owned any (other than what came for free with a computer).

    Good luck to the gaming community, but I don't think the issue is making gaming attractive to the universe, gaming looks like gaming, people know what it is. A different selling approach may show a momentary blip in the usage and participation in games, maybe even an increase of some demographics, but the equilibrium is pretty close today to what it will probably likely be later. That's not a bad thing, it's just a thing.

    Oh, and as not to be flamed for singling out games... consider: (as some other niche markets unlikely to garner larger markets)

    • Women's Golf
    • Women's Basketball
    • Tennis
    • Bicycle Racing
    • World Wide Wrestling
    • Harley Davidsons
    • linux (at least for now)
    • vi
    • emacs
    • Rowing
    • Frisbee

    These are all interesting in their own right, just unlikely to become world dominant.

    • You make an excellent point (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Excellent point, just excellent. The problem is that the games industry wants to be the movie industry. Alot of people see movies without needing to be big movie buffs. But I can understand if many people are just not into interactive entertainment.

      Here is a prime example: A female friend of mine was heavily into "Myst" when it came out. She didn't really play computer games before that. And she doesn't really play computer games SINCE that time either!

      Myst is an excellent example of a "blip". It got the at
    • I fully agree with this. And I don't think games really ARE ignoring the wider market: there have been endless comments on how many web games are very popular amongst audiences not traditionally interested in computer or video gaming, plus there have been exceptions over the years, such as Myst.
    • I don't see how you can consider gaming a niche market when there are so many mainstream players of Solitaire and The Sims. Even MMORPGs are cracking the mainstream with WoW. And the reason something like gaming will continue to become more mainstream while things like ping pong won't (sorry) is that the technology that drives it continues to improve dramatically and every time it does more people get sucked in. Just imagine how mainstream it will become once we get full virtual reality ala The Matrix?
  • why would we want to make games for non-gamers? If they're non-gamers, they don't want to play games. I know it's a hard concept for gamers (and I'm one too), but there are people in the world that just do not care much for games.

    Screw the non-gamers, and make games for gamers.
    • The same thinking applies to sports and sports broadcasting especially. Watch the World Series on Fox and they do EVERYTHING they can to draw in the non-fan. And, in the process piss off the real fans who just want to watch.

      The basic point is that where money and entertainment is concerned, either you are a gamer/fan/watcher or you are not. If you are, they (EA/Fox) know they "have" you and are focused on getting the attention of the people who aren't watching or playing.

    • Re:Wait... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Blaaguuu ( 886777 )
      I think there are plenty of people out there who are not gamers for reasons other than "they don't want to play games", and could very well be brought into gaming.

      My dad, for example... I recall back when all me and my brother had was our Atari 2600, and later our NES... we would play all the time... and ocasionally when my dad had some time he would play with us. Now with the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube, the games and controls are too complicated for him, so he rarely tries playing games... but im sure he wo
  • Why should game companies make games for non-gamers now? Yes, in the short term games for non-gamers will help, but let's consider: most of the general gaming population is below 30. Within 20 years, the general Gaming population will be below 50. 20 years after that, 70 (assuming, of course, we aren't so darn tired). By then, most of the non-gamers of today will be dead. Eventually, in the future, everybody will have at least a casual interest in Video Games, much like how almost everybody today has at lea

  • It has already happened (Score:4, Interesting)

    by llevity ( 776014 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @05:07PM (#14038611)
    I am 27, and have been playing games of some sort since I can remember. Growing up, being a gamer was almost a stigma. It had nerdy connotations. In the school setting, it wasn't something you very often talked about openly. Maybe with a close group of your friends in a private setting, but talking about games at the lunch tables in the cafeteria would likely get you pointed at and laughed at.

    That has changed.

    In just overheard conversations from some of the younger generation of gamers, playing games is no longer the stigma it used to be. Kids talk about games openly. They bring Gameboys to school and play them openly during breaks. And while there will always be the too-cool for that groups, it's no longer just the geeks wearing glasses.

    Just look at the growth of the gaming industry. Geeks are everywhere, true, but there's not enough of us to support the huge market that exists now. Others are buying and playing games.

    It's only going to grow as home internet connectivity is approaching ubiquious. While gaming with friends used to be limited to those in your neighborhood, or those whose parents could bring them over on occassions, now it can be done both in person, and online, and peer pressure and the "do what they're doing" adolescent mentality will cause it to grow further.

    • Exactly....it's not really as if there are all that many "non-gamers" anyway. Kids play games, their parents do,even my grandfather plays games online. The "non-gamers" are really few and far between...like maybe, the Amish.
    • Different in the UK. I used to take my gameboy to school all the time. I was never bullied for being a geek (I was bullied for other reasons relating to disabilities). But games with the PSX went mainstream, now all the idiotic sports players and "rappers" are playing games. The PS2 is "cool" now is why it's changed.
    • I'm glad some others have had the same experiences as me. I'm 26 and grew up in a similar setting. I was even worse since I played mostly pc games at the time. At some point nintendo was "ok" to talk about and acknowledge playing.

      And like you said now I see a ton of kids on their computers playing games and its "ok" for whatever silly social rules kids have.

      But man, it sure is tramatizing to love something you can't talk about for fear of retaliation. Still to this day I have trouble talking about it outsid

  • Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Scott ( 1049 ) <stl@ossuary.net> on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @05:16PM (#14038689) Homepage
    Last I heard, gaming was a multi-billion dollar industry. That leads me to believe that there are more people buying games than "geeks", and that the industry is not fueled by hardcore gamers trying to amuse each other at the expense of someone who doesn't fall into that category. I know plenty of people who are neither geeks or gamers who buy consoles and the like.
    • Thank you for saying this. I don't know where the perception that playing videogames is a niche hobby comes from, especially with consoles outnumbering people in this country.

      Ping Pong qualifies as niche. Video Games? Video Games are as common a hobby as watching DVD's.
    • Besides I'm tired of people writing long articles of fluff, I also find it tiring of people putting down hardcore gamers like they don't know anything or that video games that cater to hardcore video game players don't cater to casual players either.

  • Um, yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by afabbro ( 33948 ) on Tuesday November 15, 2005 @05:20PM (#14038732) Homepage
    is why the industry is having problems attracting parts of the mainstream audience.

    Right, because no one is buying those X-Box 360s or Playstations. They're just sitting in the store unsold. It's so sad.

    I can't believe this wanker referred to the Tragedy of Commons. Comparing anything to the ToC practically screams "I want to be an important thinker! Really I do! Please! I am serious! I have Big Thoughts!"

    Gaming is already huge. Show me ten males under the age of 21. How many of them have never played a computer game? Zero. How many do not own a PC with games on it or a console? Perhaps one. Yeah, games are so not mainstream, right...

    Granted, there are some games that are not mainstream - but tactical simulations, the Operational Art of War, play-by-email Diplomacy, etc. are never going to appeal to a wide audience.

    If we could get out of our cultural rut and design games that appealed to them, we could make money.

    So go do it already, instead of sitting around getting high with your high school buddies philosophizing ad nauseum about the "decline of the gaming industry".

    Biggest. Wanker. Ever.

    • I can't believe this wanker referred to the Tragedy of Commons. Comparing anything to the ToC practically screams "I want to be an important thinker! Really I do! Please! I am serious! I have Big Thoughts!"

      Actually, correctly referencing the Tragedy of the Commons is a rather good sign; I think elementary game theory should displace any number of traditional high-school courses as it is the best possible answer to "what is this math good for, anyhow?". Game theory is directly applicable to the full gamut of
      • Symbiotic co-everspecialization? Perhaps hummingbirds and orchids, where the beaks of individual species of humming birds are designed to feed on one and only one species of orchid. That orchids can only be pollinated by that one species of hummingbird. If one goes away, both go away. You see this sort of thing quite often with pollination, and sometimes even with seed dispersal; In Costa Rica there are several different species of fig, each of which ripens at different times in the year. There is a mo
        • If I'm reading you correctly, you just compared Sony to figs, gamers to monkeys, Kojima to a bee, and First Person Shooters to humidity? Dude, that's awesome!! Best. Analogy. Evar.
  • I disagree with the premise.

    There are tons of people making non-gamer games. The Sims. The Movies. Everything at Popcap. Zillions more here:

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/8/15 [escapistmagazine.com]

    Your article's proposals are so good, hundreds of entrepreneurs are already doing them, and have been for years. :P
  • If "non-hardcore-gamers" are not buying, then who the heck purchased the millions of playstations, X-Boxes and even Game Cubes? Give me a break: we have so many *more* people playing games than when I was growing up that to claim that "only the hardcare" in regards to *anything* in this market is bunk. Check the top selling games out: sports games, casual platformers and a bunch of *non* hardcore games like the Sims. If anything, my concern would be the opposite: the niche hardcore games will go extinct. I
  • Of course, it's debatable whether games are still a "geek" thing since the advent of the PlayStation, but in any case I'd personally be happier with more geek games.

    Of course, I'm a geek, so I'm biased. But I recently heard a marketing theme from Sony - they're aiming at the "Urban Nomad", which encompasses the underground racing culture, hip-hop, and extreme sports, and the sort of people who like those things.

    And it seems to me that a lot of games these days have those sorts of themes. Lots of macho mili
  • Instead of making vanilla "mainstream" stuff in an attempt to appeal to as many people as possible (as seems to be the impression here), it would be better to bring the focus in and look for niches of people who would play a videogame if it catered to their interests. Like Guitar Heroes (a game the blog writer mentions often). There are a lot of people who'd love to experience rocking out on a stage in an auditorium but who have no desire to shoot hookers or aliens or pwn noobs. I'm probably what the de
  • ... are there such things?

    Most games certainly are not "Games made by gamers for gamers" but games made by programmers that play games that are superviced by product managers that think they know gamers.

    The result is a compromise of what the programemrs got through, the product managers wanted and the marketing sold.

    Look at World of Warcraft. The artwork, and all the programming behind it, is awesome. The product is adictive, but if you think abiout it, complete shit.

    If you are a gamer you are adicted and p
    • There was no mention of how marketing games to a mass market fails. There are plenty of games that might reach a broader market if they didn't seem so "hard core." I did think the article made some good points about the insular state of the inudstry. For example, look a the movie industry - it's not all sci-fi and horror genres - there's a bit more diversity there.
  • So many Slashdotters just don't seem to get the gist of the article.

    The point is not that the industry is bad, wrong or not successful.

    The point is that it could do a lot better than it is. There's more room for growth in game genres that aren't traditional.

    Two examples - Myst and The Sims. These easily outstrip sales of games like Doom and Half-Life. They appeal to a wider audience.

    Another example - those animal hunting games. Now, I hate those games, but I see them as bringing non-gamers into the fold and
  • Seriously what is so terrible about games by gamers for gamers? Most mainstream games, like mainstream movies and books are either rubbish or forgettable. So they make less money? So freaking what! Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is any good. Normally it is just marketed to suck in lots of consumers before they realize how crap it is, or is a fad that everyone is embrassed about a few years later.

    I want to play games by people that know games and know what hardcore gamers want. You don't h
    • Games by gamers for gamers is not the way the industry works currently. It is already too mainstream with very dry ideas.

      Somewhere in the 90s the industry grew in capital and decided to sell the same shit sequel every year.

      • Games by gamers for gamers is not the way the industry works currently. It is already too mainstream with very dry ideas.

        Somewhere in the 90s the industry grew in capital and decided to sell the same shit sequel every year.

        Yeah but I mostly don't play those games ;)

        I tend to play the one or two inovative games that new companies produce before going out of business because they planned on being a massive success. :(

  • How to move gaming beyond the geek culture? By selling out.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all the world's economists were laid end to end, we wouldn't reach a conclusion. -- William Baumol

Close