Do Publishers Understimate Consumers?

[Castanova]

While in the world of pure cRPGs, there's obviously been a decline in complexity, it seems like it's the opposite for other genres. What we've seen, pretty much across the board, is that most games of any genre now tend to borrow RPG elements - usually in the form of character and gear advancement. Isn't the implication that people in that 15-30 age range who have historically bought titles like Half-Life 2 or GTA are looking for something with a little more depth?

I look at the success of Fallout 3 and I see more evidence of this. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who bought it had not played or enjoyed the first two installments. And yet they're eating up a game with % to hit, dialogue trees, and skill checks. While it's certainly easy to be a jack-of-all-trades once you near the level cap, you still don't see any people whining about how they found a locked safe and weren't allowed to open it. You don't see people whining about how they failed that speech check early in the game.

I would go so far as to say that Fallout 3 may be the most complex game many of its consumers have ever played (or at least played and lasted more than 30 minutes with). When compared to glorious cRPGs of the distant past, Fallout 3 is surely mediocre at best. Even compared to games in general, it may be difficult to enjoy for many people. But compared to AAA titles in the past decade or so, I think the trend may actually be positive...

If a hefty brand name studio put their weight behind a AAA title with even more complexity, I think that more people would appreciate it than publishers imagine.

 

[Hobo Elf]

I see that you are confused. Here, let me tell it to you how it is; companies don't want to make complex games anymore. It requires talent, time and money. They'd rather just make shit that will sell millions, because it's cheaper and easier for them.

 

[TisATrap]

First, they are not underestimating the stupidity of their consumers, or else they wouldn't buy their games. They hit the sweet spot where they make money without having to use their brains.

Second, in the current economic climate, no way in hell anyone would invest the money to build a true cRPG unless they made sure they'd sell a lot and make it with old 2d tiled graphics so it would cost less to make. Which is not compatible because people won't buy anything that looks older than Unreal Engine 3.

 

[Hory]

For some time now, games have become mainstream. They're made by big companies which have a dozens of years old mentality of focusing on making hits. This was justified in a time of limited shelf space, limited broadcasting hours in the day, limited radio wave frequencies, and so on. These aren't much of a problem any longer, but the larger the business, the slower to adapt. To have a hit you must appeal to the highest number of people possible. Therefore, to the lowest common denominator. In video games, the lowest common denominator is pretty damn low (kids). The good news is that, as in any other industry, more and more entrepreneurs will probably realize the feasibility of niches, amplified by technologies of digital distribution, and will eventually adapt to the new economics.

 

[Pliskin]

I see that you are confused. Here, let me tell it to you how it is; companies don't want to make complex games anymore. It requires talent, time and money. They'd rather just make shit that will sell millions, because it's cheaper and easier for them.

You also forgot to mention that pandering to the lowest common denominator is not only easy, but profitable!

Why would they go back now?

 

[Imbecile]

Don't you understand! Many years ago, only intelligent people, like you and I played games. And all games were good.
Now other people play games, and other people are stupid and there seem to be more of these others. So now all games are bad.

All is lost; the heavans weep.

 

[Castanova]

You're all telling me what I already know - that people appeal to the lowest common denominator. My question is: do publishers believe that the lowest common denominator wants simpler games than they actually do? It seems that way to me.

 

[getter77]

Gotta dial it back another step, INVESTORS have the notions that publishers are more likely than not to adapt their plans around to keep said investors on board.

What is needed for more demanding projects is a source of greater operating capital. More outlandish said demanding project is, more likely you'll need "one of your own" as the cash bearer to make it happen.

Gvien the age demographics and some dumb luck, it may very well be the case that one or more enthusiasts that have managed to do very well for themselves in life could appear on the scene in the next coming years. An awful lot more money is thrown at other avenues by other enthusiasts afterall.

 

[Dire Roach]

I'm sure consoletards like complexity, but what about challenge?

 

[Norfleet]

You're all telling me what I already know - that people appeal to the lowest common denominator. My question is: do publishers believe that the lowest common denominator wants simpler games than they actually do? It seems that way to me.

You're assuming a model in whch publishers produce what they perceive the peasantry desires, as opposed to what REALLY happens, which more of a feedback cycle, in which publishers produce what they BELIEVE the peasantry desires, and in turn, the peasants learn to desire what publishers feed them. Regardless of how wrong the publisher's perceptions are, if that's what they keep churning out, that is what the peasants will come to believe they want. That is what marketing is about. It doesn't matter if it's horrible mass-market pap: If offered no other options, the peasants will learn to like it.

 

[The One True Gamer]

Good thing the 'peasants' have the option to, you know, not even play videogames then, huh?

 

[Jaime Lannister]

While in the world of pure cRPGs, there's obviously been a decline in complexity, it seems like it's the opposite for other genres. What we've seen, pretty much across the board, is that most games of any genre now tend to borrow RPG elements - usually in the form of character and gear advancement. Isn't the implication that people in that 15-30 age range who have historically bought titles like Half-Life 2 or GTA are looking for something with a little more depth?

I look at the success of Fallout 3 and I see more evidence of this. I would imagine that the vast majority of people who bought it had not played or enjoyed the first two installments. And yet they're eating up a game with % to hit, dialogue trees, and skill checks. While it's certainly easy to be a jack-of-all-trades once you near the level cap, you still don't see any people whining about how they found a locked safe and weren't allowed to open it. You don't see people whining about how they failed that speech check early in the game.

I would go so far as to say that Fallout 3 may be the most complex game many of its consumers have ever played (or at least played and lasted more than 30 minutes with). When compared to glorious cRPGs of the distant past, Fallout 3 is surely mediocre at best. Even compared to games in general, it may be difficult to enjoy for many people. But compared to AAA titles in the past decade or so, I think the trend may actually be positive...

If a hefty brand name studio put their weight behind a AAA title with even more complexity, I think that more people would appreciate it than publishers imagine.

 

[Annie Mitsoda]

Cause and effect. Because of the "MUST MAKE A HIT" blockbuster mentality that's wrecking shit in the industry currently, there's a sort of marginalization of genres going on. Gotta make something that appeals to EVERYBODY - cast as wide a net as possible, so you get as many sales as you can.

Don't flatter yourselves that this is just happening to RPGs, either - it's everything. And while I personally LIKE well-blended genre elements (see countless earlier discussions where I yapped about that), I admit that the current industry setup is leaving more "hardcore" representations of various genres behind.

HOWEVER - the part of this that major companies often don't notice - to the boon of indie developers! - is that there IS, obviously, a market for many of these genres that are getting left out in the cold. Look back 5 or so years ago when people were trilling OH THE ADVENTURE GAME IS DEAAAAD OHHHH IT'S DEAAAAAAAAAAAD! and then spend maybe five minutes looking for adventure games online. Plenty of small companies make brisk business making modest adventure titles, and there's a free engine to MAKE adventure games available for anyone's use.

About a year ago, a developer I respect said he was certain the game industry was headed for another crash. I didn't believe him then. Now I just hope he's not right.

 

[Norfleet]

Good thing the 'peasants' have the option to, you know, not even play videogames then, huh?

Yes, but if there weren't any games, then we'd all be terrifically bored and go back to fighting wars with each other for real, or otherwise finding stuff to destroy.

 

[bhlaab]

Cause and effect. Because of the "MUST MAKE A HIT" blockbuster mentality that's wrecking shit in the industry currently, there's a sort of marginalization of genres going on. Gotta make something that appeals to EVERYBODY - cast as wide a net as possible, so you get as many sales as you can.

Don't flatter yourselves that this is just happening to RPGs, either - it's everything. And while I personally LIKE well-blended genre elements (see countless earlier discussions where I yapped about that), I admit that the current industry setup is leaving more "hardcore" representations of various genres behind.

HOWEVER - the part of this that major companies often don't notice - to the boon of indie developers! - is that there IS, obviously, a market for many of these genres that are getting left out in the cold. Look back 5 or so years ago when people were trilling OH THE ADVENTURE GAME IS DEAAAAD OHHHH IT'S DEAAAAAAAAAAAD! and then spend maybe five minutes looking for adventure games online. Plenty of small companies make brisk business making modest adventure titles, and there's a free engine to MAKE adventure games available for anyone's use.

Yes yes YES EXACTLY.

What really gets my goat in a knot is that the "MUST MAKE A HIT" mentality isnt even driven by sales or profit. It's driven by zeitgeist, which is retarded. A game with a small budget that turns a deserved profit is looked upon as a failure because it doesn't stack up to fuckin Halo 3 and GTA in terms of cultural importance or some shit? That's almost the opposite of good business sense.

How in god's name can you look at your $5million piece of turd generic FPS get lapped in profit 500 times over by god damn PopCap and not realize that maybe the problem is you? Maybe sooner or later they'll figure out maybe it isn't all about piracy after all...

About a year ago, a developer I respect said he was certain the game industry was headed for another crash. I didn't believe him then. Now I just hope he's not right.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if id software and konami went bankrupt tomorrow.

 

[bhlaab]

You're all telling me what I already know - that people appeal to the lowest common denominator. My question is: do publishers believe that the lowest common denominator wants simpler games than they actually do? It seems that way to me.

Not that it's the mose hardcore thing in the world, but World of Warcraft is played by millions of people and it's literally an entire game devoted to incresing stats innit? And all those JRPGs are slow as hell but they seem to sell well enough (or at least they used to until the japanese games industry died a rotting death) so that can't be an issue either, can it?

I think one of the bigger things is that currently game design seems to value minimalism. Like, being able to strip down your game's mechanics to the absoloute bare minimum somehow means you're a better designer. Watch out for buzzwords like "sleek" or "streamlined"

As for what the lowest commond denominator actually wants? Like the other guy said, people want what you tell them to want... to an extent, anyway. If you're trying to figure out the "carrying capacity" of the mass audience, so to speak, then yeah I think they can handle something a little more hardcore. I mean, everyone on this board had to start somewhere and it's not like huge nerds have special "stat deciphering" DNA.

Know how to throttle the learning curve and don't make the box too faggy and you can sell a hardcore RPG to a guy, why not?

 

[Morkar Left]

I can´t say that the rpgs getting simpler or worse in content. It only switched from iso partybased rpgs to 3D singlechar rpgs. I really love my iso partybased rpgs but I can enjoy both types. And 3D rpgs with advanced graphics is what most consumers wants nowadays and the only option for an AAA title to go to (including the console market). Deal with it or get indie.

In fact there are only 2 companies that went away from a traditional rpg. It´s bioware with their focus on story and linear gameplay and beth with their focus on simplicity. Too bad they are the major companies with a big budget.
But beside this two companies there are still good rpgs.

Gothic 3 is a good rpg after the latest patch. The game was rushed out too early because a lag of budget. It was too ambitious for such a small developer.

Kotor 2 would have been a good rpg too. It just failed because it was released too early. Why? Because a lag of budget I think...

Two Worlds is a good RPG after the latest patch. And this game was released too early too...

There are still very ambitious rpg projects going on (Divine Divinity 2, Two Worlds 2, Risen, maybe Arcania...). the only problem is the budget. Creating 3D worlds with voice acting are very expensive.

So in conclusion the real problems are:
- Making rpgs is complex and timeconsuming in general
- creating big 3 D worlds to explore are time consuming
- c&c makes voice acting very expensive
- a big publisher has to go to the biggest audience to make his product reaching the break-even point
- consoleros are different...

I think it´s not that the developers WANT to simplify their games.Neither want the publishers a simple game, they just want to make money (with simple games or not simple ones). There is just not enough time to develop a decent rpg that has it all because it gets to expensive or the graphics are outdated and wouldn´t sell enough for a AAA game.

P.S. I want my illiterate tag back...

 

[bhlaab]

Two Worlds is a good

Here's where I stopped reading

 

[Hory]

Illiterate? More like "low standards guy".

 

[Morkar Left]

Illiterate? More like "low standards guy".

What are your standards?

I would say I just have realistic standards.

I don´t think you can sell enough copies with an old school rpg that has a AAA budget. Read in other forums. There are very few gamers that like oldschool rpgs nowadays. Most of them are even too young to know from where rpgs come from...

Complex oldschool-like rpgs are a market for low budget productions and very small companies. Why? Because they can skip the high production costs for state of the art graphics. The only problem is there aren´t enough small companies that go this route. They do something else it seems.

 

[Gragt]

The most important thing you need to sell your game is the press; that way you can tell the public what they should like and what constitutes good gaming design.

 

[MetalCraze]

I don´t think you can sell enough copies with an old school rpg that has a AAA budget. Read in other forums. There are very few gamers that like oldschool rpgs nowadays. Most of them are even too young to know from where rpgs come from...

Yeah I presume all those gamers that enjoyed old school rpgs died of old age?

 

[Morkar Left]

I don´t think you can sell enough copies with an old school rpg that has a AAA budget. Read in other forums. There are very few gamers that like oldschool rpgs nowadays. Most of them are even too young to know from where rpgs come from...

Yeah I presume all those gamers that enjoyed old school rpgs died of old age?

No, they have jobs now. More money but less time to consume... And the game market expanded. I think oldschool rpg fans were not so much increase in numbers. Back in time 10.000 copies were a huge success. Now you need 100.000 copies to cover production costs for AAAs?

 

[Hory]

Illiterate? More like "low standards guy".

What are your standards?

In short, I expect every new game to be better than any existing game. Anything else means that we're moving backwards.

I would say I just have realistic standards.

When they're realistic they risk being not your subjective preferences but the preferences of the majority. And the majority of the video game industry has, indeed, pretty low ones.

I don´t think you can sell enough copies with an old school rpg that has a AAA budget.

Probably, but this doesn't make the RPGs that do get released good. Good compared to other games released in the same period, maybe. Good compared to other RPGs that I've played? No. And this is what matters - the subjective experience not the present situation.

 

[Morkar Left]

In short, I expect every new game to be better than any existing game. Anything else means that we're moving backwards.

Here we have clearly different opinions. I think a game should be just enjoyable for me. Not EVERY game has to be better than the game before to be enjoyable for me.

When they're realistic they risk being not your subjective preferences but the preferences of the majority. And the majority of the video game industry has, indeed, pretty low ones.

No, realistic means I have to consider the technical possibilities. And I can still enjoy a game with limited possibilities because the possibilities are always limited. Even the best rpgs from the past had limited possibilities.
I want pretty much in a game with very different preferences than the majority has it seems. But I can enjoy iso, turnbased, 1rst Person, realtime... they are different experiences. This has nothing to do with what the majority wants. There are just different rpg-styles. There is no game that can deliver all of that.
The important thing is how developers can deliver most of the content I want in a game and create the atmosphere of a living world.
Oblivion sucks for me because it failed in all major things I want in an rpg.
Gothic 3 has its flaws but it is enjoyable (now) because it has many things I want.

Probably, but this doesn't make the RPGs that do get released good. Good compared to other games released in the same period, maybe. Good compared to other RPGs that I've played? No. And this is what matters - my subjective experience not the objective situation.

Even compared to games in the past there are enough games nowadays that are equal enjoyable and even better. What rpgs did you enjoy? What type of rpg do you enjoy?