Why modern gaming sucks (according to the Escapist)

[Brotherman Bill]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/article ... xcept-Me.2

As with everything, economics is the answer.

All game developers, and even most gamers, are aware that it costs more to create a videogame for the latest generation of consoles than it took for prior generations. But how much more? While hard data is hard to come by, a variety of estimates are available on the web that support the following approximations:

1994: 4th generation premium videogames cost $200,000 to develop and retailed for $60-$80
1999: 5th generation premium videogames cost $1,000,000 to develop and retailed for $40-$60
2004: 6th generation premium videogames cost $5,000,000 to develop and retailed for $40-$60
2009: 7th generation premium videogames cost $25,000,000 to develop and retailed for $60-$80
We thus see a long-term trend analogous to Moore's Law, in which the development cost of videogames has quintupled every five years. Meanwhile, the retail price of games has hardly moved - indeed, it shifted downward for the better part of a decade, as CDs and DVDs replaced cartridges, only to return to $60 price points in the seventh generation.

Let's assume that the publisher has a net margin of 20% of the retail price, after paying the developer, console manufacturer and retailer their cuts. Let's also assume that the marketing budget of a game is always equal to the development budget, and assume an average $50 price point over the life of a game. What results?


1994: 4th gen videogames had to sell to 16,000 customers to break even
1999: 5th gen videogames had to sell to 80,000 customers to break even
2004: 6th gen videogames had to sell to 400,000 customers to break even
2009: 7th gen videogames had to sell to 2,000,000 customers to break even

What does it mean to say that in 1999 a videogame only needed to reach 80,000 customers to break even? It means that videogames once had economics similar to book publishing or music publishing. A low cost of production relative to retail price point creates a low breakeven point that incentivizes publishers to invest in top-quality genres that cater to specific niches. They can capture every consumer's taste, no matter how obscure, with something great. This is why Barnes & Noble has a separate section for "World War II History books" as distinct from "American Civil War history books" and it's why record stores carry bands that are pretty underground.

And it's why a publisher like Talonsoft used to be able to profitably publish premium games with cutting-edge graphics aimed at a niche audience. When Age of Sail was published in 1996, it was a premium title on retail storefronts within the mainstream genre of strategy simulations. It was competing against two other games at retail, Wooden Ships and Iron Men and Admiral Sea Battles, within the 19th century naval simulation genre alone!

This would explain why companies are also trying to get additional revenue from their products with DLC and the like.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

Oh noes, poor companiez!
So, that's why they blow the budget on pow-factors and whothefuckareyou-celebrities instead of hiring competent writers, designers and coders. Makes sense.

Point being, Quality of investment is better than Quantity of fluff.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I wonder if there would 100 000 customers for a Fallout-like game nowadays.

 

[hal900x]

It means that videogames once had economics similar to book publishing or music publishing.

Except that the same is true for Music, film, books and just about another other entertainment-for-profit industry these days. Massive costs for mainstream releases means safe decisions for consumption by the idiot masses. Britney Spears. Transformers and any other remake/nostalgia film conceivable. Another Harry Potter book. Any time you need big investors, you'll be releasing something Homer Simpson would enjoy.

 

[JarlFrank]

I wonder if there would 100 000 customers for a Fallout-like game nowadays.

Yes.

 

[zeitgeist]

I wonder if there would 100 000 customers for a Fallout-like game nowadays.

Unless everyone who bought the original Fallout died in the meantime, I don't see how there wouldn't be. Even if you completely disregard anyone who ever played any of the classics, the "gaming audience" has expanded so much since that there should logically be a subset of people who would like a game like that even among "gamers" who have never played a video game before 2000. If it was presented before them and marketed to them of course.

 

[baronjohn]

Apparently some law of physics prevents 2010 developers from making $200,000 games.

Oh no, wait, that's not true. They CHOOSE to make expensive shit.

 

[Phelot]

This is actually a pretty good article from what I read.

Basically, every major software company right now has to invest massive resources into anything they make which means that whatever game they are making HAS to be OMG BEST GAME EVAR GOTY.

So they're gonna play it safe of course, which is why we haven't seen a new refreshing idea come out of AAA games for a long time. Instead they just follow a set formula that they've found sells game. Each game may even add a little twist to certain features, but in the end they rarely deviate from said formula which seems to be:

Immersion in the form of sex, "CnC," and graphical effects.

Action. Not strategy, not challenge, no complex gameplay, just big effects, huge body counts, etc.

Cinematics. Hours are now spent listening to dialogue exchanges...


Another note, I don't know if the article touches on it, but having expensive VOs that do every line, employing hype machines, and marketing in general must be more then half of all the production costs, no? Not to mention the outsourcing to SpeedTree (so every fucking game can have the same looking trees, I mean really?) and big name composers.

 

[Burning Bridges]

2009: 7th generation premium videogames cost $25,000,000 to develop and retailed for $60-$80

"7th generation" premium videogames my ass.

For what is all these crazy sums spent, actually? Even at a generous 70.000$ / year 25mil$ is still about 357 man years

 

[treave]

The marketing and hype machine is probably half of that amount, or more. Don't underestimate the cost of organizing launch parties, special dinners for game journalists, ad spots, 90+ Must Play reviews and the like.

 

[zeitgeist]

Another note, I don't know if the article touches on it, but having expensive VOs that do every line, employing hype machines, and marketing in general must be more then half of all the production costs, no? Not to mention the outsourcing to SpeedTree (so every fucking game can have the same looking trees, I mean really?) and big name composers.

The main reason for such ridiculous budget figures is that major studios themselves got so bloated over the years, as well as used to ever-increasing budgets, that at this point they have two choices: either justify all their ridiculous expenses somehow and hope the public will buy it long enough for the gravy train to roll until they're ready to retire, or reorganize their studios to be efficient, fire most of the staff, hire more competent staff or outsource, and basically crash the industry.

A large fraction of gaming industry jobs are essentially redundant positions, and the amount of money that gets spent on various things that aren't even related to the actual development is incredible. AAA games production follows the Hollywood model pretty closely.

 

[Silellak]

2009: 7th generation premium videogames cost $25,000,000 to develop and retailed for $60-$80

"7th generation" premium videogames my ass.

For what is all these crazy sums spent, actually? Even at a generous 70.000$ / year 25mil$ is still about 357 man years

And? When you start to account for ridiculous marketing budgets, the salary and benefits for the development team, graphic artists, QA staff, etc...it's really a pretty reasonable sum.

 

[Silellak]

The overall production cost of modern games is directly related to the decline in the overall quality of games. As others have pointed out - too much innovation is too risky for a "mainstream" game. It's even worse in specific genres, like MMOs - they are so expensive (both money-wise and time-wise) that there's not much to gain in breaking the mold. Hence, the entire genre has devolved into what is essentially the "WoW, but..." genre.

The light at the end of the tunnel is the rise in independent developers, which has actually been helped by this generation of consoles. All three of the major consoles now have the ability to release download-only titles - titles that provide an easy, relatively-low-cost, publisher-free way for a developer or small group of developers to reach a much larger audience than they could have 3 or 4 years ago.

 

[Burning Bridges]

At the end of the day, it's still all the fault of the proles that buy NexGen and popamole games, or watch Hollywood films.

 

[Cassidy]

The proles are malleable. They may believe in the illusion that the games are being made to cater to their tastes, but it is their tastest that are being molded through marketing and hyping to fit with the laziest and least risky methods of creating games ever made.

Example: take regenerating health. It was not made to make the game easier for the player first and foremost, but to make games easier to be developed without balance issues. Because before that, designers had to worry about health packs placement, and putting too much or too little would ruin the game.

Same about cover system: why bother creating amazing architectural designs in levels that allow for unique experiences in combat and where the Z-axis matters for more than just eyecandy when you can just make a bunch of copypasta cube-shaped interiors and exteriors and add copypasta wooden crates to it? Besides, it reduces the need of bothering with creating an AI(just make them follow "pop in and out of cover" patterns) and game balance regarding placement of hostile NPCs too. Why have 10 different types of enemies that a designer would have to worry about finding a good balance with when they can just put differently colored variants of 2 base enemy types?

 

[Burning Bridges]

That is certainly true, but a gamer should be able to perceive how restricted the gameplay is, and other things.

 

[Cassidy]

There is only one target audience for both blockbuster movies and AAA games. They both cater to the same type of person, except one pretends to be interactive and has far worse plots and writing.

 

[zeitgeist]

That is certainly true, but a gamer should be able to perceive how restricted the gameplay is, and other things.

Ideally? Sure. Just like ideally the free market should be able to regulate itself, and similar utopian concepts. But this just plain doesn't happen as the masses are way too apathetic. A typical gamer could be perceptive enough to see through the hype, it's not like this is outside the limit of an average human being or anything. But even when they realize this, they simply don't care. It's much easier to conform and believe whatever's currently fashionable to believe.

 

[Phelot]

So, essentially we are all doomed...

Which is OK, I guess at least from a AAA standpoint, but I just wish there really were more indie devs out there making stuff. In a lot of ways many of them are a lot like the big names were they just stick to one thing over and over again.

I really miss the old devs that weren't afraid of trying out different genres. Remember Origin's Wing Commander and Ultima? Or old ass Bullfrog? Shit, even Blizzard used to try different genres at least.

Not saying there's anything wrong with a specialized division like Black Isle, but it's still funny

 

[Achilles]

I wonder why big companies like EA only do blockbusters and don't try to include some steady earners in their portfolio. Let's say, for example, that EA buys a studio which focuses on making turn-based games. They get a modest game budget (say a couple of millions, three at most) and they produce something for the fans of these games. It would only need 100,000 copies or so to turn a profit.

If you have some steady earners like that, wouldn't it be easier to absorb the damage from when a big game flops? Why does it always have to be "smash hit or huge failure"? Now I'm not very good at economics, so there's probably something that I'm not seeing. If anyone can explain, please do.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

There are no huge failures thanks to corrupt game journalists and players that think that they should convince themselves to like mediocre games.

 

[Luzur]

maybe we should just go back doing games for SNES, NES, C64 and Amiga.

 

[Phelot]

I really don't know other then that companies like EA probably don't know the niches and don't want to. Not in their business model. It's not like the games they make will ever be obsolete until they make the sequel to said games, so basically the balls in their court so they don't really care what a company like Paradox or Matrix is making.

 

[Cassidy]

"Free market" is a myth from lolbertarian Randroids. The most powerful corporations have the ability to generate demand for their products through misinformation, hype and all other methods you all know about, and in most cases the only reason they haven't literally become monopolies are laws. They define the parameters for the rest of a sector in the market, and thus they rule it and aren't afraid of anything.

That is, until someone big does some wrong choice and years later the consequence comes as the bubble blows up and the crash begins.

The 21st century will ironically be a time when capitalism will cause more intellectual, economic and technological stagnation than shitty planned economies with potato shortages did in the 20th.

I really don't know other then that companies like EA probably don't know the niches and don't want to. Not in their business model. It's not like the games they make will ever be obsolete until they make the sequel to said games, so basically the balls in their court so they don't really care what a company like Paradox or Matrix is making.

Actually, there are more interest groups benefitting from the maintenance of the current AAA business model. If suddenly big companies started carving niches and found a more efficient model that reduces their dependence on massive PR investments, several groups would be threatened by such a shift. Besides, they prefer to stick to their comfort zone, to what they are used to do. Corporations are not the uber-perfect flawless business model that some people think they are. Because what is profitable for a corporation is not necessarily advantageous for, say, its PR director, among other things. As a rule of thumb: the larger a business become, the least it will be willing to innovate.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

When I download some of YouTube movies (the newer ones), I get black screen when playing them. Does anyone know what codecs I should download?