Game Dev's rant.

[Ace Pace]

This is a transcript from the GDC 'Game Dev's rant' Sessin, which had alot of nice stuff.

Two quotes from differant ranters.

The commercial game business is a non-consensual relationship between middle-aged men and young boys. It's worse than the Catholic church.

"What's cool about that...Henry Jenkins said this great thing, it's really stuck with me my whole life. He said, "A hundred years ago, the play space of a boy was maybe 10 or 20 square miles. And fifty years ago it was a neighborhood, and 25 years ago it was the backyard. And 10 years ago it was a screen.""

The thing is too long to quote entirly, unless you want something the size of a SC chapter to appear in G&C.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Well I have my rant too. Probably you guys have been sick of reading it but still....

I guess Warren Spector is right about the distribution channel issue. See, such distribution channel only allows big-time corporate vampires to survive. I read somewhere about Derek Smart's rant about the amount of money you need to put your games on the shelves (IIRC it's on my Battlecruiser Millenium Gold manual), making it more difficult for small-time game company to survive.

Now, vampires won't be interested to publish good games; they're more interested in selling McDonalized, generic games in milking the huge cash cow of "mainstream audience".


There are many advantages of selling crappy games:


[1] They're cheaper to produce. What you need is licensing some 3D engine from id Software or such, recycling old concepts over and over again, and voila! An instant title. If necessary they can add some popular movie/celebrity/pop-culture licensing to make the game more appealing to the market; no matter how crappy the gameplay is. Have anyone here ever played Catwoman?


[2] They're pretty interesting to play in some afternoon diversion, but the player would soon gets bored, throws the game to the trash can, and then going out to Wal Mart again to buy another crappy title. Wash, rinse, repeat. Short product lifecycle means the opportunity to publish an equally crappy sequel.

Games with good replay value like Total Air War is probably harmful to those publishing vampires since they would be played over and over again by appreciating gamers; making it difficult to issue new title except if they are superior to the former. But I don't think publishing superior titles is the goal of those big-time game publisher.


[3] They're now pretty much commodity, in contrary to labours of love during the good old days of gaming. This would make big-time publishers less dependent to people like game designer and programmer. I may be wrong, but in early 90's I guess people like Sid Meier still had bargaining power to see his visions made. Today, corporate vampires dictate everything since designers and programmers are nothing but industrial bolts can be replaced anytime.



Well, while distribution channel problem is pretty much popular issue brought up by Warren Spector and many people, I'd like to bring another issue seldom discussed: corporate acquisition.

Yes, we've seen big vampires devouring smaller publishers, taking popular titles with them. Some of the titles are known for their excellent gameplay like Wing Commander, Ultima, EF2000, and Falcon.

But instead of continuing the tradition, big time publishers think it would be better to totally kill those titles or maiming them beyond recognition. EA killed almost everything from Origin, while Infogrames put disgrace in X-Com's name by their wonderful title called X-Com: Enforcer. *pukes*

But the funny thing of this big-time publisher is their endless crusade against abandonwares. Alright, they decide to kill those titles. But why keeping the gamers from downloading games no longer published by those vampires? They're not profiting from those titles anymore, for fuck sake! As if they're deliberately keeping people from playing good games. Probably because they want everyone to forget how good the gameplay used to be; brainwashing everyone to "enjoy" their generic games?

And nothing stop those vampires from monopolizing the game industry, devouring more and more competitors, reducing gamer's choice to be nothing more than their crappy titles. When was the last time we seen a graphic adventure from Sierra?


So I guess the solutions are:

(1) Fix the "distribution channel" issue. This may provide quick relief for gamers longing for alternatives. Also, small-time publishers could survive this way.


(2) Regulate the entire industry. This is not an easy task and frankly I haven't figure myslef how, but I believe there should be regulations to keep small publishers/developers alive and keeping the big ones from devouring smaller ones and dominating the market.

When we have one funding source we ask one question about a game proposal, and that is, "Is this going to generate maximum profit?" And for a lot of games that's not the right answer. Even the freaking car companies know that, OK? Even the car companies--you know, like, what is it--Volkswagen owns Rolls Royce, they understand that there's a reason to do something other than--the music is starting--I'm out of here!

Vampires continue to spew out generic shits and nothing we can do about it, but at least more competition means more choices for the consumers. Granted the "mainstream audience" is more interested to play console-style games in their PC, but there must be alternatives for more serious gamers expecting depth and involving gameplay, immersive admosphere, and addictive quality from the games they buy.

Heck, even in stereo industry there is Sony for the mainstream audience, but there are also the likes of Adcom and Paradigm to satisfy the true afficionados. I hope someday gaming industry would be something like this instead of what we have today.


(3) A note on abandonwares. Why game publisher keep people from downloading titles they're not making profit anymore? Well because it's legal for them to do so! I guess the copyright law should be made to make them legal, like "a game becomes freely available to public if the publisher doesn't make them available to the consumers for XX years" or such. I hope this could open the eyes of big-time pubslihers that their games suck. If people choose to download Wing Commander than purchasing The Sims, then though shit for EA.

[Jade Falcon]

When was the last time we seen a graphic adventure from Sierra?

Forget that, when did we last see a decent graphic point and click adventure? I'll tell you when, Midnight Nowhere, and before that The Longest Journey. One of my favourite game series from Sierra, the Gabriel Knight games came to an ignoble end with the much delayed Gabriel Knight:Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned. Then there is the Sierra management, at that time, Havas, cancelling Babylon 5:Into the Fire. Back to the original topic, Sierra's line of adventures were, Kings Quest, Space Quest, Police Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, Gabriel Knight, and each line has been killed off.

[Ace Pace]

When was the last time we seen a graphic adventure from Sierra?

Forget that, when did we last see a decent graphic point and click adventure? I'll tell you when, Midnight Nowhere, and before that The Longest Journey. One of my favourite game series from Sierra, the Gabriel Knight games came to an ignoble end with the much delayed Gabriel Knight:Blood of the Sacred, Blood of the Damned. Then there is the Sierra management, at that time, Havas, cancelling Babylon 5:Into the Fire. Back to the original topic, Sierra's line of adventures were, Kings Quest, Space Quest, Police Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, Gabriel Knight, and each line has been killed off.

I'll tell you when, Siberia, end of the fucking story.

[1] They're cheaper to produce. What you need is licensing some 3D engine from id Software or such,

Ahem, good looking 3D engines are HARD to create, it takes years to make one, would you prefer MILLIONS of $'s be spent on that, or just license UE3 and enjoy it for 600,000$?

I may be wrong, but in early 90's I guess people like Sid Meier still had bargaining power to see his visions made. Today, corporate vampires dictate everything since designers and programmers are nothing but industrial bolts can be replaced anytime.

Sid Meir, Will Wright, ahem, they get to make the games they want, you think the EA executives 'LOVED' Spore when Wright pitched it? Do you think they fell over themselves to praise the Pirates! remake when its cartoony?

Good Dev's still weild power.

[Jade Falcon]

I'll tell you when, Siberia, end of the fucking story.

That's right...Syberia is newer than Longest Journey isn't it? Even the Longest Journey was bloody difficult to get in the US. I haven't tried Syberia 2 yet though.

[Ace Pace]

I'll tell you when, Siberia, end of the fucking story.

That's right...Syberia is newer than Longest Journey isn't it? Even the Longest Journey was bloody difficult to get in the US. I haven't tried Syberia 2 yet though.

Yes it is, now get it, it rocks from what I read.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Note: Ace, I replied on your post here, since I thought any discussions unrelated to Asinine X whining about "games don't need manuals" should be discussed on this thread instead of there.

KAN, here is also another factor to be added.

4 out of 5 games do not break even, as Spector said, how could they be worse off listening to the creative people, except... for each one that goes big, they coup Millions.

I know. It's the distribution channel problem that need to be solved. There should be a way for "idealistic" publishers to survive.

Also, while talking to a casual game company(where I'll be playtesting the Xbox 2 apprently), lets say RollerCoaster tycoon did well in the PC market, that means it sold roughly a million copies.

A good selling casual(or mass market RETAIL game) sells 10-100 Million copies, hard numbers, and they cost FAR less to produce.

I know. It's the nature of "mainstream audience" to prefer casual, "easy to use" products. It's a sad fact that "hardcore" gamers (who'd rather playing the likes of Microprose's Master of Magic or Origin's Strike Commander instead of Age of Empires ) are only small portion of the market.

But at least in stereo market, where "mainstream audience" are content with Sony, there are still the likes of Axiom or Klipsch to satisfy the hardcore people.

Same goes with music, where people like me can listen to Basement Jaxx or Kosheen while "mainstream audience" can satisfy themselves with boys band or Britney Spears.

In gaming industry, on the other hand, there is NO alternative at all for the "niche" market. That is, the "hardcore" gamers who care more about deep & involving gameplay, interesting storyline, dynamic "universe", "uncanned" missions, complex but challenging game mechanics, and addictive quality.

Just a note: the what-so called "niche market" today was actually the only market during my days of gaming, while "mainstream audience" prefer consoles like SNES or MegaDrive.

Hey, I don't mind paying more for a modern equivalent of Origin's Privateer (the first, not the second), Ultima VII or Sierra's Quest for Glory. The problem is there's no such thing on the market today because everybody "goes mainstream".

Last night I was playing Fragile Allegiance from eight p.m. until five a.m. Not even StarCraft (despite it's an excellent tactical RTS itself) had glued me to the screen like that one.

Its just not in the financial cards for publishers to do it, and I can't fault them for that.

Where we CAN find fault in the publishers view, is the retail market, the one where games allready cost millions, Pub's should jump at cost savers such as Spore, where the deal won't be art, but programming, and you don't need as many people for that.

To be fair, it's more the fault of the retailers than the publishers themselves. I know. I read Derek Smart's rant about the amount of money you need to put your games on the shelves.

What pisses me off about the big-time publisher-vampires is the fact that they devoured many smaller ones just to kill-of the tittles they've acquired. I could never forgive EA for killing Wing Commander and Privateer. Granted Ultima IX was a fuckup but Wing Commander?? WTF?? Not to mention killing Jane's despite the solid fanbase it has. It seems EA had decided that the only SIM people should play is nothing more than The Sims and flight sim genre should be dead.

Hey, I don't mind if EA continues to make a sequel to Strike Commander, with excellent "arcade" flight model like that on Crimson Skies, nice "mercenary business" management, involving storyline, believable characters, and in short, EXCELLENT GAMEPLAY. Even with premium price tag, I don't mind to spend more cash to buy such thing, instead of buying the 34325423th expansion pack of The Sims.[/quote]

And how about Infogrames, who totally killed Total Air War despite how good the dynamic campaign is?

And how about Sierra/Vivendi, who totally killed graphic adventures and prefers to publish "BARBIE THIS" or "BARBIE THAT"? Frankly, I would prefer spending more bucks for a really excellent, modern equivalent of Quest for Glory if such thing exist on the first place.


But if they (corporate vampires) don't want to, fine. But at least can't they just leave the likes of Microprose or Origin's alone instead of devouring them just to kill their games off?

Probably, if Microprose or Origin were left alone, they would find some way to market their games without relying on equally-bloodsucking retaliers? Probably today we could still see an excellent sequels to Strike Commander or Privateer (NOT Privateer 2. though), but now we can only buy them on-line instead of on Wal-Mart? Hey, I still don't mind paying premium price for excellent gameplay. There is a reason why I build expensive PC instead of buying cheap consoles.

That's my thoughts. I dunno. Anyone have better idea to preserve the rare thing that is gameplay?

But I guess Warren Spector is correct. The distribution channel issue had to be fixed first.

[The Yosemite Bear]

eeep, boy bands they hurts uss....

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Ahem, good looking 3D engines are HARD to create, it takes years to make one, would you prefer MILLIONS of $'s be spent on that, or just license UE3 and enjoy it for 600,000$?

I don't mind licensing other's engines as long as they're making a good game. The problem is when they do so to create clones. Why, oh why, nobody cares to do something like the original Privateer on Freespace2 engine?

Sid Meir, Will Wright, ahem, they get to make the games they want, you think the EA executives 'LOVED' Spore when Wright pitched it? Do you think they fell over themselves to praise the Pirates! remake when its cartoony?

Good Dev's still weild power.

Yes, it's nice to see "good" game creators still have some power. Alas, with more and more generic clones, where designers and programmers are becoming more "dime and dozen" with such approach, I'm afraid their power is waning.

Not to mention there's no way in hell we would see fresh talents in such "mainstream-audience-wanking" business model.

[Dooey Jo]

Sid Meir, Will Wright, ahem, they get to make the games they want, you think the EA executives 'LOVED' Spore when Wright pitched it? Do you think they fell over themselves to praise the Pirates! remake when its cartoony?

Good Dev's still weild power.

However this is Meier and Wright we're talking about. If EA refuses to release their games, they will simply go to someone else, because everyone in the gaming industry knows them and their reputation. Will Wright could probably make any game he wanted to, no matter how "non-mainstream" (what the hell is a mainstream game anyway), and still get it published, as long as he thinks it is any good. Had it been some unknown person who came up with the idea for Spore, it is extremely unlikely that it would have been made (unless some independent developers made it by themselves).

As a matter of fact, I wonder, if Will Wright and others would have been born a few decades later, would the world have seen any of their games, or would they have been too "weird" for any publisher to even want to consider publishing? (Ignoring for the sake of the argument the fact that the gaming industry might not be what it is today without those games, of course)

[Drooling Iguana]

Ahem, good looking 3D engines are HARD to create, it takes years to make one, would you prefer MILLIONS of $'s be spent on that, or just license UE3 and enjoy it for 600,000$?

I don't mind licensing other's engines as long as they're making a good game. The problem is when they do so to create clones. Why, oh why, nobody cares to do something like the original Privateer on Freespace2 engine?

Ask and ye shall recieve.

[MKSheppard]

Worst part was they canned X-COM Genesis after almost four years or so
in development; and all we got out of it was a few images from someone
who worked on the project.

Silent Storm was probably the spiritual successor to X-COM; I wonder if
anyone thought about doing an X-COM mod for it...

[phongn]

They're now pretty much commodity, in contrary to labours of love during the good old days of gaming. This would make big-time publishers less dependent to people like game designer and programmer. I may be wrong, but in early 90's I guess people like Sid Meier still had bargaining power to see his visions made. Today, corporate vampires dictate everything since designers and programmers are nothing but industrial bolts can be replaced anytime.

Actually, no, designers and programmers can't be replaced anytime: doing it in the middle of the actual development process can be a disaster. The big publishers are wealthy, yes, but they don't like wasting money on such an endeavour. Yes, in the early 1990s people like Sid Meier had more power but that's also because games were a lot less expensive to make. They didn't have to worry about costs in excess of ten million USD just to make the game—nevermind publishing and advertising it.

Also, reading dev notes, it often seems that game developers invest much into their own games on a personal level. Just because you see the facely corporate entity pumping out clone after clone doesn't mean that still applies to the people behind the scenes.

But the funny thing of this big-time publisher is their endless crusade against abandonwares. Alright, they decide to kill those titles. But why keeping the gamers from downloading games no longer published by those vampires? They're not profiting from those titles anymore, for fuck sake! As if they're deliberately keeping people from playing good games. Probably because they want everyone to forget how good the gameplay used to be; brainwashing everyone to "enjoy" their generic games?

Copyright law requires that the holder of intellectual property (in this case, abandonware) defend their property otherwise they may lose the right to it. Plus there is the above factor that if you're playing an old game you might not be so inclined to purchase a new one.

Fix the "distribution channel" issue. This may provide quick relief for gamers longing for alternatives. Also, small-time publishers could survive this way.

Please, by all means say how to fix it. Are you suggesting something like Internet delivery? (IIRC, Valve estimated that they only got $7-10 a game from the $50 retail price and I can't remember if that is gross or net, but I'm leaning towards gross).

Regulate the entire industry. This is not an easy task and frankly I haven't figure myslef how, but I believe there should be regulations to keep small publishers/developers alive and keeping the big ones from devouring smaller ones and dominating the market.

What, by profit redistribution? The small publishers are developers aren't dying because of titans like Ubisoft and EA, they're dying because it their fiscal situation is becoming untenable.

Vampires continue to spew out generic shits and nothing we can do about it, but at least more competition means more choices for the consumers. Granted the "mainstream audience" is more interested to play console-style games in their PC, but there must be alternatives for more serious gamers expecting depth and involving gameplay, immersive admosphere, and addictive quality from the games they buy.

The only problem is funding them. Money doesn't come from trees, you know, and even if it doesn't maximize profit, well, it should still return some money to the investors.

Heck, even in stereo industry there is Sony for the mainstream audience, but there are also the likes of Adcom and Paradigm to satisfy the true afficionados. I hope someday gaming industry would be something like this instead of what we have today.

Adcom and Paradigm are definately midrange The problem is that if you notice, Adcom, Paradigm, et. al cost quite a bit more than the mass-market stuff you'll find in places like Best Buy. Are you willing to pay $150 for a game?

A note on abandonwares. Why game publisher keep people from downloading titles they're not making profit anymore? Well because it's legal for them to do so! I guess the copyright law should be made to make them legal, like "a game becomes freely available to public if the publisher doesn't make them available to the consumers for XX years" or such. I hope this could open the eyes of big-time pubslihers that their games suck. If people choose to download Wing Commander than purchasing The Sims, then though shit for EA.

Have fun changing copyright law, which is headed to be more restrictive, not less.

[Vendetta]

Copyright law requires that the holder of intellectual property (in this case, abandonware) defend their property otherwise they may lose the right to it.

This only applies to trademarks. Once something is copyrighted, it's copyrighted, and that copyright persists for 70 years after the rightsholder's death.

[phongn]

This only applies to trademarks. Once something is copyrighted, it's copyrighted, and that copyright persists for 70 years after the rightsholder's death.

Whoops, you're right.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Note: I tried to "group" the conversation regarding to sub-topics; to be more structured. My own fault, though. Having an "unstructured" post on the first place.



Abandonwares

Copyright law requires that the holder of intellectual property (in this case, abandonware) defend their property otherwise they may lose the right to it. Plus there is the above factor that if you're playing an old game you might not be so inclined to purchase a new one.

Actually this is my highest suspicion why they keep busting abandonwares. I mean, come on! They ain't even profiting from those titles anymore! Probably they see their old products as competition to their newer ones.

But if people prefer to play old games instead of purchasing new ones, I guess this indicates the quality of games we have today.

Let assume internet and abandonwares was already available during "the good old days" of gaming; I guess people would still buy Gunship 2000 instead of downloading Gunship (the original; not Gunship!), purchase F-15 Strike Eagle III instead of keep playing with Strike Eagle II, and prefer Ultima VII over Ultima VI.

If publishers keep the good quality and "better sequels" like they did in "the good old days", I guess they don't have to worry about abandonwares because people would still buy their games no matter what.

Have fun changing copyright law, which is headed to be more restrictive, not less.

Actually, this is what people have been trying to do at The Underdogs and some more abandonware sites. They made a petition (against IDSA) that game publishers should either release their old titles (the ones they're not making profit on anymore) as abandonwares or make them available for sale (even if only through download; PDF manual and such).

The reason behind this is that game publishers don't profit from those anymore, so why keeping the public from accessing it? There are still people who want those titles, and cannot buy them anymore since they're not available for sale anymore.

I signed the petition, although I'm not very optimistic in its effectiveness. But it costed me nothing to do so either.





The cost to publish games

What, by profit redistribution? The small publishers are developers aren't dying because of titans like Ubisoft and EA, they're dying because it their fiscal situation is becoming untenable.

I have to admit, at first I blame the likes of EA for devouring Origin, but considering the high cost to publish games today, I guess you're right: Microprose and Origin would still die-off anyway.

Yes, in the early 1990s people like Sid Meier had more power but that's also because games were a lot less expensive to make. They didn't have to worry about costs in excess of ten million USD just to make the game—nevermind publishing and advertising it.

The only problem is funding them. Money doesn't come from trees, you know, and even if it doesn't maximize profit, well, it should still return some money to the investors.

Actually this is always my *biggest* question:

Why it is so expensive to make (publish?) games today? Compared to "the good old days" before mid (late?) 90s?

Is it due to the increasing cost of development? 3D engines and the likes? But does it cost EA that big to develop the 357th expansion pack of the Sims? Or the development cost to make another FPS title? (unless when it involves some major technological breakthrough like Doom3 or Half-Life 2)

Or probably because the amount of money needed to put the games on the shelves? Due to the way retailers work? So the prohibitive cost to put games on retail simply kills small-time publishers and becomes "barrier to entry" to new, fledgling publishers?

Why "good" gaming publishers/developers like Microprose, Sierra, and Origin (save Ultima IX) just die-off while the likes of Electronic Arts keeps flourish while (because?) producing "bad" games? Is it simply the implication of the "maturity" of the gaming business, where "dedicated" gamers are getting smaller and smaller compared to the "mainstream audience"?



And this is my second biggest question:

In recording industries, there are still "non-mainstream alternatives" like Basement Jaxx or The Prodigy. Even DJs like Carl Cox and Tiesto went so far to made their own recording companies. Why we never see such things in games?

Is it more expensive to produce games instead of music?

Or probably audio market is way bigger than games so "niche" segments is still profitable for indie labels to survive? (or to make big recording publisher still willing to give a chance for "non-mainstream" music?)

Or simply there's something definitely wrong with the gaming industry today? The way I see it, computer game industry is like recording industry, except there are only boys band and Britney Spears on the shelves.



EDIT: Or probably we can blame the market itself?

Probably it's because newer generations are always more clueless (not you, Ace!); being more and more content with generic (or console-like) gameplay and eye candies, and don't really appreciate good, deep gameplay like older generations did?

Probably the same could be said on music? I still remember what Mike said about Top Fourties from ages to ages:
- in 80s we had Van Halen and Sting
- in 90s we had Mariah Carey and Nirvana
- in 2000s, we have.... boys band... Britney Spears... Ronan Keating.... AAARRRGHH!!!!

If that's the case in computer gaming, honestly I see no future for good games anymore.

Or probably I'm just getting old......

The problem is that if you notice, Adcom, Paradigm, et. al cost quite a bit more than the mass-market stuff you'll find in places like Best Buy. Are you willing to pay $150 for a game?

Frankly, it's not something I would be happy with. But if I have to choose between "good games with premium price tag" and "no good games at all in the market", I would still choose the former.




Miscellaneous

Please, by all means say how to fix it. Are you suggesting something like Internet delivery? (IIRC, Valve estimated that they only got $7-10 a game from the $50 retail price and I can't remember if that is gross or net, but I'm leaning towards gross).

Frankly, I don't have much optimism regarding this one. Valve could be an alternative for small (and not-so-small) game publishers/developers who don't have the money to put their games on the shelves, but like you said, the profit is too small.

The HOTU store at The Underdogs specializes in selling "indie" games. There are also cyberstores like "The Gaming Community" (?) who sell old, rare titles like Longbow 2. Probably they could be alternatives for small time developers/pubslihers? I guess we should see their survavibility first.

But here's an idea (hopefully works): Hoffman is a small company manufactures excellent rudder pedals (especially since Thrustmaster doesn't make pedals anymore) like Hoffman Simped VARIO. They sell their products through their website, with various payment methods from PayPal to Money Order. Probably small time publishers/developers could do the same? Selling their games directly through their site?

Or probably it's more expensive to do so than through cyberstores like Valve or HOTU Store?

Adcom and Paradigm are definately midrange

Now looks who's talking!

(Just wonder: what brands really considered "high-end" in stereo? Newbie here.)

[phongn]

Why it is so expensive to make (publish?) games today? Compared to "the good old days" before mid (late?) 90s?

Is it due to the increasing cost of development? 3D engines and the likes? But does it cost EA that big to develop the 357th expansion pack of the Sims? Or the development cost to make another FPS title? (unless when it involves some major technological breakthrough like Doom3 or Half-Life 2)

You need bigger development staffs, larger art staffs, larger sound staffs, better marketing and whatnot. Even using off-the-shelf 3D engines costs money and you may need to modify it for your own game. Expansion packs, of course, are dirt cheap to make (relatively speaking) which is they they're done: they're cash cows.

IMHO, the "Good Old Days" weren't. There were plenty of poor games at the time along with the usual dime-a-dozen mix.

Or probably because the amount of money needed to put the games on the shelves? Due to the way retailers work? So the prohibitive cost to put games on retail simply kills small-time publishers and becomes "barrier to entry" to new, fledgling publishers?

Putting a game on the shelf is indeed expensive. Distribution costs have always been a killer and not just in the computer industry.

Why "good" gaming publishers/developers like Microprose, Sierra, and Origin (save Ultima IX) just die-off while the likes of Electronic Arts keeps flourish while (because?) producing "bad" games? Is it simply the implication of the "maturity" of the gaming business, where "dedicated" gamers are getting smaller and smaller compared to the "mainstream audience"?

That is part of it. Basic business practice here: the "mass market" (like, for example, Dell and Wal-Mart) tends to thrive. Also, those other companies may have made some poor decisions which led to them being bought out or shut down. Origin spent a lot of money on some titles (like WC4) which didn't really have all that great a return.

Is it more expensive to produce games instead of music?

It can be, though much of the cost of "big" music comes from marketing. The actual costs of production for music aren't that much, IIRC.

Or probably audio market is way bigger than games so "niche" segments is still profitable for indie labels to survive? (or to make big recording publisher still willing to give a chance for "non-mainstream" music?)

The audio market is indeed huge and the price of the item on the shelf is lower.

Or simply there's something definitely wrong with the gaming industry today? The way I see it, computer game industry is like recording industry, except there are only boys band and Britney Spears on the shelves.

Uh, no, there are still creative studios around. You're being blinded by the big titles and also considering them crap. Many of those big titles are still quite good.

Frankly, it's not something I would be happy with. But if I have to choose between "good games with premium price tag" and "no good games at all in the market", I would still choose the former.

What about the market? Would a company selling a $150 game (or $300 or whatnot) survive? Signs point to no.

Frankly, I don't have much optimism regarding this one. Valve could be an alternative for small (and not-so-small) game publishers/developers who don't have the money to put their games on the shelves, but like you said, the profit is too small.

Steam, you mean. It does seem to be a possible solution (cutting out the middleman) but it remains to be seen if it can be done.

The HOTU store at The Underdogs specializes in selling "indie" games. There are also cyberstores like "The Gaming Community" (?) who sell old, rare titles like Longbow 2. Probably they could be alternatives for small time developers/pubslihers? I guess we should see their survavibility first.

But here's an idea (hopefully works): Hoffman is a small company manufactures excellent rudder pedals (especially since Thrustmaster doesn't make pedals anymore) like Hoffman Simped VARIO. They sell their products through their website, with various payment methods from PayPal to Money Order. Probably small time publishers/developers could do the same? Selling their games directly through their site?

Marketing becomes the problem. Word of mouth can sell very well in niche market (for example, in the flight sim community or 4X space games like Space Empires or VGA Planets) but it has much more trouble elsewhere.

(Just wonder: what brands really considered "high-end" in stereo? Newbie here.)

Martin-Logan, for example, is high-end.

Krell is more or less the highest of the high end.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

You need bigger development staffs, larger art staffs, larger sound staffs, better marketing and whatnot. Even using off-the-shelf 3D engines costs money and you may need to modify it for your own game. Expansion packs, of course, are dirt cheap to make (relatively speaking) which is they they're done: they're cash cows.

Wait, I start to see it. "Production Values", isn't it? In the past, games like Ultima VI can still sell despite "amateurish" graphics and sounds/music, relying on gameplay alone.

Today, without "adequate" production values (3D graphics, ass-kicking sounds/music), good gameplay won't survive in the market.

IMHO, the "Good Old Days" weren't. There were plenty of poor games at the time along with the usual dime-a-dozen mix.

Um, what I mean, in the past "good" games still beat "bad" games in term of sales. I still remember reading 1990 edition of CGW, where Top 100 were dominated by F-19 Stealth Fighter, Railroad Tycoon, and Ultima VI (yes, CGW Top 100 doesn't directly reflect sales but I guess "what games do you like" poll indicates sales somehow. Well at least in indicates public preferences).

Putting a game on the shelf is indeed expensive. Distribution costs have always been a killer and not just in the computer industry.

I see, but one more question if you don't mind: how come distributing cost weren't so high on the past? Correct me if I'm wrong but in the past, you don't have to be as big as EA just to distribute your games.

That is part of it. Basic business practice here: the "mass market" (like, for example, Dell and Wal-Mart) tends to thrive;

So the problem is; in the past, people who play X-Com and Master of Magic is the only market, while today they're merely small portion of the whole market. Am I correct here?

Also, those other companies may have made some poor decisions which led to them being bought out or shut down. Origin spent a lot of money on some titles (like WC4) which didn't really have all that great a return.

That too. Not to mention Microprose flooded the market with excellent titles like B-17 Flying Fortress which, due to the flooding (not to mention inadequate marketing and promotion), those titles just simply didn't make it because people failed to notice them on the first place.

Had those titles were released "one-by-one", each with adequate promo and "hype", probably B-17 won't be such an "obscure underdog" as it is.

And probably Microprose would still survive today (or probably not ). IIRC it was such blunder that started the whole "malaise" and ended up when Microsoft was acquired by Spectrum Holobyte. (You could also blame Wild Bill Stealey's speculation into coin-op industries on that matter).

It can be, though much of the cost of "big" music comes from marketing. The actual costs of production for music aren't that much, IIRC.

I understand now. Not to mention today's games also includes CD-quality soundtrack as well, making production cost of music (instrumental, though; not "top-forty" kind of music) is merely a portion of game production cost.

The audio market is indeed huge and the price of the item on the shelf is lower.

I see.

Uh, no, there are still creative studios around. You're being blinded by the big titles and also considering them crap. Many of those big titles are still quite good.

Um, I'm not that "gaming racist" (if we quote Ace). There are still rare gems like Hostile Waters, Deus Ex, Crimson Skies, Arx Fatalis, and WarCraft III. And probably Master of Orion III if we invest enough time to learn how to play it.

Or probably there are still modern titles I overlook?


What intrigues me is the Role Playing genre. After being virtually dead around 1996 *cough*Diablo*cough*cough*, suddenly the genre was revived *very* successfully, started with Fallout and followed by Baldur's Gate. Not to mention Morrowind and Planespace: Torment. And single-player RPG continues to be a successfull genre despite the MMORPG onslaught. For modern games, I would count RPG as a genre when we can found more gems than craps.

Intriguing. Why RPG stays successful and, unlike other genres, doesn't suffer from the "genericity" and/or "console-like" problems?


As for the most suffering genre, I would point at action games. Since Doom and Quake, most action games on the shelves are nothing more than another generic FPS.

I still remember the day where action games were creatively mixed up with other elements like Microprose's Sword of the Samurai or Accolade's Star Control. Or even Helicops.

Or probably there are other action games I overlook? Ace? Where are you?

What about the market? Would a company selling a $150 game (or $300 or whatnot) survive? Signs point to no.

Unless if somehow (maybe in the future), "gameplay-afficionados" becomes something as significant (market-wise) as, say, stereophiles.

For the time being, I guess I'd rather maintain my "legacy system" to play old games.... (like Jeff Green who keeps *five* Amiga machines just to play the games)

Steam, you mean. It does seem to be a possible solution (cutting out the middleman) but it remains to be seen if it can be done.

Ah, Steam! Thanks.

I see, such distribution channel is yet to be proven. Probably when broadband is getting more and more common?

Marketing becomes the problem. Word of mouth can sell very well in niche market (for example, in the flight sim community or 4X space games like Space Empires or VGA Planets) but it has much more trouble elsewhere.

Just a note: a tendency on the flight-sim market is staying with old titles; playing them over and over again 'till heart content. Partially because some titles like Total Air War have excellent replay value, but even Microprose's Gunship! are being kept alive thanks to endless mods.

But I guess that's why flightsim is probably not very profitable, because the product lifecycle can be very very long.

Martin-Logan, for example, is high-end.

Krell is more or less the highest of the high end.

I guess there's reason why they don't even bother to show the price on the website.

[phongn]

Wait, I start to see it. "Production Values", isn't it? In the past, games like Ultima VI can still sell despite "amateurish" graphics and sounds/music, relying on gameplay alone.

Today, without "adequate" production values (3D graphics, ass-kicking sounds/music), good gameplay won't survive in the market.

Indeed. People are demanding quality graphics and audio in addition to gameplay value.

I see, but one more question if you don't mind: how come distributing cost weren't so high on the past? Correct me if I'm wrong but in the past, you don't have to be as big as EA just to distribute your games.

You have to reach a larger audience now and that means sending out games to more places. Distribution costs were always high but they're getting bigger.

So the problem is; in the past, people who play X-Com and Master of Magic is the only market, while today they're merely small portion of the whole market. Am I correct here?

Or at least they were a resonably profitable market segment whereas today they might not be so profitable.

Intriguing. Why RPG stays successful and, unlike other genres, doesn't suffer from the "genericity" and/or "console-like" problems?

Demand by consumers, that's why. And there is enough demand to keep them alive like that.

I see, such distribution channel is yet to be proven. Probably when broadband is getting more and more common?

Possibly.

But I guess that's why flightsim is probably not very profitable, because the product lifecycle can be very very long.

In addition, development costs are rather high due to most of the flight-sim community demanding high levels of realism.

I guess there's reason why they don't even bother to show the price on the website.

Krell's speakers cost 10K USD each.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Indeed. People are demanding quality graphics and audio in addition to gameplay value.

In some cases, people are demanding quality graphics and audio instead of gameplay value.

You have to reach a larger audience now and that means sending out games to more places. Distribution costs were always high but they're getting bigger.

I see. So it's kinda variable cost which getting bigger with the size of the market.

Or at least they were a resonably profitable market segment whereas today they might not be so profitable.

Probably relative to other market segments?

Demand by consumers, that's why. And there is enough demand to keep them alive like that.

Probably because RPGers is already a solid market themselves, based on pen-and-paper fans and such. Hence the demand.

But probably it's also because the successful attempt of re-living the genre by Interplay. Maybe if Fallout was a failure, or if nobody bothered to re-live the genre on the first place, the only RPG we see today is nothing more than Diablo-like MMORPG?

It's intriguing that in mid 90s, where everything else started "goes beautiful", most RPGs suffered from these problems:
- primitive in presentation (like Sword of Xeen)
- being trapped in "3D-first-person-perspective" syndrome (like Stonekeep or Lands of Lore)
- graphically beautiful but shallow in RPG aspects (like Diablo)

...until Fallout came out. It satisfied hard-core RPG lovers while beautiful in presentation (and it wasn't even 3D, but still beautiful). Then computer RPG was revitalized since then.

(or probably there is some historical account I overlook? Probably, demand aside, there were other factors than the success of Fallout that relived the genre?)



I'm probably a little bit dreamer, but can the same thing be done in say, action genre? Instead of cloning Quake or Counterstrike over and over again, probably they can come up with something fresh, new, and addicting (like Sword of Samurai) in beautiful presentation?

Or probably RPG segment is getting the benefit of already solid fanbase? (so the demand is already there) Probably that's why the success of Fallout did revitalize the entire genre, while the new Pirates! is less successful in revitalizing the action genre?

In addition, development costs are rather high due to most of the flight-sim community demanding high levels of realism.

Agree. Flightsims are probably the most expensives genre ever.

Another rant about flightsim developers. They tend to over-associate "realism" with "flight models". Myself is the kind of guy who choose easy landing all the way to Sunday, but I think dynamic campaigns like EF2000 still counts as "realism", so does "accurate gameplay" like F-19 Stealth Fighter where we win by avoiding dogfights and radar detection, while destroying extra targets in Limited War actually deducts your score. Not to mention the "stealthy" missions like landing undetected on secret airstrips in the night mission, which enforces the "you-are-there" feelings of flying a stealth aircraft.

And of course, features like strategic involvements (like in Total Air War or Mig Alley) or even "team management" (like in Gunship 2000 or Team Apache) are always welcome.

Krell's speakers cost 10K USD each.

Now I'm glad my toys are still cheap things like Thrustmaster joysticks or such.

[Ace Pace]

KAN, I'll reply in a bit, need to find some info first, but about Privateer as FS2.

Maybe another engine like posted above, but FS2 is not an engine I'd want to do something like Freelancer or Privateer in.

Unless I like rewriting the basic mission code.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

KAN, I'll reply in a bit, need to find some info first, but about Privateer as FS2.

Maybe another engine like posted above, but FS2 is not an engine I'd want to do something like Freelancer or Privateer in.

Unless I like rewriting the basic mission code.

Thanks! Actually I was talking figuratively. Just a note, Stryfe is a good example about good games being made on existing 3D engine.

[Drooling Iguana]

Do you mean Strife, the first-person action/RPG made using the original Doom engine? That game was pretty cool.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Do you mean Strife, the first-person action/RPG made using the original Doom engine? That game was pretty cool.

Yup. That one. Sorry the typo.