Quantcast
Parting Post: GTA V's success is bad for the videogame industry.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Parting Post: GTA V's success is bad for the videogame industry.

TheLastStarFighter said:

You're statement beautifully self-embarassing.  In an ecosystem, if one element of it is unbalanced, it does wreck havock.  GTA is not like a lion, but more like a human being that is responsible for wipeing out endless number of other species while destroying our own planet.  Or like a Hemlock tree that grows large and toxic, making the soil below unsuitable for other plant life.  Should Rockstar not make GTA as good as possible?  No, of course not, but that doesn't mean it's not destroying its own environment through excellent evolution.

How exactly is GTA destroying its own environment? In a generation that has lasted almost eight years now there have been exactly two released. And while they have sold extremely well to the tune of millions of copies, there are many, many more gamers who never play GTA.

It's kind of a strange argument, tantamount to saying that there should be no super successful games because they hog all the market. But it's hard to argue that because if there were no GTA (or COD, or WoW, or LoL, or Minecraft, or whatever game you might feel like bellyaching about) you can't know how many of those dollars would just flow to other games. A good many of them wouldn't because those big event titles bring back lapsed gamers and bring in people who were never gamers before or who don't play games other than those. They are the subject of mainstream media stories and get people to think and talk about gaming who otherwise wouldn't. I mean, if Nintendo suddenly ditched Mario, would all of that Mario money just go to Metroid and Fire Emblem?

The problem isn't a few games hogging all the market, but too many games chasing the same dollars. Maybe that sounds like the same thing, but it's a distinction with a difference. It's understandable that every publisher wants to have the next COD. But they try to accomplish this by making something that appeals to the COD audience, which is already well served by a game called Call of Duty. There are more audiences than just males between the ages of 18 and 35, and not every 18-35 male wants to play GTA or COD. So increasingly AAA gaming becomes about winning over that smallish but enthusiastic audience. If you can do it, you'll have a smash success. If not, you'll have a flop. And more and more games become bastardized versions of themselves as Splinter Cell and Dead Space and Dead Rising and Resident Evil and on and on all throw what made them unique under the bus to appeal to that one single audience.

Meanwhile something is happening in the non-AAA space where guys like Jasper Byrne and Jonatan Söderström and Jonathan Blow and Mike Bithell and Vlambeer can all practically (or sometimes literally) work out of their bedrooms and make games that sell hundreds of thousands of copies because they are unique and creative: i.e., everything that AAA gaming isn't anymore. You have new studios cropping up by the day, formed by refugees from Naughty Dog and Rockstar and Ubisoft and Bioware, who are finding success in this space. To believe that everything is bad and the GTAs are eating gaming you'd have to completely ignore this increasingly unavoidable phenomenon of game creators escaping shareholder-driven game development and being successful at it.



Around the Network
badgenome said:
TheLastStarFighter said:

You're statement beautifully self-embarassing.  In an ecosystem, if one element of it is unbalanced, it does wreck havock.  GTA is not like a lion, but more like a human being that is responsible for wipeing out endless number of other species while destroying our own planet.  Or like a Hemlock tree that grows large and toxic, making the soil below unsuitable for other plant life.  Should Rockstar not make GTA as good as possible?  No, of course not, but that doesn't mean it's not destroying its own environment through excellent evolution.

How exactly is GTA destroying its own environment? In a generation that has lasted almost eight years now there have been exactly two released. And while they have sold extremely well to the tune of millions of copies, there are many, many more gamers who never play GTA.

It's kind of a strange argument, tantamount to saying that there should be no super successful games because they hog all the market. But it's hard to argue that because if there were no GTA (or COD, or WoW, or LoL, or Minecraft, or whatever game you might feel like bellyaching about) you can't know how many of those dollars would just flow to other games. A good many of them wouldn't because those big event titles bring back lapsed gamers and bring in people who were never gamers before or who don't play games other than those. They are the subject of mainstream media stories and get people to think and talk about gaming who otherwise wouldn't. I mean, if Nintendo suddenly ditched Mario, would all of that Mario money just go to Metroid and Fire Emblem?

The problem isn't a few games hogging all the market, but too many games chasing the same dollars. Maybe that sounds like the same thing, but it's a distinction with a difference. It's understandable that every publisher wants to have the next COD. But they try to accomplish this by making something that appeals to the COD audience, which is already well served by a game called Call of Duty. There are more audiences than just males between the ages of 18 and 35, and not every 18-35 male wants to play GTA or COD. So increasingly AAA gaming becomes about winning over that smallish but enthusiastic audience. If you can do it, you'll have a smash success. If not, you'll have a flop. And more and more games become bastardized versions of themselves as Splinter Cell and Dead Space and Dead Rising and Resident Evil and on and on all throw what made them unique under the bus to appeal to that one single audience.

Meanwhile something is happening in the non-AAA space where guys like Jasper Byrne and Jonatan Söderström and Jonathan Blow and Mike Bithell and Vlambeer can all practically (or sometimes literally) work out of their bedrooms and make games that sell hundreds of thousands of copies because they are unique and creative: i.e., everything that AAA gaming isn't anymore. You have new studios cropping up by the day, formed by refugees from Naughty Dog and Rockstar and Ubisoft and Bioware, who are finding success in this space. To believe that everything is bad and the GTAs are eating gaming you'd have to completely ignore this increasingly unavoidable phenomenon of game creators escaping shareholder-driven game development and being successful at it.

Best post in this thread! Perhaps the best post ever in regards to AAA titles and the state of the industry. And it's from badgenome! Who would habe thought?? Not only is he funny, he's obviously pretty smart as well. Who told u to write this? ;)



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

OdinHades said:
Good games deserve good sales. If other developers can't keep up with Rockstar, it's not their fault. They were themselves a small studio once. But instead of bringin some artistic nonsense and writing "INDIE!!" all over it or spending too much money on games they can't afford, they just made high quality games. One after another. Raising the quality every time. So now they are at GTA 5 and I have no doubt they will raise the bar again in 5 years with GTA 6.

Everything Rockstar has is well deserved. Small studios simply do not sell millions of copies. And if they think they must, they are out of their mind.You have to work your way to the Top. Rockstar did just that. You don't just start at the top because other developers are kind enough to not pack everything they can in their games.


The flaw with 'indie' anything is that if they become fully successful they can no longer remain indie.
It's this way in videogames, it's this way in music, it's this way in film, any creative medium.
Those who start small & gain a following eventually become big with a larger & larger following.

EVERY developer wants to one day have their ideas spread to as many people as they can get them to.
What is the purpose of creating things for an audience if you want to limit that audience?
You may as well just show it to your friends & leave it at that.
If you are in the business of commerce, you are trying to sell your ideas to as many people as you can possibly sell them to.
That doesn't mean you have to sacrifice your craftsmanship, the devotion to your customers, or the integrity of your product.
But the whole purpose is to get your idea in as many hands as possible.

So today's indie is tomorrow's behemoth given enough success.

Here's the catch.
While people appreciate the big boys, it doesn't mean the small guys have no impact.
The small guys have nothing to lose so they take more risks in creativity & try out new things.
While the giant has a legacy to lug around & has to stay true to what they have created over the years.

But see, people like variety.

They want the established names they have come to trust while also wanting to give up-and-comers a shot at greatness.
Grand Theft Auto V does nothing to stop the indies because you can't scrub the narrow corners with a big vacuum cleaner.
You need a little brush to do the job. Different jobs take different tools.
That's how 5' 3" Muggsy Bogues thrived in that land of giants called the NBA.

Rockstar wouldn't DREAM of making an Angry Birds. But an indie up-and-comer like Rovio WOULD.
Some people get tired of the overdeveloped megaadventures & just want something simple to play.
Nintendo is married to the ever-growing grandiose legacy of The Legend of Zelda.
Gaijin Games then comes in with the simple accessible BIT.TRIP games.
There's room for both & there always will be.

Now Rovio's getting to be a giant with all the success they got from Angry Birds. Soon they won't be indie anymore.
Who's the next indie to take Rovio's place? Who can fulfill that role of intimate local-band-done-good gamemaker?
Everybody started from somewhere. These giants didn't get to be giants overnight.

Michael Jackson is a Giant among Giants in the world of music.
But what if Michael & his brothers (The Jackson Five) never left Steeltown Records from Gary, Indiana in the 1960s?
Would it have been worth missing out on all the music they & later Michael himself made just to keep the indie cred intact?

Rome wasn't built in a day. At one time it was just another backwater village like any other.
If they're lucky, today's indie will be tomorrow's giant.
It's like expecting a baby to never grow up. And that's absurd.

John Lucas



Words from the Official VGChartz Idiot

WE ARE THE NATION...OF DOMINATION!

 

DanneSandin said:

Best post in this thread! Perhaps the best post ever in regards to AAA titles and the state of the industry. And it's from badgenome! Who would habe thought?? Not only is he funny, he's obviously pretty smart as well. Who told u to write this? ;)

Like everyone else does on VGChartz these days, I just C&P'd it from NeoGAF.



Wow, a farewell post that isn't self-indulgent navel gazing. I'm impressed.

And I broadly agree with the content of your post. The failure of the Wii to revitalize the console market in a sustainable way and the increasing success of the blockbuster will slowly choke out console gaming. One by one, the publishers drop out or consolidate and the big, bloated projects hoover up more investment from the smaller titles.

But this is only a problem for console gaming. Smaller titles will live on thanks to Kickstarter, PC (and SteamBox?), and mobile platforms. Games like GTA and Assassin's Creed will be the shallow, overproduced pop that everybody thinks of as gaming while the soul of gaming lives on underground. Same as most media, I suppose.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Around the Network

I find it will be hard for a game to beat what GTA V but i'm not sure what to make on such huge numbers. Such success is surely a one off. But who knows, these numbers could be dwarfed if gaming took off in Chindia. We'll see.



Xbox One, PS4 and Switch (+ Many Retro Consoles)

'When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the people's stick'- Mikhail Bakunin

Prediction: Switch will sell better than Wii U Lifetime Sales by Jan 1st 2018

badgenome said:
DanneSandin said:

Best post in this thread! Perhaps the best post ever in regards to AAA titles and the state of the industry. And it's from badgenome! Who would habe thought?? Not only is he funny, he's obviously pretty smart as well. Who told u to write this? ;)

Like everyone else does on VGChartz these days, I just C&P'd it from NeoGAF.

What??



I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

DanneSandin said:

What??

(Okay, I did write it. But don't tell anyone. I have to keep up my hard won reputation as a beautiful but silly princess.)



badgenome said:
DanneSandin said:

What??

(Okay, I did write it. But don't tell anyone. I have to keep up my hard won reputation as a beautiful but silly princess.)

Yeah, that's so weird as well; ur funny AND ur smart - AND ur pretty! What gives?! wanna, eh... gimme ur number, sweety...? ;)




I'm on Twitter @DanneSandin!

Furthermore, I think VGChartz should add a "Like"-button.

Yeah, games like GTA and COD are so detrimental to the industry. Things would be so much better if it consisted solely of neverending rehashes of Nintendo's now nearly 30 years-old IPs, and countless cookie-cutter JRPGs.

While I agree that not every game needs to be this "AAA" blockbuster type title that costs hundreds of millions to develop and market, without these types of games the industry would be where it was 20+ years ago as a niche hobby market.

Edit:  badgenome totally owned this thread with his epic post (I don't care if it was copy-pasta'd or not, you're still the best princess on here in my book.)



On 2/24/13, MB1025 said:
You know I was always wondering why no one ever used the dollar sign for $ony, but then I realized they have no money so it would be pointless.