Article: What's Killing the Video Game Industry?

[noname2200]

BrainBoxLtd said:

There's definitely a herd mentality in a lot of the entertainment industry, and video games are no exception. Every time something hits big, you've got a dozen companies rushing to make copies of it with varying successes that usually (but not always) fall below the original's. Look all the super-heroes movies that have come out after X-Men and Spider-man made big money, or all those damn Boy Bands, or all the GTA III knock-offs last generation.

A big part of the current herd mentality in a lot of the gaming industry seems to be make more expensive and pretentious versions of traditional games in some sort strange attempt to deny video games simple entertainment roots and transcend into interactive art. I know it sounds weird for me to suggest that stubborn pride is a big contributor to this rampant spending, but look at EA. They have a reputation has unimaginative company who purely viewed games as business only, and even they ended up blowing a lot of money to compete in this bizarre interactive art arms race. They bought BioWare, they made Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, they bragged about how their Metacritic scores of their games was much higher then last year.

Think about how many more companies list Metacritic scores in their financial reports, as if it somehow means the game will sell better. Think about all the traditional game developers who act like the Wii is some sort of abomination because it stands in contrast to this herd ideal. Think about all the lofty unrealistic promises that come with a lot of high-profile HD games. Remember all the talk about Euphoria and DMM before The Force Unleashed came out? Or Bethesda talking about “radiant A.I.” in Oblivion? It can't just be something fun anymore, it also has to be amazing and unique in every aspect.

Look at Midway. Rumor is that Midway spent about 30 Million dollars to make Stranglehold. It sold poorly, but it didn’t deter their desire to make the next big game on the HD consoles. They released Area 51: Blacksite on the HD consoles during the same time period. They published Unreal 3; they made Mortal Kombat Vs. DC, and were going on to make This Is Vegas. All on the HD consoles. What did they have on the Wii? Cheap dirty rehashes of old games and a blatant copy of Wii Play? What did they have on the handhelds? Anything? They spent themselves into massive debt for what looks like a claim to fame.

I think it’s why there’s such a huge push on DLC for big HD games. It’s the most efficient way to drum up revenue on costly games built on unrealistic expectations without compromising the original concept.

It just seems crazy to me. Did Sony really spend four years and a lot of money on Killzone 2 because people pointed hour their E3 Demo in 2005 was CGI? Because if they did that's just insane. Would most people who don’t frequent gaming forums have cared if it didn’t look better then Gears 2, or whatever?

I think you've got the attitude down cold, unfortunately. On the one hand I suppose I can't completely blame developers and publishers for having this attitude: wanting to improve, to reach beyond what you've already done, is something that I find admirable in many ways, and the desire to emulate the latest hit in hopes of striking gold seems to be hardwired into humanity. Plus, this attitude seems to be prevalent in many other industries, especially in entertainment. How many movies get greenlit not because there's an expectation of profit, but because someone wants to create "real art"?

That said, it's ultimately self-destructive economically, as far too many financial reports have shown. Revenues are at record highs, but profits are in the crapper, and the best excuse I've heard for continuing this behavior isn't that it will be profitable anytime this generation, but maybe it will help a bit in the next? Suffice it to say that I'm unconvinced: the long-term does you no good if you shut down tomorrow, and there's no indication that the tools and skills of the next generation will be sufficiently similar to what we've got now. Besides, if you're focusing on SD now, but need some HD experience a few years down the line, the unemployment lines are full of thousands of workers with HD experience, so give 'em a call!

I think it was Iwata who first analogized most developers to bodybuilders, i.e. folks who are there to amaze each otehr rather than the general public. I suppose that's a fair enough attitude to have if you're just making games as a hobby, or if such acclaim somehow translated into a better bottom line. But neither of those apply to publishers. They're supposed to be making money, not going out of business. And I know a few people would applaud them for sticking to their guns, rather than catering to the lowest common denominator (as they see it), but an environment in which fewer and fewer games are being made is not an environment that benefits any gamer. Soon enough, this will be obvious too all but the most obstinate...

And as a sidenote, I hate even the idea of Radiant AI. I'm not sure if that's what's responsible for quest-characters in my Fallout game dying before I reach them, but I suspect it is, and I have to say that it adds nothing to the game.

theRepublic said:

Just out of curiosity, what are your problems with the article?

By the way, here is his email: [e-mail]

Cool, thanks. I'll send off that e-mail soon. Hope he replies.

Some of the numbers he's using seem fishy, or at least like they're only part of the story. The prime example that came to mind was the one about Activision. The figure quoted isn't incorrect, but it neglects to mention that much of it is due to their shifting the money from that timespan throughout the rest of this year (i.e. each month gets 1/12 of that, rather than having it all accrue in one month). The $10k "man-month" figure is also something I'd never heard before. That doesn't mean it's wrong, mind you, but it's another part that I'd like some clarification on.

That type of thing.

mike_intellivision said:
The problem with the "Hollywood Model" is that games don't have secondary revenue sources (DVD sales, foreign markets, etc.).

It's an all-or-nothing proposition that is more and more often becoming closer to nothing.

Mike from Morgantown

I'd add to that the fact that the movie industry has a consumer base in the billions, whereas gamers make up a much smaller figure (and would be even more miniscule, if some fools on the internet had their way).