As I'm writing this, there are a few live topics claiming that gaming is dead (here and here). While there is something to be said for them - at least the former - I don't think it does the situation justice.
First the pretty obvious disclaimers:
* when talking about 'gaming' in this blog entry, it's about computer games. Card and board games, and even social games are still around and doing well.
* in my opinion, gaming is not dead, nor will it ever be. No matter what happens, the games that are currently out there will not just disappear because of situations in the gaming industry.
* I am NOT denying that studios are facing rough times. They are. And it will have an impact. I'll get to that.
DEMOGRAPHIC
The perception that gaming would be dead is interesting, especially with more and more games coming out just about all the time now. The phenomenon is also far more diverse than it ever was. It used to be a thing for nerdy teenagers in basements (though I'm not sure if that cliché was as general in the nineties as it seemed). But as time progresses, these people STILL play video games. Many gamers are married now, have kids of their own and in some cases even grandchildren. And with different generations...wouldn't it be normal that games target different styles?
Take a look at music. That didn't exactly "die" when rock and roll came around. Or rap. Or grunge. Or...erm...Okay, I'm not a musician, so the genre clash may not be as spot on. But it's a fact that different people like different music. Music evolves in style, in genre and even in ways we listen to it.
Same with film. It isn't now what it once was, but despite piracy and criticism, nobody is thinking of declaring it dead. So why should games be an exception?
TIME
Games are similar to music and film in that they're for entertainment, but different in how much attention and time we spent on it. Most movies you watch once, maybe twice and then move on. The best albums you listen to often, but usually when doing something else (like driving...or working). Gaming requires a more substantial input in both concentration and time. Spending ten to twenty hours on a single game is easily the norm. In fact, a game is openly criticized if it only lasts you as long as any movie (MGS ground zeroes is criticized for only having like 2 to 4 hours of gameplay). This is a standard that gamers have come to expect. And while rightfully so, this automatically means that games are more in competition with each other. People who collect CD's or movies have at least watched or listened to most of what they had. Game collectors tend to have a huge backlog with so many unplayed games that gaming companies practically have to BEG these people to buy even more games. And that's becoming harder due to...
THE CEILING OF WHAT GAMES CAN ACHIEVE
With each console generation, the relative difference in how things look lessens. Graphics that would once totally blow us away are commonplace nowadays. It still costs a huge amount of money to make, but the effort isn't appreciated anymore unless it's extra spectacular. And that is becoming a problem, because if graphics can't be improved...how will game developers convince people to buy new games rather than plow through the games they already have?
And at least graphics still had some mileage in them. Games need sound and music too, but it seems we hit the ceiling on that a couple generations ago.
And there's the obvious elephant in the room: gameplay. Gamers have this duality with innovation. On one hand, they want things to be different and exciting. On the other hand, ports and reboots often sell more than anything that actually DOES stray from the beaten path. The end result: more of the same. This may sound pessimistic, but it isn't. It is what we want as gamers. And it's about time we embraced it rather than insisting we want something we don't buy.
THE CRISIS
In 1983, the video game industry crashed. The reason? Too many different consoles, too many overestimates and the vague idea that people would just buy about everything "because it's a video game". Nowadays the industry is way bigger than it ever was. The audience as well...but it's not exactly an equal match anymore. Games have grown more costly over the years. This was somewhat counterbalanced by an equally growing user base and tools that would facilitate creating games, but we're nearing the end of the cycle.
Nintendo was the first major player throwing the hat in the ring when it came to the technology race. The wii was born and changed gaming. But while it showed mostly that more people than originally expected liked to play games, the hardcore gamers still defended their lifestyle. And usually neglected the wii. And later the motion controls on their own "hardcore" console.
But the truth is that the "hardcore gamer" crowd had sort of hit its own ceiling as well. Those numbers haven't grown much lately, yet that growth is necessary to maintain the delivery of ever improving quality of games. Within what is still possible in improvement, that is (see previous chapter).
I'm not sure if half-hazard support of the games or DLC was created to address the lack of income those games started to generate, but the reason that it is still around is that the industry needs more income to keep the expected quality of those games to what it is. Big budget games require a huge team of programmers nowadays, and those expect to be paid for their work. That same huge budget is the responsibility that innovation now takes a back seat to what actually makes money.
I already said that the hardcore audience already has a backlog of games, right? Well...it's with this note that the newer games don't quite sell as well as they used to. Plus that the games have grown to a multi-million budget to make (That Tomb raider reboot only became profitable after making about 5 million sales), and you can see why things are looking bleak.
Or are they?
INDIES
Not all movies are big budget titles for the popcorn crowd. Not all music is commercial stuff. Likewise, not all games should be AAA-titles. Tools for creating games are easier to come by, thanks to Moore's law, pretty much everyone has at least a reasonable computer by now and developers of today's day and age have grown up with games themselves. On hindsight, independent developers were bound to happen. No more teams of many dozens or hundreds of people but teams of less than a handful. They're made on a cheaper budget and bring games back to what they were all about many years ago. While technically not needed, they often go for 8 or 16-bit platformers. With their smaller cost and huge potential audience, they can afford to sell their games at a smaller asking price. And while their play time often tend to be shorter, that isn't always so either.
I've already made the prediction that indies will be the ones surviving this crisis, but it's not that simple. They have their issues as well. Publicity and funding are the main ones. Their solutions tend to involve the audience in some way (crowdfunding, kickstarter, greenlight, early access...that sort of thing), but how long before we - that audience - will be flooded in numerous people begging us to buy THEIR game?
MOBILE GAMES
This is another thing hardcore gamers tend to have nightmares over. Smartphones are gettingsmarter better each year, and games are a driving motor on that one as well. Here, that flood of games is already a reality. There are usually at least 5 types of the similar game, which tends to result in each of them costing only a few cents (at least: it's that way on android. Not sure if iOS is much better). And despite the lack of physical buttons, there are games that make good use of the controls it does have.
CONCLUSION
Gaming isn't dead but on the verge of a huge change. It won't be long until all companies realise that the big money isn't in big budget titles anymore. They'll rethink their niche and change their budget for it accordingly. Yes, it'll be lower. But there will be less filler. My guess is that there will also be less moments that were just added for the game length or for trailers. And while that may sound like a good idea on paper, I do want to remind you that I've heard MGS ground zeroes was a very fun game (for the few hours you DID play). Games probably will end up being shorter on average than those many dozen hours-games of today. There'll be some complaints, but I doubt it will have much impact. Because I ALSO heard that the majority of gamers don't finish their games in the first place.
First the pretty obvious disclaimers:
* when talking about 'gaming' in this blog entry, it's about computer games. Card and board games, and even social games are still around and doing well.
* in my opinion, gaming is not dead, nor will it ever be. No matter what happens, the games that are currently out there will not just disappear because of situations in the gaming industry.
* I am NOT denying that studios are facing rough times. They are. And it will have an impact. I'll get to that.
DEMOGRAPHIC
The perception that gaming would be dead is interesting, especially with more and more games coming out just about all the time now. The phenomenon is also far more diverse than it ever was. It used to be a thing for nerdy teenagers in basements (though I'm not sure if that cliché was as general in the nineties as it seemed). But as time progresses, these people STILL play video games. Many gamers are married now, have kids of their own and in some cases even grandchildren. And with different generations...wouldn't it be normal that games target different styles?
Take a look at music. That didn't exactly "die" when rock and roll came around. Or rap. Or grunge. Or...erm...Okay, I'm not a musician, so the genre clash may not be as spot on. But it's a fact that different people like different music. Music evolves in style, in genre and even in ways we listen to it.
Same with film. It isn't now what it once was, but despite piracy and criticism, nobody is thinking of declaring it dead. So why should games be an exception?
TIME
Games are similar to music and film in that they're for entertainment, but different in how much attention and time we spent on it. Most movies you watch once, maybe twice and then move on. The best albums you listen to often, but usually when doing something else (like driving...or working). Gaming requires a more substantial input in both concentration and time. Spending ten to twenty hours on a single game is easily the norm. In fact, a game is openly criticized if it only lasts you as long as any movie (MGS ground zeroes is criticized for only having like 2 to 4 hours of gameplay). This is a standard that gamers have come to expect. And while rightfully so, this automatically means that games are more in competition with each other. People who collect CD's or movies have at least watched or listened to most of what they had. Game collectors tend to have a huge backlog with so many unplayed games that gaming companies practically have to BEG these people to buy even more games. And that's becoming harder due to...
THE CEILING OF WHAT GAMES CAN ACHIEVE
With each console generation, the relative difference in how things look lessens. Graphics that would once totally blow us away are commonplace nowadays. It still costs a huge amount of money to make, but the effort isn't appreciated anymore unless it's extra spectacular. And that is becoming a problem, because if graphics can't be improved...how will game developers convince people to buy new games rather than plow through the games they already have?
And at least graphics still had some mileage in them. Games need sound and music too, but it seems we hit the ceiling on that a couple generations ago.
And there's the obvious elephant in the room: gameplay. Gamers have this duality with innovation. On one hand, they want things to be different and exciting. On the other hand, ports and reboots often sell more than anything that actually DOES stray from the beaten path. The end result: more of the same. This may sound pessimistic, but it isn't. It is what we want as gamers. And it's about time we embraced it rather than insisting we want something we don't buy.
THE CRISIS
In 1983, the video game industry crashed. The reason? Too many different consoles, too many overestimates and the vague idea that people would just buy about everything "because it's a video game". Nowadays the industry is way bigger than it ever was. The audience as well...but it's not exactly an equal match anymore. Games have grown more costly over the years. This was somewhat counterbalanced by an equally growing user base and tools that would facilitate creating games, but we're nearing the end of the cycle.
Nintendo was the first major player throwing the hat in the ring when it came to the technology race. The wii was born and changed gaming. But while it showed mostly that more people than originally expected liked to play games, the hardcore gamers still defended their lifestyle. And usually neglected the wii. And later the motion controls on their own "hardcore" console.
But the truth is that the "hardcore gamer" crowd had sort of hit its own ceiling as well. Those numbers haven't grown much lately, yet that growth is necessary to maintain the delivery of ever improving quality of games. Within what is still possible in improvement, that is (see previous chapter).
I'm not sure if half-hazard support of the games or DLC was created to address the lack of income those games started to generate, but the reason that it is still around is that the industry needs more income to keep the expected quality of those games to what it is. Big budget games require a huge team of programmers nowadays, and those expect to be paid for their work. That same huge budget is the responsibility that innovation now takes a back seat to what actually makes money.
I already said that the hardcore audience already has a backlog of games, right? Well...it's with this note that the newer games don't quite sell as well as they used to. Plus that the games have grown to a multi-million budget to make (That Tomb raider reboot only became profitable after making about 5 million sales), and you can see why things are looking bleak.
Or are they?
INDIES
Not all movies are big budget titles for the popcorn crowd. Not all music is commercial stuff. Likewise, not all games should be AAA-titles. Tools for creating games are easier to come by, thanks to Moore's law, pretty much everyone has at least a reasonable computer by now and developers of today's day and age have grown up with games themselves. On hindsight, independent developers were bound to happen. No more teams of many dozens or hundreds of people but teams of less than a handful. They're made on a cheaper budget and bring games back to what they were all about many years ago. While technically not needed, they often go for 8 or 16-bit platformers. With their smaller cost and huge potential audience, they can afford to sell their games at a smaller asking price. And while their play time often tend to be shorter, that isn't always so either.
I've already made the prediction that indies will be the ones surviving this crisis, but it's not that simple. They have their issues as well. Publicity and funding are the main ones. Their solutions tend to involve the audience in some way (crowdfunding, kickstarter, greenlight, early access...that sort of thing), but how long before we - that audience - will be flooded in numerous people begging us to buy THEIR game?
MOBILE GAMES
This is another thing hardcore gamers tend to have nightmares over. Smartphones are getting
CONCLUSION
Gaming isn't dead but on the verge of a huge change. It won't be long until all companies realise that the big money isn't in big budget titles anymore. They'll rethink their niche and change their budget for it accordingly. Yes, it'll be lower. But there will be less filler. My guess is that there will also be less moments that were just added for the game length or for trailers. And while that may sound like a good idea on paper, I do want to remind you that I've heard MGS ground zeroes was a very fun game (for the few hours you DID play). Games probably will end up being shorter on average than those many dozen hours-games of today. There'll be some complaints, but I doubt it will have much impact. Because I ALSO heard that the majority of gamers don't finish their games in the first place.
