QuoteIs the Video Game Industry Dying?
By Chris Morris, CNBC
E3 is usually the videogame industry's big party of the year — a chance to celebrate its strengths and showcase the titles it expects to drive sales forward for the rest of the year.
But as the game makers gather for this year's event, a cloud hangs over the soiree. Retail sales are down 27 percent compared to this time in 2011. Mobile devices are stealing the spotlight from traditional consoles. And naysayers are openly questioning the long-term viability of the console industry.
Given the hard numbers, that's understandable, but there are a few other factors to consider before making such a declaration.
The first is the age of today's game machines. Microsoft's Xbox 360 made its debut in 2005 — and Sony's PlayStation 3 bowed the next year. In an industry that has traditionally swapped in new hardware every five years, that's a big gap — and it's one that is starting to affect sales.
"We've had an abnormally long console cycle and I think people are ready for something new," says Eric Handler, senior equity analyst at MKM Partners.
Investors are also comparing current sales numbers to the cycle's peak, back when the Wii was a must-have device that retailers couldn't keep on store shelves. Now that demand for Nintendo's system has effectively dried up, the numbers can't compete.
If not for the recession, those Wii owners might have kept the industry on a fairly even keel. But the longevity of the economic downturn, coupled with the rise of the smart phone and the app market with its cheap games, stole much of Nintendo's audience away.
"Gaming received a massive boom at the start of the cycle because of the Wii," says Handler. "Schools were buying Wiis. Nursing homes were buying Wiis. Everyone under the age of 95 was playing 'Wii Play.' It created this massive groundswell. I would say the hard-core gamer has been pretty constant [in his or her gaming habits], but the big shift has been among the casual players who have come into this space."
He also touched upon the impact the expanding mobile space has had on the industry.
"When the recession hit, you had this massive downdraft [and everyone] stopped buying Wii games," he said. "Then, you had the rise of the iPad and smartphones and suddenly the casual business changed from a $35 business to a $1, $3, $5 business."
At this year's E3, the videogame industry begins the march to what it hopes will be its new peak, with the introduction of the first next-generation system — the Wii U, which will be out before the end of the year.
At its pre-show press conference, Nintendo is expected to showcase the final version of the hardware and discuss launch details, such as big titles consumers can look forward to. (Don't expect to hear a launch date or price, though — the company will save that information to control the news cycle on another day.)
Sony and Microsoft have both said they have no plans to talk about their next-generation systems, which are expected in 2013. That's largely because both are hoping to get a final push from the current generation with a strong software lineup.
Microsoft will showcase "Halo 4" at this year's show — the beginning of a new trilogy for its most popular franchise — while Sony will showcase "PlayStation All-Stars: Battle Royale," a "Super Smash Bros"-like game featuring some of the best-known characters exclusive to the platform.
Third-party publishers are also hoping to take advantage of the large installed base of systems to showcase some of their biggest franchises. Ubisoft will center its focus on action games "Assassin's Creed III" and "Far Cry 3." Electronic Arts will showcase a new "Medal of Honor" game and graphical wunderkind "Crysis 3."
Most investors will be focused on Activision Blizzard, though. The company will give its first in-depth look at "Call of Duty: Black Ops II" at the show (likely at the start of Microsoft's press conference), which has already exceeded the early pre-order levels of its predecessors, thanks in part to its near-future setting.
Activision will also show off the next installment in its "Skylanders" series, which combines real-world toys with a videogame and was one of the 2011 holiday period's biggest surprise hits. (Collectors are paying up to $1,200 for rare figurines from the game on eBay.)
The biggest title on tap for next year, however, won't be at this year's E3 — and its publisher likely won't discuss it. "Grand Theft Auto V" is the game that could end "Call of Duty's" reign as the industry's top seller, but developer Rockstar Games traditionally shuns E3.
Take-Two Interactive Software has not announced a release date for the game, but in its most recent quarterly earnings, the company strongly hinted in its guidance that it expected the game to come out before the end of its fiscal year. Most analysts expect it in the first calendar quarter of next year.
Take-Two generally prefers to create its own news cycle for its most important franchise, as making any announcement at E3 risks dulling the impact (due to the cacophony of other gaming announcements).
Still, if you're looking for a grand finale to the current generation of consoles, there's really no safer choice than GTA.
Probably started happening around the time I stopped caring about video games, except for Halo and Street Fighter, because they had become these giant sprawling stupid things revolving principally around aimless wandering, which I get enough of in my real life. Or they were post-2008 shooters, usually boring ugly cover-based abominations that don't understand what picking up a science fiction gun and shooting aliens in the face with it is supposed to be about.
Quotewhile Sony will showcase "PlayStation All-Stars: Battle Royale," a "Super Smash Bros"-like game featuring some of the best-known characters exclusive to the platform.
LOL. Name five. Snake doesn't count. I will accept Dante or Nero, but not both.
I used to play Halo with Ide. The two of us made a team unstoppable.
I think the word you are looking for is unwinnable
Quote from: katmai on June 04, 2012, 12:23:58 AM
I think the word you are looking for is unwinnable
No, that's teaming with you in World of Tanks.
OH SNAP!
Quote from: Jaron on June 04, 2012, 12:27:36 AM
Quote from: katmai on June 04, 2012, 12:23:58 AM
I think the word you are looking for is unwinnable
No, that's teaming with you in World of Tanks.
yeah because i'm having to carry you, and that ain't no easy feat.
I was pretty good at Halo 3. Still am, actually. But I never got my colonel, stuck as a strike commander for all time. I blame Bungie's filthy metrics.
I loved the first Halo. Enjoyed the second until about 3/4 of the way through the SP campaign, then I lost interest and never played it again. Never played Halo 3.
I never played anything but single player in any of the game.
Related article:
http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2012/06/high-noon-for-shooters.html
QuoteFor over a decade - beginning in 1949 and ending in the mid-1960s - Westerns ruled the small screen. In 1959, 26 Westerns aired each weak during prime-time. In March of that year, eight of the top ten shows were Westerns.
The same period was also the golden age of Hollywood Westerns (The Searchers, Shane, High Noon, Rio Bravo) with many of America's greatest filmmakers producing their best work in the genre: John Ford, Howard Hawks, Anthony Mann, William Wyler, among others.
But it didn't last. History rarely offers a precise road map, but it can sometimes point us in a useful direction. The decline of the Western - the causes of its near-demise, and its reemergence in other guises - are worth noting because I believe shooter games are on a similar trajectory. It will be 1959 at E3 next week, and we will find ourselves awash in barely distinguishable shooters. But it won't last. It can't last, and that's a good and necessary thing.
Westerns began to disappear in the late 1960s for reasons relevant to modern game developers: 1) Genre fatigue and homologous products; 2) High cost of production; 3) Public outcry over violence; 4) Narrow target audience.
Each of these factors apply to contemporary shooter games, but the most threatening is the mind-numbing sameness of these games. We've reached a saturation point where the dismissive cliché has become a valid claim: they all look the same. When a genre sustains itself by promoting minor tweaks as revolutionary features - and its hardcore fans claim ownership that typically resists change - death looms.
It's worth noting, however, that death doesn't necessarily mean disappearance. Gunsmoke, TV's longest-running prime-time drama, died somewhere around 1965...and ran for another decade. It's also worth noting that CBS received many letters from fans who opposed the series' transition to color in 1966, claiming it would ruin the show's rustic nature. Fanboys defending the realm are nothing new.
Quote"We ask ourselves: if there wasn't anyone to shoot in the game, could it still be fun?" --Jason Vandenberghe, Narrative Director, Far Cry 3
Want more evidence shooter games are mired in similitude? Here are publisher-penned descriptions of key features contained in their games, all released or forthcoming this year. See if you can identify the games. (Names and titles are xx'd out)
- "QUAD-WIELDING CHAOS - Slash, grab, and throw objects and enemies...while simultaneously firing two weapons, adding a new dimension to the FPS category."
- "From automatics to handguns to rifles and explosives, XX wields (and dual-wields) a wide range of high-powered weaponry in both single player and multiplayer. XX provides devastating firepower for any and all situations that call for decisive and punishing action."
- "Alternate Aiming Perspectives — Players can choose the shooting style that suits them with the ability to alternate between first and third person views to best pinpoint enemies"
- "Pervasive Environmental Destruction - XX has been specifically designed to allow for maximum destructibility using the "Havok Destruction" module. Blast through the environments, target your enemies' cover blasting it to bits or even knock down overhead objects to crush the enemy below."
- "Blast your way in and utilize your military grade DART6 chip to breach enemies and the environment as you battle for market dominance and your life. Some takeovers are more hostile than others."
- "50 WEAPONS, ENDLESS POSSIBILITIES - Get unlimited access to the most advanced arsenal in the world, with over 50 weapons including highly customizable assault rifles, pistols, shotguns and submachine guns. Choose from a wide variety of grenades to suit your mission objectives and context."
Quote"When I remember Half-Life 2 I don't remember just shooting things, I remember moments, like the escape from the boat, or crossing the bridge, or investigating the farm or invading the prison." --4A Games' Huw Beynon on the forthcoming Metro 2033: Last Light.1
So what happens when 1959 ends? Again, history could prove prophetic. The second wave of Western filmmakers (Sergio Leone, Sam Peckinpah, Clint Eastwood) turned our deep familiarity with the genre in on itself, addressing existential questions and examining the nature of violence. These films were radical departures from the Hollywood formula, not because they rejected the familiar settings or the guns or the hero/villain dichotomy, but because they made these the very subjects of their scrutiny.
This is precisely where Rockstar has tried, but mostly failed, to go with its recent genre-inspired games. Red Dead Redemption and L.A. Noire contain the stylistic trappings of their filmic influences, but little of the complexity. To be fair, the interactive dimension goes a long way toward bridging this gap, and RDR, especially, makes inhabiting John Marston feel more personal than any film could hope to do.
But it's Rockstar's Max Payne 3 that most painfully illustrates the shooter ball and chain. I've played many games I wish had skippable cutscenes. Max Payne 3 is the first to make me long for skippable action. Buried under hours of conventional designer-charted gunfights is a story with genuine noir sensibility, not merely cosmetic style. Rockstar jettisoned the campy (and easier to manage) noir-esque style of the previous Max Payne games in favor of something far more Robert Mitchum. Max takes weary self-loathing to new depths.
Consequently, it's heartbreaking to see a character as potentially compelling as Max dropped off at a "shithole" hotel in the 3rd Act and instructed to "clear the place out" as if it was essential to the narrative. It isn't, and I know it, Rockstar knows it...we all know it. The Imperial Palace Hotel is just another gunplay funhouse with waves of baddies for me to defeat. What a shame and what a waste.
Max Payne 3 is a game devastatingly at war with itself. All its smart, gutsy, genre-savvy ideas are wiped out in a bulletstorm of shooter game orthodoxy.
It's High Noon for shooters, or as a certain Minnesota cowboy would say, "It's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there."
I blame the transition to mindless iCrap, walk-into-fountain games.
You know, for the first time in years I'm optimistic about the the PC market. I have to admit, the kickstarter thing really impressed me. I've never seen anything like that. Don't really care about Console games.
Quote from: Syt on June 04, 2012, 12:34:14 AM
Related article:
http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2012/06/high-noon-for-shooters.html
I read that, (and even commented on it). It's not a good comparison. Western is really a setting of several genre, not really a genre on it's own. You can have Western action films, Western dramas, Western Musicals, Western mysteries etc. A better comparison would be "Action films". Since most violent action in the last several hundred years relies on guns, it's no surprise that violent action video games often involve firearms. The Western may have declined in popularity but the action film has not. Due to the peculiarity of video games compared to other forms of media it is difficult to make a game that doesn't involve action. After all ,video games are primarily interactive. For a video game to work it requires the player to constantly be doing stuff, and that means actions have to happen. You would be hard pressed to sell a video game version of "Waiting for Godot", or something similar. The need for constant action which is often violent action means that the most common tools of violent action (guns) are going to be well represented.
A better comparison to the "Westerns" in television might be the "WWII" setting in video games.
I do agree with the article, though, that generic shooters are reaching the point of oversaturation, similar to RTS in the style of C&C, WC, AoE before them.
Quote
Sony and Microsoft have both said they have no plans to talk about their next-generation systems, which are expected in 2013. That's largely because both are hoping to get a final push from the current generation with a strong software lineup.
They're finally doing it eh?
And here I've been hearing they weren't going to since games aren't even fully using the PS3 and 360.
I've totally missed this games generation it being one that took place over my years of poverty.
The thing about westerns in general (including western action, western drama, western gay pron and western chick flicks) is that the setting permits a form of suspension of disbelief similar to fantasy or sci-fi. In addition to permitting the id of american self-realization full scope for action.
Basically westerns permit you to shoot somebody without having to explain away how you avoided getting arrested by the police. That said, I have always seen the "True Western (tm)" to be about the conflict between order and freedom. The Frontier is a place where order is coming and that drives all characters either explicitly or unconciously.
QuoteBasically westerns permit you to shoot somebody without having to explain away how you avoided getting arrested by the police.
Not understanding what your saying here and/or the context.
Read Syt's article then.
Consoles suck. PC games should rule.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 04, 2012, 05:25:53 AM
Read Syt's article then.
OK. What does that have to do with the statement?
A 60$ price point of a game is simply too much.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2012, 07:11:56 AM
A 60$ price point of a game is simply too much.
That's why replay value is so damned important in SP; if you're not an MP head like I am, you'll never get your money's worth. If BF3 were a cassette tape, I'd be on my 4th copy wearing that fucker out from playing it, but games need to have as much as a robust SP mode to maintain that value--if it doesn't, then yeah, $60 is a poor price point.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2012, 07:11:56 AM
A 60$ price point of a game is simply too much.
Eh. No way, it's pretty damn reasonable considering how much you can play some of those games.
Diablo 3 at $60 is a steal. How many dollars per hour do most people end up spending on that game? I've put in over 50 hours since launch. I will probably put in several hundred by the time I get sick of it. A hooker would set me back $200 for an hour of fun. A movie would cost me $12 for 2 hours. This is about as cheap as entertainment gets.
Quote from: Fate on June 04, 2012, 07:30:56 AM
How many dollars per hour do most people end up spending on that game? I've put in over 50 hours since launch. I will probably put in several hundred by the time I get sick of it. A hooker would set me back $200 for an hour of fun. A movie would cost me $12 for 2 hours. This is about as cheap as entertainment gets.
Calculating the price versus hours played, I think BF3 owes me money.
Quote from: Syt on June 04, 2012, 02:41:51 AM
I do agree with the article, though, that generic shooters are reaching the point of oversaturation, similar to RTS in the style of C&C, WC, AoE before them.
And before them there were the 1st wave of FPS games (Doom and it's million clones), and before that the flight sims.
Quote from: Fate on June 04, 2012, 07:30:56 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2012, 07:11:56 AM
A 60$ price point of a game is simply too much.
Eh. No way, it's pretty damn reasonable considering how much you can play some of those games.
Diablo 3 at $60 is a steal. How many dollars per hour do most people end up spending on that game? I've put in over 50 hours since launch. I will probably put in several hundred by the time I get sick of it. A hooker would set me back $200 for an hour of fun. A movie would cost me $12 for 2 hours. This is about as cheap as entertainment gets.
Diablo 3 is not a console game, (Yet, anyway).
But it's the exception, most games on do not have D3s quality and polish.
There's cheaper entertainment out there. There's a billion app on the app store that cost ~5$. That's what the Gaming industry is against.
Hookers, really? Now that's a family oriented activity. :rolleyes:
They need to make a hooker that's fun for the whole family.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 04, 2012, 08:08:45 AM
They need to make a hooker that's fun for the whole family.
They did. He sucked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Hooker
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2012, 08:03:13 AM
Hookers, really? Now that's a family oriented activity. :rolleyes:
With many of the top console games rated M are they really family oriented activities? :huh:
I love the Western. They're up there with gangsters as like the ur-genre for movies. Both are so open to changing interpretations. They're not so much genres as a series of tropes which can be used while directors/writers/actors do their thing, whatever that may be.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2012, 08:18:29 AM
I love the Western. They're up there with gangsters as like the ur-genre for movies. Both are so open to changing interpretations. They're not so much genres as a series of tropes which can be used while directors/writers/actors do their thing, whatever that may be.
Yes, the Western is as much a vehicle as it is a bona fide setting.
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2012, 07:51:55 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 04, 2012, 02:41:51 AM
I do agree with the article, though, that generic shooters are reaching the point of oversaturation, similar to RTS in the style of C&C, WC, AoE before them.
And before them there were the 1st wave of FPS games (Doom and it's million clones), and before that the flight sims.
Oh, I asbolutely agree. I'm not saying the shooter is dying, but it will probably go back to "normal" levels sometime soon (one or two years). Hopefully the indie scene equivalent (tower defense games) will do the same).
Quote from: Syt on June 04, 2012, 08:48:55 AM
Oh, I asbolutely agree. I'm not saying the shooter is dying, but it will probably go back to "normal" levels sometime soon (one or two years). Hopefully the indie scene equivalent (tower defense games) will do the same).
Seems to me the number of new TD games has already started to drop off.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2012, 08:03:13 AM
Hookers, really? Now that's a family oriented activity. :rolleyes:
Seems like a good father/son or uncle/nephew activity.
Quote from: Fate on June 04, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2012, 08:03:13 AM
Hookers, really? Now that's a family oriented activity. :rolleyes:
Seems like a good father/son or uncle/nephew activity.
:x
The video game industry may or may not be dying, but the console makers are in some trouble. For a while now, console development has been trending like the Hollywood film industry in some respects. Most significantly, the big blockbuster titles make almost all the money, while most other projects lose money. So the business model is to spare no expense on a few big bets and cancel the rest. Of course, the bigger you bet, the safer you have to go. It's not uncommon to see a basically finished game with a sunk development cost of $50 million to get canned because the marketing plan calls for another $50 million, and it's you're going to make a profit on the particular game after a $100 million spend.
There are people trying to make it work on the margins, but there aren't that many studios that have figured it out.
On top of that, I think the nature of the console market has changed - or rather it hasn't changed. It seems to me that most of the games are still being made for the generation that grew up with the original consoles. Kids and teenagers these days may have consoles, but they're just as likely to do their gaming on their phone/ tablet or on PC social networks.
I don't have a clear overview of the console industry since I'm out of it (and not missing it one bit), but my impression is one of decline. In the recent past, the money, creativity and talent seems to have been flowing towards mobile and social games. Personally, that's where I think we're going to see more interesting developments. The risk/reward ratio is better and there's more room for creativity. Yes there's a ton of derivative schlock and tepid gameplay models, but that's exactly because there's more scope for experimentation and risk taking and that's the environment you need to see interesting new development. I expect we'll start seeing meatier gameplay on those platforms in the next little while - the so-called mid-core games.
That's my view anyhow and it's where I've put my career direction.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2012, 11:01:05 AM
The video game industry may or may not be dying, but the console makers are in some trouble. For a while now, console development has been trending like the Hollywood film industry in some respects. Most significantly, the big blockbuster titles make almost all the money, while most other projects lose money. So the business model is to spare no expense on a few big bets and cancel the rest. Of course, the bigger you bet, the safer you have to go. It's not uncommon to see a basically finished game with a sunk development cost of $50 million to get canned because the marketing plan calls for another $50 million, and it's you're going to make a profit on the particular game after a $100 million spend.
There are people trying to make it work on the margins, but there aren't that many studios that have figured it out.
On top of that, I think the nature of the console market has changed - or rather it hasn't changed. It seems to me that most of the games are still being made for the generation that grew up with the original consoles. Kids and teenagers these days may have consoles, but they're just as likely to do their gaming on their phone/ tablet or on PC social networks.
I don't have a clear overview of the console industry since I'm out of it (and not missing it one bit), but my impression is one of decline. In the recent past, the money, creativity and talent seems to have been flowing towards mobile and social games. Personally, that's where I think we're going to see more interesting developments. The risk/reward ratio is better and there's more room for creativity. Yes there's a ton of derivative schlock and tepid gameplay models, but that's exactly because there's more scope for experimentation and risk taking and that's the environment you need to see interesting new development. I expect we'll start seeing meatier gameplay on those platforms in the next little while - the so-called mid-core games.
That's my view anyhow and it's where I've put my career direction.
I keep hearing that "nobody is making any money in mobile games" though. Or, rather, that making money is like winning the lottery - one app out of 10,000 goes on to make millions ala Angry Birds, but nobody else makes any money.
Obviously you know far far more about your industry than I do. I'm curious what you think about the economics of such games.
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 10:37:37 AM
Quote from: Fate on June 04, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2012, 08:03:13 AM
Hookers, really? Now that's a family oriented activity. :rolleyes:
Seems like a good father/son or uncle/nephew activity.
:x
Maybe if garbon's dad had taken him to a whorehouse when he was young enough, they might have cured teh gay. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 04, 2012, 11:16:44 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 10:37:37 AM
Quote from: Fate on June 04, 2012, 10:34:37 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2012, 08:03:13 AM
Hookers, really? Now that's a family oriented activity. :rolleyes:
Seems like a good father/son or uncle/nephew activity.
:x
Maybe if garbon's dad had taken him to a whorehouse when he was young enough, they might have cured teh gay. :hmm:
So like when I was 10? :yeahright:
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 11:09:29 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2012, 11:01:05 AM
The video game industry may or may not be dying, but the console makers are in some trouble. For a while now, console development has been trending like the Hollywood film industry in some respects. Most significantly, the big blockbuster titles make almost all the money, while most other projects lose money. So the business model is to spare no expense on a few big bets and cancel the rest. Of course, the bigger you bet, the safer you have to go. It's not uncommon to see a basically finished game with a sunk development cost of $50 million to get canned because the marketing plan calls for another $50 million, and it's you're going to make a profit on the particular game after a $100 million spend.
There are people trying to make it work on the margins, but there aren't that many studios that have figured it out.
On top of that, I think the nature of the console market has changed - or rather it hasn't changed. It seems to me that most of the games are still being made for the generation that grew up with the original consoles. Kids and teenagers these days may have consoles, but they're just as likely to do their gaming on their phone/ tablet or on PC social networks.
I don't have a clear overview of the console industry since I'm out of it (and not missing it one bit), but my impression is one of decline. In the recent past, the money, creativity and talent seems to have been flowing towards mobile and social games. Personally, that's where I think we're going to see more interesting developments. The risk/reward ratio is better and there's more room for creativity. Yes there's a ton of derivative schlock and tepid gameplay models, but that's exactly because there's more scope for experimentation and risk taking and that's the environment you need to see interesting new development. I expect we'll start seeing meatier gameplay on those platforms in the next little while - the so-called mid-core games.
That's my view anyhow and it's where I've put my career direction.
I keep hearing that "nobody is making any money in mobile games" though. Or, rather, that making money is like winning the lottery - one app out of 10,000 goes on to make millions ala Angry Birds, but nobody else makes any money.
Obviously you know far far more about your industry than I do. I'm curious what you think about the economics of such games.
I have no idea how the money works in the industry, but it is obvious just looking at iphone or ipad game apps that there is a lot more variety there than with console games.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 11:09:29 AMI keep hearing that "nobody is making any money in mobile games" though. Or, rather, that making money is like winning the lottery - one app out of 10,000 goes on to make millions ala Angry Birds, but nobody else makes any money.
Obviously you know far far more about your industry than I do. I'm curious what you think about the economics of such games.
People make money, for sure.
I mean, the chance of two guys putting together and making and app and making hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions is getting smaller as the market place matures (though I do know people who've pulled it off). So in one sense it is getting harder.
And yeah, lots of apps don't make any money, but there are plenty of apps that make thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a day which adds up over time. If you can make $5K/ day (and that's far from unreachable - i.e. $0.05 per user per day from 100 000 users) and keep that up for three months (which isn't really that long once a game starts sticking) that's $750K. If you only spent $50K-$100K developing the game (and a few hundred a day to maintain it), that's a pretty good return. And that's not really a big hit, so you can do a lot better. But if you do worse, you're only out $50K-$100K to begin with.
It's smaller numbers per game (in most cases) than console, but it all adds up.
That said, the business and profit models are less firm than they are in console, but I think that's a good thing in terms of opportunity and creativity.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2012, 08:03:13 AM
Hookers, really? Now that's a family oriented activity. :rolleyes:
Wow, a guy has a kid and he just completely changes.
Quote from: Malthus on June 04, 2012, 12:25:39 PM
I have no idea how the money works in the industry, but it is obvious just looking at iphone or ipad game apps that there is a lot more variety there than with console games.
Indeed. I wish I had an iPhone or iPad (we have one, but my wife's grip on it is pretty tight and it's tied into her Apple ID). It sure seems like a lot of vey imaginative games are being made that I'd love to try out.
iPad seems to be the sweet spot, yeah. It's less limited, hardware-wise, than most other mobile platforms, it's not hard to see it getting close to NES market saturation, and since the deployment model is unchanged from the iPhone, it carries all the low-cost perks- it's easy to see why more of the games go to iOS than Android.
I think there's still growth for the console industry, there just needs to be another jump in processor speed and functionality. The mid 90s through the end of the PS2 saw lots of platforms (including Sega and the Cube, not to mention Nintendo still punching out cartridge tech) and lots of titles in shortened cycles because the the capability of the CD and the cartridge as a media storage platform was so high compared to the programming ceiling, which started off so low--hell, even the PS2 never saw 100% of its possibilities at the end of its market life.
Now, there's been a leveling off on PS3 and Sexbox architecture, not to mention the whole sale reinvention of the dev model. Combine that with the resources poured into online play, first by Microsoft and then anemically followed up by Sony, there simply hasn't been the progression seen in the previous platforms.
Once firmware, processing speed and the dev engines to match, make another astronomical jump, the console will come back to life.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
I think there's still growth for the console industry, there just needs to be another jump in processor speed and functionality.
Really disagree.
We're seen on the PC side for several years that games just aren't needing or taking advantage of all the increases in processing power that is now available. Where once you needed to upgrade every couple years because the latest games needed the latest software, now you can have a pretty ordinary machine last for several years and still play all the latest games.
Besides, graphics have reached a point where I'm not certain how getting any better is going to make that much impact. The difference between 8-but and 16-bit games was huge. But we've really hit the opint of diminishing returns.
Is the slowdown in computers a side effect of the recession, or technology?
Like, have PC manufacturers not been pushing the envelope in terms of processing power because there is no demand?
What makes you think that seedy? What will we be able to do with increased processing power that we can't do now, in terms of gameplay?
I mean, yeah, the graphics will be sexier but all that will do is drive up development costs even further. The blockbuster games will look even better, sure, but is it shortcomings in graphics that's hurting the console industry right now? Better graphics will help keep current players engaged as they feel things are getting better, but it's not lacklustre graphics that's keeping other people away.
There's plenty of scope for the console industry to reinvent itself and get some new life, but I don't think it's through processing power.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 04, 2012, 12:49:12 PM
Is the slowdown in computers a side effect of the recession, or technology?
Like, have PC manufacturers not been pushing the envelope in terms of processing power because there is no demand?
Intel, AMD and Nvidia continue to pump out ever more powerful chips, with more and more cores.
It's that consumers want ever-cheaper machines, and realize that those cheap machines are quite capable enough for what they want to do.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
I think there's still growth for the console industry, there just needs to be another jump in processor speed and functionality. The mid 90s through the end of the PS2 saw lots of platforms (including Sega and the Cube, not to mention Nintendo still punching out cartridge tech) and lots of titles in shortened cycles because the the capability of the CD and the cartridge as a media storage platform was so high compared to the programming ceiling, which started off so low--hell, even the PS2 never saw 100% of its possibilities at the end of its market life.
Now, there's been a leveling off on PS3 and Sexbox architecture, not to mention the whole sale reinvention of the dev model. Combine that with the resources poured into online play, first by Microsoft and then anemically followed up by Sony, there simply hasn't been the progression seen in the previous platforms.
Once firmware, processing speed and the dev engines to match, make another astronomical jump, the console will come back to life.
Doubt it. It's not just about gross hardware performance, it's where the lifting of hardware limitations has made previously unfeasible features become doable. The introduction of VLICs made it feasible to make larger, more robust games, as well as to integrate memory for saving progress in those huge games. One big processor jump made realtime calculations of 3D coordinates doable on affordable machines. Later ones let us calculate more and more polygons, and refine lighting processes further and further...
The current innovations to be had are in the nature of interactivity. We're still waiting on a really robust AI, which would revive RPGs and sims in a big way, but the Wii > Move > Kinect progression has pretty solidly matured the field of human interaction through computer vision. We're not going to see any big jumps there until we see some innovation in display technology (and some is underway, but it's still in the "prohibitively expensive" category).
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2012, 12:50:20 PM
What makes you think that seedy? What will we be able to do with increased processing power that we can't do now, in terms of gameplay?
Increase the number of players on a multiplayer map?
A big jump would be when computers are powerful enough to simulate character interactions effectively. I assume that's what DontSayBanana is saying.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2012, 12:50:20 PM
What makes you think that seedy? What will we be able to do with increased processing power that we can't do now, in terms of gameplay?
The most important thing to a console gamer: load times. :ph34r:
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 12:45:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
I think there's still growth for the console industry, there just needs to be another jump in processor speed and functionality.
Really disagree.
We're seen on the PC side for several years that games just aren't needing or taking advantage of all the increases in processing power that is now available. Where once you needed to upgrade every couple years because the latest games needed the latest software, now you can have a pretty ordinary machine last for several years and still play all the latest games.
Besides, graphics have reached a point where I'm not certain how getting any better is going to make that much impact. The difference between 8-but and 16-bit games was huge. But we've really hit the opint of diminishing returns.
It's because we are held back by the console market. Those who have the means to use all the hardware we have on PC don't do it because they want a similar experience accross all platforms. That means weaker graphics on PC, no multi-core use for advanced AI and no use of more than 2-3gb of memory by default, for most games.
The few that uses the hardware potential don't have the resources to make shiny graphics and/or don't want to place their games out of reach for the lower level hardware.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 04, 2012, 12:56:02 PMThe current innovations to be had are in the nature of interactivity. We're still waiting on a really robust AI, which would revive RPGs and sims in a big way, but the Wii > Move > Kinect progression has pretty solidly matured the field of human interaction through computer vision. We're not going to see any big jumps there until we see some innovation in display technology (and some is underway, but it's still in the "prohibitively expensive" category).
Yeah that sounds reasonable. The question is whether any new interactivity will be like the big boom in music peripherals - good for a few years until the novelty wears off; like Nintendo's attempt to embrace 3D - an embarrassing economical failure so far; or like the Wii controllers and derivatives - solidly successful, expanding the types of games and bringing new gamers into the market on a long term basis.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2012, 12:50:20 PM
What makes you think that seedy? What will we be able to do with increased processing power that we can't do now, in terms of gameplay?
I mean, yeah, the graphics will be sexier but all that will do is drive up development costs even further. The blockbuster games will look even better, sure, but is it shortcomings in graphics that's hurting the console industry right now? Better graphics will help keep current players engaged as they feel things are getting better, but it's not lacklustre graphics that's keeping other people away.
There's plenty of scope for the console industry to reinvent itself and get some new life, but I don't think it's through processing power.
more processing power = better AI.
More disk space = more variations in levels, more levels, different endings for different situations.
More disk space and faster hard drives and/or SSD = games installed on hard drive with faster loading times than a DVD.
A console is essentially a top of the line PC from 5 years ago. So hardware-wise, they are bringing us, the PC players, down.
Crysis was real fun to play. Crysis 2 on release was a step back. After a few patch and some high-res graphics for PC, they became about on par with #1, wich was for PC first&firemost.
I think the big gains that can be made are with more realistic physics engines, AIs, more independent agents in the game etc. Graphics can of course always be improved. We all know what's possible with CGI in cinema so there is plenty of improvement still possible for computer games.
I think the problem of the video game industry is that they are not particularly innovative in the game mechanics department. It's usually more of the same, but not something new.
Quote from: viper37 on June 04, 2012, 01:15:01 PMmore processing power = better AI.
I figure you'd need a pretty big advancement in AI for it to be a feature that actually drive people to buy more games. I'd expect that advances in AI are conceptual rather than hardware based.
QuoteMore disk space = more variations in levels, more levels, different endings for different situations.
More content = higher costs to develop = greater risk for the developer = fewer, safer games.
That's one of the dynamics that's driving the decline in console games right now.
QuoteMore disk space and faster hard drives and/or SSD = games installed on hard drive with faster loading times than a DVD.
That's, at best, the fixing of a minor annoyance. It's nice, but I doubt it'll reverse any trends unless the faster access times leads to some new types of games that refreshes console appeal.
Quote from: Zanza on June 04, 2012, 01:18:33 PM
I think the big gains that can be made are with more realistic physics engines, AIs, more independent agents in the game etc. Graphics can of course always be improved. We all know what's possible with CGI in cinema so there is plenty of improvement still possible for computer games.
I think the problem of the video game industry is that they are not particularly innovative in the game mechanics department. It's usually more of the same, but not something new.
You're right, that is the problem of the video game industry. Like I said, that's in large part due to the risk reward ratio in the market right now; and better graphics, more processing power and more detailed engines only increases the risk as people cluster around the very top of the market and buy little else.
The fact that you can one day spend more money on more artists to make the graphics look like a Hollywood movie isn't going to improve any innovation, rather the opposite.
If you're the guy in charge of spending $300 million on a game that HAS to succeed because it's the big bet, and you're spending $100 million of that on fancy graphics (yeay more processing power!) and $100 million of that on marketing are you going to take a risk on innovative (i.e. unproven) gameplay as well (what if it doesn't work out? That's the risk when you innovate)? Or are you going to go with something that you know people like (explosions, brown haired white guy protagonist, derivative generic gameplay but MORE of it, and maybe one or two additional features of some sort) and rely on the sexy graphics and marketing to sell the game?
Yeah I don't think it's the medium that matters really. It's the games. For a long time, the casual gamer has led the market and game companies have made games for them. If they go to Angry Birds, then they will have to fall back on the market that built the industry in the first place, and frankly, we'll probably get better games out of it.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 12:45:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
I think there's still growth for the console industry, there just needs to be another jump in processor speed and functionality.
Really disagree.
We're seen on the PC side
Apples and oranges.
Quote from: viper37 on June 04, 2012, 01:08:19 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 12:45:33 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2012, 12:38:34 PM
I think there's still growth for the console industry, there just needs to be another jump in processor speed and functionality.
Really disagree.
We're seen on the PC side for several years that games just aren't needing or taking advantage of all the increases in processing power that is now available. Where once you needed to upgrade every couple years because the latest games needed the latest software, now you can have a pretty ordinary machine last for several years and still play all the latest games.
Besides, graphics have reached a point where I'm not certain how getting any better is going to make that much impact. The difference between 8-but and 16-bit games was huge. But we've really hit the opint of diminishing returns.
It's because we are held back by the console market. Those who have the means to use all the hardware we have on PC don't do it because they want a similar experience accross all platforms. That means weaker graphics on PC, no multi-core use for advanced AI and no use of more than 2-3gb of memory by default, for most games.
The few that uses the hardware potential don't have the resources to make shiny graphics and/or don't want to place their games out of reach for the lower level hardware.
Disagree.
Shinier graphics are just not a big selling feature anymore. If they were then someone would come along and make a PC-only game with the shiniest graphics, and people would buy it because they are attracted to shiny graphics.
But they aren't. Instead we get the dynamic Jacob talks about - a few companies clustered around the big blockbuster titles, with marketing campaigns just as expensive as the games themselves. And when you spend that much on marketing, you want as wide a player base as possible.
Is it wrong to hope this will mean that my ex gets laid off? :unsure:
It is. I'm sorry. :weep:
Quote from: merithyn on June 04, 2012, 01:52:12 PM
Is it wrong to hope this will mean that my ex gets laid off? :unsure:
It is. I'm sorry. :weep:
:console:
Joy from the suffering of others *is* wrong, but it's also so very, very natural...
Pity PC gaming will suffer as collateral damage.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 01:58:59 PM
Pity PC gaming will suffer as collateral damage.
I'm not so sure. Most of the PC games I've enjoyed lately have been smaller, niche releases. The big, multiplatform releases I tend to play on Xbox.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 01:58:59 PM
Pity PC gaming will suffer as collateral damage.
That's already water over the bridge. The damage is done. It's the recovery that's coming, and yeah a lot of shops won't survive it.
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2012, 02:51:21 PMI'm not so sure. Most of the PC games I've enjoyed lately have been smaller, niche releases. The big, multiplatform releases I tend to play on Xbox.
Yeah, I think there's still plenty of room for innovation and development on PC too, exactly as you said. The barrier to entry is pretty low, relatively speaking.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 04, 2012, 02:51:58 PM
That's already water over the bridge. The damage is done. It's the recovery that's coming, and yeah a lot of shops won't survive it.
Is it? Because it seems to be going strong to me. But surely it would mean things like Elder Scrolls wpuld be less profitable if they were just PC.
www.steampowered.com
There is no reason to buy a pc game for more then 30$*.
*I know, we all failed that with D3.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2012, 03:34:01 PM
www.steampowered.com
There is no reason to buy a pc game for more then 30$*.
*I know, we all failed that with D3.
What is this "we" shit tonto.
QuoteCompany layoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Voltage_Software)
After terminating 36 employees in January 2006, High Voltage Software reported to Gamasutra that the company had "right sized" their staff from 156 employees to 120. Post layoff, Kerry Ganofsky [owner] stated "High Voltage has long been one of the biggest and most established independent game developers, but we had grown to a size where our focus and quality was suffering. It's imperative that we have the right people and the right critical awareness to make certain that we make great games."
In August 2010, it was revealed that the company laid off an additional 25 staff members.
:hmm:
Quote from: katmai on June 04, 2012, 03:40:09 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 04, 2012, 03:34:01 PM
www.steampowered.com
There is no reason to buy a pc game for more then 30$*.
*I know, we all failed that with D3.
What is this "we" shit tonto.
Seriously.
You mean other than subscription based games where you end up paying $120 or more a year? Suckas!
The hundreds of dollars I spent on WOW were much better spent than most of the 20 dollar games I've bought over the years.
Quote from: Jacob on June 04, 2012, 01:23:22 PM
I figure you'd need a pretty big advancement in AI for it to be a feature that actually drive people to buy more games. I'd expect that advances in AI are conceptual rather than hardware based.
Galactic civilizations 2 used multiple-cores, and it shows in the AI.
Quote
More content = higher costs to develop = greater risk for the developer = fewer, safer games.
That's one of the dynamics that's driving the decline in console games right now.
Console games are notably shorter than PC games. Making a 100hr game is not necessarly 4x the costs of a 25hrs game.
Quote
That's, at best, the fixing of a minor annoyance. It's nice, but I doubt it'll reverse any trends unless the faster access times leads to some new types of games that refreshes console appeal.
Well, console games load fast because there's no heavy graphics to load on to memory. If you have better graphics, wich might not add to the costs that much nowadays (unless you go way overboard), you need faster loading times.
PC games are up, console games are down. Publishers keep bitching about piracy on PC games, though, but I doubt it's that much of a factor in the past decline.
On article among others (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/01/pc-is-strong-pc-games-revenue-up-20/)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 04, 2012, 03:58:47 PM
The hundreds of dollars I spent on WOW were much better spent than most of the 20 dollar games I've bought over the years.
I tried that last week-end. I just can't get into that game. Don't understand all the hype, it seems about as advanced as Zelda.
Quote from: viper37 on June 04, 2012, 04:42:43 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 04, 2012, 03:58:47 PM
The hundreds of dollars I spent on WOW were much better spent than most of the 20 dollar games I've bought over the years.
I tried that last week-end. I just can't get into that game. Don't understand all the hype, it seems about as advanced as Zelda.
The key, of course, is the "multiplayer" part.
If you're playing with a group of other people it can be a lot of fun. But yeah playing it as a single player game there isn't all that much to the game play.
It does get more complex as you level up though - many more abilities to juggle.
Quote from: viper37 on June 04, 2012, 04:41:30 PM
PC games are up, console games are down. Publishers keep bitching about piracy on PC games, though, but I doubt it's that much of a factor in the past decline.
I find this fascinating. It wasn't that long ago everyone was saying there's no market for PC games anymore. Look at how EB refuses to stock them (I guess sales are all downloaded now?).
Console games load fast? :hmm:
I must be weird, I've been saying the PC market has been weak for years, but thought that recently it's doing much better. I've been deeply impressed with Steam, GOG.com, and the new kickstarter thing. It's made me really very optimistic. I also noticed that smaller developers making less costly games (often with poorer graphics) have been really shining. In a way, it seems as if the PC market is returning to late 1980's and early 1990's model which involves a lot of niche games (many of which I like). I like pretty graphics of triple A games and such (recently had a blast with Arkham City), but i'm fine as long as the graphics are functional and aren't hideous. If a game is based on the source engine, I often find the graphics good enough.
Don't know how the piracy aspect has been doing. I know developers are producing lots of new DRM stuff that people are complaining about, I don't know how successful they are though. If successful, I'm willing to jump through those hoops (as a PC gamer I'm used to jumping through stupid hoops).
As for PC games, I almost never buy hardcopies if I can avoid it. GOG, gamersgate and Steam are my primary methods of buying games. I really like not having dig around for DVDS. People like me might explain why EB barely stocks PC games anymore.
I know some of you have noted that I thought PC games were dying and made a big argument with Berkut this year or last on the subject. I am reversing my position on this. To me the big savior is not the top of the line games like Crysis but the mid and even lower level games like Minecraft and Combat mission. It's titles like that that have made me love PC gaming to begin with.
Quote from: Josephus on June 04, 2012, 05:27:43 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 04, 2012, 04:41:30 PM
PC games are up, console games are down. Publishers keep bitching about piracy on PC games, though, but I doubt it's that much of a factor in the past decline.
I find this fascinating. It wasn't that long ago everyone was saying there's no market for PC games anymore. Look at how EB refuses to stock them (I guess sales are all downloaded now?).
Steam pretty much ruined PC game sales for the brick and mortar stores.
Quote from: Josephus on June 04, 2012, 05:27:43 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 04, 2012, 04:41:30 PM
PC games are up, console games are down. Publishers keep bitching about piracy on PC games, though, but I doubt it's that much of a factor in the past decline.
I find this fascinating. It wasn't that long ago everyone was saying there's no market for PC games anymore. Look at how EB refuses to stock them (I guess sales are all downloaded now?).
I mean places like Gamestop and then mega stores like Walmart/Target still have most major PC releases. That's probably where most non-Steam people end up getting their games.
What Raz said, pretty much. I think we're only going to get better, at least for a while.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 03:20:48 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 04, 2012, 02:51:58 PM
That's already water over the bridge. The damage is done. It's the recovery that's coming, and yeah a lot of shops won't survive it.
Is it? Because it seems to be going strong to me. But surely it would mean things like Elder Scrolls wpuld be less profitable if they were just PC.
Yeah, but since the last few installments were dumbed down for consoles, they'd be better games if they didn't have to worry about that market.
Quote from: Josephus on June 04, 2012, 05:27:43 PM
Quote from: viper37 on June 04, 2012, 04:41:30 PM
PC games are up, console games are down. Publishers keep bitching about piracy on PC games, though, but I doubt it's that much of a factor in the past decline.
I find this fascinating. It wasn't that long ago everyone was saying there's no market for PC games anymore. Look at how EB refuses to stock them (I guess sales are all downloaded now?).
I think Steam got it right. And now, all publishers are trying to emulate them, with their own platform for their own games.
Quote from: viper37 on June 05, 2012, 12:22:17 PM
I think Steam got it right. And now, all publishers are trying to emulate them, with their own platform for their own games.
As a consumer I love using Steam. So convenient. It really rewards those of us who do not pirate I think, with the convenience.
Online gaming is shifting away from gamers' gaming and towards the populist, like online bingo and mobile gambling. There's an advert for at least one or the other in every ad break over here. Not sure how that applies with stricter US gambling laws.
Quote from: Brazen on June 05, 2012, 03:45:02 PM
Online gaming is shifting away from gamers' gaming and towards the populist, like online bingo and mobile gambling.
Sorry, but I refuse to believe the future of video gaming rests on my mother's gaming tastes in bingo and slot machine apps.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/06/05/e3s-press-events-do-not-represent-the-gaming-i-know/
QuoteAfter alternately watching live feeds of the press conferences last night, and watching colleagues' reactions to them on Twitter, I awake with a heavy cynicism for the entire industry. While a couple of new IPs were announced, and they were perhaps even interesting, the overwhelming message of the LA evening was one of partisanship, stagnation, and a disturbing lack of awareness of what is most problematic in the gaming world. Which can pretty much be summed up in the frighteningly repeated phrase, "With exclusive DLC for our console."
This is, of course, in a large part due to our being in that final vigil beside the deathbeds of the current generation of consoles. With pretty much everyone certain that both the PS4 and the Xbox 3 (let's not embrace the moniker "720″ until such a point as Microsoft are insane enough to adopt it) will be out for Christmas 2013, it's obviously too early to make significant announcements about them. But both Microsoft and Sony are making announcements about games that will likely be out then. Which leads to a confusing, stilted release list that has to pretend the current consoles are the state-of-the-art must-haves for every excited kiddy, while everyone knows they're bargain bin material about to be superseded.
The frustration of this from our perspective is of course that the PC is perpetually at the cutting edge, its latest model released each and every day, and the need for this peculiar behaviour completely absent. Which is why, of course, that 2012 and most of next year are going to be brilliant years for the PC. As developers grow frustrated by nearly decade-old tech and next gen devkits that aren't yet reliable, the PC looks like a promised ground of being able to realise their ideas. For at least a year the definitive version of any cross-platform game has been the PC, and now we're seeing increasing numbers of PC exclusives. It's a great time for us. A time, of course, ignored by the E3 noise and pomp.
But perhaps even more egregiously ignored is the prevailing attitude of gamers toward the way they're treated by the bigger publishers. Let's break down that DLC thing.
Announcing DLC many months before a game is released ignores the ever-larger realisation that this is an affront to those who are paying full price for a new game. People have long since sussed this, and while arguments about how DLC development keeps developers in employment after the main game is finished can win some sympathy, it's not really a very relevant factor to the customer. The customer who is asked to pay another chunk of money for what has previously been given away free, or rolled into a later, more worthwhile expansion pack. That's pretty much a given now, so it was peculiar to see DLC so loudly boasted during many of the events.
But worse is the boast that it's exclusive to a particular console. Of course, if you're Microsoft and you're having a Microsoft show, you want to boast about what 360 owners will get that others won't... So long as you don't actually stop to think about your customers. It plays into the very dated notion of console loyalty, at a time where people can pick up either of the big two models for under £100. Gone are the days when a £400 investment meant people would become tribal and defend their choice, to start with. And more frustrating, if you don't happen to own the console that's currently hawking the third-party cross-platform game, you've been just been given a hefty middle finger from the developer/publisher responsible. It doesn't say, "Hey, the X version of this game is superior!" It says, "All other versions of our game are inferior." Which is a pretty bloody weird message to be sending out to customers.
And that's just one example of the hoary, outdated tone all these pressers took. Embarrassing moments were scattered throughout, from a peculiar display of esports in tight-fitting clothing, to hosts declaring that they're "a gamer first and, er, er, a woman seventh", all punctuated throughout the night by producers holding controllers and pretending to control cutscenes like kids in a service station yanking the steering wheels of the driving arcades while "INSERT COIN" flashes on screen. The message is a peculiar contempt for the audience – of course they're not really playing! In any game where you can get killed by the enemy, or, as so many of those shown wished you to believe, events are procedural and unscripted, not having a pre-filmed sequence in a live show would be just stupid. Stop pretending – it's embarrassing.
While games like Watch Dogs and Far Cry 3 definitely look interesting, it was a night of primarily sequels of men shooting guns at men shooting guns, those two included, representing an industry that just is no longer familiar to me. The games I consume, both mainstream and indie, offer me an incredible variety of genres and themes, and while I'm not in mad denial of the volume of manshooters, I'm also conscious of an industry that offers so much more. Yet the outward facing presentation from all of these publishers was one of a dinosaur that hasn't noticed the gaming world isn't entirely made of Gears Of War, occasionally intercut by a grinning lunatic waving their cartoon arms at their Kinect. Oh, and that's when they're not completely distracting themselves by trying to be Apple and declare they've invented the future of technology. How unbearably embarrassing was Microsoft's declaration that SmartGlass was the "first time" we could control our TV's using our smartphones? Er, that's weird, because I'm fairly sure I remember using Unified Remote on my Android to control Windows on my TV last night.
I wonder if part of it is due to the Peter-Molyneux-ism of recent years, where developers have stood up to announce games that would change the way we live our lives, see the world, peel our oranges, and perceive colour, with pseudo-experimental concepts that eventually go on to be mediocre social games. There has been a steering away from "Gaming will ascend us beyond mere humanity" and back to, "MAN SHOOTS MAN AND BUILDING FALLS DOWN!" Excruciatingly dull footage of CODBLOPS2 was the peak of this brown drear, as we realise that watching someone else pushing forward between cutscenes is almost no different an experience from being the person holding the controller. And even the now-much-vaunted Watch Dogs' potential is being celebrated mostly in people's heads, rather than based on what we saw: a man walking painfully slowly through a pretty city, listening in to a phone call, walking painfully slowly around a building, and then shooting some men.
So I'm delighted to say that what we saw at E3 last night was not representative of the gaming industry of which I'm a part. And I wonder how long it will be until the reality of the industry will be represented in these events. Although so long as the attending press sit there whooping until they vomit, perhaps that will be a bloody long time.
The kids get excited about the shooters, they tend to sell the best. Thus, the genre gets the most attention at these hype-fests, except by Nintendo. They hype the latest retread of their tired old franchises.
Still, the article does have a point about the hyperbolic hype in game marketing having reached the singularity stage.
Again, I find this all fascinating, in hindsight. You can go back maybe 5 years ago and read all sorts of articles and blogs and such about how PC gaming was dead. Consoles were the future. They were easier to program for and no one had to keep upgrading graphic cards.
Now, all of a sudden this has changed. I wonder how much of that hype was by Sony, Nintendo, etc, to boost sales of their consoles.
Even a year or two ago i read plenty of how the old desktop PC was dead.
Don't get me wrong, as an old PC gamer I'm delighted. Just surprised.
And I did buy a PS3, my first console since my Sega Genesis, just last year.
A lot of the revival is from the newly blossoming indie scene, though. It almost reminds me of old Shareware C64 days.
Consoles are still cheaper, much easier to program for, and much easier to use as well. That's the whole point. However, PC gaming is full of freedom. You don't need to waste time trying to pass certification with Sony or Microsoft, and you don't need to spend a dime on manufacturing costs. PC gaming still has some weaknesses (mostly in the variability of the PC itself), but digital distribution has made it fundamentally strong.
Yeah, I think there's life in the PC still. Which is good :)
Posted just because of speculation amongst how much these games make from sales.
QuoteThe husband and wife team behind Temple Run
Wed, Jun 6, 2012 6:44 PM EDT
Temple Run creators Keith Shepherd and Natalia Luckyanova have turned the mobile gaming boom into a million-dollar business.
Love manifests itself in many ways. For Keith Shepherd, it was evident when his then-friend Natalia Luckyanova beat him in Mario Kart.
Now married, the couple still have video games at the heart of their relationship. In fact, it's a family business, and a booming one at that--thanks in part to the current surge in the mobile gaming industry.
Shepherd and Luckyanova are the founders of Imangi Studios, the developer behind the addictive mobile game Temple Run. The game—in which users play a thief running through a hidden temple—has captured the attention (and thumbs) of millions worldwide. "One day, I was on the Metro in D.C., and I saw two girls in front of me playing Temple Run and passing the phone back and forth," Shepherd says. "It's completely mind-blowing."
Temple Run, which is available for Android and iOS devices, is free to download and gives users the option to buy virtual coins that can be redeemed for in-game upgrades, including invisibility. Since it debuted last August, the game has been downloaded more than 70 million times. The Android version, launched in April, already has been downloaded more than 15 million times. All told, Temple Run has generated more than $1 million in sales, Shepherd says.
The game's overwhelming success was unexpected, according to Shepherd, who created it with his wife in their one-bedroom apartment in Washington, D.C. (Or, as Luckyanova jokingly refers to it, "Imangi Studios's world headquarters.")
The most popular mobile games—Omgpop's Draw Something and Rovio's Angry Birds, for example—tend to have bright colors and a cheery theme, Shepherd explains. Temple Run, however, uses dark colors and has a more menacing premise. In the game, a red-haired thief has stolen an idol from a temple and is being chased by a hungry pack of animals. Players must swipe up, down, left, or right and tilt their smartphone or tablet to avoid obstacles and keep the thief from falling into the water below.
"We really wanted to make a game that we wanted to play and looked how we wanted it to look," Shepherd says.
Rocky Start
At first, it seemed like that approach might not pay off. Although Temple Run, which then cost 99 cents to download, received overwhelmingly positive reviews immediately after launch, the number of new users began to trail off after two weeks.
A month after its debut, Shepherd switched to a "freemium" pricing model, allowing users to download a basic version for free and pay for enhancements. The game quickly vaulted to No. 2 on Apple's App Store list of free apps and was downloaded some 200,000 times a day at its height.
Only 1% of Temple Run players purchase in-game upgrades, Shepherd says. But with more than 70 million users, that translates into 700,000 paying customers. Temple Run was one of the highest-grossing games in the App Store in January, according to Apple.
Temple Run has become so popular, many assume a large development team created it, Shepherd says. This isn't the first time Imangi has been mistaken for a larger company. When it launched its sixth title, Harbor Master, in 2009, the game quickly became the third-ranked paid app in Apple's App Store. At its peak, the game, which challenges users to control boat traffic, was downloaded 10,000 times a day. That's when Luckyanova began receiving email requests to speak with the company's director of marketing.
First Love, Then Marriage, Then a Game
Luckyanova and Shepherd became friends in 2003, when they were both working for Vecna Technologies, a health care software developer in Washington, D.C. They started dating a year later, after Luckyanova left to pursue a master's degree in computer science at Boston University, and married in 2007.
Shepherd launched Imangi in 2008, and Luckyanova joined the company after it turned a profit about a year later, generating $40,000 in revenue. The couple have lived and worked together ever since. "It's awesome to be able to share this aspect of our lives," Shepherd says. "And I think our skills complement one another very well."
In order to develop more advanced games, Imangi placed greater emphasis on graphics, using freelancers before hiring Kiril Tchangov to work remotely as the company's artist. Tchagnov designed Harbor Master, which is now available in free and $1.99 versions. Recently, Imangi hired Dimensional Branding Group to handle an influx of branding and licensing requests. Their first licensed product, a board game inspired by Temple Run, is due out later this year.
Shepherd and Luckyanova still don't have corporate offices, but they have expanded from a one-bedroom apartment to a house. Soon, a third person will join them in the home office: They are expecting their first child in June.
Great story.
Sure, but the road to 70 million users is shaky... if it's anything less than the breakout game of the year (like Temple Run), the time, money, and effort spent getting that product out to 70 million users is going to take a big bite out of the profit.
Let's look at this as social gaming on Facebook. Let's assume an average of 100 friends per buddy list. You make the game, and you send a notification out to everyone on your buddy list. You send it out to 100 people, each one sends it out to another 100 people, so it's hit 10,000 people. Then those people need to send it out to 100 people, and finally, those people need to send it out to another 100 people to get it exposure to 100,000,000 users. That's impossibly high- for starters, you're not going to get 70% converting to players, and you also need to account for the "six degrees" phenomenon by assuming that for each buddy list it goes out to, you're going to get a diminishing number of unique users being contacted.
You don't need those people to send it out to 100, just enough that it keeps getting passed along.
It's a great story not because it's common and easy, but the opposite.