Game Industry Growing?

Started by
35 comments, last by remigius 15 years, 10 months ago
Quote:Original post by Driv3MeFar
Quote:Original post by phear-
Just because a company sells millions of copies these days doesn't mean its what gamers want


You're completely right. Of the millions of copies of Halo3/GTA4/whatever that sold, no one actually wanted any of them [rolleyes].


You took what I said out of context. Gamers "want" Halo3/GTA4/whatever because thats all they have come to expect(another GTA or Halo or WoW or whatever) + the marketing machine makes it seem amazing when really its the same package with new wrapping.
__________________________________________
Eugene Alfonso
GTP | Twitter | SFML | OS-Dev
Advertisement
Is the industry growing?
Yes.

Is this good?
Subjective.

Atari helped boost the industry and they were friken hippies! Now Atari sucks and it's run by capitalists. Same with EA--whom I have a grudge against that is just too large to contain. So, in a sense, the industry is growing, but only in a financial sense. Maturity, longevity, depth? The industry is a child with no parent. Unadulterated greed. In-game advertisements that work to subconsciously promote a society of slave-consumers; 1984-The Game will be produced by Big Brother himself, as Orwell predicted.

The true growth--non-monetary growth--is in the indy side of the industry. People who make artistic and innovative games on a regular basis and aren't afraid to make something that only appeals to themselves. Even in the indy biz, there's greed, falseness, and capitalism, but you'll have an easier time finding the game makers who make games FOR games. People who don't even get payed. But they're not the ones who will make Final Fantasy XXV.

BTW: Actually, I DO want GTA4. They really DO add things to each game that make it worth while. But still, I'd actually rather wait till GTA5 because GTA4 is probably still a little close to GTA:SA.

But in terms of Halo, yeah. Each sequel neither innovates from the previous nor fixes the problems that were inherent in the first game!
well as for me...i think the game industry is going up and i think the new games today are fun to play and im satisfied with them...so up for the game industry =)
@ Tom Sloper

Sorry Tom, I missed your quote. My question did kinda beat off the trail a bit at the end of the post. I was just asking if the difficulty of getting a stable and paying job has increased with the industries growth because I have always considered changing careers. Starting a game company for me is a taboo dream, and is kinda the source of the entire thread in the first place. I enjoy working in business and playing games on my own time, seemed natural to combine the two but making it big in the game industry it seems is no easy feat and requires a large startup cost to really get things moving.

But I enjoy talking about the business side of the industry whether I am in it or not and that is why we are talking about it right now ^_^.

@ Phantom

It is a complicated question to debate, what do gamers want from our point of view or the companies. It is a little like how the government works, what do the people want and what actually gets implemented :P.

I would say that neither side would win in that debate, it is not fair for me to say that they are not giving us what they want and at the same time what we want and expect is usually a let down especially in their sequels.

On the same note, you could argue perhaps what we want is what they have marketed to us, planting a seed leading us to believe this is the next big game everyone has been waiting for. I don't know about you but most of the anticipated games that have came out have usually been seriously lacking in one area, probably because the team focused to much on another like graphics.

Anyways, debates like the quality of the games is not what I intended to debate about in this thread. It plays a role in how we are anticipating the direction of the industry.

Here is a question more related to what I wanted to talk about in the first place. If you were to start a new company now, working on project x what kind of obstacles are there to face now getting into the industry compared to 5 years ago?

What determines a companies growth in the industry based on our industries standards today?

I'm just a guy - that's it.

Two key elements that I believe have been missed (or at least not mentioned) are that:

1: Yes, gamers buy games because the marketing tells them it's better than sex, but...

2: Gamers keep playing the games that are FUN (while getting their friends to buy them too) and ditch/rant the ones that are not fun.


A good marketing team could sell ice cubes to an eskimo in Alaska at least once, but probably not many times after that, maybe change the color of the ice cube, change the shape, but eventually the eskimo will figure it out.

That's the problem with the marketing/PR companies that are selling these copycat games, one after another. We are still, as a gaming community, at the beginning few steps of the tall staircase to gaming greatness, but eventually people will figure it out; "company X keeps marketing crap games and we are bored with their flashy, boring titles" ....."while company Z is new to the market, so it HAS to have something great to sell us, right?"

The game players are maturing and thanks to consoles like the Wii they are also expanding. Do you want to guess at what the median age of game players is currently? I bet you'd be surprised. It's not age 10 or less...it's not age 20 or less...last I checked it was around 30 years old and probably rising thanks to the aforementioned Wii.


The reason the game series GTA and Halo are so crazy popular (for instance) is because these games are FUN. No, they don't offer any great innovative ideas over their previous versions (for the most part), but they are fun to play. And what matters besides the fun factor? You do all remember that the gaming industry is a part of the ENTERTAINMENT industry. What's the purpose of the entertainment industry? It's to entertain us. What do Fun games do? Entertain us.

See the pattern now?

Combine FUN with Good Marketing and whammo, you have games like the Halo series and then GTA which as outsold Halo by quite a bit.

/semirant off


Back to the original topic/original post.

My speculation is the game industry is growing and growing fast, but there's plenty of room for everyone involved. Innovative ideas, expansions, mods, unoriginal, etc...everything is selling right now, yes some more than others.

But remember that these large developer companies for the games like Halo and GTAIV have huge production costs to cover, while on the otherhand games like Puzzle Pirates, Runescape, Katamari (awesome game, my gf loves it..haha), etc have much smaller production costs so they don't need the huge publicity and marketing techniques of the large titles in order to gain a profit.

Here's where there's quite a twist. Those independent game studios that actually have unique, innovative, and fun ideas are the ones who are going to make the most profit off the least amount of costs. You don't need a complex game in order for it to be fun or innovative; remember Tetris? Pong? Space Invaders? Hell, even Runescape and Katamari aren't really that complex, yet there are hundreds of examples, if not more and I know if you are reading this you are already listing off other games that come to mind in your head that are simple games, yet surprisingly popular.

In order to "win" in this scenario you just have to figure out how to balance "fun" (fun = fun, creative, innovative, expanded, etc) vs marketing (marketing = hype, flash, feedback, etc).

Add enough "fun" on one side and you need less marketing.

Add enough "Marketing" on one side and you need less "Fun"

Add lots of Fun + Marketing and you get the best of both worlds.

Crappy analogy, but I think I get the point across at least a little bit.



Ok, I'm done for now. Please tear my post apart.

-Landshark (Scott)

A Growing Community of Aspiring Game Developers

www.gamedev4beginners.net

I somehow missed the whole business end of this discussion on my read-through.

Yeah, it's neat how the simple games will make so much money. Recent example: Audio Surf. The original was made in a week! and they just tuned up the game so it would be a seller, and it was a TOP seller. I think the industry can grow in a way that indy might take over mainstream, although when that happens, indy might cease to be indy. But the companies like EA are successful at selling, not because their games are fun, but because CLONES SELL BETTER THAN ORIGINALS. Which was the topic of a Gamasutra article if anyone can find a link (lazy).

So, EA is big because they produce a steady line of uninteresting games.

That's why the industry can't grow--as it is--on levels of maturity or depth.

But, small companies, who don't shoot for the mainstream, still seem to have a large profit area. The only problem is that only large companies like EA can shoot for what the small companies dream of, and only small companies do.

I've never actually heard a story of an indy company that hit big with only a small concept and worked its way up to larger games while keeping its indy nature, but I'm proposing it's possible and is the only way for the industry to TRULY grow.
Quote:Original post by Telastyn
Not this crap again...


Thank you for your constructive response.

Quote:
Have you played Puzzle Pirates? Katamari? Drawffort? Starscape? DDR? the Wii? (a half dozen other games I'm forgetting?)
Spore is not innovative because it's being bankrolled by the worst of the 'soulless fatcats'?


Sounds like you're plugging games you think are innovative, and fuck anyone else who dares disagree with you. So much for healthy discussion.

Quote:
What exactly do you think is innovative?


To be perfectly honest, I don't actually know anymore. Given that any concept of innovation has been shat on by the endless onslaught of mediocre, half-baked clone games flooding the market these days it's kind of hard to tell. The Wii itself may be an innovative concept, but if you're going to fill its library with broken Gamecube ports from Nintendo and embarrassingly bad third-party offerings, seemingly shoved onto the system to justify its existence, then the whole point of the thing is lost. Sure the non-gamers love it, but do they know any different? If it suits them, fine, so be it. But remember they are far from representative of the whole market.

Quote:
Personally, I'm thrilled at the generally increasing production values (GTA4 and Team Fortress for example are exceptionally well polished) caused by developers emulating Blizzard's success.


I wouldn't call GTA IV that well polished. Although it is very good, you can't ignore the fact that it's got framerate problems, severe pop-in issues, half the time it's too damn dark to see anything, the graphic meshes are a bit dodgy (run into a door at the right speed and Niko's head clips through it, same with the ladder on a swimming pool) the friends system isn't exactly perfect (there's one very notable glitch regarding this which I found on YouTube, but I won't post it here because it's a spoiler), the soundtrack is poor, the multiplayer is laggy and causes occasional lockups on the loading screens, the achievements are dodgy (I've correctly filled the criteria for Rolled Over and Chain Reaction n times now and never been able to unlock either... the forum posters at Xbox.com don't know what's wrong either and say they too have had problems)... ...

High production value doesn't always mean better polished games, look at Haze also, or most of the other recent stuff that's come out unfinished and relied on Xbox Live/PSN updating to make it playable. I also fail to see where Blizzard comes into this.

Another example is Unreal Tournament III. Hyped, hyped, hyped, sexy screenshots. Demo was shite, a warning of things to come. A large portion of the UT community hate it and feel ripped off and cheated by Epic, and I read on the Epic Forums once that there were something like 70 people playing UT3 online at peak times. 70? That's pathetic, that's about a quarter of my sixth year at school. UT2K4 had thousands and thousands and thousands, and I'm told it still does although I can't guarantee that being accurate.

Quote:
A welcome change to the dogfights of smaller dev houses a few years ago where the publishers would skimp on QA/finishing.


A welcome change would be to actually go back to those days. Back to the days of Westwood so C&C would actually be kinda good, back to the days of Internet-incapable consoles so that console games ship in tip-top condition instead of a buggy, broken joke (and you say that they skimped on QA/finishing back then), back to the days of being able to ask for help on a game without being told you suck and getting called a noob, back to the days where games were games and not just a showcase for the SuperDuper HDR Multi-Threaded Graphics Physics <insert a few more industry buzzwords here> Jesus Engine Thingmajig that runs at 0.000001FPS on any system costing less than £10m (said engine is just a ruse to try and force gamers to fork out on the latest nVidia 100000EpicGTX with 512GB RAM and 109283274389748973298Ghz clock... which still doesn't properly support DX10.1 because the driver dev team are lazy. This card will be as obsolete as the Victorians within three months, and that card will support DX10.1 and the old model will be unsupported. Both models will be the size of Buckingham Palace and will be somewhat challenging to fit in your standard PC case.).

I got my first console (original Playstation) for Christmas 1996, and my brother got an N64 for Christmas 98. I still remember the magical and awesome feelings I had playing those consoles, they had proper games with great gameplay and were real good fun. I still get nostalgic now, I've got an urge to dig out the N64 and play Perfect Dark and Episode One Racer, now those are *real* games. I can only imagine the feeling kids got in the 80s when the NES first shipped, or even earlier than that with the Atari et al. Games were games and damn fine games they were too.

I never felt the same about the PS2, somehow, nor do I feel the same now about the 360 unfortunately. Part of me thinks I'm growing out of gaming and need a better hobby (which is true, all that time spent gaming has caused me untold damage), I just get bored so easily with modern games it's unreal.

I still think the industry is growing, but it's growing like a tumour; it's not a healthy growth and needs to be monitored carefully. More of the same doesn't always mean good.
Theres has been some innovation but its realy been spurred on by innovation in hardware. Guitar hero and Nintendo DS come to mind. I love how the restrictive hardware requirements and innovative interface of the DS has forced developers to come up with original fun games that rely on game play over graphics.

Unfortunatly on the PC and console gaming scene game developers are becoming lazy and playing it too safe. Hopefully Spore will be good as long as it doesn't turn out to be a tech demo.
I think Landshark has a very positive way at looking at the industry and how it grows. The average gamer I read was around the same mark late twenties so they are not stupid. In the entertainment industry I think there is always a little more room for smaller companies to squeeze in and grab a larger slice of the cake.

The fact is though, EA and other larger developers will always be sharing the majority of the cake and the thousands of smaller companies have to fight for that little slice leftover because they simply don't have the resources to grab a bigger slice. It is an uphill battle until they breakthrough with something that catches gamers attention.

The indie side of the market I don't think will ever become bigger than our mainstream retail market simply because they are established and have the resources to make things happen. They have higher budgets to market their games, the average gamer who does not even have indie in his vocabulary will only know what the media tells him and what previous games from that known developer he likes.

It all come down to money, money, money. I am sure smaller indie developers would punch out a really great title if they had the same resources. And even then, EA already has best practice down when it comes to marketing and estimating how many copies are needed to be produced.

Anyway, thanks for all the input so far guys. I think that I probably confused a lot of people with my all over the place, what the hell, kind of replies but I always enjoy reading your posts.

It seems to me like everyone agrees the industry is growing, it is just in what direction that seems to be debate. Really, that is always the debate isn't it? It is never certain what will become of a particular industry but I think it is safe to say this one ain't going anywhere.

I'm just a guy - that's it.

A little of a side remark, but I'm so sick of hearing the word "innovative" and it has been said in this discussion way too much. I think I might have even said it. If you think about it, it's hard to not say that any game isn't innovative in SOME way.

I wish I could send out an industry-wide memo:
Games shall no longer be referred to as innovative.
Typical and atypical will do.

And for what was said about games being polished:
I think polishing games is just too expensive, now. Studios have to spend so much resources on graphics, sound, and completely unnecessary stuff that I just can't blame companies for not being able to have any polish.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement