Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sowelu]

We are not "the market", guys, whatever we might like to think.

Also, depending on how much time you spend on games, and how many DIFFERENT games you play, production value can be a huge part of it all.  If all you play is Modern Warfare 2 or Halo, why should you care if they're just rehashes that brings nothing new to the table?  They're different enough from each other that there's TONS of room for a guy to only play four FPSes that are just like every other FPS out there, yet *totally different from each other*.  If people sink $50 on four different FPSes, they've just spent more money on games than a significant number of us do over a couple years.

I'll tell you one thing, Oblivion is freakin' gorgeous, and the graphics brought a smile to my face more than once.  So it's shallow--oh well.  I'm perfectly capable of relaxing by running aroung endless mountains and meadows with stunningly beautiful fields of waving grass, and occasionally stabbing enemies in an over-simple but somehow viscerally satisfying combat system.

The niche has its place, but people who buy AAA games aren't wrong for buying them, or even for valuing them over other games.

[ChairmanPoo]

Yep. That's what we want all right. To drop $50+ on a high production quality game we'll forget within 2 months.

Ah well. The sooner they drive the current model into the ground by cranking out too many similar games, the sooner they'll start thinking about alternatives again.

Yeah. TBH I don't even consider pirating such forgettable games. Let alone buy

[nenjin]

We are not "the market", guys, whatever we might like to think.

We are. We buy $50 games. We just tend to have a broader range of comparison than "the other", down to the genre of games we play and yes, the level of production quality we accept.

Also, depending on how much time you spend on games, and how many DIFFERENT games you play, production value can be a huge part of it all.  If all you play is Modern Warfare 2 or Halo, why should you care if they're just rehashes that brings nothing new to the table?

I'd argue that a lot of those core gamers have very little experience in anything but their chosen title/genre. Which means they've yet to hit that genre weariness that people who consume a lot of entertainment start feeling.

Also [insert comparison photo of MW2, BF2 and MoH here]. You can't tell me that's not bad for the industry over all when we condone that sort of repetition with our money or our enthusiasm.

They're different enough from each other that there's TONS of room for a guy to only play four FPSes that are just like every other FPS out there, yet *totally different from each other*.  If people sink $50 on four different FPSes, they've just spent more money on games than a significant number of us do over a couple years.

Again, when other people's buying behaviors start trending the whole damn industry, I sort of take exception. As for different enough...if I were paying $10 to get "a little different of a game" on a base client, I wouldn't care. But it's $50, at a 6 month release development pace. If you strip away all the things that I could take or leave, what I'm left with rarely justifies the money spent.

The niche has its place, but people who buy AAA games aren't wrong for buying them, or even for valuing them over other games.

No one said they were. But since we have to share this "market" together, it'd be nice to get some proportional representation in the values publishers hold. When they aren't even willing to consider an alternate model, that stuff never even gets a chance. Christ, Rock Band? Guitar Hero? Wii? Those were all gambles that turned out to be highly successful. Ubi is talking about fortifying its position for the indefinite future, staking everything on established IPs. I can't see that being good for the industry if the other big ones and the mid-range publishers decide that's a good idea. We'll be in trilogy/sequel hell for the next year. It already feels like we're there already.

In the end though, I still purchase games from the AAA industry, so I do have a right to be concerned about which way it trends. Relegating us to a corner because we're not 100% representative of their average market is exactly why we're here in the first place. That, and the industry's super high return expectations that Blizzard/Activision have set. They're not satisfied with making their money back and then some. They're only satisfied with completely blowing their investment out of the water.

[Soulwynd]

http://www.animationarcade.com/animation/declineofvideogaming.html

[sneakey pete]

We are not "the market", guys, whatever we might like to think.

We are. We buy $50 games. We just tend to have a broader range of comparison than "the other", down to the genre of games we play and yes, the level of production quality we accept.

Mate, we play a free rougelike like game with text for graphics. We are not the market, even if we do buy a few 50 buck games each every year.
Think about it. He says that the market craves good production values. DF isn't good production values.

[nenjin]

DF isn't good production values....

No it isn't. But I don't define myself by DF or rogue-likes alone. I don't think many down here in the Lower Forums would.

Like I said, anyone at B12 automatically appreciates a broader range of games than your average gamer. Would you be playing DF if it was a crappy game? No, you're playing DF because it's probably one of the most complex games you've ever encountered. You sacrifice production values for that gooey gooey. The industry is unwilling to risk complexity for a ton of reasons, even when they say shit like "the AAA craves something new..."

If they'd actually try putting resources into something other than what Hollywood essentially does, they might find an untapped market. WE are an untapped market, if anything, and there's no telling how many gamers out there would buy something different if given a chance, when it's got real money behind an actual focus on game play. If a game with DF's level of complexity were put forward by a major publisher, would you play it? I know I would.

[Soulwynd]

Think about it.

I've thought about it. We're still the market, even if most of us do not represent a big slice of it.

[nenjin]

As another example, TF2.

The game is practically about f***ing hats now, and it's among one of the most popular shooters now. It does a lot of non-traditional things that have made it successful.

1. It's stayed affordable.
2. It hasn't fallen prey to sequel-itis.
3. It morphs, changes and grows with the confines of it's original design.
4. It's not realistic, at all.
5. It's not graphically intensive, at all.
6. It's got non-standard mechanics.

Granted, Valve isn't Ubisoft, EA, Activision/Blizzard, or any of those guys. But they've gone from little dawg to medium-sized dawg with teeth, big enough to get EA's attention, in just a few short years.

That's what thinking outside of the box can get you, when you're not basing your business decisions on which way the market winds are blowing.

[Sowelu]

Avatar, versus (insert indie film here).

[nenjin]

Vs. Blair Witch Project. Which one left a more lasting impression on people? It's one of the most successful independent movies made today specifically because of how little they spent on it and how it truly captured many people's imaginations.

And we'll see how people actually felt about Avatar when they're asked whether or not they'll pay for the sequel.

Avatar is a perfect example though. When you spend $300 million on a movie, you're only happy if it makes $600 million back. For all their talk about the riskiness of the industry, they go out of their way to sink ridiculous sums of money into games, and when they tank or don't meet the monumental expectations set by the investment, they point to risk-taking as the problem, totally ignoring the fact maybe they backed a POS with no real merit, and the standard formula of spending way too much on "production value" is what got them into trouble.

[Sowelu]

Blair Witch Project?  You're actually using that as a positive example? 

...Gentlemen, I rest my case.

Specifically:  I don't know how much money it made, but in terms of creativity, popularity, and lasting impression, it was one of the biggest bombs in the entire genre in recent memory.  It waved a big red flag saying "This is why you should not make indie movies".

Maybe this is how mainstream gamers see indie gamers.  :/  It would explain a lot.

[Cthulhu]

Seriously, Blair Witch Project?

[nenjin]

Seriously, Blair Witch Project. According to AMC's Movies that Shook the World, it's still the most highly grossing indie film ever made, even after it was exposed. Made each of them millions, several 1,000s of % profit.

And it's pretty much a pure example of what indie work can produce. It turns many concepts upside down and it worked, for many, to make an interesting film. (Shaky camera work, a let down ending and the fact everyone felt like they were hoaxed aside.) It started doing reality TV things before reality TV even knew what it was. (Like not directing people and letting them act naturally, only giving them vague cues to work on.)

It was handled almost totally in-house, and only after they knew they were hitting it big did they seek some industry help to promote it. It PROVED you don't need a huge budget to turn a huge profit, or do something meaningful.

But rather than gamble on that, industry giants prefer to gamble that the same format that worked last year will work better than it did before, because if it doesn't post a higher profit than the last, it's a failure in the eyes of the AAA industry.

And before we get too off track...XBLA. That also shows there's a working, profitable model for indie games of a smaller scope that still turn a high enough profit in volume to make it worth the time. They may be smaller games, and not these sweeping epic masturbatory fantasies we get now, but at least they're constantly injecting new ideas into the industry.

And did any of you actually enjoy Avatar as a mind-blowing movie experience, where you thought "man, the visuals alone made this worth my $?"

[Cthulhu]

Yeah, but "Things are never going to stop going up" isn't a good philosophy, just ask the economists.  It'll blow up in their faces and maybe we'll see things done differently then.

[Aqizzar]

Think about it.

I've thought about it. We're still the market, even if most of us do not represent a big slice of it.

If "we" don't represent a big slice of the market, then "we" are not the market, now are we?  I've kinda lost track of who's accusing who of not being indie enough, that's the vibe I'm getting.

Let's look at this from Ubisoft's perspective.  They said the key to profitability is big-name titles and first-day sales.  You generate a ton of buzz, and get record numbers of people to go out and buy it at full price.  Are these necessarily good games?  No, not necessarily.  They don't have to be.  Heck, so long as they're not so obviously shit that they don't make good press, it doesn't really matter if they're games that stand the test of time.

I know you guys hate to hear this, but good business is not about making a legendary product that people talk about for years.  It's about selling units.  Heck, if the game is bland and people forget about it after a few months, all the better, because then your customers will want to buy new games.  That's how you make money - you convince people to pay you money, as often as possible.