The game industry is dying

Greg Costikyan, who is a game designer and consultant in the industry, has written a piece right here in which he mentions the increasing stagnation, and developer unrest, of the game industry. He brings up many good points, including:

01. No winner (or nominee) of the Independent Game Festival awards at the GDC has ever had a game packaged and put on the shelf. I tried but one of the games, a MMORPG by the name of Shattered Galaxy. It was indeed a fine title, however, how many people here have heard of it or any other IGF festival winners? I know thats the only one I can think of. Oh, there was one that let you run your own college, too, but I forget the name. I guess you can see the point. Some of them are pretty brilliant titles though.

02. The industry is going to be making a lot of money on shit like Realarcade in the future, because that type of stuff is a real safe bet. Just go on Microsoft's Zone, the most popular game there is not Age or Jedi Knight, its like Hearts or Bejeweled.

And so forth...

What do you guys think?

I personally find a lot of validity in his statements.

I say it has flaws, but I doubt that it is dying...

But... Box Drink... will those flaws be remedied, or are they simply becoming more and more embedded into the collective conscious of the industry?

In other words... if these are some flaws in the industry:

01. so few publishers are out there
02. less and less risky games are coming out
03. development costs are spiraling out of control
04. games are all starting to look the same
05. small label games have no chance getting in an EB or GameSpot, let alone moving copies

Are these flaws on their way to becoming rectified, or are they just becoming worse and worse as time goes on?

Id definitely say the latter, and that is the very problem Greg C. is talking about.

edit: I got this from Slashdot, there's a discussion on it. Slashdot people dont know too much about the game industry in general, but their comments are more from the technology side applied to games, so its a somewhat different, albeit interesting, viewpoint than you would get say... on this message board.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by diffusionx
Shattered Galaxy.

---

*waits for Rich to show up*

Nice article. I think he's dead on about sequels. And about less risky and innovative games not getting published.

But like he said, gaming is young, and it's still evolving. I see the gaming industry as a younger cousin of the movie industry, and I believe many of the things that made the movie industry what it is today (increased focus on indie films, for example) will happen with games too.

In short: yes, there are flaws, but I have faith. Just give it time.

Yeah, I have more faith in the industry as of the last few months.

You'll only find a solution to the problem when someone with some business sense and money gets involved.

The IGF doesn't seem to have a corporate sugar daddy. It looks like just a bunch of indie developers getting together -- which isn't a bad thing -- but they need a corporate tie-in to a publisher to get their games out there. Since publishers have their own agendas and development houses (or contracts with outside developers), they likely aren't going to pay attention to the indie developers who won't let go of the old way of doing things -- it could be profitable, as movie companies like Miramax and Sony's Classics division know, but control is a big issue here, and the publishers don't have that when they sign on to distribute the little guys' product.

The solution here is to find a business model that works. It won't necessarily work as well as the model used by the big companies, but that's because they have marketing dollars the small companies don't.

Remember when shareware first hit? People would find out about a new program when it hit some of the big bulletin boards, and then it spread through file networks and users uploading and downloading. Shareware tapered off after Doom and its clones hit it big, but I think that was primarily due to the model pioneers (id, Apogee, Epic, etc.) signing on with big publishers (or, as with Apogee, just not finishing the promised sequel to a huge hit...). It's still a valid model, it just needs an avenue for marketing.

One technique that I don't think has been tried much (if at all) is a number of companies aligning with each other and going the shareware route, but also contributing to a collective marketing fund in order to maximize their exposure. This has potential problems, but I think it's worth a try.

This all comes back to the industries idiotic refusal to abandon the first party structure.

Multiple proprietary hardware standards means:

1. Competition lowers system prices. Problem is, this isn't really a good thing, since it doesn't lower production costs. What this means is that companies have to sell systems at brutal losses. This means they have to take it out on the developers, who have to pay higher liscensing fees. This means that they not only have to pass some of this cost on to the consumer, but also that it puts them in the position of potentially losing alot of money, and thus they are afraid to take risks for fear of being unprofitable. It's very possible to sell 300,000 copies of a game and lose money.

2. Fractured user base. Companies are forced to eat the additional development costs of porting to other platforms or suffer having their product availible to fewer people. This again, puts strain on developers, and discoruarages risks.

3. Market can't sustain the number of standards availible. As the industry grows, stores are running out of shelf space. Game stores have to have games for 6 or 7 systems now, and when the next generation hits, this will only get worse. There's more product than stores can stock or move. This means that smaller titles might not even get shelved, shutting out opportunuties for would-be niche developers.

It's not going to get better until everyone decides to make a 3rd party standard with low, regualted liscensing fees, like DVD players, and sell their systems at or above cost. (Yes, I know this is what was attempted with the 3DO, but it needs to be tried with actual developer backing and decent technology, and with support from the industry in general).

Quote:

---

02. The industry is going to be making a lot of money on shit like Realarcade in the future, because that type of stuff is a real safe bet. Just go on Microsoft's Zone, the most popular game there is not Age or Jedi Knight, its like Hearts or Bejeweled.

---

You know why Hearts and Bejeweled are so popular? Because my mom can play Hearts and Bejeweled.

Maybe instead of figuring out how to utilize the dozen or so buttons on a controller these days developers should instead focus on making games that anyone can play.

I'm all for complex games and all, but I think that too many developers are making games too complex for their own good.

No one is going to pay any significant amount of money for Hearts and Bejeweled.

Great article.

There will eventually be a gaming underground (and I don't mean an illegal one), just like there's a music underground and a film underground. You know, tons of nebulous content that never breaks the Billboard and Variety charts. I view the increased crowds at the IDC's Experimental Games booth as the beginning.

There is definitely going to be a major splintering of the gaming community, sooner rather than later, I think. Gamers who started with the PSX are already getting tired of the same old stuff. There's already a largely untapped market for innovative product, and as gaming gets more mainstream and more vanilla, it's only going to grow.

Again all these problems aren't eough to kll the industry... I don't care if there is no innovation, i'm stil gonna game because it's what I love, I defenately doubt that any of these problems will kill gaming, but they may lower the quality of it for a while...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Box Drink
Again all these problems aren't eough to kll the industry... I don't care if there is no innovation, i'm stil gonna game because it's what I love, I defenately doubt that any of these problems will kill gaming, but they may lower the quality of it for a while...

---

Well that's sorta the point of the article. He's not saying that they're going to kill the industry as in no more games will be produced, he means kill the industry as in no more good or innovative games will be produced.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OmniGear
Well that's sorta the point of the article. He's not saying that they're going to kill the industry as in no more games will be produced, he means kill the industry as in no more good or innovative games will be produced.

---

good point...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OmniGear
Well that's sorta the point of the article. He's not saying that they're going to kill the industry as in no more games will be produced, he means kill the industry as in no more good or innovative games will be produced.

---

There'll always be one game that's oddball and hits mainstream to allow some more creative thinking for awhile. The movie and music industries had this too.

It usually happens.

I'm waiting for all the non-nerds that joined up with videogames in the PSX era to decide the fad is over and move on to something else as a cultural pastime.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BioMechanic
Great article.

There will eventually be a gaming underground (and I don't mean an illegal one), just like there's a music underground and a film underground. You know, tons of nebulous content that never breaks the Billboard and Variety charts. I view the increased crowds at the IDC's Experimental Games booth as the beginning.

There is definitely going to be a major splintering of the gaming community, sooner rather than later, I think. Gamers who started with the PSX are already getting tired of the same old stuff. There's already a largely untapped market for innovative product, and as gaming gets more mainstream and more vanilla, it's only going to grow.

---

Vanilla's actually a good flavor! ..... analogy made...

One person's perspective on the video game industry is hardly a sign that it's dying. Sounds like he's been around a while and this article is just a way for him to vent his frustrations of working within the biz.

The industry is fine and will remain so for quite some time. Video game sales have never been higher and with new hardware/technology comes new ideas/innovations.

Hearts and Bejeweled are more popular because they're free. Hell I liked Bejeweled alot for a bit but have moved on.

*steps off soapbox*

Will the indistry die? No. Will it take a big nosedive? That's a whole other scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
Will the indistry die? No. Will it take a big nosedive? That's a whole other scenario.

---

A nose dive could, conceivably, do it good. (like the kick in the ass to a slacker)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew
A nose dive could, conceivably, do it good. (like the kick in the ass to a slacker)

---

I didn't imply that a nosedive would hurt ;)

That's the thing. It'll take a nosedive to people like us, people who the article was aimed at, but not to Joe Gamer. Hence, not really a nosedive at all...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
I didn't imply that a nosedive would hurt ;)

---

Well it was all dirty. Wouldn't it be cool, though? A nosedive means we could all say: HAVE A NICE TRIP! SEE YOU IN THE FALL!

Omni - You're right. But casual fans usually give up on a fad or popular item eventually, leaving a smaller market of hardcore and limited casuals in wake. So it could do this. It's not likely since the market always has new customers (the whole aging thing, y'know).

It could be good and bad. Sometimes a bear market hurts the smaller guys piggy-backing on the bigger guys success in the market economy. It's hard to predict..

Interesting topic. I don't think the gaming industry is dying but like Hero said, it could be taking a plunge.

This is probably a stupid question but what causes gamers to be jaded because there are millions of them out there(including me).

Is that a riddle? I like riddles:

Um: Green.

Fuck, how did you know?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OmniGear
That's the thing. It'll take a nosedive to people like us, people who the article was aimed at, but not to Joe Gamer. Hence, not really a nosedive at all...

---

I tend to think everything is cyclical that while games and genres we know and love are stagnating, others are getting thier hayday. Back in the SNES days most games were platformers on end, or shooters, a dime a dozen until inovation was something of a running gag. Then every so often we'd some new technology like the 3d chip to go and spice things up again.

I think currently the cycle favors large online games, Shadowbane, minemis online, dragon raja, hellbreath, Universal Century (basicly gundam universe online), not to mention the big 5, lineage, UO, AC, EQ and SIMS and while the concepts are only slightly divergent, we're getting entirely new concepts in gaming ideas, like play run towns and new ways of playing the old leveling treadmill. Also the whole WW2 run fps has been having, the Teamplay revolution.

May not seem like much but remember how revolutionary Final Fantasy 2(us) was in the rpg world?

Fighters and shooters what seems to be the group favorites here are in thier down cycles, but even then we're still got GGX2 and CvS2 online as well as Ikaruga and the upcomming Dodonpachi 3 (ps2, import, april 15 or 25th i forget)

Rpgs also seem to be enjoying a big revivial with the release of .hack, xenosaga, FFx-2, Zelda and others.

If you're looking for innovation, I think possibly at this current down time in the ecnomy world wide, you'll see refinement of ideas, ie morrowind rather than revolutions. Once things pick up a little and one of the consoles is roundly defeated you'll see a console based innovation pick up again.

But here's how i see the cycle. Revolution (spurred by technology, concepts, genres ect), expansion (countless knockoffs, sequels), consolidation (bad companies go under, good ones get bought up by the grandaddys), and refinement (the revolution is fine tuned and perfected, merged)
ie:
Revolution: Doom
Expansion: Rise of the Triad, Duke 3D, Doom2, Quake, Hexen, System Shock
consolidation: 3d realms drops off the face of the earth, ID devours development teams, Daikatana (lol), Quake 2

Refinement: Quake 3, Unreal Tourney and the evolutions of those.

I dunno i felt like a long post. The world will not end for gaming.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Klonoa
Fuck, how did you know?

---

Some call it a gift, some a curse. I call it a keen intuition, a pack of bazooka joe and the ability to READ YOUR MIND!.

Seriously though, I have no clue as to the answer of your question, sorry.

MarsKitten, you are missing the point. The point of the article was not so much stagnation (although that did touch upon it) - the point of the article was what is causing the stagnation. And that is the fact that publishers are dropping out left and right, games are skyrocketing in price (to develop), the powers that be (Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft) are , like Frogacuda said, selling their system at such a high price that they have to implement these stiff and restrictive licensing fees, and also the fact that no independent games can be put on the shelf because EB and GameStop are in bed with the videogame publishers.

These are the problems, not the normal cyclical game genres. Basically, he is saying, that the game industry's economics stink, and they are not a good foundation with which to base a huge rapidly growing industry. The economics do not support a lively, fresh, innovative group of hackers working on stuff they love and making some money on it. They support, huge faceless conglomerates releasing the same game over and over because that's the only safe bet.

When I said the game industry is "dying" that was my own word. Maybe its not dying per se... but the foundation its resting on is pretty shitty now and it threatens to undo the entire industry in the future. And its not really getting any better either - in fact, the situation is undoubtedly more pronounced now than it was in 1999 or whatever (pick a date). For an analogy, look at Japan - the country grew so fast in part due to the banks giving out shitty loans and not collecting, but it was such a bad foundation for growth that it all collapsed upon itself one day.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew

Omni - You're right. But casual fans usually give up on a fad or popular item eventually, leaving a smaller market of hardcore and limited casuals in wake. So it could do this. It's not likely since the market always has new customers (the whole aging thing, y'know).

---

Exactly. So while the guys in their mid 20's are getting too cool for all this, a whole new batch comes in to replace them. But then again, games are catering to older and older audiences, and even the most macho of guys won't mind playing SOCOM or Halo, so I guess I see the gaming audience as a continually growing thing.

Of course, all that does jack for the little guy who wants to make something different, which is really the whole point of this.

They can still do it, but without the fancy budget (counterstrike, anyone?)

Also, SOCOM and Halo are in the minority. Lets hope that changes.

There's still plenty of creativity in gaming, you just have to look harder to find it nowadays.

Well if business model is what you're worried about the music industry has the same problem. New talent is risky, old talent is bankable and formual success (nsync, 98', all boy bands...)
Yeah formual successes are teh "gay" to us pretenous game consumers but fuck they work. They make the cash cows of today. But as for new ideas and talent, tough shit for you. So long as there is money and some stupid hacks with "skillz" i doubt the industry is in trouble. Stupid corpate fuckwits yes. Trouble, no, but those who don't evolve are doomed to make Army Men games till the gamers cry out "No more!" That or someone makes a l33t mod for the game ^^

No shit MarsKitten, the music industry does have the same problem. And look where it is at now! It is now crumbling before our very own eyes. If it doesnt reinvent itself, and turn into something totally different from what it is now, then that change will be forced upon it. Is this what will happen with the game industry in 10, 20, 30, whatever many years?

Meh, you'll all be giving money to the NintenNamCapSegaKonaSquare Zaibatsu in 5 years.

That'd be a fun name to see in an ad. "Coming soon, the NintenNamCapSegaKonaSquare Zaibatsu Station 2- it's slightly faster."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew
A nose dive could, conceivably, do it good. (like the kick in the ass to a slacker)

---

Yeah, a crash would do wonders for the industry. Less money, less games, less developers, and less publishers willing to take a risk on something different. Sounds great.

The industry isn't going to crash, just become ever more mainstream. Best hold on to Rez and the like, they probably won't come again.

The Dog wags the tail, not you fuckers wagging the dog.

Quote:

---

But here's how i see the cycle. Revolution (spurred by technology, concepts, genres ect), expansion (countless knockoffs, sequels), consolidation (bad companies go under, good ones get bought up by the grandaddys), and refinement (the revolution is fine tuned and perfected, merged)
ie:
Revolution: Doom
Expansion: Rise of the Triad, Duke 3D, Doom2, Quake, Hexen, System Shock
consolidation: 3d realms drops off the face of the earth, ID devours development teams, Daikatana (lol), Quake 2

Refinement: Quake 3, Unreal Tourney and the evolutions of those.

I dunno i felt like a long post. The world will not end for gaming.

---

Very true about the cycles. However, that is the exact reason why gaming is going to be hitting some hard times soon: because of this one question:

What was the last title released that you would consider being under the revolution heading?

I mean seriously, could somebody name any genres that have been created recently? And I mean real genres, ones that can support the aforementioned cycles? Not that I have been super keen on gaming this generation (lack of money/time), but I can't think any genres have come out of this console generation so far.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Klonoa
This is probably a stupid question but what causes gamers to be jaded because there are millions of them out there(including me).

---

They become jaded, when every game they purchase, plays just like the other 2 they bought before it. What happened to the innovation?


I really see this industry heading for trouble, much faster then some people think. The PS2 has managed to saturate the market with too many (Me too) games. How many versions of illegal street racing can you get? Or how about Golf game? Hot Shots Golf 3 is already in the bargain bins, because Tiger Woods 2003 is the next big title.


The very reason the console market crashed in the 80's, was because every guy on the planet was making a game, that was just like the last big seller on a console like Atari 2600. The Atari 5200 came out and it was, wow another version of Pac-Man, or hey it's Pole Position 2!


The home computer market (C-64,Apple II) became the place to play games after the consoles crashed, because software companies were taking chances. RPG's could be played, in what ever style you were looking for, Racers came in all shapes and styles, sports games from darts, to football could be played, and the best of the arcades were replicated in the home. A little company known as EA took a lot of chances and released new gaming ideas with titles like (Freefall's) Archon, SKyfox, and Seven Cities of Gold.



I think todays companies, need to make the extra effort, to find companies like the Interplays and Freefalls of the 80's and find those games which are taking a chance with innovation. Why gamers don't appreciate all the efforts Sega has made over the past 10 years, with innovative titles like Nights, REZ or Panzer Dragoon, is beyond me?

I think people are just playing the wrong games. I've just got into Dark Cloud 2 and I'm at the seven hour mark already. This game is a bargin at twice the price because it gives you so much to do and all of it is pretty fun. Heck, even the fishing is pretty neat.

Good games continue to be made, even if sometimes you need to look a bit harder for them.

PS - I don't consider gaming a hobby either. It's more like listening to music or watching a movie. Entertainment, which is a waste of time, but if I spent every moment being somehow productive I think I would lose my mind.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gamevet
They become jaded, when every game they purchase, plays just like the other 2 they bought before it. What happened to the innovation?

---

same place it's always been. it's not like innovative games were coming out left and right back in the 8-16 bit days.

besides, I fail to see the connection between "innovative" and "good". just because something is creative doesn't mean that it's worth buying

Ok from looking at this problem lightly I wonder, would it just take lower budgets and higher sales to fix things? OR even after such a thing would companies still not take a risk, using whatever just raised their sales, and milking it until sales drop again.

Maybe it's just time new companies started coming forward, or as noted, independently created games should start hitting the market. Maybe we need some new writers, or perhaps just a simple petition to give the companies a kick in the pants (Simplest thing, no real idea there).

I believe Final Fantasy X sold well and was accepted publicly correct? (If not ignore the rest of this paragraph) So now Square makes a Final Fantasy X2, though I do wonder if they had already planned this, which is possible. They go with what works, less risk involved (Not to say Squaresoft takes many risks) possibly.

Now let's say the industry does start to pass on sequels. Then part of the public asks why? Saying "It was a great game and there should be a sequel". Which is more important? Risky new ideas (That don't suck) but cost more, or risk less milking of a series?

By which is more important, I mean which is more important to both the public, and the gaming industry. Personally I would rather companies get some more funds backing them up, and then empty out part of the pool for a new idea. While I wait for these new ideas to come, I go and play all the other games I have.

Bah, I wuv the large market. Mass market= more niche games.:p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MarsKitten
Well if business model is what you're worried about the music industry has the same problem. New talent is risky, old talent is bankable and formual success (nsync, 98', all boy bands...)
Yeah formual successes are teh "gay" to us pretenous game consumers but fuck they work. They make the cash cows of today. But as for new ideas and talent, tough shit for you. So long as there is money and some stupid hacks with "skillz" i doubt the industry is in trouble. Stupid corpate fuckwits yes. Trouble, no, but those who don't evolve are doomed to make Army Men games till the gamers cry out "No more!" That or someone makes a l33t mod for the game ^^

---

that's the thing... these things really aren't working as well as they used to. Not only are sales dropping in japan and the US, but alot of major publishers are in financial trouble. It's time for the industry model to change. This multi cnsole first party crap isn't working any more.

I don't think that the industry is dying. After all, it is STILL the most profitable industry in it's day. I think if anything, the industry is in a slup, creation wise. I think back and honestly I'd rather play old N64 games than dive into the next GTA. It's all about what a company is doing for it's fans, and at the moment, that is getting to be a weak aspect. I have no doubt that it will get better though.

I'm with Frogacuda on wanting the console industry model to change. The traditional/current model has always held the industry back.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Saint of Killers
Yeah, a crash would do wonders for the industry. Less money, less games, less developers, and less publishers willing to take a risk on something different. Sounds great.

---

Yep. Less money - less games - less developers.

You're looking at this the wrong way, or maybe just wrong to what I'm saying. Quality titles should sell and will sell if they're fun, bottom line.

The crappy companies will fade away and the gems like HAL, Capcom, Namco, and SquareEnix will be able to hone in with the developers which have quality assurance and standards, since this will be the games that are sold.

It does sound great. Every game a potential 5 star! It does, however, have its downfall. Some middle of the road games may be corrupted and not see the light of day.

But for all intents and purposes, it would do alot of good.

A crash will cause crappy companies to fade away while the good ones remain?

I'm sorry, but industry crashes aren't caused by the divine intervention of some god of quality gaming. An industry crash would kill good and bad developers. Wanting the industry to crash is ridiculous.

I said there would be some sacrifices. But all in all the bad companies would be burned by their makers. Quality games will sell and fun games will sell. If you're moving units then you're selling.

Some business with shitty marketting may go under, but the industry would be better off for it, creatively and in the end financially.

EA will still be around, since it is the biggest contibutor to its profit.

Think about the '83/84 console crash. It wasn't just the shitty companies like Xonox that suffered. Great game companies like Imagic and Coleco did as well.

It's a good thing the industry crash was limited to A)consoles and B)the North American market. Many great developers like Nintendo, Sega, and Origin might have died early deaths if there had been a true industry-wide crash.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew
I said there would be some sacrifices. But all in all the bad companies would be burned by their makers. Quality games will sell and fun games will sell. If you're moving units then you're selling.

Some business with shitty marketting may go under, but the industry would be better off for it, creatively and in the end financially.

EA will still be around, since it is the biggest contibutor to its profit.

---

This is... not so true. Neo is right. A crash would eliminate those who make bad games, but those with shaky finances. And there are a lot, a LOT of those guys floating around... even the good game makers.

I dont know how many times I have to say this, but let me try this again, this time bolded:

this article is not about creative slumps, or cyclical periods of innovation, or about good developers getting their due while shitty ones churn out the same game over and over. It is about the fact that videogame economics are becoming more and more detrimental to making quality games, and this is getting more pronounced, not going away. Those of you that pointed out that "game xyz is good and we're just in a slump" are missing the point... the games themselves were not really that much more innovative or brilliant than they are now (of course people argue about this, but the fact that it is argued over says that its not a definitive point). What has changed since a decade ago is the fact that the industry is a lot more consolidated, and games cost a lot more to develop, and these problems are getting worse. Which threatens to seriously hurt the industry as time goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by diffusionx
What has changed since a decade ago is the fact that the industry is a lot more consolidated, and games cost a lot more to develop, and these problems are getting worse. Which threatens to seriously hurt the industry as time goes on.

---

Congratulations, you're making sense for once.

Like I said back on the first page, the indie developers need a sugar daddy to get their games out. More publishers are needed if the industry is to avoid a crash. We won't be able to get rid of big players like EA or Sony, simply because they have too much bulk and authority. What should happen, however, is smaller companies like Agetec, Conspiracy, etc. need to reach out to the indie developers and grab the lesser-known products. Some of them (Conspiracy, sort of) are doing this, while others (Agetec) are just sitting on their hands...

I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that the first party console model is bad, since I think competing consoles are good for the market -- the problem we see now is multiple companies have divided the market in such a way that the two lesser competitors (MS and Nintendo) are having problems getting a foothold. One of these companies will be forced to withdraw -- but that's another discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
Think about the '83/84 console crash. It wasn't just the shitty companies like Xonox that suffered. Great game companies like Imagic and Coleco did as well.

---

Coleco killed themselves, by trying to make the Coleco Vision a home computer. They lost millions in developement and unsold product, coming from that poor sighted venture called the Adam computer system.


Companies like Activision survived the console crash, by making games for home computers like the C-64. They adapted to the changes in the industry, unlike current companies like Sega and Midway who took chances on software and ideas the common gamer was'nt interested in.



I think one of the biggest hurdles for today's 3rd party publishers, is high licensing fees, which make it near impossible to release a game under $40. If console manufacturers can make a licensing fee, that is a percentage of what the game will retail for, maybe then we can see independent titles from smaller developers selling in the $20-$30 range.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gamevet
Companies like Activision survived the console crash, by making games for home computers like the C-64. They adapted to the changes in the industry, unlike current companies like Sega and Midway who took chances on software and ideas the common gamer was'nt interested in.

---

The problem at hand, in a nutshell.

No doubt Coleco made a huge mistake with the Adam but they probably could have still been a force in console gaming if the crash didn't happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lhadatt
I don't necessarily agree with the sentiment that the first party console model is bad, since I think competing consoles are good for the market -- the problem we see now is multiple companies have divided the market in such a way that the two lesser competitors (MS and Nintendo) are having problems getting a foothold. One of these companies will be forced to withdraw -- but that's another discussion.

---

I don't think that is for a different discussion. Sega is gone as far as hardware is concerned and struggling software-wise, forcing them to merge with Sammy to try to keep them from getting eaten up by a Sony or Microsoft-type corporation because it would stymie their creativity, which is a case-and-point for this type of discussion, even if Sega is to blame for most its own woes. Will we still see the Sega name on games 5 years from now? I'm not so sure.

Nintendo is struggling. They may have capital out the wahoo, but how long will that carry them when competing with corporations willing to lose millions of dollars+ to install/keep a userbase? Think about this in regards to today's market: Say Sega is completely gone and Nintendo is completely gone, what's the effect? Absolutely nill because Sony and Microsoft can carry the industry on their backs, whether it's for the good of game developing or not, and that seems to be the trend taking place, and if you plot it out for, (who was that, mattvanstone?) 10, 20, 30 years... we'll say 10, even a company like Nintendo can't compete. But maybe Nintendo isn't *trying* to compete...

Capcom isn't making arcade games anymore? Holy shit! That's Capcom we're talking about... And what are they doing instead? Making Resident Evil clones/hybrids (Devil May Cry 2? Onimusha+++? PN03...?). And why? Because at this point in the industry, it's the easiest, quickest way to make money. While some of the Capcom 5 may be fresh among what we've seen from anyone for the past 5-8 years, does anyone really think Viewtiful Joe is going to be a blockbuster? Especially on GameCube? No, and no.

Namco is Sony-centric for the most part. They throw bones to the other first parties, but how many versions of Namco Museum are out there? How many types of Pac-Man World whatchamacallits? Their biggest cornerstone for gaming right now is the upcoming Soul Calibur 2, a sequel to a sequel. Will it be great? Maybe. I love Soul Calibur. Where's my new Mister Driller (Land?)!? Sure it's a sequel, but it's niche, so why put it out for for the masses? Instead their probably hard at work trying to figure out how to raise Tekken from the dead and make it 'cool' again.

How many developers have been bought up by one of the big three? Do we really want everything to get conglomerated? It makes sense in the scope of how they've built the industry and how it now takes 50+ people to put a game together instead of 8. But when the overhead is so high and even marginalized licenses are a risk (Tekken), do we really expect to see revolutionary titles on even a semi-regular basis? Hold on to REZ? Yeah, because they yanked it from store shelves almost as soon as they filled the shelves up with it.

I've heard so much in the past 2 years about the move more toward interactive movies in gaming. Why? Because the last "revolutionary" game played more like an interactive movie and publishers can bank on that type of hype for a good 3 or 4 years or more. Does sitting through the newest iteration of mob infiltration/thievery/stealthy sneakery with tons of downtime becuase, well, you're just sitting there watching, help or hurt the industry? When something comes along that people identify as "revolutionary", then we can bet on countless imitators for a good period... 3, 4, 5 years? That's the lifetime of a console at this point, and don't think it doesn't carry over to the next generation.

And on that note, the lifetime of a console sure seems to be getting shorter, at least if 2005, the target date of the next generation, pans out. That can't be good for developers or mass consumers.

So what does this all add up to? I don't know. But at one time Atari was the head of this industry. Freaking ATARI!

--Scourge .

Freaking Sam Tramiel and Family!!!