The game industry is dying

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!!!