Gaming's Future Looks Uncertain, Says Epic Boss

Bullzeye421

New member
Nov 25, 2009
7
0
0
unacomn said:
" more difficult to convince consumers that a $60 game was value for money."

That's easy, just make a 60 dollar game that's actually worth it's price. Not some two bit product you churned out because you thought people would buy it and didn't.

Or, since here games actually cost 60 euros, which is a lot more than 60 dollars, make games cheaper. You can cut costs by firing everyone in marketing and CliffyB.
I was going to post something very similar and you beat me to it. I'm sick and tired of these guys whining about the "effect of cheap app games on the industry".

I have a subscription to Gamefly and I usually check out most of the new games when they are available. I rarely find something that I think is worth the sticker price and that's the problem. Games like Assassin's Creed, Dante's Inferno, Uncharted, God of War, etc. suck you in with their amazing graphics and rich storyline but then after you've played them all the way through there's no reason to play them again except maybe to unlock trophies you might have missed which is probably the reason they gave us trophies in the first place.
 

RhombusHatesYou

Surreal Estate Agent
Mar 21, 2010
7,595
1,914
118
Between There and There.
Country
The Wide, Brown One.
Funkysandwich said:
It's kind of amazing that even heads of game studios don't see that social games and traditional video games are two different markets that appeal to different people.
They know the difference perfectly well. They're just hoping the average gamer doesn't realise they're spouting shite and believes all their crap.
 

the_green_dragon

New member
Nov 18, 2009
660
0
0
Lol, unless they can make Call Of Duty, Dead Rising 2, Darksiders, Dante's Inferno, Raving Rabbids, Red Dead Redemption, Aliens Vs Predators, Left 4 Dead 2, ect ect ect $1.99 and have them run as good on my iphone/ipad as good as they can on my console. Then yeah, maybe these guys should worry. Hahahaha

Also my Iphone only has 16 gigs of memory. Not sure how many "console" games I can install, and installing angry birds was a pain already. Stupid iTunes.....
 

the_green_dragon

New member
Nov 18, 2009
660
0
0
Funkysandwich said:
It's kind of amazing that even heads of game studios don't see that social games and traditional video games are two different markets that appeal to different people. They may overlap at times but generally there is a difference between someone who plays Bejeweled and someone who plays Bulletstorm. A $1 mobile game is different product to a "$60" (more like $80 - $100 here in Australia, even though our dollar is worth more now) AAA game.

People don't buy $1 games to replace traditional games, they buy them to supplement their gaming. It's not so much about replacing one product with another as it is about increasing your exposure to different elements within the medium.
Hey, I'm an Aussie too and yeah, our dollar is worth heaps. Why the HELL are my games the same price. They should have dropped 30% to 40%. I hate you MONEY GRUBBING CAPILISITS!! RRRAAAWWWRRR!!!

Also yeah, I buy for el-cheapo iphone games, not because they have a rich storyline and awesome graphics. It's so I have something to do while I wait in line at the cafe or during commerical breaks on TV.
 

BloodSquirrel

New member
Jun 23, 2008
1,263
0
0
Logan Westbrook said:
In Capps' opinion, "dollar apps" were potentially very harmful to the industry, saying that 99-cent games on smart phones made it much more difficult to convince consumers that a $60 game was value for money.
Or, maybe, it's the 5-hour long, no replayability, dumbed down, homogenized games that are making it difficult to convince consumers that a $60 game was value for money.

Cut down on your budgets, step back on the ultra-detailed graphics for games that don't really need them, and make something interesting.
 

PrinceofPersia

New member
Sep 17, 2010
321
0
0
Extra Credits already did a piece on this issue. Check it out here: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/3050-Consoles-Are-the-New-Coin-Op
 

Ickorus

New member
Mar 9, 2009
2,887
0
0
There are millions of 'hardcore' gamers out there, the thing they have to realise is that trying to cater to both casual and 'hardcore' markets is just gonna end up losing them money as the game will be too 'hardcore' for casual gamers and too casual for 'hardcore' gamers.

Im doing 'hardcore' like that because I really hate the term but can't think of any other way to describe us.

Awesome captcha:

 

jsnfloyd

New member
Mar 24, 2011
16
0
0
Trolldor said:
And, as I have said before, even if 'AAA' gaming declines it will never go away.

Several million sales for heavy story-based games with rich, complex and immersive worlds will simply not disappear.
Several million sales for generic shooter X won't simply disappear either.
And the iPad for gaming? When open-platform tablet PCs with far more flexibility and an actual use not already covered by a laptop come out, sure.
Actually the iPad and the iPhone as well as other mobile devices are great for gaming. They are approachable by many people young and old. Plus, the touchscreen controls allow for different game experiences.

World of Goo is a game that actually benefited from being ported over from the PC and Wii Console. It's better for being on the iPad over the PC because World of Goo is accessing it's target audience far better on the device. The Wii motion controls aren't optimal for World of Goo.

I wouldn't dismiss touch screen tablet gaming.
 

AceAngel

New member
May 12, 2010
775
0
0
Why don't people stop buying games for the Apple Products!

It's already bad enough they're taking in about 25% of constituents profits for no reason (the Android is 5%) with the upcharge of 150$ for a devkit (Android is 50$), but with UDK license terms, it's another 25%, at least UDK is decent for that, since it's a engine that fully runs on it's API's and gets it's own compatibility checked automatically.

For IPhone, using UDK is not an ideal solution since developers are losing 50% of payments, plus Apple never setup a proper customer support for games, every month hundreds of developers must personally, with Apple, return the costs of said games due to fraud. This Apples job as the middle-man, not a developer in his basement trying to make a small amount of money.

Sigh, I just wish people knew more the understandings of why Android is a better platform for gaming instead of the IPhone.
 

Formica Archonis

Anonymous Source
Nov 13, 2009
2,312
0
0
Dora said:
As for the complaints about pricing, hell, people are greedy and lazy. They are. We all are. The same people who put out those .99 gaming apps STILL get complaints from people who think it should be free, or want more for their literal dollar.
And even if it's free, they'll still complain.

Anecdotal proof: My company has a box of branded pens on the front desk. Simple "Take one" kind of thing that serves as advertising.

I once had someone come in and complain because his free pen ran out of ink too fast.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
The only way I can see casual gaming affecting AAA titles is if the investors start insisting the companies change their focus to the casual market. Although that's rather unlikely due to most casual games not requiring multimillion dollar backers.
 

NickCaligo42

New member
Oct 7, 2007
1,371
0
0
Uh. Angry Birds doesn't prevent me from buying AAA-games like, say, Homefront. Homefront prevented me from buying Homefront. Angry Birds didn't prevent me from buying Batman: Arkham Asylum, either, and it won't prevent me from getting Arkham City. NOTHING could, much less a totally unrelated product for a totally unrelated market on a totally unrelated platform.

Who is this guy trying to kid?
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Well, I think people recognize the differance in quality between a $60 game and $1 shovelware.

The issue here isn't that the future of gaming is uncertain, or that there is a problem with the current development of real games, it's that an increasingly corperate mentality is looking towards what other guys are making, as opposed to what they are already making. It's about the pursuit of the biggest pile of money they can make at any given time, and the progession of the medium and where it could go is really increasingly irrelevent to the people involved, other than as something for developers to sound off about as part of marketing hype.

The basic attitude is that console manufacturers might make a couple billion over the lifetime of a console, but if they can make as much money, faster, by doing nothing by focusing on crap like "Farmville", that's where they are going to go.

To be honest the entire thing is very similar (though by no means identical) to what caused the video gaming crash in the 1980s. Everyone got fixated on shoveling out cheap, low-quality games, to the point where they became the standard as opposed to an "also ran" or something "in addition to". As a result people stopped taking gaming seriously and finding ot worthwhile. That's a potential problem here, of course all of the developers want to be the guys churning out the shovelware and leaving the innovation and big budget games to other developers that will make less money and they can ride on the coattails of. Eventually there will be no coattails to ride on, and that's when things will collapse. Getting too greedy and trying to double or triple the actual asking price for a game, one microtransaction or DLC at a time is also counter productive, because after a while people will catch on, and an industry used to these kinds of things won't be able to adapt to people simply refusing to pay in to those kinds of gimmicks, especially as they become increasingly transient and less worthwhile.


One of the big differances between this upcoming crash, if it happens, and the previous one, is going to simply be that with everything going digital and being stored in clouds, you aren't going to have people burying large piles of durable plastic cartridges... so at least the enviromentalists will be happy.

Likewise, while kind of morbid, there are some people I don't like in the industry. I can't help but wonder how many times Bobby Kotick would bounce if he threw himself off a building upon realizing he was ruined and would have to get a real job, similar to the "raining executives" after the stock market crash that caused "The Great Depression". Of course it probably won't actually come to that no more than it did after the .com crash, and Bobby in paticular is probably someone with a bunch of money stashed out in the Caiman islands. He seems like one of the corperate villains who might lose, but would still fly out into the sunset on his private jet to spend the rest of his days being waited on by gorgeous native women in bikinis oiling up his aging flesh and serving him drinks in hollowed out fruit with those little umbrellas all day. :)
 

Raithnor

New member
Jul 26, 2009
224
0
0
Well I'm sorry, but you can't have a monopoly on gaming. Concentrate more on putting out a quality product and stop focusing on how much theoretical money you're not making due to piracy, secondhand sales, casual gaming, Smartphone Apps, or people just wanting food instead of your $60, 4-hour crap game, with the $20 DLC.

I find crap like this hard to swallow when Valve is rolling around in the dumptruck full of money that are the Portal 2 sales.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
BloodSquirrel said:
Logan Westbrook said:
In Capps' opinion, "dollar apps" were potentially very harmful to the industry, saying that 99-cent games on smart phones made it much more difficult to convince consumers that a $60 game was value for money.
Or, maybe, it's the 5-hour long, no replayability, dumbed down, homogenized games that are making it difficult to convince consumers that a $60 game was value for money.

Cut down on your budgets, step back on the ultra-detailed graphics for games that don't really need them, and make something interesting.
Exactly what I wanted to say. Word for word.

Also, saying that iPhone games are "endangering" big $60 games is like saying the XBLA/PSN games are "endangering" the big $60 games.

They're two different freaking markets. One sells giant games, the other sells what are essentially diversions(fantastic diversions at that) for people on the go.

Why the hell is everyone scared of a product thats not even competing in their same space?
 

harvz

New member
Jun 20, 2010
462
0
0
every game commentator (extra credits comes to mind) has said this for a very long time, the $60 system is broken, the project $10 is a bad idea and the AAA industry is so stagnated, new lifeforms have started spawning, calling themselves the 1337 and excreting a strange brown mixture between a liquid and a solid from every pore...

while the mobile markets (and even some flash games online) seem to be the only markets where innovation is the key to success and if you rip off god of war or call of duty, your head is the newest fashion statement for someones dog.

i like to think of these games in two different manners, we have the "dumb games" on the phones which have terrific gameplay but the story tends to be a little on the non-existant side for most games and we have "story driven games" which is more along the lines of the AAA where there is a story and it is best told through gameplay...we also have your COD's and Halo's, these belong somewhere in the middle, i mean they have mostly ok story's but its not really needed to play, you know that is your enemy over there and you must shoot at it.
 

beema

New member
Aug 19, 2009
944
0
0
Another "news" story on another vague statement by some guy about the vague future of gaming.

This stuff is getting pretty repetitive and I don't find it to be very news-worthy.

The headline might as well read:
Man Not Sure About Something
 

GGZeta

New member
Mar 11, 2011
85
0
0
Translation: Indie and casual games are making more profit than the big AAA industries therefore gaming is doomed because why would someone pay $60 for a game when they could pay $1.

Translation translation: We don't want to focus on innovation, refined enjoyable gameplay or gripping narratives we just want to spit out triple A clones of the last successful product on the market. We also don't understand that if someone thinks that our $60 does not have the value of a $1 game on a smart phone, then there is something wrong with OUR $60 game.
 

CheckD3

New member
Dec 9, 2009
1,181
0
0
Does anyone else think of Charlie Sheen when he says "Winning?"

In all honesty, I can sort of agree with this. While I think that the dollar apps on smartphones do help push innovation, it doesn't bring into question why anyone would spend a fat $60 on a game that could be good or bad, when you can make the same investment 60 times, and have a better chance of finding better games, plus have more to do.

I like what THQ is doing with the $40 game w/ strong DLC releases, meaning that the game is cheaper for consumers, and those who take the risk and enjoy it can get more with their money, while those who take the risk but don't like it still save some money.

And the console's future is up for grabs, because now we have Kinect and Move along w/ the Wii, where can we go from there? I doubt we'll have a fruit controller anytime soon, and innovation in graphics and other things are kind of maxed out, the biggest thing is creating the best games, which is hard to find from a lot of companies trying to guarantee profit and shunning certain elements of a game to make it "safe"

Hopefully we have more sequels like Portal 2, I'm sorry to sound like a fanboy but the game was fantastic, and lived up, at least to me, the hype. How often do we get to find a game that you can say the same about the sequel? Dragon Age 2, Bioshock 2, a lot of games that get overhyped fail, it's nice to see some companies are innovating, and you can argue that Homefront innovated by moving the game into the slight future and making it KOREA instead of Russia that attacks the US. Baby steps
 

Vault101

I'm in your mind fuzz
Sep 26, 2010
18,863
15
43
I dotn get it arnt "casual games' a COMPLETLEY different experience to deep imersive games with huge set peices, action and story

I mean there a REASON we buy a game for $60 a pop... an iphone game dosnt offer the same thing

I mean it looks so painfully obious

then again mabye it will be easer for developers to go down the casual route.. I dont know