I think Gaming is slowly dying.
- Thread starter SpartanBlackman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'd like to address numbers three and four.
The only way those would change is if artists and innovators had money. The problem is that artists and innovators typically DON'T have money, so they have to go to the people that DO have money. The people that have money (soulless, sub-human refuse we call "execs") want to make sure that they make a profit and generally lack the vision or fortitude for risk-taking*. If they've seen it done by someone else successfully, they'll be more likely to throw money at it than something that hasn't been done before.
* I once worked at a certain company (that shall remain nameless). The first day on the job, I read the corporate philosophy page on the wiki. One point on the list appalled me - and I know this because I still remember it over the rest of the useless drivel that comprises the company's corporate philosophy... That point (to paraphrase) was: "We take the right risks."
Here's the problem I have with such a statement: the rightness or wrongness of risks can only be determined in hindsight. To illustrate this: let's say you're in Vegas and you're down to your last bit of money. You go to the craps table, and there are really only three possible outcomes:
1. You walk away
2. You play and win
3. You play and lose
Walking away wouldn't be a risk. It's actually the safe thing to do. If you play and win, then you have taken a risk - and it turned out to be the right one. If you play and lose, then you've taken a risk - and it turned out to be the wrong one. But to know either, the dice must be thrown.
So, if you boil it down, there are really only two possible courses of action:
1. You walk away
2. You take a risk
There's probably a problem with the way that I've outlined this, but oh well...
The only way those would change is if artists and innovators had money. The problem is that artists and innovators typically DON'T have money, so they have to go to the people that DO have money. The people that have money (soulless, sub-human refuse we call "execs") want to make sure that they make a profit and generally lack the vision or fortitude for risk-taking*. If they've seen it done by someone else successfully, they'll be more likely to throw money at it than something that hasn't been done before.
* I once worked at a certain company (that shall remain nameless). The first day on the job, I read the corporate philosophy page on the wiki. One point on the list appalled me - and I know this because I still remember it over the rest of the useless drivel that comprises the company's corporate philosophy... That point (to paraphrase) was: "We take the right risks."
Here's the problem I have with such a statement: the rightness or wrongness of risks can only be determined in hindsight. To illustrate this: let's say you're in Vegas and you're down to your last bit of money. You go to the craps table, and there are really only three possible outcomes:
1. You walk away
2. You play and win
3. You play and lose
Walking away wouldn't be a risk. It's actually the safe thing to do. If you play and win, then you have taken a risk - and it turned out to be the right one. If you play and lose, then you've taken a risk - and it turned out to be the wrong one. But to know either, the dice must be thrown.
So, if you boil it down, there are really only two possible courses of action:
1. You walk away
2. You take a risk
There's probably a problem with the way that I've outlined this, but oh well...
All of it? :O Ye gods no, we don't need a second batch of "GAMES NEED TO BE ART NOW" people parading around, that was utterly terrible. Every episode except that one? Please?Tynermeister said:
OT:
Gamings not dying. Numbers are raising each year. Triple A games may eventually die out, I don't think indie games will.
In the nineties, before the mainstream popularity of the N64 and Gamecube, there was a similiar stagnation. The SNES was the critical niche in the market, but was dying out due to lack of inovation, something it had been experience problems with since the late 1980s. The era of 8-bit simply could not exist anymore. Thus, the console and handheld markets exploded with the new ideas. Pokemon, Super Smash Bros, Goldeneye, Zelda, Age of Empires, and Fallout. You all know them well, and these games saved the gaming industry on the whole. Through evolution we got into the debacle we are in today. The Xbox 360 dominates the console market, PS3 as well. Steam made 1 Billion dollars in 2010 and shows no sign of falling apart. But much the same, we are slipping into something like the North American Video Game Crash of 1983: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983
That being said, with the adaptation of new engines and ideas; Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, to name a few, along with a few new consoles, might just be what need to revive the market.
Remember this crucially; the current generation of ~13 and under did not grow up with Pokemon and this aforementioned titles, and subsequently have different tastes in video games. This causes the companies to design different games then we are used to to suit that part of the market.
That being said, with the adaptation of new engines and ideas; Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, to name a few, along with a few new consoles, might just be what need to revive the market.
Remember this crucially; the current generation of ~13 and under did not grow up with Pokemon and this aforementioned titles, and subsequently have different tastes in video games. This causes the companies to design different games then we are used to to suit that part of the market.
1. No it is not.
2. we heard all this crap back in the 80's.
3. Your rant against piracy fail to realize that piracy rarely actually takes a dollar out of a developers pocket. people who pirate are rarely ever going to buy games. therefor, how can a developer possibly loose a sale they never would have made in the first place.
3,4,5: You are not saying anything that Yahtzee has not been saying for three years. But has it really "hurt" the gaming industry? well not financially, no.
2. we heard all this crap back in the 80's.
3. Your rant against piracy fail to realize that piracy rarely actually takes a dollar out of a developers pocket. people who pirate are rarely ever going to buy games. therefor, how can a developer possibly loose a sale they never would have made in the first place.
3,4,5: You are not saying anything that Yahtzee has not been saying for three years. But has it really "hurt" the gaming industry? well not financially, no.
(1) What happened in July of 2008?SpartanBlackman said:
(2) Support these statements! You say that game quality is declining - how do you figure? What makes you think that only AAA developers will be around in a few years?
(3) No, it's not. Piracy is bad for any industry (overall), but piracy never has and never will kill an industry, particularly one build around art/entertainment. You might as well make the same claim for music and movies and television, none of which are going anywhere.
(4) Don't play DLC if you don't want to play for it, and don't play MMORPGs if you don't want to play subscription fees. Neither of these really does anything to harm the industry. The former could do some damage if large companies minimized what came on the disc and put most of the content into the DLC, but this wouldn't last very long, because people would stop buying their games. All it takes is a competitor who's happy to exploit one of their peers dicking over their customers by saying, "Um, excuse me guys, but we don't do this."
(5) I agree with some of this, but I wouldn't say it's killing the industry, though it does occasionally put a genre or two into a decade-long coma. As with any other art form, though, this is cyclical: the few create works of genius, the many ape the shit out of said works, the genre stagnates until another genius comes along with the next big push forward.
(6) Cash cows are not killing anything, not in video games, anyway. As long as there is Minecraft, there will also be Angry Birds. Angry Birds may be super-dumb, but it's not hurting anyone by its existence. As for sequels and spinoffs, many of them are produced far too often, but I'll let go of Zelda when everyone agrees to let go of Batman.
(7) Somebody hasn't played Sonic Colors, and though the Metroid game that came out last year sucked, I'll wager you that the next console will see a Metroid game. I'm hoping for a first/third person hybrid (with dual analogues, dammit!) made by Retro.
Seriously, don't be so cynical and emo. I'll bet you still spend at least $200 on games this year. It can't be all bad.
That's not elitist at all!! Because everyone can afford the requisite PC to play these kinds of games while having them run smoothly and not look like MS Paint.(sarcasm)SpartanBlackman said:
Anyway, on topic, I don't agree with what you're saying. Yes, there are more sequels and reboots than there were last generation, and yes, brown and grey are popular colors in games now, but I think that'll change over time. The fact that Steam, PSN, XBLA, and iOS games are sources for new indie games means that there will always be new ideas, its just up to the publisher and developer to use them in a away that brings them to a larger audience.
No, it's not dying. You just think it's dying because you are of the age where you're fully aware of pretty much every new game being released (or at least the mainstream ones) - this is also why you (probably) think that mainstream music is terrible and music in the past was so much better; same goes for film.
When a few decades pass, you will reflect on this period in gaming and say "Hey! Look at all those great games that were released back then. That sure was a pretty great time for gaming!" - as history has shown us again and again, the overwhelming majority of material released in a given medium is forgotten within 2 or 3 years simply because it's not that good. It's only the truly great games that we remember, and therefore games in the past tend to look better than games today because we're only focusing on the quality titles that were released in the past.
At least, that's my opinion with regards to one of your points. As for the money being charged for DLC and the like, I think that people really need to stop being so brutally cheap. If it were up to most people, games would cost $20 dollars or less and they'd receive free updates until the end of time. Gaming is a business, and it is a pricey business at that - games have gotten more and more expensive to make as time has gone on, and this is a reality that people need to accept. Nothing is free. Get over it.
And let's face it - the only way gaming could possibly "die" is if people stopped buying games. If for some reason that did start to happen, game developers would be forced to take a long, hard look at themselves and the work they've been turning out, and subsequently reassess and rework the way they approached making games, inevitably leading to the churning out of quality titles that people would actually want to buy again.
Seriously, with the social gaming revolution that has taken place and the growing acceptance of gaming in mainstream society, the suggestion that gaming is "dying" seems absolutely preposterous.
When a few decades pass, you will reflect on this period in gaming and say "Hey! Look at all those great games that were released back then. That sure was a pretty great time for gaming!" - as history has shown us again and again, the overwhelming majority of material released in a given medium is forgotten within 2 or 3 years simply because it's not that good. It's only the truly great games that we remember, and therefore games in the past tend to look better than games today because we're only focusing on the quality titles that were released in the past.
At least, that's my opinion with regards to one of your points. As for the money being charged for DLC and the like, I think that people really need to stop being so brutally cheap. If it were up to most people, games would cost $20 dollars or less and they'd receive free updates until the end of time. Gaming is a business, and it is a pricey business at that - games have gotten more and more expensive to make as time has gone on, and this is a reality that people need to accept. Nothing is free. Get over it.
And let's face it - the only way gaming could possibly "die" is if people stopped buying games. If for some reason that did start to happen, game developers would be forced to take a long, hard look at themselves and the work they've been turning out, and subsequently reassess and rework the way they approached making games, inevitably leading to the churning out of quality titles that people would actually want to buy again.
Seriously, with the social gaming revolution that has taken place and the growing acceptance of gaming in mainstream society, the suggestion that gaming is "dying" seems absolutely preposterous.
First off, gaming is not doomed. Stop the doomsday preacher act already, it's annoying.
Secondly, what constitutes as an "art game"?
Thirdly, what makes an "art game" artistic?
Fourthly.. I know it's not just me, but every doomsday thread seems to have the same common thesis at it's core" "There are games being made that I don't like, henceforth gaming as an industry is dying!".
Addendum: While you (and many others) have a decent point about DLC, get over yourself.
Secondly, what constitutes as an "art game"?
Thirdly, what makes an "art game" artistic?
Fourthly.. I know it's not just me, but every doomsday thread seems to have the same common thesis at it's core" "There are games being made that I don't like, henceforth gaming as an industry is dying!".
Addendum: While you (and many others) have a decent point about DLC, get over yourself.
You could say pretty much the same things about movies, TV, music, literature, probably any entertainment medium. We live in a capitalist society, so of course businesses will always try to make money from what they do first and foremost. That being said, there will always be both good and bad games and developers as long as anyone still plays games. And if you honestly think there are no more innovative or artful games being made anymore, then I am sorry that you have missed out on all of the amazing games that have been released in the last few years.
I've heard a lot of people say gaming is dying lately, I've ALSO heard a lot of people say that the apocalypse is coming soon. Gaming isn't dying, gaming can never "die" even if the industry crashed again gaming would continue.
Usually when people say that "gaming is dying" what they actually mean is that it's changing into something they don't like.
Usually when people say that "gaming is dying" what they actually mean is that it's changing into something they don't like.
Yep. So are the other industries because the economy sucks. Next topic? Those things are "hurting" the gaming industry, not killing it. Hell, I'm sure if it collapsed over night many of us would make our own blasted games if we needed to. Also, keep in mind that this is a luxury industry; they always get lose business first when funds get tight. Okay, well, usually. What's "dying" at the moment is the innovation in the industry with the franchise cash-cowing. But that's an unstable model as you can count on people getting bored more easily than entertained. Sooner or later the stale game devs get the boot and fresh off the farm idealists get hired to spruce up the gaming library. We don't know for sure what's coming. Maybe it will collapse with the immense pressures from the economy and stockholders and whatnot. Or maybe it'll bounce back.
As much as it's looked down upon by "hardcore gamers," Facebook-style games get a lot of business. Same with the Wii games. Fringe nerds and people who don't usually do gaming get brought in to help keep the drive of the industry going. Look at the piece of a game that Mojang released. A blocky, cartoony game where fight generic enemies and collect resources in a sandbox is competing with multi-billion dollar companies like Activision with well established franchises. We haven't even begun to tap our creative potential.
As much as it's looked down upon by "hardcore gamers," Facebook-style games get a lot of business. Same with the Wii games. Fringe nerds and people who don't usually do gaming get brought in to help keep the drive of the industry going. Look at the piece of a game that Mojang released. A blocky, cartoony game where fight generic enemies and collect resources in a sandbox is competing with multi-billion dollar companies like Activision with well established franchises. We haven't even begun to tap our creative potential.
I think gaming is slowly improving.
Fans of Extra Credits, a lot of this will sound familiar...
Nintendo's DS and Wii brought in a lot of new fans. This, along with social networking, browser, and smart phone games have led to a broadening demographic. Gaming is finally approaching universal acceptance. Social networking, browser games, and smart phones expanding as gaming platforms, along with Wiiware, XBLI/Aracade, PSN, and steam give independents several low-budget platforms, which provides them with more chances to take creative risks. This is where great innovation will come from in the future.
Several major developers (especially Nintendo and Capcom) are bringing older styles back to the mainstream, while others (Bioware, Bethesda, Blizzard, Rockstar, and...Capcom...again) are making games that are bigger and more detailed than ever before. Huge genre variety, even in the AAA industry? Yes please!
This console industry has had the fortunate side-effect of lasting long enough for graphics technology to advance without gaming, which will hopefully have the long-term effect of consoles (as long as they are the dominant platforms) never having to be extremely expensive to be a major technical upgrade over the predecessor. In addition to gaming lagging behind and having cheaper tech, graphics are slowly peaking, meaning less of the budget will be spent on detail--they'll rely more on style and put more money into writing, acting, ect.
DLC can easily be abused (like Capcom does. Hey, they can't be 100% good, can they?), but it also offers unique opportunities for developers and publishers--they no longer need to be at the mercy of gamestop's used games system. I'll use Modern Warfare 3 as an example. They could have the online capabilities as on-disc DLC that costs $20. Why would that be a good thing? Because they could sale the actual game disc for $35. Fans spend less money, those who aren't interested in the online scene are more likely to buy new, others could buy the disc one week and unlock the online a couple weeks later if they couldn't afford the whole thing at once, and Activision would make more money because those who buy used still need to unlock the online--overall, we spend less, they make more. Oh, and DLC offers the opportunity for smaller, cheaper expansion packs with easy delivery. Both of these will make games more profitable, which offers more freedom for creative risks.
As for your criticism of cash-cow franchises and leader-following, well...some cash cows have routinely been a source of great innovations (especially Zelda and Mario), and even when they aren't, they still get tons of money for the developer/publisher to fund riskier games (like...Capcom. Again). And leader-following has always been an issue with gaming (and entertainment as a whole). At least today, there are more leaders to follow, which--in a weird, backwards way still kind of leads to more variety. In FPS's, instead of "Doom clones", we have "Call of Duty Clones" and "Halo clones"
To summarize, not only has Nintendo gotten a pretty big broadening demographic, but social networks, browser flash games, and smart phone games have become more accepted as gaming platforms while helping to expand the gaming demographic even further. Indie developers, who are naturally a source of major innovation, have more platforms than ever to access. Even in the AAA industry, developers are expanding into multiple genres (both retro and newborn), which leads to innovation and variety from even the big companies that don't take big risks. DLC, while it can be abused easily, offers a chance publishers to fight back against the used game system, which will result in more profitable games that can take more creative risks. Cash cows and leader following will always be around, but they aren't necessarily problems. Gaming isn't slowly dying; it's slowly improving in every area at once.
Fans of Extra Credits, a lot of this will sound familiar...
Nintendo's DS and Wii brought in a lot of new fans. This, along with social networking, browser, and smart phone games have led to a broadening demographic. Gaming is finally approaching universal acceptance. Social networking, browser games, and smart phones expanding as gaming platforms, along with Wiiware, XBLI/Aracade, PSN, and steam give independents several low-budget platforms, which provides them with more chances to take creative risks. This is where great innovation will come from in the future.
Several major developers (especially Nintendo and Capcom) are bringing older styles back to the mainstream, while others (Bioware, Bethesda, Blizzard, Rockstar, and...Capcom...again) are making games that are bigger and more detailed than ever before. Huge genre variety, even in the AAA industry? Yes please!
This console industry has had the fortunate side-effect of lasting long enough for graphics technology to advance without gaming, which will hopefully have the long-term effect of consoles (as long as they are the dominant platforms) never having to be extremely expensive to be a major technical upgrade over the predecessor. In addition to gaming lagging behind and having cheaper tech, graphics are slowly peaking, meaning less of the budget will be spent on detail--they'll rely more on style and put more money into writing, acting, ect.
DLC can easily be abused (like Capcom does. Hey, they can't be 100% good, can they?), but it also offers unique opportunities for developers and publishers--they no longer need to be at the mercy of gamestop's used games system. I'll use Modern Warfare 3 as an example. They could have the online capabilities as on-disc DLC that costs $20. Why would that be a good thing? Because they could sale the actual game disc for $35. Fans spend less money, those who aren't interested in the online scene are more likely to buy new, others could buy the disc one week and unlock the online a couple weeks later if they couldn't afford the whole thing at once, and Activision would make more money because those who buy used still need to unlock the online--overall, we spend less, they make more. Oh, and DLC offers the opportunity for smaller, cheaper expansion packs with easy delivery. Both of these will make games more profitable, which offers more freedom for creative risks.
As for your criticism of cash-cow franchises and leader-following, well...some cash cows have routinely been a source of great innovations (especially Zelda and Mario), and even when they aren't, they still get tons of money for the developer/publisher to fund riskier games (like...Capcom. Again). And leader-following has always been an issue with gaming (and entertainment as a whole). At least today, there are more leaders to follow, which--in a weird, backwards way still kind of leads to more variety. In FPS's, instead of "Doom clones", we have "Call of Duty Clones" and "Halo clones"
To summarize, not only has Nintendo gotten a pretty big broadening demographic, but social networks, browser flash games, and smart phone games have become more accepted as gaming platforms while helping to expand the gaming demographic even further. Indie developers, who are naturally a source of major innovation, have more platforms than ever to access. Even in the AAA industry, developers are expanding into multiple genres (both retro and newborn), which leads to innovation and variety from even the big companies that don't take big risks. DLC, while it can be abused easily, offers a chance publishers to fight back against the used game system, which will result in more profitable games that can take more creative risks. Cash cows and leader following will always be around, but they aren't necessarily problems. Gaming isn't slowly dying; it's slowly improving in every area at once.