Issue 26 - Mainstream Shopping, Mainstream Gaming

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Mark

A hardware-centered business model can also provide a quick, if limited, source of innovation. If your hardware subsidizes your software, and the software only exists to create hardware sales, then there are no business incentives to stop you from innovating. This model isn't without its own flaws, of course - it limits the power of the hardware, since it must be both affordable for the consumer and profitable for the manufacturer; the new innovations must ones that conform to the limitations of the hardware and can't break beyond them; it virtually demands a proprietary platform; the innovating developers must be entirely owned or subsidized by the manufacturer - but if it remains present in the industry in any significant scale (Nintendo currently performs this service), then it'll be a reliable supplement to the up-and-coming small-budged indie developers who have to struggle to make it big.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: NPC
http://forums.nintendo.com/nintendo/
hahaha I think there's a question to all of this, it's: "Which way is the industry becoming mainstream?" When I think of mainstream I usually think of racing games, sports games, ect. All of thoes games have mainstream appeal, right? But what about creative, almost artistic, mainstream games? They most certainly exist, and they are very popular. SO popular that the new system that they're released for is selling at a faster rate than any other system has before. The DS, and it has a line of popular mainstream games Nitnendo likes to call "Touch! Generations". But it dosn't stop there, I'm a die-hard Sega fan but Nintendo has got a philosophy of innovation and I have to admit that's what truely drives the industry. Innovation reaches all corners of both mainstream and creativity. So as long as innovation exists this demolition of this video game subculture you keep talking about can never happen. Because the stuff that will be mainstream (I predict) in the next few years, wil also be creative and artistic. So technically the mainstream will be the video game fanboyism(that's once agian, a term which you keep talking about in this article). Innovation is key. It dosn't bring in mainstream to change our culture, but mainstream change their culture and their outlook. This time it's video games.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Tortanick

Firstly you say the games are turning into a mainstream pastime. Turning into??? it A-L-L R-E-A-D-Y H-A-S. Just look at the charts, in a small subculture with fast word of mouth you would never find anything bad topping the charts. You probably wouldn?t even find charts. Maby the stores are vanishing but games as a pastime for a small group has been gone for years now and its not about to change much. And then you say were going to have to drop gamer culture and start a new culture. Surely if that were true cultural shifts would be within the first few years.

Then you mention indie culture. That?s just crazy, either it?s a ridiculous name or a ridiculous culture (I hope its the name). Showing favouritism because it wasn?t made by a big publisher, showing favouritism because it has good graphics. Showing favouritism because it?s the official game of the movie. There all as bad as each other, games should be judged on how good they are. Only a total idiot would not play freespace2 because the graphics are old and only a total idiot would avoid psychonaughts, spore, shadow of the colossus or supreme commander because there not indie games.

Then we have your final point
Soon, we may find our beloved fanboy shops, once obliterated, reawakened online all around us.
Doesn?t sound like giving up gamer culture and starting indie culture, just migrating gamer culture online, I agree with this but I find it odd how you?ve contradicted yourself.

Then you?ve said that Hardcore gamers have huge trials of knowledge and attack casual gamers because their scared of becoming mainstream. I?m a hardcore gamer and I?ve met others on forums repeatedly. Apart from quizzes that we occasionally have and the very common pleas for help tracking down a game with only a tiny bit of information we hardly ever use obscure references or insult everyone who doesn?t know what the Babel fish puzzle is/

I'd argue that the lack of knowledge in the average casual gamer leads to decisions that are often defined as stupid to anyone who knows better and that?s why the hardcore gamers attack them, so long as mainstream gamers persists in buying bad games and don't even look at the real good games I'll never feel like being a hardcore gamer is in anyway a threatened subculture. I'm sure Hardcore film fans are looking at us and laughing at why people would ever watch what we do when some film we've never heard of is so much better, and I reckon they still have their own subculture.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast

Tortanick:

Your post amuses me because everybody I've met who considers themselves "hardcore" has the same opinion: gaming is popular culture. Well, by most standards, it isn't. Growth the industry is on par with population growth, which in economic terms is pretty abysmal (we're talking like 7% industry growth per year, compared to around 25% for cell phones - keep in mind a lot of people still can't operate cell phones). Gaming is approaching mainstream culture, but it still isn't. It will be mainstream when everyone's parents can pick up a controller and play a game.

However, within the gaming "pseudo-subculture" (it's larger than most subcultures but has not quite hit the threshold of popular culture), there are still further subcultures. Gamers who prefer independently developed, downloadable games, gamers who prefer american-made action games, those who prefer quirky japanese titles.

I agree with your second paragraph; the fundamental reason one judges a game should be the gameplay.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Tortanick

If every hardcore gamer (and we tend to know quite a bit) says it is. have you considered that we may be right?

As for mobile phones, thats a very very silly thing to compare it too. For starters phones are considered neccacary by nearly everyone, keep safe, in contact if the office needs you, etc. Games are entertainment, compleatly diffrent market. Its like saying coke isn't a big drink, why there is three times as much water drunk.

Finally I didn't say gameplay! I said how good they are. Planescape Torment had bad gameplay but great story and charachters makeing it one of the all time greats. and thats just one example.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Tortanick

Ah I found some figures to support my claim, then stats stats and bloddy lies as its said. still from http://www.synopsys.com/news/pubs/compiler/art1lead_nokia-jul03.html

The worldwide gaming market was valued at between $30 and $35 billion at the end of 2002. To put those figures into context, the size of the gaming industry is now approaching the music industry, which is worth around $38 billion, and has already surpassed the motion picture industry in terms of box office revenue. Moreover, gaming is growing, and may actually exceed the value of the music industry by the end of 2004.

I wouldn't judge the size of the industry by its revenues but you did judge it by the size of its growth and god knows where I can find another method
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast

Tortanick:

Cell phones were just an example. 7% annual growth in any consumer industry is pitiful because it can be attributed to population growth. Also, I have no reason to believe that gaming is pop culture just because hardcore gamers say it is. That's like saying that MST3K is pop culture because MST3k fans say that it is. Let's face it, vastly more people go to the movies (or rent) than play videogames. Movies are a part of popular culture, videogames are not. Same for books and music. Games just have not hit that critical mass yet.

Planescape had bad gameplay, but it's a good game? How does that make sense? Ok it had a great story and great characters, therefore it's a great piece of fiction surrounding a bad game.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast

About growth:

What's happening though is that people who already are gamers are just spending more money on games; ie having multiple platforms, buying more games, etc. The people who grew up on games now can afford to spend all this money, therefore profits go up. But in terms of percentage of the overall population, gaming is not growing that fast. This is why everybody is taking about innovation, why people all throughout the industry are looking for ways to reach new audiences. The industry is making more money than ever before, but it's not expanding. This is a problem.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Tortanick

Its like saying a film had bad [Special effects/charachters/plot/acting] but it was still a brilliant film becasue it had AMAZING [Special effects/charachters/plot/acting] Planesacpes plot and charachters were so brilliant that they compensated for the medocure gameplay and still had enough quality left over to make it one of the best games of all time.

And also that 7% figure, according to you means that its not growing at all if you don't count population. Even if you forget you cant judge size by growth then that means that either everone is wrong and games arn't becoming more main streem or every potentual gamer allready buys games.

Seriously though, whats a more reliable figure for the size of an industry, how much it makes or how much anything beween nothing and infinite grows per yaer.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast

What's a more reliable figure for the size of an industry? Money made, obviously.

What's a reliable metric for the SUCCESS of an industry? GROWTH.

It doesn't mean that every potential buyer already buys games, it means that the current games market is being serviced without any successful expansion. This is why we have the DS, this is why we will have the Revolution, this is why the Xbox 360 tries to be a media center: all these devices are attempting to make the industry grow. If everybody thought like you and believed it did not need to grow, we would not have such devices. But ask anybody who's in it for money if growth is important and they will emphatically say YES.

You hardcore gamers "know quite a bit," but certainly not about economics.

I never said games are not becoming mainstream, I said they are not currently. In fact I said myself that they are becoming mainstream, but they have not the critical mass required as of yet.

 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Tortanick

Sounds like your tounge is tied up, your arguements aren't makeing much sense

Contradiction: the games industry is not growing but its becomeing more mainstreem.

Compleate loss of logic: Judgeing how popular the industry is by how sucessfull it is, not how big it is. Its theoretically possible (if crazy) to say that every person spends all their money on games, thus the industry grows paralell to the population, or 1/10 and it grows parralell to the populartion. Growth really isn't a good measure of how mainstreem it is.

Compleate irrelievence: What the suits say is important. Fact: any company will try to increase its customer base and profits. Thats what companies do. The fact that they're still trying to do something that they'll never ever stop doing dosn't mean that games havn't hit mainstreem.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Tortanick

Oh one more thing:
Games are mainstreem/ not mainstreem, thats a fact not ecconomoic theory ;)
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast

It is easy for an industry to not grow yet become more mainstream. Just because the X360 was on MTV doesn't mean any more people bought it than would have had it not been.

It's not just suits talking about growing the industry, it's people like Wright and Miyamoto. Designers, innovators.

Dan Cook's blog (lostgarden.com) is down otherwise I would like you to a set of statistics he collected that show what I have been talking about.

Oh one more thing:
whether or not a thing is "mainstreAm" is not a fact because it's unprovable. You'll learn about that in college.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Slartibartfast

Here's a cut + paste from another forum where I posted this.

Idly gathered game industry statistics of doom
While I?ve been settling into the comfy moist goodness that is Seattle, I thought I?d jot down a few of my research notes. A blog is a remarkably nice method of recording information for later. It is searchable, automatically indexed by posting time, and has the surprising habit of collecting comments from people who are much better informed than the original poster.

Without further ado let?s look at today?s game industry numbers

American console adoption flatlined since the 80?s
?So this chart is pure number of units sold. It doesn't take into account duplicate ownership, and doesn't take into account population growth. You overlay those two facts to get a percent population with a console in the household, and that's what it looks like. 8 Bit years, 31% of households had a gaming system. This year, where is going to end up? Somewhere between 31-32%. The growth we have seen has been driven by population growth, and by duplicate ownership.?

Reggie Fils-Aime, Chief Marketing Officer of Nintendo
- http://cube.ign.com/articles/664/664495p2.html

This was a stunning tidbit to me since it has been a matter of public knowledge that game revenues have been growing steadily for many years. The always forthcoming ESA claims that US revenues increased from $3.7 billion in 1996 to $7.3 billion in 2004.

The most basic conclusion is that we, as an industry, have become increasingly sophisticated at squeezing more money out of our current customers. However, we have done quite poorly at expanding beyond of a relatively fixed core audience.

Half as many (arcade?) gamers as in 80?s
?In 1982, he tells us, there were 44 million gamers. Today, there are 18 million.?

Kotaku on Nolan Bushnell, Founder of Atari
- http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/diec-2...endo-140629.php

I can only assume that Mr. Bushnell is referring to arcade gamers in the US since the number of console gamers alone is dramatically larger than 18 million. Add in casual gamers and the numbers grow even larger.

Weak 2005
?Much of the problems have occurred in the last few months. After a strong first half of the year (up 9% over last year), sales growth has stalled over the last four months, declining by 17% year-over-year. Year-to-date sales are down 2.1% through October.?
- http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?o...d=1715&Itemid=2

"Our most recent forecast predicted U.S. console and PC software sales growth of 6% for 2005, and we now acknowledge that our forecast is too high in light of the weaker than expected October and likely weak November sell-through data. On balance, we now expect sales for 2005 to be flat to slightly positive."- http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?o...d=1773&Itemid=2

We are at the end of a console generation and slow sales are to be expected. The Xbox 360 is kick starting the next console transition early, but supplies are still quite limited. These numbers really aren?t that surprising. Except to see the inevitable mergers, closings and buyouts that accompany the mini-shake down when old consoles die and new ones are born.

Longer term declines over the last console generation
?In 2003, the global market combining hardware and software sales fell 10 percent year-on-year to 1.1 trillion yen (10 billion dollars), according to Tokyo-based Computer Entertainment Suppliers' Association.

That represents a 27-percent drop from 2001 when the market stood at 1.5 trillion yen and Tokai's Kawamata said Sony and Nintendo aim to reboot the sluggish game market with brand-new hardware.?
- http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stor.../108561/1/.html

When an entire market drops by a third during what was predicted to be a growth cycle, there are interesting dynamics at work. A 27% drop in global sales despite mild growth in the US is quite likely driven by the shocking contraction of the Japanese gaming market.

I?m trying to track down links to document the actual numbers behind the Japanese market collapse. I know I?ve run across them, but foolish I forgot to bookmark them. If you run across such information, drop me a note.

In a mature multi-billion dollar market you expect a bit of slow down in revenue growth as you reach maturity. However, that isn?t what is happening here. Instead we are seeing dramatic fluctuations that belie an industry built upon an unstable and poorly diversified value proposition.

Success rates of new games
?A new report on the risks involved in game publishing and development has been released suggesting that, in the next generation, as few as 80 games a year will turn a profit.?
- http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?o...d=1621&Itemid=2

There are around 1000 titles released each year in Japan
- http://www.gamasutra.com/gdc2005/fe...d-sheffield.htm

Just for reference, there are roughly 500 to 600 retail titles released each year by the top 20 game publishers. There are hundreds of smaller titles that don?t quite make it on the radar and are much harder to track.

This is roughly 16% of all titles that hit profitability. Now, I?ve heard some people claim this is a decent percentage. However, for a new product launch this is pretty darned miserable. Robert Cooper?s research found that typical success rates of various product categories are as follows:

Highly innovative: 78%
Moderately innovative: 51%
Low innovative: 68%
Even low innovation brand extensions are kicking the butt of your typical game. Now, the number of highly profitable games is even less. If Halo accounts for 20% of the industry profit during last year?s Christmas season, there really isn?t that much to go around for everyone else.

Profit equals return on investment. If profits are low for a product category, then investments in new products will also often be low. Low profitability threatens the entire industry and makes it far less likely for there to be support for artistic innovation.

The culprits for low profitability are slightly more nuanced than the ?increasing technology costs? that everyone is so quick to blame. Rational companies only invest in technology when there is competition forcing their hand.

We have hundreds of teams pursuing a mere half dozen highly saturated product categories (aka game genres) in which there are only one or two market leaders possible. It doesn?t help that most current genres are mature and their population is fixed or contracting. Also that ?rationality? of game industry management is questionable. Poor management practices, a lack of mature product design processes and a fixation on technology for the sake of technology also contribute.

End of data dump
All in all, the latest numbers provide a delightful snapshot of our dysfunctional yet lovable industry. The next two years are certainly going to be quite the rollercoaster ride for a lot of folks. Longer term, great difficulties are certainly lurking on the horizon. Many have been sitting under our noses for years.

(I recommend business model modifications and adoption of improved product design methodologies. :)

http://lostgarden.com/2005/12/idly-...statistics.html

Of course, Reggie Fils-Aime must know jack shit compared to hardcore gamers like you.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Chooch

This article is very well written and I absolutley agree with every single word in it. I'm 15 and am sad to say that I missed the days of pure videogame shops where everyone there knows about gaming. As long as I can remember I shopped in an EB at my local mall. I have made a pact to myself to never buy a game at my local Wal-Mart. I can't stand that place for anything especially videogames. One time my brother went and asked for Goldeneye for the N64 (which i and my brother still play) and he came back with Turok! What I find sad is that all my friends are idiots in the gaming sense. They go out and buy a Gamecube or a nintendo game and think that it is indie gaming simply because the Nintendo Gamecube wasn't the most popular system (i love nintendo by the way). I go shopping at my local EB and a lot of the time I will ask a worker, just to see what they say, "have you ever played __________ (insert the most popular gmae title you can think of)?", "nope" say the cashier in a stupified voice. How about ______?.......nope. How about _____?........nope. Then i will ask about the story of an RPG "so what is the stroy like? is it pretty in-depth? could you please give me a brief summary of the story?"........."it's hard to explain"........me: "Good! that must mean its very in-depth and challenging and will keep you engrossed for hours right?".......the worker: "no..i just don't feel like explainging it." That my friends is an absolutely true conversation. I have had even worse at Wal-Mart. But, anyways great article! I only wish i was born 10 or 15 years sooner!
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: NeoPenny
http://ifox-towers.blogspot.com
well, in a way, its kinda true about the maintrimizatin. Though there are several factors to consider other than just microsoft.

I'd say sony & Nintendo are to blame. Nintendo for trying to push technology for 3d (the deal with sgi in the mid 90s) and Sony for the hollywood factor.

I don't know very well how microsoft's business works, I mean for just selling OS's it seems one dimensional. So i won't get into it. I have no knowledge about their business.

But having followed Sony abit lately. It seems to me that the way they drive their business with tons of advertising and a lot of their hollywood influence seems to have catch a good portion of the mass to evolve partly how the market views. the hobby.

Then again, there's the Dreamcast marketing back in early 00's.

And of course visual effects were not that good in the psX compared to the N64. Like it or not. pushing technology and the business from 2d to 3d with hollywood partnerships (sgi), seems to be another factor.

Whatever the case, companies like Q entertainment, Treasure, and game designers like shinji mikami are few hopes for the industry to keep in touch with its roots.

Mainstream isn't bad, what's bad is that the sense of being "special" as a gamer has been lost. It's like losing a part of you.

Kinda like when u buy a backpack cause u like it, but then turn around and everyone has one. It seems very uniformal. That's what makes it bad uniformity.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Bonnie Ruberg
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
Jon Hayter, I think that's a really important clarification. Thanks.

Tortanick, as with any cultural change over, mainstreamization is a process, and pinpointing a start or finish, a black or white, is nearly impossible. What we can see are trends - even in something as simple as the attitude of people around us - and those show us that the mainstreamization of the video game market is on the rise.

Glad you enjoyed it, Chooch.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Bonnie Ruberg
http://www.heroine-sheik.com
NeoPenny, interesting point about aesthetics. Realism makes gaming more visually accessible to the mainstream. That idea also speaks to the evolution of the industry into the mainstream. They couldn't have gotten there right off the bat, in theory, because they need to improve to a certain graphical level.
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Bob

Keeping in line with aesthetics: I think something holding the industry back right now is the huge cost it takes to make these realistic games, since realistic games is always the demand. I think gaming as an artform will only emerge once cheap tools for realistic gaming appear; when you don't need an army of textures, modellers, and writers to produce Battlefield II, you need a creative genius will one very powerful creative tool that integrates the gaming aspects.
Ever heard of the Unreal Engine? Or Havok physics? Those two things cut development work-hours in exchange for a one-off cost/liscence fee. Eventually, just as we no longer need a camera, lighting studio, makeup department and costumers to create an indie film - just a digital camera and some poor guys from the drama campus - indie gaming will be much easier to perform and execute.
I point to introversion software and their game, Darwinia, as the first independant game in a long, long time.
I point to Quentin Tarantino and his poorly-filmed masterpiece, Resevoir Dogs. It used about 4 sets; a bathroom, a warehouse, the area outside the warehouse, and a cafe (if I remember clearly). That movie helped escalate Tarantino to the heights of Kill Bill, and is still an amazing movie in it's own right. Indie gaming is about creative thinking, and if that thinking is picked up by a single mainstream producer, it's possible to get mainstream, creative art. I cite Lord of the Rings as being an extremely hyped movie, created by a genius who speciallised in gross-out horror, and qualifying as both "Mainstream" and "Art". May gaming reach those lofty heights. All it takes is for us to let the mainstream wash over us, and to take the tools that it gives us, and create a third Golden Age of gaming. The first, of course, being the dawn of the arcade; and the second being the 16 bit era. We're currently entering the third generation of mainstream gaming, waiting to be given more shiny graphics by the empires of Sony and Microsoft, and something... unique... by Nintendo, our longest ally.
To the Mainstream. *raises glass*
 

The Escapist Staff

New member
Jul 10, 2006
6,151
0
0
Original Comment by: Mark

Other developments which stand to cut time off development is the procedural content generation and Radiant AI system, both used in The Elder Scrolls IV, which are supposed to be included in the toolset. Use one to create the forest or the city as per a specific set of algorithms, use the other to populate the forest or city. All that remains is to render the textures and animate the characters... and record the sounds.

Will Wright, as part of Spore, is developing a procedural animation system, calculating how a creature would walk given any number of limbs and distribution of mass. I, myself, am speculating as to a wild idea of a system that might develop, in a limited way and only using pre-written dialog, the personalities and interactions of a small number of user-generated characters. Physics engines simplify many of the processes for programming elements of a real-time game. Development platforms are getting more and more intuitive, and Microsoft plans to phase out Visual Studio by 2020 in favor of a completely visual programming studio based loosely on its Visio platform, where a program might compile directly from a spreadsheet. Nintendo is becoming well-known for providing great support for developers, even going so far as to lend them money to create titles.



New technologies and business strategies arise every time the costs of development get too high. FMV has an exorbitant cost, but it's mostly obsolete now that similar-quality cutscenes can be created entirely within the game engine. The development kit as we know it was invented in response to developer frustration with the existing means of game programming. Programming languages themselves were invented because even FORTRAN is easier than punch-cards and manual rewiring.

Just as soon as speech software becomes capable of inflecting somewhat realistically, you'll find voice actors becoming a thing of extravagance or (as the case may be) poverty, reserved only for the highest-budget games whose developers desire a specific voice quality, or for garage deals where the programmer records all the voice clips himself. Computers are now powerful enough that the standard procedure is to make all software modular, rather than making the core engine dedicated to one highly specific task.

The development of technology is self-reinforcing. The more and better the tools we have, the easier it is to make new tools and improve existing ones.