Issue 37 - Gaming at the Margins

[The Escapist Staff]

Warren SpectorIn November 2005, Warren Spector gave a presentation on the future of gaming at the Montreal International Game Summit that caused some controversy. He joins us here to expand on that presentation, in the first of a four-part article series.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Slartibartfast

I always very much enjoy listening to/reading what you have to say, Mr. Spector. I can't wait to see what you have to say about the issues you've raised so far.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: J

Have to agree with your views. I have been gaming since Pong (am 40, heheh). Definitely some bad trends developing. I can only speak of my own experience in gaming but I'm getting tired of them already. I may not be the mainstream gamer but games are getting redundant in content. just because I can now destroy something in robot form instead of elf form I'm supposed to be impressed. *sigh* I think what were seeing is the mainstream spike of gaming starting to happen. however, once that rush is over and it is more, shall we say, accepted genre of entertainment we will see a more demanding audience requiring a lot more from the games. Although I believe it is too early to say yay or nay it is good to bring these issues up early to be able to deal with them as they arise.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Steve Smith
http://Wyoming, NY
Gizmondo? If you still believe in THAT one, Senator, I have half a Ferrari Enzo sitting on the PCH that I'd like to sell you....

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Andre Fleury

I agreed with your views on the matter at the Montreal Game Summit and I still do Mr Spector, but I also think that gaming can be "saved" another way. The very same way independent films are now co-existing with big-budget big-names blockbusters.
It is somewhat of a utopia to believe that we can swerve gaming's immense ship around. What we can do is take another boat and visit the islands
Hollywood went through a similar phase at some point were it seemed there was no other choice but keep making movies the way there were always done and bank on the the fact that there were no alternatives so the peole would not have a choice. And that's where things started changing: the people. Some spectator's got bored of Hollywood's tired formula and helped independent films grow by asking for something different and getting involved.
Although quite insightful, your view of the gaming industry future situation seems to forget the gamers. I strongly believe that it is those gamer who will drive and support gaming's future. Sure there will be dark times but if we hang on and make ourselves heard (I thank you for that) the sparkle of an alternative to the next worn-out sequel will spread. And when it does gamers will be in charge of their own cultural destiny.
It is not going to be all cream and cookies: the suits are there to stay. But without contrast how can you discern the legacy?

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: chunter
http://www.xanga.com/chunter
Great article: If this is the first of four, what will the other three say?

Some "exceptions that prove the rule" in all of your "videogames can be marginalized" points: Regarding the end of Vaudeville, the Age of Radio, and Broadway's margin, musicals are still created, and thanks to Moulin Rouge (which I hate, btw) musical movies made a quick and temporary comeback. I also once read all the Walt Kelly Pogo books at Boston Public Library, but your point is well taken. It's there for you if you like that sort of thing, but the "greater public" does not care.

Aren't all the forms of entertainment headed for this sort of marginalization?

The record industry is over, as far as I can tell. Not that I stopped listening to music, and not that there aren't acts occasionally filling gigantic stadia, but that sort of thing isn't so important in the public psyche; music has become a personal, private thing. I think the notion of "hit singles" is over.

Sports are experiencing this a little bit, too. Note the difference between the audiences of the NFL, the NBA, the NHL, Major League Baseball, and Major League Soccer. There are people that follow all five, but there are a lot more people that only like to follow one or two, and to be frank, I have a hard time finding people my age that like to watch professional sport at all. The money troubles of pro sports teams are well publicized.

As the digital age makes marginal movies easier to access, and home theaters beat out the shoebox at the mall, you'll see budget rearrangement there too.

We have too many choices in entertainment to stick with any one kind and not seem like one-dimensional people. With so much cheap and available content, you have to count on all the entertainment forms being marginalized in some way.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: Storn
http://photobucket.com/albums/y35/Storn/
Yeah, let me follow up on the comic book-librarian graphic novel comment too.

Graphic Novels are one of the growing sections at many, many libraries. Indeed, they are putting funny books on the shelves. So not quite a correct analogy for your point.

However, it is a book industry driven trend and not a comic book trend. So, it is not an incorrect analogy either. Comics continue to do poorly in terms of sales. Just because libraries are getting GNs on the shelf, doesn't mean that comics are somehow "saved".

However. I do agree with the gist of the article.

Thank you for your writing.

 

[The Escapist Staff]

Original Comment by: John Barnard

It's always a pleasure to hear/read Warren's take on the state of the game industry, especially since his views often mirror my own.
I'm wondering, however, if a little bit more consolidation might actually help the game industry. One of the drawbacks that the industry suffers from is that the publishers represent the top of the food chain and pretty much the only source of money. Because these publishers really aren't involved in pursuing other sources of revenue, the success and failure of individual games can be the determining factor in the success or failure of a publishers supported/owned studio.
When I compare this to the film industry, the movie studios are almost never the top of the food chain. There's almost always some larger holding company providing the money that has its finger in lots of other pies, so to speak.
Take, for example, Disney. Because Disney has so many different sources of revenue (film, television, sports, licensing, publishing, and video games), Disney can afford a few flops without hurting the bottom line too negatively. The slack can easily be made up through those other revenue streams. And as long as the overall bottom line is good, stockholders are less concerned if a small unit of the larger company lost money in a given fiscal year. And the immense profits brought in by blockbuster films like Toy Story subsidizes diverse independent films like Pulp Fiction.
On the other hand, if a big budget EA game flops, it's much harder to recoup losses when there are no other viable revenue streams. This leads to studios closing up shop and people losing jobs.
I'm definitely in favor of the independence of the developer. I feel that it's important that studios retain some degree of creative control over their properties and IP, but I think the current business model is doomed to failure as costs rise and development time increases. I wonder if some consolidation of publishers into larger media conglomerates might actually increase the possibilities for studios to retain some independence since their fate may not be quite so tied up in the success or failure of one game.
The flipside, of course, is that big media really likes to own the IP for the works they publish, but that's not a deal-breaker. There are many big media stars who have managed to retain a great deal of control over their IP because of their success.