Of Three Types of Game Developers, Two Are Going Extinct

[RJ Dalton]

Yeah AAA is dying the same way TV has killed off the summer blockbuster.

This. The AAA isn't going anywhere. Yes, there are going to be quite a few casualties along the way, but this is just like the couple of periods in the film industry's history where the old guard had to die before the new guard took over. The old people running the show will die off, but they'll be replaced by new people and the AAA industry will continue. It's going to be rocky for a few years, but eventually there will be new blood in the industry.

And then give it another twenty or thirty years and we'll be right back to this point again, because apparently media companies, like history, go in cycles.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I'm sorry, I really am, but this is a dystopian future that is being painted as a desired one here.


Who the hell wants games to all turn into free to play milk machines that you play on your browser? That's the most horrifying vision of the future I've ever heard and I'm an avid Fallout fan here...




This doesn't sound aimed at our group/culture/whatever you wanna call it. It's aimed at STRICTLY non-gamer or casual-gamer style people who have just begun gaming in the past maybe....4 years or so. That the old guard doesn't appeal to those people is obvious since they weren't gamers back 15 years ago but now they are and the old guard has been making games for that entire time. It has made games without these peoples contribution. Awesome incredible games that these peoples existence did not affect in any way whatsoever.


What are the implications of a whole other entirely irrelevant group of people now playing games too? Why does that mean anything at all in respect to us that have been playing and enjoying those old style games (or, you know, games) and the people that made these games? Why can't they just go do their own thing in their corner and leave us alone? Of course they will have a period of comparatively awesome growth, it's a new market that's being discovered, it's supposed to work this way. It doesn't mean that all games that are not for free on my browser of phone will be failures or bad games or that should go extinct.



Innovation is good but so is tradition and fusing the two, respecting the past while looking forward, is the true way to be creative.

 

[VulakAerr]

Hey. Just so you know. I really hate it when somebody writes a huge long opinion piece (slash rant) and tries to pass it off as fact/journalism. It's a waste of internet.

Less of this sort of "sponsored opinion", please. What a ridiculous post. I'm off to watch more Top 5s.

 

[Pyrian]

Summary: "We're not Zynga!"

And it also seems like he completely missed the boat I'm riding: pay-up-front indie gaming (FTL, Mark of the Ninja, Minecraft, etc.).

 

[Raziel]

I have no idea who these "new innovators" are but frankly I don't find the shift to phone and tablet stuff an improvement in any way. And on top of that I don't see if being financially viable.

The gameplay of these mobile games is basically a new version of those old 900 number scams. Hey, this game is free, yeah its incredibly basic, prone to tons of errors, and you are limited to grinding again and again in the same small area until you spend $5,$10, $20, $100 for which you are then treated to additional reskined small area where you repeat this process again and again.

These free games are designed to trick you into continuing to make payments on a game you would think was overpriced garbage if you could just buy the whole thing unlocked for $40. But its "free" so thats all right.

Then all these "innovative" games are copied by 10,000 other companies so there is huge mass of shoddy grinding minigames out there drowning each other out, with some malware mixed in for the suckers who only care about "free".

Not to mention they are killing real games by making everyone think $60 is expensive and everything should be $5 or less. And almost all mobile gamers have now taken that to mean free. Only a tiny portion of them ever spend any money at all.

Mobile games aren't the future. They are the parasites we'll all be infected with once they kill off real games.

Yeah Angry birds made a lot of money. Probably less then the thousands individuals or small groups lost trying to make a game themselves only to be lost among the mountain of dreck that constantly gets released.

 

[gsf1200]

This isn't an article, it's an advertisement for Rumble Entertainment.

 

[teamcharlie]

Join Rumble Entertainment and save the galaxy. Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?

The criticisms of the AAA studios and F2P Skinner box makers presented in this piece are well taken, but if you want this sort of article to sound like anything other than ego-stroking you have got to have a criticism or two for these New (my God but they must have enormous penises--are they single? But how could they be: they're obviously too ruggedly handsome) Innovators. Y'know, in case somebody might be concerned about bias or something.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

What about all those crowdfunded studios? The InXiles, Zeboyds, Perihelion Interactives, Comcept USA's, KING Art Games, 5 Lives Studios, Yacht Club Games, Uber Entertainment, and Crate Entertainment?

They don't exactly fit into your F2P on all the things mentality and some of them are ancient beings from before yesteryear.

I would put those 'new innovators' into a sub-group of as ones who understand business in the 'On-line Opportunists' rather like how the likes of Obsidian Entertainment, CDProject, and Valve would be smart 'Old Guard'

The ones free of publisher control and not shackled to a single point like F2P or online connectivity would be the innovators. Becuase lets face it F2P tends to be largely derivative.

 

[Brian Tams]

The future painted in this article was told to be fascinating, unique, and a haven of video game greatness.

I found it to be completely horrifying, an ever unfurling nightmare of fee-to-pay and browser garbage.

 

[Gary Thompson]

I mistrust anyone who claims to be the "future" and representative of "progress", but this guy just seems full of it regardless of the nonsense labels he uses.

Free to Play is only good for MMOs, and I don't want the games industry to be full of MMOs, because they're not exactly my favorite genres.
And tablet games, why? Why would any gamer want all their games to be tablet games?

If anything all my favorite devs aren't people who try to "innovate" all the time. They're the people who use a similar formula to what they've always been using, because you know what? It works, if a system ain't broke don't ruin it by trying to "fix" it.

 

[J Tyran]

I wonder who the writer of the article is trying to convince, it sounds like he is trying to convince himself more than anyone else.

There's always going to be a healthy amount of suspicion of any type of article that say 'there are three types of people in the world, and the two that aren't me suck'

This also.

 

[Signa]

This seems more like Rumble Entertainment's mission statement then an actual article.

STOP READING MY MIIIIIIND!!!

No, really, I finished the article and that exact sentence went through my mind.

The best part of this article will be in 3 years when Rumble is closing or merging because their innovation didn't keep them alive on their own. I've read great pieces from CEOs of companies like CD Project or Stardock. This article did nothing to inspire me or think "yeah! This guy gets it! I might buy something of theirs more readily than before."

 

[Atmos Duality]

"Online Opportunists" is a nice euphemism. Personally the most civil way I can describe companies like Zynga is "Parasitic" (and quickly devolves into colorful choice descriptions from there). I'd be hesitant to even call them "game developers", except in the loosest academic manner. Since from what I've seen, they don't make "games" so much as they make money-farms based on Skinner psychology that vaguely resemble games.

In any case, good riddance to them.

AAA gaming isn't going anywhere. Is it really shocking that sometimes big companies that are badly managed go under? There are plenty of AAA developers, just like there are plenty of blockbuster movies.

The AAA "Old Guard" is largely shrinking already. And I suspect it will continue to shrink in the coming years.
Though, perhaps not disappear; not while companies like Activision and Nintendo are still sitting on fat sacks of cash.
But the others are either treading water, or dying out. (Usually in phases of either)

Especially the Japanese publishers; who have retreated so much from the global market since the end of the PS2 era.

 

[hickwarrior]

This seems more like Rumble Entertainment's mission statement then an actual article.

STOP READING MY MIIIIIIND!!!

No, really, I finished the article and that exact sentence went through my mind.

The best part of this article will be in 3 years when Rumble is closing or merging because their innovation didn't keep them alive on their own. I've read great pieces from CEOs of companies like CD Project or Stardock. This article did nothing to inspire me or think "yeah! This guy gets it! I might buy something of theirs more readily than before."

Exactly. This piece feels like it went through a PR wringer so hard, none of the personality of it is left.

While it's nice the escapist allows articles written by start-ups, this isn't interesting to me. Looking at the thread, I'm definitely not alone in that thought.

Maybe scan these write-ups for blatant marketing speech? Tell them to be honest instead of appealing to emotions to get more revenue...

I'm just utterly baffled as to why this is here. I don't want to read marketing, unless it is said that it basically is that. If someone tries to tell me how awesome their stuff is, I just can't help but be cynical. 'I'm the judge of whether your product is awesome or not' is what races through my mind whenever anyone does that.

And now I can't help but feeling like a hypocrite.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

As a...current generation...gamer I find your list a bit lacking. For a start, there is plenty of market for AAA games. Their poor approach to marketing and massive budgets will be the downfall of some companies, but there are companies making that standard of game that know their market, make great games and make money. CDProject, Valve (to an extent) and FROM Software for example.

Secondly, you leave no room for crowdsourcing. It can result in any standard of game from indie to AAA and is guaranteed a profit. It's practically a no-risk situation if they have a reliable dev team and it allows the kind of games the Old Guard would be averse to making, along with massive market interaction and involvement.

Thirdly, I would describe the innovators as mainly indie games. Not Free 2 Play games, not necessarily mobile games. F2P is much more a hallmark of the opportunists. The 'current generation', as far as I know, are happy to pay for games, like getting value for money, and don't necessarily like microtransactions and the Free 2 Play model. Of course everyone's not the same. But suggesting F2P is the way forward is plain wrong.

 

[fractal_butterfly]

In which universe does "SuperCell" stand for high quality gameplay games? Their "Clash of the Clans" is just another online game working with the OGame functionality. I had no fun with this game at all, and it does not seem to be made to engage the player, but to make him dependent on the game. So, more like the Online Opportunist category.

captcha: Window dressing, seems somewhat fitting

 

[Kargo]

I cant believe that Grinding Gear Games was not mentioned as a shining example of how games can be funded and maintained.
Path of Exile is definitely a encouraging sign that free to play really can mean _free_ to say nothing of the fact that it was crowdfunded during the development.

Actually i am missing a review of PoE on escapist, whats the matter? Do you guys boycott anything that is not a AAA published?

 

[The_Echo]

This seemed like a bit of nonsense really. Are all regularly priced games in the "Oldguard" category? The article makes it sound like only "free-to-play" games are the future, which is crazy.

Now, I'm not trying to say Greg is biased...

But he is the founder and CEO of Rumble Entertainment, which develops free-to-play games. The "New Innovators" he speaks of.

And the moment I realized this... I sort of lost interest.

The title of the article alone feels very presumptuous and arrogant.

 

[Ipsen]

I browsed through the Featured Articles archive the other day, and it was a veritable mine of interesting stories, about life with gaming in the mix.

Not to say they're gone, but I sure as hell miss them fast with articles like this.

It's an interesting move to give developers a stronger mouthpiece on the site, especially some of the smaller ones. But my case against this is hinted at by the two types Mr. Richardson undermines; developers have caught the scent of money.

You kind of need to have the scent of money, really; not knocking devs wanting to get paid for their work. But you (and really, any other dev) don't come off as trustworthy enough to pull off an article like this when we can see that.

I do think that the state of communication between developers and consumers is interesting. How about something along those lines?

 

[Clovus]

AAA gaming isn't going anywhere. Is it really shocking that sometimes big companies that are badly managed go under? There are plenty of AAA developers, just like there are plenty of blockbuster movies.

The AAA "Old Guard" is largely shrinking already. And I suspect it will continue to shrink in the coming years.
Though, perhaps not disappear; not while companies like Activision and Nintendo are still sitting on fat sacks of cash.
But the others are either treading water, or dying out. (Usually in phases of either)

Especially the Japanese publishers; who have retreated so much from the global market since the end of the PS2 era.

I guess this depends on what you define as "Old Guard". It seems like the article means all games that are sold at a single price.

Are you just talking about "AAA" games here, or just the "Old AAA" gaming companies. I could easily see EA, Activision, and Ubisoft lasting for decades and growing in many years. There will always be a demand for AAA games.

My top-10 this year is about 90% indie/strategy, but that doesn't mean I'm not having some fun with Tomb Raider right now, or Blood Dragon in a few days. I absolutely don't want AAA to go away, and I don't see it happening.

Bethesda is pretty much the "Old Guard", right? You really see a future where people won't pay to play huge, beautiful sandbox RPGs? As the market changes, there will be shake-ups, no doubt. But some companies will survive and other will rise (CDProjekt, for example, are they "Old Guard" yet?). What about Valve?

Also, assuming that current trends will continue is a bad idea. Even if "the AAA "Old Guard" is largely shrinking", there's no reason to assume that will continue. Are airlines on a path to extinction just because there are fewer and fewer of them? We might see a future with a smaller number of AAA studios dominating the market (which would be bad), but there will always be a demand for AAA.

I guess that's the other way to look at. Some studios are going under, but what about the consumer dollars available to spend on AAA? I'm guessing that keeps going up.