Clovus said:
Oh, ok. That's not what the article was talking about. I really don't see EA, 2K, Acti-Blizzard, or Ubisoft going under in the next ten years. I do agree that the Japanese companies (sans Nintendo) seem a bit shaky.
We will see. Economics dictates that the first firms to leave the market are those with the highest costs, barring some other disaster (like war, law, or natural destruction).
Let's assume that strategy does start really failing. Then they change. I just don't see these huge companies delivering products that huge numbers of people want completely falling apart. You say, "Adapt or die" later on. That's what they'll eventually do.
But we have seen them fall apart. We just lost one last year, and we're likely to lose another one this next year.
And it's not like Capcom doesn't have IP that people want. It's just that they refuse to listen to anyone who isn't Capcom.
They trolled Megaman fans and have been acting like dicks over content pricing for all their other games.
Having huge demand means nothing if your profit margins are still in the red at the end of it.
It's always possible to spend more; generating debt is easy.
They need to dial back production costs and introduce a little more content value into their products, but they're so afraid of losing the consumer's attention and that "extra" revenue from gouging that they won't. Instead, the mentality for the last few years has been to shitcan all smaller projects and throw more money into marketing.
I've been a gamer for like 30-years and I've seen all kinds of dumb monetization strategies come and go. Outside of the "Video Game Crash", this never leads to the big established companies completely falling apart. You lose one or two, the others change, and a new one comes along.
Well, I turn 30 next year, and have been a gamer for as long as I can remember.
I too can recall all manner of ripoffs and schemes, but until these recent years haven't seen so many AAA games where the bulk of the content is locked behind a paywall like DLC or some other service.
Furthermore I never said that others wouldn't take their place. Obviously others will.
It's just that the current business model the Old Guard employs isn't as efficient as it used to be (for either them or us).
Like I said, they're treading water, or slowly eroding. But they aren't racing towards collapse, which is what most people who talk about "the next crash" often assume (I know another game crash won't occur unless something disastrous happens to the world. Or to digital distribution).
I'm not so sure about that. There's nothing "magical" here. People have a certain amount they generally spend on entertainment. And sure, they still have to make something someone wants to buy, but they have a history of pulling that off.
There's plenty of other markets in media besides gaming. And cheaper to boot.
Bethesda is an "anomaly" because they've cornered a market.
That isn't entirely accurate since Bethesda aren't forcing everyone else out of the mega sandbox market.
It's just that few are willing to try at all because they see better opportunities elsewhere. Like shooters.
You don't think Acti-Blizzard would make more money on CoD if EA/Dice were out of the picture? There's a huge audience who enjoy boring AAA shooters. If they have less choice, they'll end up buying what they can as long as it meets a minimal quality level.
I think they would enjoy a minor increase in sales at best.
People are just getting sick of the Modern Military Shooter genre in general, just like how people started tiring of WoW and the WoW clones around 4 years ago.
There is demand for MMSs, but best I can tell from comparing sales figures, it's declining overall. Otherwise, we would be seeing CoD's competitors gaining sales very sharply and CoD's sales fall equally as sharply. Instead we're seeing total sales declining slowly each year.
I admit, competition certainly has something to do with it, but it's not the dominant factor for the decline.
We just don't agree here. I really love the innovation in indie games or niche games, but that doesn't change the fact that AAA developers have a product that is super expensive to create and that many people want. I just don't see a future where people stop wanting to play Ubisoft's open world jungle gym's (AssCreed, FarCry, Watch Dogs), or the big shooters, or AAA MMOs.
Well, that much is certain: we don't agree.
But I will say this: There was a time I thought the same about Japanese games.
That I could not imagine a future without them.
The 90s and early 2000s. was a very lucrative period for Japanese game publishers. They OWNED the game mainstream game market. (JRPG didn't even carry stigma on the internet yet!)
And look at them now: Sega is a joke, Konami, Capcom, Namco-Bandai and Squeenix are all floundering. And that all changed in the span of just a few years. Namely, the previous console generation. (starting around 2005 through 2009).
I mean, I'm not interested in it much, but TitanFall is going to be huge. It'll probably have all kinds of horrible DLC/microtransactions, but that segment of the market is fine with that. And those kinds of games are definitely still important. I wish those AAA were better and more intelligent, but that's not stopping them from being a big part of the market.
I agree with that sentiment. TitanFall looks to be just as big, dumb and bland as anything I've seen, but it will still make a pile of money...
...Or become another source of major controversy courtesy of EA next March. We're three for three years so far.
Gaming is expanding. The free-to-play stuff in the article, the indies, etc. are all bringing in new gamers. Do you really thing the millions of AAA fans are going to suddenly quit buying because of dumb DLC?
Just because gaming is expanding does not mean AAA is the cause or even the direct beneficiary.
Also, it's not just because of dumb DLC. There's a whole myriad of things that AAA -AND ONLY AAA- are pushing for that I really really do not want to see made into industry standards, because I believe it will drive people away from gaming by ruining the experience.
Though I'm not without hope: Earlier this year, I was a bit surprised, and relieved at the rejection of the pre-180 Xbone.
And, even if they do, that a few of the "Old Guards" won't just quickly change to address that? It's not super hard to stop selling awful DLC, or to change your policies. Why aren't they doing it now? Because they're making money on it.
Not enough apparently.
EA and Squeenix have both gone on the record complaining about not hitting insane target numbers for sales.
The only possible cause for such numbers is grossly unrealistic expectations (aka "rampant stupidity"), or overblown production costs they have to meet. Given what I've seen from the quarterly reports of other AAA publishers, this isn't unique to EA and Squeenix.
I don't see a problem with franchises dying. CoD is starting to look questionable. So what? TitanFall is on the way and some other new IP is on the way. Sure, Company A can't necesarily make good money off Company B's run down IP, but when that IP isn't there they can make something new to meet that market.
They can make something new, but they extremely hesitant to.
It's scary just how many sequels remakes and clones comprise what AAA produced in the last console generation.
New IP is exceptionally rare; apart from TitanFall and Watch Dogs, I really can't think of any new IP from AAA that's coming up. And even TitanFall just looks like Halo Duty 4: Slightly More Parkour Edition.
The article is saying that free-to-play is the answer though. Do you believe that? It's defining "Old Guard" as all companies making games for a set price. I'm guessing we can agree that is incorrect, right?
I definitely agree there. Free-to-play by necessity of its model, imposes grind and paywalls for content, and is far too limiting to support many genres of games. (all single player genres are excluded by default because F2P relies heavily on the social/multiplayer element to cover for the grind element and to reduce the commitments hybrid single/multiplayer games require, like AI/bots or a campaign)
If F2P takes over, I see gaming being no better off than if AAA took over.
I like the market having a variety of games, so long as the stupid schemes from one doesn't force its way into the others.