Social Games Rush in Where Hardcore Games Fear to Tread

[Albino Boo]

I think you all are missing the point of the attention on "casual"/social gaming. As far as I understand, game companies are struggling with profitability in the so-called true gaming/"hardcore" gaming space. In order to be able to continue producing the kind of games you all like playing, game companies need to find new strategies to obtain profitability that will allow them to make more substantial investment in game innovations. The sheer size of the "casual" and social gaming markets have the potential to provide game companies a buffering reservoir of income and profit that will allow them to take on greater risk in game develop, increasing innovation and variety in games. While it is true that the markets don't overlap, there is very good reason for any game company to be considering expanding their operations into the "casual"/social gaming space for the expressed purpose of being able to remain in business.

Another thing, there is such a thing as opportunity cost. It's an old concept that has to do with losses incurred from lost opportunities. Basically, the entire "casual"/social gaming phenomenon represents an opportunity cost that game companies have incurred exactly because of the very insular type of thinking you all are expressing. It is entirely possible that had game companies realized sooner the possibility and scope of "casual"/social gaming, they would have made better capitalization on it sooner and mitigated much of the current financial woes they are currently enduring. Thus, news of the state, nature, and financial solvency of "casual"/social gaming can be of critical important to the future business strategy of almost every game company out there.

Honestly, people, quit being so irrationally cynical and insular all the time and trying to imitate the attitudes of Yahtzee, and learn to look at the bigger picture of things.

At last the voice of sanity. Most of the comments seem to be entirely unaware of commercial reality. Triple A titles are high risk and increasingly low return propositions, even at half the reported $100 million Starcraft2 cost to produce represents a massive risk on the balance sheet. Whereas a casual game costs around $1 million and can be live in about 6 months. The risk/cost on a casual game is negligible in comparison to a AAA title. The only way the games companies can cope with the consent above inflation rises in cost is to either, raise the price (running the risk of increased piracy) or to produce casual games to cross subsidize the production costs.

 

[Miumaru]

If devs give up on us just to turn a buck, then video gaming will have lost its soul, the way music has, leaving it up to the unkown and the old to cultivate the good. Not saying casual gaming is evil, but doing it just for money while we who made gaming important are left high and dry is.

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

The player base for social games dwarfs that of even the most successful "hardcore" titles, so what do social game makers know that the likes of EA and Activision do not?

They know that you don't need to spend trillions of dollars on top-end graphics to make a title that can appeal to mass audiences. Not that I have anything against your Gears of Wars or Left 4 Deads, but not EVERY game needs to use tomorrow's graphics. I think that if a game idea feels too risky to break the bank on developing, then they should just tone the graphics down and see if the game sells rather than just axing the idea all-together. If it turns out to be a good seller, then you know to approve the kind of budget that'll pay for better graphics for the sequel. If it doesn't, then it's not a major loss since it cost a pittance to develop.

Heck, I still think Fallout 2 with it's 2D sprites is a far better game than some of the blinged-out titles of today.

 

[Albino Boo]

Look Actvision on a $4 billion turnover made around $100 million profit which is around 0.04%, which is pitiful in terms of return available elsewhere. Using John Lewis as model for the gaming industry is not useful in the slightest, John Lewis is solely owned by its workforce any other company presenting figures as bad as they have been would have had its management replaced by the institutional investors that actually own most large companies. Unless Actvisions figures improve quickly the current management will be fired. They can go to eastern Europe, India or China for that matter but its going to be 3-4 years before any new games come out of those studios. Even at 50% cut in cost of production your still going to be talking about 3 year production cycle where as as casual game comes out in 6 months at cost $1 million max. Say Stalker 3 has budget of $1 million (which is very unlikely, $1 million wont even cover European distribution costs) its going to take years to get market, a casual games takes months before you start getting return. So with a casual game you get the game to market quicker with no distribution costs. In other words from the point of view of the people who actually own the companies its quicker, cheaper and less risky to put money into casual games than into AAA titles.

Your not going to see the disappearance of AAA games but you are going to see the big boys push into the casual game market. Look at the Wii a platform hated by hardcore gamers but its sales figures have pushed Microsoft in the same direction with the Kinect. It not a case either or, book publishers still print 700 page fictional accounts of obscure 19th century poets and the latest Dan Brown. The poet might win the booker prize and be lorded by the critics but its the Dan Brown that pays the bills.

 

[Le_Lisra]

Look Actvision on a $4 billion turnover made around $100 million profit which is around 0.04%, which is pitiful in terms of return available elsewhere. Using John Lewis as model for the gaming industry is not useful in the slightest, John Lewis is solely owned by its workforce any other company presenting figures as bad as they have been would have had its management replaced by the institutional investors that actually own most large companies. Unless Actvisions figures improve quickly the current management will be fired. They can go to eastern Europe, India or China for that matter but its going to be 3-4 years before any new games come out of those studios. Even at 50% cut in cost of production your still going to be talking about 3 year production cycle where as as casual game comes out in 6 months at cost $1 million max. Say Stalker 3 has budget of $1 million (which is very unlikely, $1 million wont even cover European distribution costs) its going to take years to get market, a casual games takes months before you start getting return. So with a casual game you get the game to market quicker with no distribution costs. In other words from the point of view of the people who actually own the companies its quicker, cheaper and less risky to put money into casual games than into AAA titles.

Your not going to see the disappearance of AAA games but you are going to see the big boys push into the casual game market. Look at the Wii a platform hated by hardcore gamers but its sales figures have pushed Microsoft in the same direction with the Kinect. It not a case either or, book publishers still print 700 page fictional accounts of obscure 19th century poets and the latest Dan Brown. The poet might win the booker prize and be lorded by the critics but its the Dan Brown that pays the bills.

And what, pray, does this have to do with any of the arguments made in the thread? We all know it is cheaper to make a silly casual game and that the profits are better - but that was not the point, was it. The point was, have these games a hidden merit that normal games (I refuse the term hardcore) do not have? No they don't, not for us, the players. Only to the makers.
As said, screwups like Zynga didn't steal the big boys lunch, they went to a different store (die, analogy, die!), which is certainly clever in its own right, but we don't have to applaud them for shopping there, because we like to eat our lunch elsewhere.

But of course the fuckery that is "business reality" will make the larger companies send runners to the store that Zynga favorites, if only to reduce the insane cost of making another ID Engine, or whatever.

Games don't need be get simpler, they need to be smarter planned. Sins of a solar empire was a great example.

 

[Albino Boo]

And what, pray, does this have to do with any of the arguments made in the thread? We all know it is cheaper to make a silly casual game and that the profits are better - but that was not the point, was it. The point was, have these games a hidden merit that normal games (I refuse the term hardcore) do not have? No they don't, not for us, the players. Only to the makers.
As said, screwups like Zynga didn't steal the big boys lunch, they went to a different store (die, analogy, die!), which is certainly clever in its own right, but we don't have to applaud them for shopping there, because we like to eat our lunch elsewhere.

But of course the fuckery that is "business reality" will make the larger companies send runners to the store that Zynga favorites, if only to reduce the insane cost of making another ID Engine, or whatever.

Games don't need be get simpler, they need to be smarter planned. Sins of a solar empire was a great example.

Ok you don't like "business reality" but where do think the institutional investors get their money? It the general publics life savings, pensions plans and nest eggs for the grandchildren. If those investors ignore business reality its those are the people who suffer. I'm sorry Mr Jones the pension that you have spent the last 30 years paying into is worth 20% less than you thought but we made MW3 and its great game is not going to be popular conversation. Failure to make a reasonable return has real world consequences for millions of people. You guys squawking away with your mindless group think about how casual games wont last and sound like movie moguls attacking TV. The things that you think are important aren't in the real world of mortgages and pensions and trying to help you grandchildren, so stop stroking your chin breads and grow up.

 

[Le_Lisra]

[
Ok you don't like "business reality" but where do think the institutional investors get their money? It the general publics life savings, pensions plans and nest eggs for the grandchildren. If those investors ignore business reality its those are the people who suffer. I'm sorry Mr Jones the pension that you have spent the last 30 years paying into is worth 20% less than you thought but we made MW3 and its great game is not going to be popular conversation. Failure to make a reasonable return has real world consequences for millions of people. You guys squawking away with your mindless group think about how casual games wont last and sound like movie moguls attacking TV. The things that you think are important aren't in the real world of mortgages and pensions and trying to help you grandchildren, so stop stroking your chin breads and grow up.

Yes, because Mr. Jones unaware of the risk when he joined, right? Cmon, you can do better than that. Of course you must have a reasonable possibility of selling your product, how will you get money otherwise? I know how all this works, does that mean I have to like it? I'd also like my own job to be secure (which it will be, thanks to all the fuckers getting unhealthier every day) come to think of it.

But again, you miss the point.

The success of simpler, more profitable games does not mean that the market for other games will disappear. It just means that studios and publishers will have to adjust. What possibilities they have to do that I can't possibly tell, being very much outside the industry, I just treat their sore necks and fat bellies. Less voice acting? No licensed music? Cheaper graphics? Smarter marketing? I can't begin to guess. But the market will remain, and that is the important bit. As long as there is a market, someone will deliver.

 

[felixader]

You can debate around as much as you want, i think THIS is the mainpoint here and for farmvilles success.

Are you ready?

Here it comes?


Typical Videogame how i like it: 60 Bucks
Farmville : FREE

Got that?
Good.

What we have here is a Game who earns money that it's owner has fully developed an Intend to buy in Order to play. The Customer knows whaht he's doing (or at least hopes so)and is full aware of the money he gives away and wich the company earns trough him.
The other side is a Game where the money comes from something the player has NO influence in plus some rumored shaddy practises he most likely doesn't even have a glimpse of idea about plus the occasional Ligthheaded person who pays money for the allowance to click on another colorfull picture.

 

[BlindMessiah94]

So, this is an article linking to another article? What's the point? This is like a forum "bump" or something else equally as unnecessary.

*shakes head

 

[Atmos Duality]

If there is a market to be exploited, someone will eventually do it.