The Indies Will Ruin Everything!

[Raziel]

I'd be devastated to see the AAA games fall. I basically don't care about indie games. I've tried several, journey, black swan, stanley parable, minecraft. And I simply wasn't impressed. Journey being the only one I liked but it was SO short I feel like I paid $15 for a demo. That feels WIDELY overpriced.

To say nothing of free to play and mobile. Mobile I dismiss out of hand now for anything besides like word games because the controls are terrible and I don't participate in IOS platform. So most of the stuff people claim is so good is unavailable to me.

Free to play though I LOATH. Its a scam unless the only monetization is skins or something. The gameplay in these things is basically crap repetitive nonsense made terrible or even criminal by adding pay walls and timers. Yeah sure if your an adult and its your money you should be able to spend it however you wish. But a lot of these games are targeting kids. They are the new 900 numbers. Parents are going to find there kids have blown hundreds of dollars on coins or whatever to play these "free" games that would be considered crap if you could just buy the whole game flat out for $60. But no, they are "free" so it doesn't matter that you could spend $500 and still not get everything in the game.

They can keep papers please, minecraft, my little pony, I for one want the next borderlands, bioshock, skyrim. I spend probably over $600 a year on AAA games, I doubt I've spent $60 all together ever on indie, ftp, or mobile. And I regret most of that $60.

Also how can it cost that much more for the new machines? Don'they only have the graphics of midrange gaming pcs?

 

[SKBPinkie]

ACIV:Another One,

Have people on this forum actually played this game, or do they automatically hate it for no reason?

I played it for about thirty minutes and then decided that I couldn't stand it. It's not a terrible game in and of itself and from what I've seen, they correctly estimated that the ship-based parts from the previous one was the best part of the previous one, but I just could not bring myself to play through a sixth AC game. So, in short, I don't hate it, but neither do I have any interest in playing it.

Ever.

Even including any possible future release of an AC game.

Even if they paid me.

Even if they gave me beer and cake.

Maybe if they both paid me and gave me a couple cases of Bell's Hopslam, but they'd still have to pay me a lot.

It would have to be a whole lot. I'm really just very tired of Assassin's Creed.

Like, I'm more tired of Assassin's Creed than I am of How I Met Your Mother.

Man that show has been dull for at least the last three years and this season is just terrible. Still, I'm willing to watch How I Met Your Mother and I'm not willing to play another Assassin's Creed.

I am really tired of Assassin's Creed.

Not saying the game is necessarily bad though. Just that I'm tired of it.

Fair enough. I skipped Revelations and III, cause I got sick of AC after Brotherhood. So the gap between my last AC game and this one is almost 3 years. But I gave IV a chance after all the good reviews, and man - I've not had this much fun with a game for several months now.

The naval battles are a lot of fun, and beating the "legendary" ships was immensely satisfying.

 

[grigjd3]

Fair enough. I skipped Revelations and III, cause I got sick of AC after Brotherhood. So the gap between my last AC game and this one is almost 3 years. But I gave IV a chance after all the good reviews, and man - I've not had this much fun with a game for several months now.

The naval battles are a lot of fun, and beating the "legendary" ships was immensely satisfying.

If UbiSoft had their AC team make a game that was simply about 18th century ship combat and nothing else, I think I would be extremely interested.

 

[Arina Love]

i'm doing my part, haven't bought or played a indie game yet. I've got plenty of games to play and honestly i don't see a appeal of many many indie games steam infested with.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, to be honest I will say that the indie scene has done a lot to quash some of my hopes and dreams, perhaps without realizing it. Largely because the types of games *I* like to play, RPGs on the deeper side of the spectrum with a lot of customization and party management and such, have been embraced by some indie developers. A lot of these games are good mind you, but it seems to actually work to reduce the chances of ever seeing games of this sort (and others) created at a AAA level, I've already caught wind of some devs pretty much sneering at such ideas as being "indie fodder" and a while ago was reading some opinions that indie creations in these generes might drive AAA development away simply because they do not want to compete, especially when the eye candy is going to be secondary to the game experience itself (though speaking for myself, I'd like that too). This help perpetuates a system where AAA games are increasingly aimed at a casual market (and yes most shooters ARE casual games, the equivalent of Farmville, but aimed at a different demographic), where more serious gaming is left to the fringes and indie development. Exceptions exist, they always exist, but apart from rare exceptions this leaves a lot of people like me with a choice of a game that looks like refried dog poop but has the kind of core gameplay I want, or one that looks really pretty but which I'm not likely to find entertaining for the long term.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have the games that do make it out, and the art direction of some things like the newly released "Banner Saga" shows that some pretty cool things can be done without pushing for state of the art graphics and technology. It's better than having nothing at all, but on some levels I think indie development might have very much pushed AAA developers away from certain game types, or at least helped them justify their profiteering in staying away from them and always shooting for the largest profits from the largest audience they can get at any given time.

-

That said, with the new generation it seems like the industry is rallying to try and coordinate for another industry wide price hike. The 8 to 10 times more expensive develop BS is pretty much just an attempt to convince us it will be justified. Probably so when they hike the price another $10 they hope gamers will be going "geez, I'm glad each game wasn't as expensive as my console".

As I've pointed out before, if the current technology was that clunky and inefficient to use, it would be being considered experimental, not something being picked up by mainstream entertainment companies. New tech is not just capable of doing more usually, but also generally comes with increased ease of use and performance. If it didn't, then it would not be "better" and thus there would be no new generation.

That said, the industry likes to think people are dumb, and we keep hearing things from companies like Square Enix saying they "couldn't make Final Fantasy VII today with the current tech due to the level of detail and the requirements of the current generation" that's almost laughable as an excuse when you consider that if that was even remotely true we'd still be using decades old hardware and graphic technology because the old stuff would arguably be vastly superior to what we're using now. Sure it would be butt ugly compared to what we have now, but the argument is that people were simply unable to make the new tech usable... which they quite obviously did.

Likewise when your dealing with professionals, they keep up in their field, it's not like we're having to send every graphics artist in the industry out to be retrained with a new 4 year degree. Like any professional they tend to keep up with the newest stuff and assimilate it in baby steps as it comes about.

To be frank the problem with the gaming industry to begin with has been bloat, and the sheer number of people they bring on board for specialized tasks so nobody has to work that hard, not to mention wasted man hours by the tens of thousands looking at some of the studio tours I've seen and the conditions which don't always strike me as exactly being professional (in fact when I was working for the casino if I walked through the IT department and saw people/work spaces like some of those there, I would be yelled at if I was found to have not reported them, even if that technically wasn't my job... and really I wouldn't have ratted on them anyway, but still the point is I know what's expected in a professional IT workplace).

At any rate, I'll probably take a lot of flak for saying this yet again, but watch, in a couple of years we'll see some of these companies downsizing yet again and trimming off more bloat, where if these claims were true they would be doubling or tripling their staff to keep up. The thing is though when they downsize it will be on their terms in order to maximize profits for the people at the top, not specifically to make things more efficient or lower costs, as none of that will come back to us gamers in terms of lowered product costs.

 

[camazotz]

Double post....odd......

I'd like to point out that one of Shamus's indies on the list is Gone Home, which is selling for $20 on Steam right now. It took me slightly over an hour to complete the "game."

I'll take a $60 CoD any day of the week over a deep, meaningful but seriously overpriced "art game." And I love art games. Dear Esther is one of my favorite games of all time....but at least I paid a bit under $10 for it new and got about three of exploration out of it.

 

[camazotz]

Is it too much to ask for great graphics AND good game play? My experience with AAA titles has been one of depth and enjoyment (for the good ones) while my experience with indies is usually a wide but shallow pool of great ideas barely realized. I'll be happy when something else emerges, a new angle in the industry which is smartly run and properly funded, and isn't afraid to take chances on cool new concepts for fear of financial ruin.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I really don't want indie games or AAA games to fail. Both give me experiences that the other does not. Once people can guarantee me that I will still get games like Far Cry 3, Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2, Gears of War 2, Saints Row 4, Dishonored, Bioshock: Infinite, and more from the indie scene, then maybe I might be okay with AAA dying completely. As it stands now, I agree that AAA really needs to rethink and restructure, but not die.

Besides, it isn't like indies don't have their own share of problems. See: early access, nearly as many terrible "me-too!" games as AAA, insane development cycles that just never end, games that get released completely broken, and more.

 

[RicoADF]

I still have a real problem with this "8 to 10 time more expensive to develop for" this a close to off the self PC part and most of these people have been making game for the PC for years.

Are they really that different? There is a strong smell of bullshit about the whole thing.

It is bullshit, as you said their just porting the PC version and setting the graphical settings to work on the console, sure some optimization would be needed but not to the level of PS3's cell processor. That said, Capcom are literally idiots, so if they and other like them die off then as I said when THQ wen't under "Someone else who has adapted to the new industry will take their place". Funny thing is the scene in Babylon 5 where Mordan is speaking to Sheridan about the Shadows comes to mind:
skip to the 4min mark for the part I'm thinking about

 

[VoidWanderer]

I was amused by the opening analogy about DVDs being as welcome to the people that made DVD tape rewinders, and got depressed when I remember someone actually made that.

I think Indies will ruin things, and i can't wait for it. Games are proving you don't need a big budget to be great. Some indies even respect other peoples IPs, not a lot but it is happening. This is going to be great!

 

[Seracen]

I still have a real problem with this "8 to 10 time more expensive to develop for" this a close to off the self PC part and most of these people have been making game for the PC for years.

Are they really that different? There is a strong smell of bullshit about the whole thing.

Have to agree here, although the article did bring attention for Capcom's dubious spending habits in this regard.

As much as I rail against Nintendo, I think they are in a unique position here. If they were to market a "standard" controller, and reach out to third parties, they could have a real winner.

After all, the assumption (true or false) is that graphics don't matter as much on the Wii-U. As such, a lot of those game developers might flock, if properly wooed.

I just want to see a Renaissance of JRPGs make it's way onto a console, and I can see Ninty porting all the 3DS and DS titles (which remain the last stand bastion of JRPGs) to its big console. In fact, if they could somehow do this, I think they would crush the competition.

I've long since held the opinion that the largest volume of good games were for handhelds, even though I mildly dislike the medium (I just cannot justify playing on one while my large TV remains inert).

Case in point, I am more excited about the PSVita TV than I have been about either PS4 or XBONE.

 

[wulfgar_red]

it's time to destroy "free" development of software by "the people". no, seriously. after windows 8 i think there is real chance we will be going in that direction from now on. remeber, large corporations don't act rationally and try very stupid things when they feel threaten.

 

[Cat Cloud]

"I'm not saying indies are destroying AAA games."
Read more at http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/10904-The-Indies-Will-Ruin-Everything.2#z4DkhAbYaabIEZ0c.99

Yeah but then why the title... I'll admit it, it made me read the article, but that doesn't mean it wasn't misleading.

 

[Mush]

(I honestly don't know where Wasteland 2 stands at the moment. The Steam early access suggests they need more money to finish.)

I'm fairly sure that's not an issue. The game came up on steam early access because the beta got a release and they used steam to distribute the beta to backers. The ridiculous $60 price tag on the steam early access was a result of the lowest tier required for backers to gain access to the beta in the kickstarter. The actual price is supposedly going to be a lot less than that.

 

[J Tyran]

Last time i checked the most expensive game that has been ever made is GTA V, with 115 million dollars. But here's the interesting thing; the second game is Halo 4 with 30 million dollars.
Now, these are of course DEVELOPMENT BUDGETS, this means that all the AAA games that you have ever played (with the exception of the above two), costed LESS than 30 million bucks to make.

And this is something you should all understand, MAKING GAMES IS NOT SUPER EXPENSIVE, as most big studios want you to believe, what really takes away the money is MARKETING. Halo 4 marketing was wort (see what i did there?) 70 million dollars and GTA V marketing was worth 150 million dollars.

Out of the top of my head Halo 3 was worth 60 million dollars in total, and it made 300 million dollars int he first week, that means 240 million dollars IN THE FIRST WEEK, Now, and this is quite interesting; according to MS itself Halo 4 also made 300 million dollars in its first week, and in case you dont know, GTA V made a billion dollars in the first week.

So my question is, why, or how is it that MS is in monetary problems when its games earn as much as 4 times their overall cost?, IN A WEEK, and this is not just for the biggest launch titles of MS, ODST earned 115 millions in its first two weeks (and it was a side project), and if we are going to believe MS approximations then 2.5 million copies is worth 115 million dollars and thus, each 60 bucks game sold by MS has a net income of 46 dollars (it a very rough estimation, but then im not counting different prices trough continents, as an example Xbox 360 games are worth 85 dollars in my country, either trough the digital store or in retail).

Considering the above Fable 2 made 161 million dollars in a year, Gears of War sold 270 million in a year, GoW 2 sold 230 million in its first 6 months, GoW 3 made 138 in its first week, and this is all MS info, and if we are to believe MS their most expensive game before Halo 4 was Halo 3 which amounted for 60 million dollars (including development and marketing), and as such all the above games costed less than 60 million dollars to make.

And were not considering DLC earnings here, so im quite perplexed, MS is the company that closed Ensemble in 2009 becuase it wasnt making enough money, NOT BECAUSE IT LOST MONEY, and yet were told that the Xbox division of MS loses a billion dollars a year. So please somebody tell me wtf is going on, how can MS lose money if all its exclusives earn that much money without counting DLC earnings, and none has flopped? Their console is cost effective, so what makes them lose a billion bucks a year? KINECKT?

The myth that Microsoft have made losses with the Xbox is spread by Sony fanboys, if you dig through the the investor reports and financial statements Microsoft have made billions when you count in software, peripherals, subscription fees, licencing fees and advertising revenues. They only lost money on the actual console itself which was sold as loss leader for a good portion of its lifespan and only became profitable after several revisions, of course it had its infamous reliability issues which put it even further in the black.

In total everything to do with the Xbox has earned Microsoft a constant profit of be tween $150-350 million (fluctuating) per quarter after Don Mattrick took over and turned it around.

 

[hermes]

I'm just saying indies have created a situation where are the developers are going to have to adapt or implode.

Good. History is full of examples where the holders of old technology has to adapt to the new world or disappear. Movie studios with DVR and TV, music record labels with mp3 and Internet... I am not looking forward to people loosing their jobs, but publishers have fought to maintain the status quo for far too long and the industry is in desperate need of a shake up.

It is ridiculous a game has to sell dozens of millions to be a profitable project. It is ridiculous every retailer game, no matter the size, sells for the same price, and has to compete with every other game. It is ridiculous every AAA game has to be part of a franchise, and a yearly franchise is the golden standard.

 

[hermes]

Well, to be honest I will say that the indie scene has done a lot to quash some of my hopes and dreams, perhaps without realizing it. Largely because the types of games *I* like to play, RPGs on the deeper side of the spectrum with a lot of customization and party management and such, have been embraced by some indie developers. A lot of these games are good mind you, but it seems to actually work to reduce the chances of ever seeing games of this sort (and others) created at a AAA level, I've already caught wind of some devs pretty much sneering at such ideas as being "indie fodder" and a while ago was reading some opinions that indie creations in these generes might drive AAA development away simply because they do not want to compete, especially when the eye candy is going to be secondary to the game experience itself (though speaking for myself, I'd like that too). This help perpetuates a system where AAA games are increasingly aimed at a casual market (and yes most shooters ARE casual games, the equivalent of Farmville, but aimed at a different demographic), where more serious gaming is left to the fringes and indie development. Exceptions exist, they always exist, but apart from rare exceptions this leaves a lot of people like me with a choice of a game that looks like refried dog poop but has the kind of core gameplay I want, or one that looks really pretty but which I'm not likely to find entertaining for the long term.

The thing is, big publishers would not touch those (relatively) niche genre with a ten foot pole, so indies are the only way to get those experiences any more.

For example, I love point & click adventures and when Telltale started making Sam & Max games, I was all over them, because I realize LucasArts was just sitting in the property and no one else was making those games any more. The same with Star Citizen (space simulators), Double Dragon Neon (2D beat them up) or Contrast (2D puzzle).

The problem with your perspective is to think that, if indies didn't carry that torch, publishers would invest AAA budgets to make it happen, which is simply not truth. If anything, there would be one or two franchises after several years and no one else would touch it (think RTS and Starcraft). In your example, consider Final Fantasy 13 and JRPG, that is the future of the genre from the AAA perspective since XII, and they are never going back to turn based. Even Dragon Quest abandoned their classical approach in favor of an MMO style. If anything, the success of indie games in a particular genre would wake up publishers to the potential of getting into the genre, like the case of MOBAs.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

The recent rumor is that it's about eight or ten times more expensive to develop for these next-gen consoles.

Wait, you're basing this on a biased rant from one company, and taking at as fact? Wow.

And it's also a company that hasn't exactly been known for keeping up with technology or the rest of the industry.

 

[ShinobiJedi42]

I just hope we get at least two more good years out of AAA video games before the industry crashes. If it's going to crash, I prefer it to wait until I have kids when I won't have enough time to play video games anyway lol.

 

[Kahani]

Graphics have never been a selling point for me.

People love to say this, but it's simply not true. Graphics may not always be the most important point, but they are always a point. An awesome looking game will always be better than an otherwise identical game that looks shit. In addition, many indie games still have graphics as one of their major selling points, they just tend to focus on style over raw numbers. Simply increasing texture resolutions may not inspire most people to buy a new game, but unless you're someone who only ever plays text-based adventures graphics absolutely are one of the selling points in every single game you ever buy.

I don't think it's so much that indies are killing AAA games so much as indies are filling up the vacuum left by disappointing titles and bloated budgets. Indies aren't destroying the AAA market, the AAA market is.

Very much this. Many indie games have been very successful relative to their budget and development-hours, but that's not actually the same as success in absolute numbers. Shamus says Minecraft turned out not to be an anomaly, but it actually is. Look at any list of best selling video games and Minecraft will be the only indie game anywhere near the top. Wiki, for example, puts it at 5th overall, with no other indie games in the top 30, and a quick scan of the lists by platform suggests you could probably make that the top 100 or more without seeing any other indie games. Or look at some of the things touted as huge successes on Kickstarter - Project Eternity is without doubt one of the most successful and most talked about games when it come to community funding. Under 74,000 people paying under $4 million. It's certainly a great success for what it is, but a few thousand people is hardly going to have a big impact on AAA games looking for tens of millions in sales.

Indie games, and lower budget games in general, are only get to more popular as hundred-million plus budget games become ever less profitable. But they're not going to get less profitable because indie games are taking away their customers, it's simply that they've reached a point where it's almost impossible to get enough customers in the first place regardless of what anyone else might be doing.