Too Human Dev Predicts Social Gaming Crash

[Woodsey]

I wish we could stop calling it free to play. Although I suppose free-to-play-until-you-want-to-do-anything-more-than-take-a-shit isn't so catchy.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I have to point out that this guy also predicted that Too Human would not suck hairy sasquatch balls, which it did.

I would say that it, in fact, did not suck. What it did was competent enough. The problem was, there simply wasn't enough to fill the enormous time sink that was that game.

 

[Krunkcity3000]

LOL, this from the guy who predicted Too Human would be a trilogy.

 

[RollForInitiative]

Yeah, let's take the word from the man that thought Too Human was a good idea. That sounds legit enough!

But everyone forgets the awesomeness that was Eternal Darkness.

Let's face it: whomever the brains really were behind that project, they've long since left the company. Bloody shame, that.

 

[jpoon]

Oh god, I so very much hope Dyack is right! Social games are ALWAYS shit and they need to be done away with. If someone has a good idea for a game that involves some social elements then make a real fucking game with it not some crap that serves no purpose other than entertaining a non-gamer for about 15 minutes, what a waste of developers skills...

 

[TiefBlau]

I love how the only thing the majority of this thread is capable of discussing is that they made Too Human.

 

[captaincabbage]

I have to point out that this guy also predicted that Too Human would not suck hairy sasquatch balls, which it did.

I would say that it, in fact, did not suck. What it did was competent enough. The problem was, there simply wasn't enough to fill the enormous time sink that was that game.

. . . leading to a sucky game.

 

[Callate]

It's not impossible, but given the source, I'd have to say it sounds like wishful thinking. More to the point, I suppose, is there any reason to believe that if "social gaming" did crash that the experience of playing social games would actually lead even a significant minority of those players to try other genres in the more (so called) "hardcore" realms?

 

[Venereus]

Dismissing him for making Too Human is just strawman. Dismissing "social" gaming because it's made of marketing is stupid. It works and will continue to do so, because it's a well marketed boring grindfest. Of course it boggles the mind of us "hardcore" gamers, used to AAA and whatnot, but remember, most people are dumb, and they don't know the better gaming we're used to.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

Since the social gaming bubble is growing now, so it should keep growing and growing forever and ever into infinity! Perfect investment strategy.

 

[Laith]

Show them how it's done by creating Eternal Darkness 2, Silicon Knights!

Hell yeah.

 

[Hachura]

Social gaming might crash, but when it does it certainly won't crash as hard as the Too Human 'franchise'.

@ohsnap

 

[venn2011]

While I realize this guy has a big failure tied to his name, I also tend to agree with him on this point.

I remember the huge craze over anything with a .com at the end of it in the late 90's and early oughts. Anyone remember Pets.com?

Sometimes investors are so rabid to be in on the next big thing, their speculation is bigger than the pool of profit to be had. While some .coms remain profitable today, many others struggle. Even mighty ebay is having trouble, and it was considered the juggernaut of .coms.

I still say, there is a limited amount of money to be had in social gaming. People who might put a dollar or two down to buy a new Smurf hat aren't going to support a multimillion dollar production. These games are profitable because they are cheap to make. But if everyone gets in on the business, how do you compete against so many identical products? Companies will have to start making flashier and flashier games, and that's when they will begin to fail.

People who only play free to play games, for the most part, aren't interested in plunking down $60 for a game that uses a controller that has more than 10 buttons on it, and requires an hour long tutorial to learn how to play it. If they were, they'd have done it long ago. They want something simple, and cheap - something they can fiddle with while they fuck off at work, or stand in the grocery line. There is a limit to how much money people like this are willing to spend to screw around on their phone. The more expensive these free to play endeavors become, the less profit these companies will make.

Personally, I also see this as a bubble. There's money to be had there, for sure. It just isn't as much as all the investors hope for.

This. This, this, THIS.

Social Gaming will most likely won't fail catastrophically like the guy said in the article, but it is true that there probably isn't enough pie for everyone who makes one.

And I also like to add that if the fad/trend shifts and the attention of all those customers moves away from the social games... then what?

Not to mention most of these games are probably just repetitive or grindfest... how long can you grab a person's attention with that, unless that person is really, really hooked?

 

[Jack Macaque]

The Silicon Knights boss says that social games are more like marketing than "real games."

...isn't this a well known fact?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

I have to point out that this guy also predicted that Too Human would not suck hairy sasquatch balls, which it did.

I would say that it, in fact, did not suck. What it did was competent enough. The problem was, there simply wasn't enough to fill the enormous time sink that was that game.

. . . leading to a sucky game.

I think the difference in our positions is that I enjoyed my time with the game because there are things that are good. That enjoyment did not last until the end of the game but that doesn't not make it devoid of merit or entertainment value. I would not go so far as to say it is a good game; it is simply a game that had some good ideas but not enough to make it anything special.

And I think it is strange that so many people are talking about how awful Too Human was considering, according to the sales, that game did not sell well.

 

[captaincabbage]

I have to point out that this guy also predicted that Too Human would not suck hairy sasquatch balls, which it did.

I would say that it, in fact, did not suck. What it did was competent enough. The problem was, there simply wasn't enough to fill the enormous time sink that was that game.

. . . leading to a sucky game.

I think the difference in our positions is that I enjoyed my time with the game because there are things that are good. That enjoyment did not last until the end of the game but that doesn't not make it devoid of merit or entertainment value. I would not go so far as to say it is a good game; it is simply a game that had some good ideas but not enough to make it anything special.

And I think it is strange that so many people are talking about how awful Too Human was considering, according to the sales, that game did not sell well.

First off, why are you turning this into some debate of the validity of opinions? I was just making a fucking joke.

Secondly, I don't care about what you just said. I'm sorry, but I just don't. Namely because I was just making a goddamn joke, but also because you don't make a very compelling argument. I didn't say that a shit game can't be fun, just that that game wasn't fun for me.

 

[Mahorfeus]

Dismissing him for making Too Human is just strawman. Dismissing "social" gaming because it's made of marketing is stupid. It works and will continue to do so, because it's a well marketed boring grindfest. Of course it boggles the mind of us "hardcore" gamers, used to AAA and whatnot, but remember, most people are dumb, and they don't know the better gaming we're used to.

Implying all of us "hardcore" gamers are elitist dickwads, no?

 

[Venereus]

Dismissing him for making Too Human is just strawman. Dismissing "social" gaming because it's made of marketing is stupid. It works and will continue to do so, because it's a well marketed boring grindfest. Of course it boggles the mind of us "hardcore" gamers, used to AAA and whatnot, but remember, most people are dumb, and they don't know the better gaming we're used to.

Implying all of us "hardcore" gamers are elitist dickwads, no?

No, just that we' know better than the average "social" gamer. Being elitist about it is up to personal choice.

 

[Plurralbles]

as a guy who wishes he could develop, I have to say that social games can be so much more than that.

Just people are looking for a quick cash in because it's relatively new and the first people trodding in have to make a quick buck due to going out and saying, "we're goin to make a quick buck onthis"

It's all in the mindset of the people who start a project.