A very good GDC session

[Joe DeFuria]

Now all we need is to be able to download games onto our consoles with some sort of micro-payments model. Budget game prices or try before you buy. But Sony/MS/Nintendo would have to create this infrastructure with the publishers...or we're really stuck with the status quo...

Basically, I agree with you.

What irks me a bit is to see these devs bitch and moan and Sony / MS. It doesn't seem like it's dawned on them to worh with them, instead of making mortal enemies of them.

Reminds me of union labor vs. management.....

 

[Lazy8s]

The design of modern gameplay is unhealthy to the industry. Design blueprints call for arbitrarily high numbers of levels and features with little regard to overstretching the scope of play and imbalancing the pacing of challenge and reward, as if quantity of content itself was a more compelling gameplay mechanic. Instead of being engaged to put their time into solving the depth of a puzzle, a player is given a lengthy progression of superficial, painstakingly-created custom content through which to wade.

A majority of the lethal cost of game development is in producing all of that content and all of those assets, yet players don't even finish games to see it all. Development budgets soar until releases can't make back their investment, even well-sized companies can't afford the risk to compete, and surviving publishers enslave their workforce to compensate.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A majority of the lethal cost of game development is in producing all of that content and all of those assets, yet players don't even finish games to see it all.

Very true! I've two friends that are fairly frequent game buyers, but rarely complete any of the games they've purchased. I make sure I finish everything, though quite often by halfway the gameplay has settled down to predictable repetition, often with totally overpowered characters that breeze through enemies.

I think Driver/Driver 2 were good in that the gameplay came from trying to solve the challenging missions, some of which were incredibly hard. Perhaps too hard in some instances, but the game wasn't only content driven but actually beating a challenge.

The question is, does the modern gamer WANT a challenge? After the frustrations of work, does Joe Public want to come home and struggle to beat a puzzle or whatever, or does he want to veg out and easily conquer his gaming 'troubles'? If people like a challenge, why do game guides sell, even alongside new games? It's like people buy a game and guide so they can do all the secrets, get uber-powerful, and breeze through no challenge. I imagine that's what modern gamers like - being unstoppable in a virtual universe instead of small struggling mortals in the real world.

Just as no-plot Hollywood fluff sells bucketloads and 'hi-art' films appeal to a small minority, maybe mainstream is only capable of supporting content-driven fluff, and 'hard-core' games will be for the minority 'hard-core' gamers?

 

[j^aws]

...
Just as no-plot Hollywood fluff sells bucketloads and 'hi-art' films appeal to a small minority, maybe mainstream is only capable of supporting content-driven fluff, and 'hard-core' games will be for the minority 'hard-core' gamers?

I'd say hard-core gamers 'appreciate' and 'enjoy' games whilst joe-public 'enjoys' games. No different from any other pastime really.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

The design of modern gameplay is unhealthy to the industry.

I just see it as a logical evolution.

Design blueprints call for arbitrarily high numbers of levels and features with little regard to overstretching the scope of play and imbalancing the pacing of challenge and reward, as if quantity of content itself was a more compelling gameplay mechanic.

...because that's what sells. That's what the public "wants", apparently.

"Quantity of content" is one metric that consumers use when making purchasing decisions. ("How many levels?" How many monsters?). Similar to graphics....it's a "hook" that gets people to buy the game. I'm not saying this is right or wrong...just human nature. It's not publishers that I see needing a change: they are catering to consumers. Consumers need to change.

The number of "educated consumers" in gaming...those that actually don't care (or probably more accuratly..say they don't care about graphics..."just give me gameplay"), is relatively small, I'd wager.

A majority of the lethal cost of game development is in producing all of that content and all of those assets, yet players don't even finish games to see it all.

And yet...players continue to buy it.

Development budgets soar until releases can't make back their investment, even well-sized companies can't afford the risk to compete, and surviving publishers enslave their workforce to compensate.

I think that's bullshit.

No one is "enslaving" anyone.

There is nothing....absolutely NOTHING stopping anyone from creating a game and distributing a game that they want to make. Gamers don't want "quantity of content?" Fine...then don't spend the money on that content! Hard to get shelf space? Who needs it! Put the game on a web server and electronically distribute...ala Steam.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't claim that we don't "need or want quantity of content", and then turn around and say devs are being "enslaved" to produce that content.

On a related note: I see the gaming biz kinda like where the music industry was about 20 years ago. Right about the time the transition from LPs and tapes to CDs was taking place. At that time, it was pretty much prohibitively expensive to "produce" your own music. Getting CDs on the market was really expensive...prohibitivley so for any "garage band". Technology is what contributed to this. Consumers "demanded" the flexibility and quality of CDs. If you didn't have the resources to produce them...good luck in breaking through. But you know what? I contend that the majority consumers only thought they wanted "CD quality". They wanted "better than audio tape and LP" quality....but very few actually wanted "CD quality." (More on this in a sec.)

Look at games today...consumers demand the "quantity and quality" of content that demands a large investment. Do consumers really want that though? Or "just enough" to make real game play (which is what they subconsciously want) more interesting? I contend that as we let technology run its course....it will ultimately be relatively cheap to produce these games we're talking about, and the "gameplay" aspect will take care of itself. We're just not there yet.

Back to music....today, it is relatively CHEAP to produce and distribute what consumers actually want: "Good enough" quality tracks that people can take anywhere. Technology has enabled this. (Solid state playback devices via cheaper processing power and memory, internet distribution). You don't need "zillions" of dollars to put out and distribute a track that has the "quality" that consumers demand. What's left is the artistic value of the track itself.

Fast forward 20 years...technology may progress to the point where the middleware solutions enable artists and devs to easily (cheaply) translate their ideas into a game. Memory and processing power may be so cheap, that "high quality graphics" is basically a given. The ONLY thing left separating the good from the bad is "gameplay."

So, what I'm trying to say is this: yes, I agree that due to technology, there is great emphasis put on the "superficial" aspects of games...because the conusmer sees those superficial aspects as selling points. But I don't think you can just "change that" through force. You need to let technology progress such that it makes these superficial things so cheap and ubiquitous, that the only thing "left" to compare one game to another, is the artistry and gameplay.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I agree costs and possibilities should come down a lot for Indies. 3D content creation used to be the perogative of $n thousand StudioMAX and Maya packages, but now low cost 3D packages exist for gamers. Similarly there's free and low-cost libraries to do difficult but valuable things like Physics. These'll improve over time. The limits now are developer quality, but as many Indie developers can surely testify, getting a group to work together on a project without anyone actually paying wages is very difficult...

I'd say the big problem of the future with Mass-indie games is getting noticed. There are zillions of new musical artists appearing through low-cost mass digital distribution. How will any get big enough to make a living from it? Very few. I doubt any Indie will ever become a big, big name, unless as a studio through competitions and awards, they get noticed and bought out. Still room for the future of games, especially on PC. Just don't expect to make lots of money from it!

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I'd say the big problem of the future with Mass-indie games is getting noticed.

Agreed. When your product becomes a "comoddity", all that's really left to differentiate you from the next guy, is market awareness.

Still room for the future of games, especially on PC. Just don't expect to make lots of money from it!

Bingo.

It becomes a case of "be careful what you wish for".

 

[London Geezer]

I think the situation will become very similar to the movie industry, with big blockbuster productions making shitloads of money and the little indie ones, which numerous times provide much better experiences than the big blockbusters.
Even Indie movies cost money to make, just not as much as big productions.
As long as the ideas are there, i think small developers financed by people with a vision will survive.

 

[Lazy8s]

Consumers actually aren't buying the modern game enough, which is why the majority of releases lose money. And yet, the market has never been larger. Production budgets are, therefore, revealed as being excessively expensive for the industry, a miscalculation that has already seen the loss of many independent developers and publishers this generation.

The gameplay dynamic doesn't have to be: perform action and then repeat it, only with a new background or against a different enemy graphic. It could be: perform action and then perform it differently to get a better result or better reward.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That has to be true. Look at all the other hobbies out there. Take sports. Tennis, badminton, golf...all the same gameplay, and generally without a change of scenery. What keeps people going is the fact they start rubbish and get better. It's improving the player that matters. I stuck a while with Tekken learning Anna deliberately, timing counterattacks etc. I never tried enough to get really good and so could still get trounced by a button-mashing Law. That's annoying. Someone randomly hits buttons and does killer moves. They enjoy it, but tire quickly and want to experiment with another character. That's the problem with compter games. They're targetted at being simple to play and reward players with content (new moves/spells) whle requiring little player development.

I want games that develop MY skills. GT was good in this respect. Same old game (driving, driving, driving) on the same old course (Laguna Seca) but I stuck with it as my skills improved and managed to shave seconds off my time. And Tetris!! Same old matching of blocks over and over, but how a big a success was that?! People were trying to do better.

Maybe it's time for a shift and developers actually write to human nature instead of the laws governing 2 hour Hollywood movies?

 

[Qroach]

Joe,

I know this is your opinion, but you don't have any idea what goes on behind closed doors.

No one is "enslaving" anyone.

First, you simply don't know what is going on in the industry. I take "enslaving", to mean forcing people to work 120 hour work weeks with threatening of loosing your job if you don't do it. I know MANY people that have gone thorugh this with various companies. BIG companies that are making lot's of money.

There is nothing....absolutely NOTHING stopping anyone from creating a game and distributing a game that they want to make.

Sure there is. First of all, this doesn't completely apply to the PC, it's more of a console oriented comment. New original games appear at the start of each console generation, but as time goes on publishers start to take less risks on new titles and more on sequels (since a sequel is less risky). Not only do you have to deal with what the publisher wants, but dealing with Sony and trying to release an original game can be next to impossible as each year passes. They tend to approve less and less games each year and tend to favour more big budget and or sequels.

To say there is "nothing" stopping anyone from creating and distributing a game they want to make, simplyisn't accurate. It is certainly true of teh console biz, and many PC game retailers such as EB have a mandate to only take first to market orders for new PC titles and only reorder the proven franchises. So even trying to get your game into retail on the PC can be difficult.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe,

I know this is your opinion, but you don't have any idea what goes on behind closed doors.

No, I have a different assesment of what goes on behind closed doors than you.

First, you simply don't know what is going on in the industry.

Maybe you're "too close" to the industry to have an objective look at it.

I take "enslaving", to mean forcing people to work 120 hour work weeks with threatening of loosing your job if you don't do it.

So, who's forcing you (figuratively) to keep your job if you don't like it? Get a different one. What? If you quit then that won't stop the company because there are 5000 other people ready to take your job? Welcome to "competition."

To say there is "nothing" stopping anyone from creating and distributing a game they want to make, simplyisn't accurate. It is certainly true of teh console biz...

Yes, that's true for the console biz but it's evolving. (And yet, people are bashing MS for exploring the avenues like Micropayments to help enable "cheap" distribution).

And many PC game retailers such as EB have a mandate to only take first to market orders for new PC titles and only reorder the proven franchises. So even trying to get your game into retail on the PC can be difficult.

And retail shelves are the only way to distribute PC titles?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

What I'm saying, Quincy, is that yes, right now, it IS expensive to create / distribute titles that are in "demand" by the consumer. But you'll just have to wait until technology advances to the point where it lowers the costs for distribution, and enables "artists" to quickly and easily create content and mesh it into a game.

It's a natural evolution...and there's nothing you can really do to "force" something to occur ahead of its time.

 

[Lumine]

I take "enslaving", to mean forcing people to work 120 hour work weeks with threatening of loosing your job if you don't do it. I know MANY people that have gone thorugh this with various companies. BIG companies that are making lot's of money.

Are these cats on salary? If not, who is to blame?

*rubs hands at roughly 80 hours of time and a half*

edit: On the other hand, sounds like these guys need a union.

 

[ERP]

What I'm saying, Quincy, is that yes, right now, it IS expensive to create / distribute titles that are in "demand" by the consumer. But you'll just have to wait until technology advances to the point where it lowers the costs for distribution, and enables "artists" to quickly and easily create content and mesh it into a game.

It's a natural evolution...and there's nothing you can really do to "force" something to occur ahead of its time.

My experience is it's going the other way.......
It's now much more expensive to create content for a game, due in large part to the quantity and quality levels that are involved.
Now it probably will get Cheaper at least in the short term for the big boys, they'll just out source the work to Asia. Artwork has reached the point where it's relatively easy to outsource, partly because there aren't very many obscure restrictions anymore.

Unfortunately I agree that it's a natural evloution that were seeing, but I think that evolution is towards mass market content, and more consolidation. Not creative freedom and fically viable small devs.

In terms of "enslaving people", I've done more than my fair share of 100+ hour weeks and 48 hour plus work days, and I dispise some of the industry work practices, I think they are detrimental to product, people and long term the companies, personally I always have the option to walk away. For those with famillies and financial comitments it can be extremly difficult.

I don't think unions are the answer, and I think work practices are getting better, people at the top talk a better game plan than used to be the case, even if the reality is only changing slowly.

 

[passerby]

And I suppose nearing the end of this topic, Ron Gilbert gives his opinion at Grumpy Gamer - http://grumpygamer.com/ and Greg Costikyan has a follow-up in his blog - http://www.costik.com/weblog/2005_03_01_blogchive.html#111075349839054794

 

[Joe DeFuria]

My experience is it's going the other way.......
It's now much more expensive to create content for a game, due in large part to the quantity and quality levels that are involved.

Oh, I agree. That's the sort term direction things are going. (Just as it was getting more and more expensive to produce "CD Music" back in the early dawn of the digital music era.)

Back then people "demanded CD Quality" tracks.

My point was that we will just have to be patient and wait for more technological advancement so that it becomes relatively cheap. That is, anyone with artistic vision and talent can pretty much slap together a game.

I admit, it may seem far fetched. But once the tools reach that level and the "graphics quality and content" don't really vary much from game to game...we're left with actually putting more emphasis on the game itself, and less on the "whizz bang" stuff that consumers are drawn to today.