Slashdot Mirror
Next-Gen Graphics Might Not Sell Games
jayintune writes "2old2play has a great editorial up regarding the next generation of gaming, and suggests that maybe 'next-gen' graphics and sound will not be what sells games this time around. Instead the next-gen champions will be the ones that provide better content and innovation in their games." From the article: "The average gamer is in their mid-thirties. Many of these adult gamers understand the value of a dollar and have a firm grasp on technological trends. The trend is simple: new technology arrives and costs a ton of money, then prices lower as newer technology hits the market. Developers are not screaming for larger removable disk capacity, yet Sony is forcing a consumer (and developer) to purchase a high capacity Blu-ray device 'for the future.' By the time Blu-ray and HD-DVD's are needed for gaming we will be in the 8th generation of console systems. Why force it on us now?"
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
You can safely give it a miss. They compare price, upgradability, and functionality, and conclude that Sony is in trouble, Nintendo is brilliant and the guys to watch in this generation, and Microsoft might not be brilliant but they're placed better than Sony in this generation. They also think that the expandability of the Xbox 360 is going to matter to someone; I disagree completely, I think that they'll sell practical no HD-DVD addons at full price and pretty much nobody will ever upgrade their hard drive, but I guess we'll see.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Sony wants the HD DVD market. By putting a Blue ray drive into the machine, it puts that many more blue ray drives in households so they can get the movie studios to want to release movies on blue ray discs. plain and simple.
The game I've seen the most hype for lately is Spore and it goes in the opposite direction as far as graphics are concerned. It looked good, but graphics weren't really important at all. During demonstrations nobody was talking about how good the graphics were, they were talking about this new, innovative way of making games. While it's hard to sell a game that doesn't look pretty it looks like it's going to be pretty easy to sell a decent looking, completely innovative game.
I've always pictured the color of OS zealotry as a sort of bright flamingo pinkish hue
Graphics alone doesn't sell games. Gameplay alone doesn't sell games. Cinematics alone doesn't sell games. If you want to sell games, have abit of all of the above, gamers want a full game, not just a cool feature or buzz word. Good games have a balance of what makes games good, so have abit of everything in them.
Gameplay always sells over graphics quality. Consider games like World Of Warcraft and GTA: San Andreas, with their blocky 3000 polygon character models, and how it sells far more than any other game.
I'll tell you one thing, with AA title games selling for $60 a pop now, I'd rather rent first and make sure that the game lives up to the hype. Reviews are pretty much worthless -- most of the game press are industry shills and go to any game site with reviews and you'll see a bunch of 10/10 reviews with "This is the best game ever!" Even if the game happens to blow donkey balls. I'm willing to drop $50 or $60 for Oblivion sight unseen, but there aren't many other titles I'm willing to say that of.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
While dev's maybe haven't been asking aloud for more space, I'm sure a number of them have wished for it. Tons of uncompressed textures, true 24 bit audio, not to mention serious HD video storage... those are all things that can help make games better. Now I'm not a graphics whore - but have you've seen the TGS HD trailer of Metal Gear Solid 4? If that's what Konami is doing with the extra space available - then hell I'm all for more capacity.
This certainly isn't anything new. Since when has a game of purely amazing graphics and no quality gameplay sold millions of copies? No game sells well if it's not fun and engaging. Gaming is an active, not a passive, experience. Therefore graphics are only part of the equation.
Developers: We can use your help.
Maybe is a powerfull word. It makes this entire article pure speculation, opinion, and suggestion.
I would like better game play, better coding so games run smooth on older hardware and better overall scene emersion but I will play anyway.
The truth is that these next gen games will sell just as well as the last, with or without game play... it that were not true Id would not be in business any more.
Yet. The only way it will be is if enough people buy a PS3/B-R drive, at which point Sony will have enough weight behind them to force DVDs out of the market. Hopefully it won't reach that point.
Let's see ... story, plot, sound, gameplay, multiplay features (assuming that the game is not multiplayer-focused), physics ...
These companies need to realize that a large portion of the gaming population came from a time when 16-color EGA and then 256-color VGA were the norm. Graphics are no longer the big "ooh aah" that they used to be because we've had realistic graphics for years! Oh, but look! We can make it more realistic!
Some games that are mindless fun have sold well (e.g.: Doom) but there still comes a time when people need more than graphics. Sam and Max and those old LucasArts games sold because they were FUN. Magic Carpet was the perfect combination of everything - graphics, sound, gameplay, fun factor! (I *so* wish someone would buy the rights to it and release a more modern version.) Look at how popular Infocom games were (and still bring fond memories to many) with no graphics at all.
Then there are games like Red Faction on the other side. Truly destructable terrain, something that had not been seen since Magic Carpet, but the game sucked! Besides destructable terrain, it was another FPS.
Frankly, with respect to this whole attitude that "it might not be about the graphics", my only response is "It's about f**king time you realized that!" Graphics are one part of the successful game formula. It's too bad that the gamers recognized that balance a lot time ago and that developers apparently are only now catching up.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Sure, renting is the way to go. But soon developers will catch up and, besides outlawing renting those games, they'll make sure DRM takes its share of the burden to make sure you BUY the games that look pretty.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why they're pushing for next-gen removable media? DRM.
Imagine the possibilities! Ensuring no copies, killing the second-hand market, eliminating those rentals (where the customer sees that he's been BSed by the "reviews" and how the game really sucks before he bought it).
Wouldn't this be your wet dream if you were in the seller's position and greedy?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When people think about upgrading to Next-Generation platforms they don't (necessarily) think of better graphics; they do think about the elimination of the factors that are limiting their gaming experience. Traditionally this limit has been closely related to graphics, but I'm not so sure that is the case anymore.
Certainly, with better graphics you can tell a more impressive story (or draw the player deeper into the game) but I think the emphasis has moved away from graphics and is now more firmly centered around gameplay elements. If you doubt this ask yourself one question, which game looked better (in a technical way) Everquest 2 or World of Warcraft? Now which one sold better?
You may say that "Better playing games have always sold well" but if you actually talk to many gamers you'll find that many of them have favourite games that sold poorly because they were ugly or lacked the technological features that created buzz.
1. sparkly graphics
2. great gameplay
3. low budget
pick two.
My biggest issue with the whole "Blu-Ray" thing.. who knows if it's going to be the "standard" HD format? I bet that beta would become the "standard" in tapes.. but no. It was VHS. I'm irritated by having an HD drive bundled with my console on the premise that "You'll need it someday". Says who? By the time HD movies are popular, Blu-ray could be a thing of the past.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. - Douglas Adams
Back in the stone age, graphics made the back of the box look good. Seedy publishers started to put cutscenes on the box, and so we all got burned. Today, anyone can quickly scour the internet for reviews and find out which games are fun, and which are not (once you filter out all the "this is the greatest game ever" reviews that people use to feel good about their purchase). Maybe the little pictures on the box helped sell more games in the past, but that era has long past.
Check out which games get enshrined as the "Greatest Games of All Time" (pick your favorite game site). Almost none of them were reliant on graphics - for most, graphics simply complimented the gameplay. All of them were fun for many people.
Graphics alone will never do it for people when it comes to games. Games inherently trail movies in terms of production quality, since everything must be done real time. Oblivion may look good for a game, but it looks like crap compared to Shrek, which is now several years old. Dragon's Lair looked almost as good as He-Man, but it really wasn't all that fun pressing the single action button at just the right time, was it?
Deer Hunter had terrible looking graphics, poor game play and it still sold well.
For all those people on Slashdot who argue that graphics don't matter to gamers anymore, I'd like to offer myself as a counterexample. Graphics do matter to me, in a big way. And I know that there are others out there like me, because otherwise ATI and NVIDIA wouldn't be able to sell high-end graphics boards. Maybe we aren't the majority, but we do exist.
Heck, when most of the "advanced graphics" are for HDTV, which most people don't have and won't be buying until they're forced to, you'd think they'd clue in that people care more about the games themselves.
... and the same for Sims 2.
When I was thinking about the xBox360/PS3/Wii choice back a few months, I started realizing I was likely to buy a Wii when I noticed that I wanted to actually play four-fifths of the games that were announced as being developed for it, and only cared about two or three games of all the xBox360 titles, while the Sony PS3 had maybe twenty titles I might want to play.
And then E3 confirmed that even more.
I may end up buying a PS3. I don't own a PS2 - I have a GameCube and an xBox - I bought the xBox to play one game - I think I've got three games for it now, and one of those is cross-platform. But I won't be buying the xBox360, because it doesn't have the games I want to play, unless they're cross-platform. Although I should say that Lego Star Wars has sweeter graphics on the xBox than on the GameCube
But a new console is more of a gut feel - I want to buy something that I know I'll have lots of choices of really fun games to play on it, but won't have to waste time wading thru ones I don't want to play at the gamestore.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
First, let's get something out of the way. The top of the line version of each system is really the only one to get. The big thing about PS3 is blu-ray, and that will eventually be useless as a movie player unless you have the $600 version (HDMI). You get a good value for the premium 360, as componenet cables and a memory card would nearly take up the difference themselves. MS stated they would drop the price of the 360 yearly, so let us assume in november the premium will drop to $360. Nintendo would be considered a value at $250 this generation, so I'll assume they will go for that. So that leaves us $600 vs $360 vs $250.
I believe most gamers will vie for something with next-generation graphics, and likely something innovative as well. So this means likely a Wii and either a 360 or PS3.
The problem I have with the PS3, other than price, is that it is a gamble. First, I'm gambling that blu-ray will become the established format. Then, I'm gambling that $70 APEX (or some other cheap chinese) blu-ray/HD-DVD players won't come out within a year and negate the PS3. All the DVD player technical reviews I have seen stated that the ps2 dvd player was mediocre quality, how do I know that the ps3 player will be superior to a cheap chinese knockoff?
So, for $600 in novemeber I can get a premium 360 and a Wii, and I bet within a year a combo HD player for under $100. Why should I get a PS3? I get both innovative gameplay and next-gen graphics for the same price as a ps3, and I won't be stuck gambling that bu-ray will be the next format. (yah, it took a long time for DVD player prices to go down, but the cheap chinese companies are already here this time, and I doubt they care if they get the blu-ray specs legally).
Ok it had to be said. MS tried to do this, but they had hard deadlines of last year so that they would be the first to market in the "next-gen" race. The delays killed that idea. Personally if I had to choose between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray wins every time simply because it is better technology. Does this mean that Sony made the right decision? Well, time will tell. Personally this is how I feel, I am most definitely buying the Wii the day is it out. I "might" buy a PS3 if/when the price drops. I will NOT buy a XBox360 (its still a freaking PC, I already have one of them which is much more upgradible).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I don't play games much, but NetHack really picked a good mixture of playability, plot, twitchiness, and portability. I might use the graphics overlay a bit more if my laptop screen had more pixels, but colored text mode is really just fine. You don't need 5.1 sound if all the sound comes from your imagination...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I think after a certain point the role of graphics in a game became less important. The gap between my SNES and Genesis and my PS1 was huge, and as a result it was an exciting development. Between the PS1 and PS2 the difference was less pronounced. It was there technically, and you could see the improvements, but it was so so as far as improvements go. Both were 3D. Both featured environments which looked like real life where appropriate. I didn't really care. It's equally unimpressive with the PS3. Really who gives a shit if there is a higher quality camel toe shadow on some half arsed volley ball game? It isn't worth the money.
Give me good ratings or I will close down the internet.
Shows what you know. Magic Carpet requires a native DOS environment to run. I know because I have a 350 MHz PC specifically to run old DOS games that do not work well with an emulator. Magic Carpet is one of them. I've tried all of the major DOS emulators out there. The copy protection in Magic Carpet does a call to MSCDEX to make sure that the CD is in the drive. Because MSCDEX, as of last year anyway, could not be properly emulated to that level on any of the DOS emulators, there was no way to play it without native DOS.
Upgrading Magic Carpet to take advantage of modern hardware would be wonderful, but allowing it to run even in a windowed environment would be all that I'd need.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
The PS3 comes with hard drive with both models that will be used to significantly increases load time by cacheing the relevant datas. That's one area that it has the Xbox 360 beaten.
...the previous round, and the round before.
Why do people feel like they have to write editorials about this?
I play my console most of the time, but every couple of months I burn out
on it and end up playing nethack for a couple of weeks until I'm ready
to play the console again.
Sometimes I'll play ADOM or Zangband, but usually it's nethack.
If the console had more turn-based games, I probably wouldn't burn out as
often.
*sigh* back to work...
Good graphics just means that the game is pleasing to watch, it's not necessarily anything to do with technology.
Take Katamari Damacy: flat shaded, small textures and low polygon objects, but the whole thing looks great because of the art style. Compare that to something like Unreal Tournament 2004, which has technologically better graphics but just looks dull and soulless in comparison.
BULLSHIT!
It is like saying you prefer women with a good personality over one with good looks. Yeah right. Who are you trying to kid.
And what about games where graphics affect the gameplay?
What do you prefer, an enemy with a health meter OR an enemy where you can see how damaged he is?
Is a flightsim where you can see the wing surfaces move a better flightsim because of it? If not then why are there so many usermods for MS Flightsimulator that add extra options like opening doors, lighted cabins etc etc.
Why for that matter bother with higher res textures depicting real airlines? All it means is that you loose a few frames of performance and graphics don't matter right?
The PSP and DS are at two extreme ends. Nobody can deny that PSP grahphics just look better. But does it matter for gameplay? Well playing some DS/GBA games I am forced to ask myself when Nintendo will finally pull their games into 1990 and add some bloody speech.
It is really a nice change to be able to just listen to your handheld rather then having to read slowly scrolling text.
Is speech just candy? Or does it help make a more real game.
Frankly we hear this same discussion about graphics being less important then gameplay every console generation and everytime a new vidcard comes out.
So far it doesn't seem to stop people buy the latest console or vidcard.
If you really think graphics don't matter, play the original pong on a old tv. Have fun.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Sorry folks, but it's not 1995 anymore. I hate to say it, but tacking '3D' onto the end of your game's title is no longer a selling point. We all played Star Fox, we got the fucking point. Z-Axis, third dimension, whatever. Throw something cool in it, like fun gameplay and a halfway decent story, when applicable, and you might have me sold.
A generic, boring game in pretty clothes is still a generic, boring game. It just looks good, so it keeps your attention for an additional, say, two minutes or so, until you realize it's just another generic, boring game, and that you liked it a lot better when it was called 'Quake' and actually had some substance. Any game developer that doesn't get this doesn't belong in the games business. They belong in Hollywood, or Bollywood, depending on where most of their labor has been outsourced to. (I'm looking at you, Square Enix.)
How can the game be even an evolution simulation while leaving out the possibility of fur. From what we've seen so far they seemed to have left out any possibility of creating MAMMALS of any kind. No live birth (only eggs), no hair, no mammary glands.
If I can't evolve my creature to look like any REAL creature as well as imaginary, then what's the point of giving me constrained freedom. If I can't evolve a mouse into an ape into a human, then why play an evolving game.
Seriously, the scale bump mapping looks great, but if the PS2 can do great fur for Shadow of the Collosus and the XBox 360 can do fur for Kameo, then the average 2007 gamer PC should be able to do fur no problem. I just hope that Will Wright rectifies this design error before the game ships - and doesn't make it a Mammals expansion. Just so you know I am looking forward to this game, I just thought I would cut through the irrational exuberance surrounding it.
5) Getting up once during a game to change discs shouldn't bother anyone with legs.
Which is fine if the second half of the game takes place in a completely separate part of the game world, but if the player can move freely about the game world (as in the Grand Theft Auto series), I can imagine that there's going to be a lot more disc swapping going on.
The PS3 comes with hard drive with both models that will be used to significantly increases load time by cacheing the relevant datas.
So when you take your game to your friend's house to play it on his or her PSGrill, you have to wait several minutes while it installs^W "caches" the game to the hard drive. How fun is that? And then when you're done, your friend has to wait to reinstall^W re-"cache" his or her own games onto the unit.
Well playing some DS/GBA games I am forced to ask myself when Nintendo will finally pull their games into 1990 and add some bloody speech. It is really a nice change to be able to just listen to your handheld rather then having to read slowly scrolling text.
It's not a technology problem, as even the GBA is perfectly capable of decoding GSM audio at 30 kbps. It's a content production problem. It costs Nintendo money to pay Charles Martinet to speak all of Mario's lines.
Frankly we hear this same discussion about graphics being less important then gameplay every console generation and everytime a new vidcard comes out. So far it doesn't seem to stop people buy the latest console or vidcard.
That's because the console makers stop making the older consoles and stop authorizing titles for them. There are no new NES, Super NES, N64, or Game Boy Color games being produced commercially, and among the three handhelds that Nintendo sells that can play Game Boy Advance games (GBA SPv2, Game Boy micro, Nintendo DS), only one can also play Game Boy Color games.
Game developers dont need more storage space...k...so why when i install a game do i see overly compressed images and movies and horrible quality sounds?
Why arent all the images and movies compressed lightly? Why arent i hearing 96KHz sounds (that my card supports)?
Its not my problem developers cant think of something to put onto the disk.
...due to its controllers that will open up new and interesting ways to play games. Gameplay is what counts. Pretty graphics are nice, but they no longer sell the game.
The Gamespot's PC top games chart has 10 games, out of which all the games are strategy, RPG and adventure. Which means that people want gameplay, not fancy graphics only.
While I agree that "fun" matters more, a lot of people still judge games by the screenshots.
Story: when Nintendo's press conference broke, I sent screenshots to my friends of Wii games. A lot of people said the same thing: "It doesn't look that great; I'm not interested in the games." When I sent them the video of Nintendo execs bouncing around on stage they then said "Ok, looks cool."
And think about it: what are the primary means of learning about upcoming games? Some people have IGN/GameSpot/et all subscriptions and get high quality video. Most just look at screenshots in the review. When mom goes to buy a game for junior, she looks at the endcap advertising and the box. Screenshots still sell the game, no matter what anyone says.
What Nintendo (and any other company who wants to break the mold) needs to do is have a lot of Wii controllers at every game store. Let people play the thing. It's the only way it's gonna sell.
Honestly, why folks seem to think the videogame market is mutually exclusive is beyond me. A crap-ass movie is still a crap-ass movie even in HD-DVD on a $20k Plasma screen that can be watched from the Moon and 7.1 surround sound on an uber expensive audio system that goes all the way up to 11.
I've watched low budget titles in plain stereo that blew me away and immersed me beyond belief on a 25" RCA TV. Pi, SmallTime, Big Man on Campus, Bully, Kids, Bichunmoo, etc.
Guess what? Same with games. Same with music. Same with everything.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
...perhaps misleading. Sure, pretty graphics (or higher quality sound, etc.) alone won't sell next-gen games -- heck, they aren't what sells this-gen games or sold last-gen games, either. But better visual, sound, etc. enables better experiences and more intuitive interfaces and better feedback -- IOW, better gameplay.
Sure, people will buy what provides them the best subjective experience (or at least, what they expect to do that, based on previews, reviews, cover art and copy, etc.) But you couldn't provide the kind of interface and gameplay experience you get from (to take a PC rather than console example) the Total War series on a 4.77Mhz 8088 PC with CGA graphics.
Similarly, the power to push more polygons at higher framerates and do better positional sound and physics simulation and more involved AI enabled by better hardware performance (but still also requiring new advances in software) will continue to enable gameplay experiences that you can't get without those bells and whistles. Graphics alone won't sell games, but taking full advantage of the capacity provided by high-end graphics will continue to often be a big factor in building the gameplay experience that does.
Console Polygamy!
Whole new meaning to B!G LOVE.
If you catch me playing a console at my house, it probably wont be mine. IF it is mine, please call the AirForce and warn them of the impending Alien Invasion!
I will stick with the PC platform until it ceases to become practical. Yes a "GAMING" PC costs about $1200 (mobo, power, ram, cpu, vid card. You allready have the drives & case anyway right?)vs ~$600
But unlike other game systems, I can use a mouse and Keyboard!
As well as scanner, printer, fax, network (althought this is now coming of age on consoles), oh yeah and I am allowed to write my own software, if I choose. (note:I am not a programmer) Games on PC give me a plethora of controls to enhance my playing capabilities. While consoles are catching up to PC, PC is still top notch for graphics, sound, and physics performance. I can modify or upgrade my system as I choose, and when it becomes obsolete, I can still use it to help crack RC20s or render for Bryce, or just fold protiens while sitting in the kitchen to surf the net or help with recipies & shoping.
What does a console do when it becomes obsolete? 10 years later someone decides to overclock it, and get R-TYPE to work at constant rate. <faked enthusiasm>YEah.. </faked enthusiasm> Turbo Grafix 16 did that along time ago...
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.