Slashdot Mirror
Megatrends In Game Development
Gamasutra has a feature discussing some of the extremely common trends in current game design. Many publishers are looking at multi-player content and downloadable additions as necessities, rather than luxuries, for modern titles. Also on the rise is a focus on micro-payments; offering small-scale games, updates, and add-ons for a smaller fee than a full game. Similar to these is the subscription-based model, which Scott Jennings of NCSoft recently called "an arms race that few can even hope to compete in, much less win." From Gamasutra:
"Games relying on micropayments are founded on a somewhat different logic. Like fast gaming, these games are conceived to be immediate hands-on experiences, but are also designed to entice the players to deepen their experience of the game by purchasing affordable additional components. This economic model is fast-growing in Asia, and we can expect to witness an important impact on the west — perhaps even a major one. The design for such games will have to be thoroughly adapted, even for established genres such as racing games or shooters."
Micropayments are not becoming more popular. Smaller payments are. The best example of a game based on the smaller payments model is WarHawk for the PS3. The game itself is reasonably cheap, and the expansions are all less then 10 euros. There is little reason NOT to buy them.
When a game, or an expansion is cheaper, it's less of a risk, and people will buy more. The idea of asking people to fork over 60 or 70 euros for a title which because of its industry has a relatively high probability of being mediocre is asking too much. People are less satisfied with their purchases, and will be more adverse to buying new games. Hence less games will be purchased.
Developers and publishers may finally have realized this. From my own experience, there are a lot of very reasonably priced titles ( 10 euros) coming out on the playstation network. Pixel Junk titles are so cheap at this price that there is practically no risk at all in purchasing them. "Ratchet and Clank: Quest for Booty" was only 4-5 levels long, but as it was priced at 16 euros, I can't say that that bothered me too much. I got my money's worth.
The problem here stems from fixed prices on games. Why are games like GTA4 and Motorstorm are both in and around the same price? It does not make sense, and all the games industry is doing is creating a market for lemons.
May the Maths Be with you!
Consider collectible card games like Magic. It could cost you hundreds of dollars to build an effective deck. Consider getting into D&D where you have to pay for rulebooks, dice, etc. Consider something insane like Warhammer (straight or 40k) where building an effective army will cost hundreds of dollars and starting an army from a different faction costs just as much. Let alone the time sink of painting everything, just think of the money!
What I'm surprised about is that nobody has ever considered trying the same sort of thing with online gaming. For example, let's look at the Warhammer 40k game that came out, Dawn of War. It started out with what, three playable armies? Then they came out with an expansion that had a crappy campaign and two new armies, and now I think they have another one out now. From what I saw of the first game, the multiplayer is pretty primitive but I can just imagine how they could progress it in the future. The price points on those expansions were pretty hefty.
With online distribution available for both computers and consoles, they could do something more along these lines. You get the initial game for $15, two races to choose from, standard units available. Continued gameplay will allow you to build points that unlock the advanced units. A mechanic like this was in use on Navy Field, the Korean WWII naval combat game. The more you played, the better the ship you could earn. The only problem is that the game had a tremendous grind component requiring way too much dedicated gaming to work up to serious capital ships. But keep the grind elements minimized and gameplay will be rewarded. Now six months after release, a new race is ready and their army can be deployed in the game. The army update can be downloaded by everyone so they can play against people using that army but if you want to use it yourself, you pay $10 to unlock that race.
The biggest thing I see lacking right now in these games is auto-ranking to pit gamers of equal skill against each other. I've played several games on Xbox Live and the general conclusion I've come up with is that either I just suck or those other people have way too much time on their hands for playing games. Given that the system is recording the player's performance, auto-ranking should be trivial, and you can always choose a non-auto-ranked host if you feel masochistic.
Now I know the first complaint everyone would have, this sounds like asking the publisher to nickel and dime you to death. Yeah, $5 horse armor in oblivion was stupid. What I'm talking about is paying a reasonable price to get into a game and then helping to fund continued development by giving the publisher a dependable revenue stream. Instead of gambling on continued interest in a sequel to a top-performing title from three years ago, the publisher is dropping content every three to six months, has a finger right on the pulse of the community and can gauge the level of interest. This should benefit everyone, just so long as the publisher doesn't get bought by EA. Then they'll just make a minor tweak to Whatever 2008 and call it Whatever 2009 for $60 MSRP.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I have seen micropayments done properly - Puzzle Pirates runs separate subscription and pay-as-you-go servers, and it's reasonably fair. You get basic gameplay for free, and pay to gain access to extra content. Works rather well, IMO. (I only stopped playing after two years out of general "been and done" boredom).
Allow me to reply with a quote from Ernest Adams "The Designer's Notebook: Where's Our Merchant Ivory?" while talking about serious games and censorship of games
"Now I know from long experience that a certain percentage of you are making derisive snorts of contempt because you personally care nothing for high culture and see no reason why anyone else would either. But even if you don't like it, you still need it. And before yet another idiot pipes up with Standard Asinine Comment #1 ("but FUN is the only thing that matters!"), let me just say: No, it's not. Shut up and grow up. Our overemphasis on fun--kiddie-style, wheeee-type fun--is part of the reason we're in this mess in the first place. To merely be fun is to be unimportant, irrelevant, and therefore vulnerable."