Slashdot Mirror


The Battle For the Game Industry's Soul

An anonymous reader writes "The NY Times has a story about the imminent release of Battlefield 4 on 29 October, as it's one of the most highly-anticipated video games of the year. The most interesting part of the article is where it highlights what a mammoth undertaking such 'AAA' games have become. There are hundreds upon hundreds of people working full time on it, and hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in its development. These number have been rising and rising over the years; how big do they get before it becomes completely unfeasible to top your last game? The article also points out that the PC platform is beginning to wane in popularity. Nobody's quite sure yet whether it'll level out or go into serious decline, but you can bet development studios are watching closely. With bigger and bigger stakes, how long before they decide it's not worth the risk? Even consoles aren't safe: 'Electronic Arts is nevertheless trying to extend franchises like Battlefield to devices, because it must. But at the same time, it has to grapple with the threats undermining traditional gaming. Though the classic consoles are getting reboots this fall, there is no guarantee that new models will permanently revive the format's fortunes.' And of course, the question must be asked: do we even want the 'AAA' games to stick around?"

20 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. THE DEATH OF PC GAMING by nicolastheadept · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since 1898

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:THE DEATH OF PC GAMING by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sigh...correlation does NOT equal causation folks. PC sales are NOT down because of tablets, its because PCs have become insanely overpowered and therefor you don't need to replace every couple of years like during the bubble that was the MHz war.

      Take myself as an example, LOVE hardcore PC shooters, practically the games that built the PC gaming business. I used to build a new PC every 2 years like clockwork and gave it a major upgrade at the 1 year mark, now? My AMD Hexacore is pushing the 5 year mark with nothing more than a GPU upgrade. I mean why should i buy a new one, when the one I got plays every game I want to play at over 30 FPS without fail? Its got 8GB of RAM, 3TB of space, I might add a caching SSD for my BDay but other than that there really isn't much more I can do that will really affect gameplay.

      And THAT is why PC sales are down, its because even the low end gamers have insane amounts of cycles to spare. Hell my youngest has an AMD triple we unlocked to a quad and an HD7750 and he plays every game he wants to play at over 30FPS and his system cost less than $400! Even the low end systems are just so insanely overpowered its not even funny and with the XBone and PS4 going with a netbook chip? Really doubt we are gonna be needing octocore PCs to game any time soon.

      As for TFA...how about making games that don't suck? How about that? Make smaller games that target a market instead of some crazy costing AAA title that you have to make as generic as possible to have "broad appeal" which is pretty much a codeword for "boring generic crap". Look at Payday the Heist, they listened to those that bought the first one, gave them what they asked for, they made a profit before the game even came out just on preorders. Make something special? Folks WILL buy. Make generic "Call Of Honor: Halo of Killzone Edition" and watch the numbers suck. It really IS as simple as that.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. Film Industry by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    " There are hundreds upon hundreds of people working full time on it, and hundreds of millions of dollars tied up in its development. "

    How many people do you think it took to make The Avengers? How many millions?

    The video game industry is starting to mirror the film industry, with studio houses having one or two giant blockbusters every month, and using profits from those to fund the smaller "filler" films. And then, you have the even smaller, independant type films, such as what ends up at Sundance or TIFF.

    1. Re:Film Industry by jnmontario · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My major beef with your ?defense?commentary? of the game industry is that I hear it constantly and it becomes a self-serving bias for execs. The more we accept "Hollywood-model" games and buy the next "$380B in development Rock'emSock'em XVII", or whatever, the more industry types that didn't come from a game-dev background feel like they should not innovate and make new games, but rather pour good money after bad with blockbuster prequel/sequel games. I guess what I'm trying to say is that MBA's sniffing after money appear to have transitioned from the film business to the game business and I think that's REALLY bad for the future of gaming.

    2. Re:Film Industry by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well and now you point to the big difference between the industries. See, in the film industry, a RDJ or a Wheadon can make $30 million in 6 months on a blockbuster, and then spend the next 6 months working on smaller pictures, and even an indie or two, because they have money to do it with. Look at films like "Much Ado About Nothing" - an Amazing film, filled with A-list talent, received rave reviews at TIFF - yet, that movie is not going to make any money at all and I expect most of the actors were paid very little for their time. Which is fine, because no one who worked on it expected a giant payday. They did it because of the love of the craft.

        The game industry does not work like this because "the talent" does not get a big enough share of the profit - when was the last time you heard of a head creative or a head developer making 20 million on a game - it doesn't happen. If it did, then they would probably be financing more side projects, again for the love of the craft, and because it keeps them "fresh" as actors and directors.

      This is what really needs to be solved. It is not about changing the industry, it is about changing the compensation model. When people work 60+ hour weeks for a month or two to get BattleField 4 out on time, they should be getting a bigger piece of the pie than just their salary. There should be profit sharing involved. And key people - like the lead developers and lead creatives - should get a big enough share of that profit to motivate them and entice them to use it on other projects to keep them fresh.

    3. Re:Film Industry by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Posting to remove incorrect mod. Effing touchscreen.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    4. Re:Film Industry by dinfinity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The more we accept "Hollywood-model" games ...

      Sorry, but that is about the same as saying 'The more we accept McDonalds-type food ...'

      We need to accept - on all terrains - that as a collective, we are a bunch of naked monkeys. Our biological makeup (or evolutionary history, if you will) makes us vulnerable to having our primitive behavior elicited by marketing techniques and other forms of manipulation. For an individual that may not be a problem, but for a collective, it is. Especially when the collective is a source of resources for for-profit organizations. Yes, I am talking about the free market.

      The problem in your reasoning, imho, is that the current state of the (Hollywood-)system is somehow mainly due to the evilness of MBA's and 'industry types', where in reality the nature of the free market is thus that it eventually finds the most profitable way to make a profit. That includes (ab)using our (most) common vulnerabilities and treating us all like naked apes. Every sufficiently mature free market does this, simply because it is profitable, not because it is run by a bunch of malicious bastards.

      See also, Cow Clicker, for a remarkable example of (ab)using vulnerabilities:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_Clicker
      http://www.bogost.com/blog/cow_clicker_1.shtml

    5. Re:Film Industry by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is actually wierdly ontopic. There is a powerful analogy between modern touchscreen development and modern games. Touchscreens and games have bother become ever flashier, commiditised, and mass marketed, and yet when I use either, I find I get less done, and ultimately less enjoyment out of the whole process than I did with traditional computers and old school games.#

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  3. Soul? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Game Industry doesn't have a soul. After all the failed DRM, the way they treat their developers and abandoning older game servers that many still use, it's clear they don't have a conscience or a soul.

    Let them their respective deities sort them out.

  4. Paradigm Shift by cosm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I booted up a few of my fairly recent FPS purchases last night for PC just to get a sense of where the community is at. CS:S, BF2, BF3, BFBC2, TF2, Q3A, CoD (x), L4D(1-2), etc all still strong. The thing about it is, there are so many decade old shooters that just wont die. I can still play CS 1.6 and will prefer it to any new Call of Duty. But why? Is it a comfort thing? Nostalgia for a past era? Simplicity? Muscle memory? Surely some of that.

    The new games are still fun, but they feel 'tinny', or less substantive than I'd come to expect for millions of ducats dumped in to a piece of software. With many modern shooters, I feel like they are evolving into a caricature of what a decent shooter would be.

    Also, I think as the PC gaming generation gets older fewer newbies (In all due respect of course!) back-fill our ranks. I hope I'm wrong. Anybody got stats on our rate of attrition? LMGTFY yada yada ..

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  5. The "death" is their own making by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are various reasons why gamers start to turn away from those so precious "triple-A" titles.

    1. Boring old game in a new cloth
    I think I'm not the only one who is fed up with buying the same game over and over. Battlefield is no exception to that. Lemme guess, new weapons and a few new scenarios with a few new graphics and some shiny... else, same shit as last year. Still the same game modes, still the same problems with cheaters, still the same interface, still the same options; It is simply still the same game. Yes, people will buy it because it's the new one, it's the shiny one, and some of the killer bugs that bothered you the most in the previous games are finally fixed, which only begs the question why they existed in the first place and whether it would not have been much more feasible to simply fix them instead of ... oh silly me, how could you SELL the same game again?

    2. DLC
    Riiight, that way you can. The new magic of the gaming industry: DLC. Or, as I prefer to call it, "buying the last few chapters of the book extra". Because that's what DLC more and more turns into. You pay full price for a game only to find out that not only its addon, sorry, DLC was already planned, but it is actually an important part of the story which is not concluded before you bought at least 2 addons, turning a 50 bucks game into one that costed closer to 100, just to see the friggin' story of it, we're not talking about some additional storyline or actual addon content in the traditional sense, where a game is sold and if it's a success a "mission disc" gets released. These "addons", or rather, second part of the game, are already planned and developed before the game hits the stores. Your only hope is that the game bombs enough that you don't care about the end of the story.

    And don't even hope that you could play multiplayer anywhere without the DLC, even if it's not part of the multiplayer game. Which leads us to

    3. Planned obsolescence
    With multiplayer servers being held firmly in the grasp of the game developers, and you having no chance to even play a local game, they dictate when and for how long you may play it, at least its multiplayer part, which happens to be the interesting part of those games. Rest assured, the moment the next version of the game comes out they'll turn off the old servers to force you to buy the next one (which is essentially the old one, but you can actually play multiplayer again...).

    So if you wonder why people turn away from AAA titles, here is your reason. Indie games are cheaper, they offer more variety (because indies can actually dare producing anything but "tried" concepts), they usually offer complete games and they're by no means inferior to those AAA titles. They may lack a bit in graphics, but screw that, I take gameplay over shiny anytime!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Hey by The+Cat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The people telling you the PC is obsolete and on the way out are trying to sell you its "replacement."

    The only problem is tablets and phones can't replace the PC for the same reason motorcycles and skateboards can't replace your car.

    Nobody wants to do real work on a mobile device. Stop pretending they do.

  7. Gaming as a whole... by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... is sucking because the industry is obsessed with creating movies, not games.

  8. The same game, requiring a tougher graphics card by hooiberg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To be honest, that what is marketed as 'AAA'-games is all like Wolfenstein. Walk through a maze and shoot bad guys. The humble bundle games feature original gameplay. This is so much more fun than 'the same game, requiring an even tougher graphics card' I am having a lot more fun with Cookie Clicker than I have with all the battlefield AAA-nonsense together.

  9. Re:The same game, requiring a tougher graphics car by Pop69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You've hit the nail on the head.

    The gameplay element of what the press tout as AAA titles hasn't really advanced any since Wolfenstein 3d was released in 1992.

    Think about that, no original gameplay in 21 years !

    Certainly the graphics are shinier and the weapons are different but the essential gameplay of run around a maze, pick up power ups and ammo, shoot enemies, rinse and repeat hasn't changed....

  10. Re:And they're all shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    They're NOT all shit. But the ones that aren't shit, are almost totally from small indie studios. Sometimes 1, 2, maybe 5 people working on their game.

    AAA gaming is shit, yes. Big-budget games. But the scene is in indie gaming now, and that's where most of the people who value actual gameplay over shiny graphics are. As a bonus, they are almost entirely DRM free, and the authors are truly appreciative for your 20 or 40 bucks that you send their way.

    PC indie games is where the fun is.

  11. The question has already been answered by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And of course, the question must be asked: do we even want the 'AAA' games to stick around?"

    No, we don't have to ask that question. We already have the answer. GTA V sold over eleven million copies in the first day of sales. It's grossed over a billion dollars. Only a complete fucking idiot would doubt that there's a market for good, high-quality AAA games.

    And of course Slashdot seems determined to put those complete fucking idiots' thoughts on the front page.

  12. Star Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Cloud Imperium's opus-in-progress broke $23 million in crowdfunding this week: AAA independent production and PC-focused development. Works like this are injecting a renaissance of fresh air into the stale industry dominated by bug-dollar myopic publishers.

    Games in the nineties were innovative because the creative developers were calling the shots; garage operations flourished. Crowdfunding is making that model viable again with modern production values and PC gamers are in for a hell of a ride over the next decade.

    Long live disintermediation!

  13. Re:The same game, requiring a tougher graphics car by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The gameplay element of what the press tout as AAA titles hasn't really advanced any since Wolfenstein 3d was released in 1992.

    Yeah, no real advances beyond multiplayer, team-based multiplayer, destructible scenery, dynamic maps (as in L4D2), new weapons mechanics (such as Unreal Tournament's bio rifle), emphasis on stealth (such as Metal Gear Solid and Deus Ex), dynamic AI that sends swarms based on player progress and performance (the L4D Director), modding support that allows anything from minor skinning to complete remakes, RPG elements blending in to the FPS, and the aqueducts. Aside from those things, what have the Romans done for us?

    And what about dungeon crawlers? They haven't advanced since Nethack. Diablo was better graphics and nothing more.

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  14. Re:The same game, requiring a tougher graphics car by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you made the GP's point.

    Whoopee-doo. I get to splatter the bad guys with goo rather than shoot them with a mini-gun. That's incredibly innovative.

    When they're not making you sit through tedious, unskippable cut-scenes and canned dialogue, games are still mostly just following the only corridor available and shooting things, except these days you don't even have to worry about collecting health packs because your health magically regenerates after ten seconds. Even the 'open world' games are still mostly just running around a few streets in a world that's dead when you're not around.