Actually, if you go back and look at earlier art forms, you will see that the fear of a "new medium" has been a problem a lot longer ago than just games and rock 'n' roll. Games are just a more recent example.
And, yes, the problem will probably resolve itself if we sit back and let things go at their natural pace. The problem is it's not guaranteed. As I pointed out in the article, the CCA did tremendous damage to the U.S. comics industry that it still has not recovered from. I don't want to see my industry suffer the same fate.
Note, however, that the natural pace is a bit slower than you seem to think. Games were fairly mainstream back in the days of the Atari 2600, which was much longer than 10 years ago. And, I think it will take longer than 10 more years before people start accepting games as legitimate. As other people have mention, even good ol' rock 'n' roll had to endure the PMRC and "explicit lyrics" stickers in recent memory.
Sure. But, consider that Marvel was one of the largest comic publishers at the time. They likely had enough political pull with the CCA to get that approved even if someone wanted to cry foul at that point. A smaller publisher might not have.
Also, by the 1970s, the damage had been done to the industry. Comics were already minimized in importance. That creativity didn't extend to creating new genres of comics to generate more interest with a wider audience. Compare this to manga and French comic books which didn't have the same restrictions. These comics cover a much wider (and often weirder) audience than U.S. comic books could. They've thrived while the U.S. comic industry has faltered. Go to any geek convention and see how many people are reading manga vs. U.S. comic books.
I'd like to avoid that happening to our game industry. But, it's probably interesting to note that most of my consulting work has been in Europe over the past few years. I'm just not happy to let this happen, so I write articles.:)
First the CCA was made up of people with political agendas. They would routinely make contradictory decisions on things. As I pointed out in the article on Gamasutra, one person that was approving stories at the time had a problem with the fact that an astronaut character was black and denied CCA approval for that.
Second, the CCA changed over time. As cultural mores shifted, they started to change what they allowed. After the Comics Code wouldn't allow a goverment-sponsored comic story about the negative effects of drugs to be published, they changed the code to allow the negative aspects of drug use, for example. The original comics care was mostly about "horror comics", which had vampires and werewolves, etc., and were thought to be harmful to young minds.
I'm not a comics historian (although I have a keen interest), but I suspect one of those two reasons are probably at work for why that comic was published under the CCA.
Did your parents have to worry when you went to a bookstore? There was no CCA for books, so how did they know you weren't picking up something horrible like Huckleberry Finn? What about going to a museum? Did they steer you away from works of art like Goya's El Tres de Mayo, which depicts a vivid scene of violence and bloodshed?
In the end, the CCA did more harm than good. The reinforced the idea that comics were only suitable for children. There's a story about how Stan Lee did story in Spiderman about how drug addiction was harming someone. But, the Comics Code didn't allow *any* reference to drug use at all, even to show the negative consequences. The best part about this was that the story was done at the request of the government, trying to reach kids about the harmful effects of drugs! So, a comic book story couldn't even give the message, "Kids, don't do drugs."
Comics being relegated to the realm of children's stories is one reason why manga is so much more popular worldwide than comics from the U.S.; manga is able to reach a wider audience than just children.
The issue isn't really what's "art" (but that tends to be very closely related), the issue is how much games are respected. As I said in another comment, the biggest issue we face is hostility from politicians that feel they can score easy points off of trying to restrict games "for the safety of our children." Being considered "Art" helps, but that isn't the only issue here.
I'd like for games to be considered legitimate so that we can see the full potential of the medium. I'd love to see a game that tackles complex issues like a book does. But, if we're only considered mindless entertainment that must be regulated, we'll never see anything that really pushes the boundaries.
First, this article is intended for professional game developers. I wrote another article on this topic for game players and enthusiasts at RPG Vault: http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/807/807409p1.html Read that article if you want to see why legitimacy is important to everyone, and why attempts to restrict the content of games hurts more than just game developers.
The question isn't really if games are Art (with a capital A), but if they're seen as legitimate. The biggest example to show that games are not necessarily considered legitimate is in the numerous laws enacted to restrict the sales of games to "protect the children". Most of these politicians railing against video games are the same ones that would never think about trying to regulate books or even movies. Politicians will speak out against games because there is enough sentiment that games aren't really legitimate that the politician can score easy points. Thankfully, at least in the U.S., the courts have defended games in terms of free speech against various legislative attacks.
Personally, I think games are an incredibly powerful medium. I think that in the future we'll be able to develop games that have the same impact and meaning as classic movies and books; of course, we still have a very long way to go. On the other hand, we may not get that opportunity if we're hobbled by people who scream the battlecry "save the children!"
The similarities between Warcraft and Warhammer are a bit more than "they both have orcs." The visual styles are rather distinctive and similar; it's more like, "they both have ferocious orcs wearing big shoulder armor fighting against the 'forces of good' lead by humans."
Blizzard's secret sauce has almost always been to take existing gameplay and setting concepts, file off the serial numbers, then polish them to a lustrous shine. The original Diablo was a simplified Moria (or Nethack without the puzzles, if you prefer) in real-time, for example. Not to say that Blizzard doesn't do great games or doesn't put some original touches on their games after the initial game of the series, but their biggest hits have cribbed pretty heavily from other sources.
That's one reason why people bring up the Warhammer/Warcraft comparison so often, in my opinion. All creative types "borrow" from others to some extent, but few succeed with that strategy on the grand scale Blizzard has.
I agree completely. I'm not a huge FPS fan, but I was enjoying TF2 quite a bit. But, when the class-specific patches came out and I figured out what it would take for me to get a lot of the nifty items for my classes of choice (even if that meant heading to an achievement server), I decided I would just play MMOs instead of I wanted to grind.
The question is: why was there an increase in weight gain? In the article you linked above, the primary reason mentioned was that people rationalized that they could eat more calories because they weren't consuming calories from the soft drinks. So, if you're educated about that, then you can avoid the weight gain from that particular source.
I personally switched to diet soda after being an avid fan of regular sugary sodas. I didn't change many of my other eating habits at the time, so I shed about 40 pounds (280 down to 240) just from the switch. Plus, I felt a lot better and less tired (despite drinking so much caffeine). So, in my particular case it lead to a noticeable drop in weight. Since then I've improved my eating habits a lot but haven't seen as dramatic of a weight loss as that simple switch.
Would it be better if I didn't drink diet soda at all? Probably, but it's something I'm not ready to give up yet. I think it's a good thing for people to get informed, but saying that diet soda is just as bad for you as regular soda isn't universally true for everyone. In my opinion, it's better for people to try to switch to diet soda and see if it helps instead of reading you opinion and thinking, "Oh, well, no reason to switch, anyway!"
Unfortunately, the problem becomes one of motivation. Who is more motivated, the griefer who enjoys the frustration of others, or the frustrated person starting to think that it's easier to log off forever than to fight the griefer? If you've ever seen the online trolls, even here on Slashdot, you know the painful answer to that.
I run an online game called Meridian 59. It embraces a less restricted PvP philosophy with the intention that players can solve their own problems. Yeah, it doesn't quite work out that way in practice.
To address your specific suggestion, the problem is that the real problem makers won't flag themselves as villains. If you have it so that other people can flag individuals as villains, then the griefers will start flagging victims in order to harass them legitimately under the rules. The core problem here is that a coded system can't easily tell a person's intent (if at all). And, for most people, it's easier to walk away from a game rather than try to "fight the good fight" against the villains. Unfortunately, the people leaving are paying customers in the case of a commercial game.
Is there a solution? Perhaps this type of design isn't always doomed to fail, but you'd have to educate your players and get them to change their attitudes. Most people play games to dominate them, not to worry about conservation of limited resources. How to do that is left as an exercise for when you develop the game.;)
I should be using OpenOffice. I send my documents around as.rtf files for maximum portability. I'm a cheap bastard who hates spending money, especially on overpriced software.
I use Microsoft Office products instead of OpenOffice.
For me, the main issue was envelopes. I was printing a lot of envelopes for my business, and my handwriting is atrocious. When I was trying out OO some years back, I couldn't get it to print envelopes no matter what I did. In Word, the process actually printed envelopes.
Maybe that issue has been fixed now, but why bother? I know that Office does what I need, and I have a valid license for it. Why install OO again to see if it fixed the one issue I had? Perhaps when my current version of Office is no longer the "norm" I'll try something else again. Until then, I'm using Word.
Had the Big 3 been focusing on smaller, lower margin cars, they'd have been in this position sooner.
Just like Toyota and that failure we call the Prius? Er, wait... Large companies like the "Big 3" can focus on a lot of different projects. There's no business reason that they put all their eggs in the SUV/"light truck" basket other than simple greed; it was the most profitable thing to do in the short run, and they decided not to plan for the long run.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that the reason why SUVs were so profitable was because of a loophole in the government regulations. A loophole the auto industry lobbied hard to keep in effect. They aren't the innocent victim here, they knew exactly what they were doing and are just sad the party ended as it eventually had to.
"post-retirement benefits other than pensions" and "pensions" make up the largest single chunk of their liabilities
The problem is that this shouldn't be a liability. The companies, like the federal government, treated the retirement money as an asset to use and pay back later.
Also note the otherwise positive effect that these liabilities have had. Today, we have to set aside a chunk of our salaries to fund our retirement if we're smart. The pension meant that the worker didn't have to reduce his income, which meant a better standard of living and more spending to help the economy.
Their pension and benefits plan is similar to the U.S. Social Security model, where current employees pay for retiree benefits. That crap only works if "current employees > retirees".
Which is why pensions shouldn't have been a liability in the first place. They should have set aside money over the employee's lifetime to fund the pensions. That's the way Social Security is supposed to work: those Social Security taxes you see on your paycheck go into an account (where you get your Social Security Number from), and that is paid out as benefits for you. Unfortunately, the large organizations decided that this money was better to spend than to save; this gave some great short-term benefits, but now it's bankrupting both the companies and possibly the U.S. government.
For those looking to assign blame, I don't figure it was the workers that advocated spending their pension money.
"But you promised!" doesn't have any pull outside the playground.
That's why we have this wonderful thing called "contract law" and things that deal with pensions and other employment details are called "employment contracts". Without contract law, business as we know it in the Western world could not happen. So, you might want to rethink that statement.
The issue is less that people were stupid for buying SUVs, but rather that they were a good economic decision in the past through a combination of factors.
Part of the problem with SUVs were that they were insanely profitable because they were less regulated. SUVs were classified as "light trucks" instead of as passenger vehicles, so the standards for things like fuel efficiency were much lower. Some companies also got tax breaks intended for industrial companies buy buying and SUV, making them even cheaper to buy than a normal passenger car. One doctor I knew bought and SUV for that very reason, because after the tax break it was cheaper than a car. In the days before $4/gallon gas, people didn't care much about fuel efficiency. So, the car manufacturers sold a lot of them and made good money because of lower production costs as well.
I'm a professional game developer, and this is one of the more insightful discussions on this I've seen. Players often confuse the terms "immersion" and "realism", and even some professionals make the same mistake. Usually when people say, "this game should be more realistic" they usually mean, "this game should be more consistent to my way of thinking." Part of what a good game does is set the expectations for the player so that the game is consistent.
The author of the article seems to be imprecise in his use of the terms. He often refers to "immersive simulation" which confuses the issues because he doesn't describe what is meant by "simulation". Not all games are simulations, using the standard definition, so not all games require "immersive simulation". A good game designer knows that the best immersion happens to the player when they enjoy the game. After a while, you get "in the zone" and don't notice details like the graphics or the input mechanism. However, sharp graphics and "intuitive input" make it easier for people to slip into that zone and make it harder for them to get jarred out, which is why there's been a focus on making the graphics more appealing and the controls simpler in many areas. How this has affected the quality of games is left as an exercise for the reader.;)
I spent my time and money resurrecting a game I worked on that was shut down: Meridian 59. I worked with another of the original developers to form a small team that included 3 other people to maintain and try to expand the game. So, I have some perspective on this issue based on first-hand experience.
Running an MMO server isn't easy. Even if you have a developer and team that put maintainability at the top of the list, your software will still have bugs. Any software developer knows that for any non-trivial program, there will be something that doesn't work as well as you might otherwise like. Fix those bugs, and others suddenly bubble to the surface. (Or, possibly, they were too minor to deal with before, but now they're the most noticable thorn in your side.)
The problem with running a very small online game with a subscription is that that business model doesn't scale down very well. For my game, I have about 250 or so hard-core people who still pay for the game. With the ~$10/player I make (after initial billing service charges), I make about $2500/month. Now, take out my other costs (bandwidth is the big one), and we're not talking about much money, and practically no marketing budget to grow the game. Even at our previous peak of many times the number of players we have now, it was enough to keep a handful of people from starving and not much more. At our peak, I was only personally making $24,000 per year while working 80+ hours per week. After a few years, knowing that you're working for less hourly wage than a burger flipper takes its toll.
Dropping in another business model, such as an "item mall" system would potentially bring in more money, but it would also potentially harm the game. Since one of our goals was to preserve the game instead of letting it fall into oblivion, that runs counter to what we want. Our game is also heavily PvP-focused, so things like "free accounts" and "buy some perks" doesn't really mesh well with the game due to abuse and feelings of unfairness. I like the "item mall" type business model for games, but I'm a firm believer that you should design that into the game from the start, not slap it on later.
You also have to realize that these games have failed for a reason. There simply aren't enough people interested in the game to keep it going. Now, some games may be killed before their prime (like Earth & Beyond was), but the fantasy that someone can take a struggling game and turn it around is just that: a fantasy. If you don't add to an online game, it gets stagnant and boring. After a few years the engine starts looking dated. Even if you do a massive overhaul of the engine, you still have to worry about how the art assets look, and it's no guarantee that people will take any new interest in your game.
In the end, resurrecting M59 was the right choice. Personally, it gave me a lot of valuable experience and it's helped my career by giving me a very visible note on my resumé. And, there is a core of dedicated fans that do thank us for our work. But, it's not a source of reliable income for me.
As for open sourcing it all, I might legally own the code but I am still in contact with the original developers. This is some of their earliest code, and they've never been overly enthusiastic about sharing that code with the rest of the world. But, note that taking the code open source does not necessarily preserve the game for others to play, it just puts something out there for people to tinker with. The tech is only part of the equation, the game design is also important but not necessarily covered under the same concept.
Actually, it's not billing information so much as a verifiable means of identification that they already have access to. When you give a credit card number, the credit card company can verify who you are. This is easier than taking faxes a driver's license, for example, since the company already takes credit cards and has a system in place for verifying credit cards.
Why is this an issue? Because it allows them to ban accounts based on identity. If someone goes in and makes the game unpleasant for others, they can ban the account and make it harder (but not impossible, obviously) for the person to sign up again right away. Even with a "free" game slated to be shut down, you don't want troublemakers causing people to view your service negatively if you can't keep the unruly people from hurting the game for everyone else.
What's the point in playing any game? After reaching the end (or whenever they get tired of it), it's likely a lot of people won't play a single player game after that. Was it time/money wasted? Depends on if you enjoyed it or not. The enjoyment in an online game for some people isn't just having a max level character you can point to and brag about, but if you have fun. I'm playing the game and I'm having fun, even though I might not see the max level. YMMV, of course.
It's a real shame, because I think Tabula Rasa is a fairly interesting game. I'm more of an RPGer than an FPSer, so I like the combat system what puts more emphasis on preparation and strategy rather than twitch action. I think TR's cardinal sin was that they didn't define what they were. They appeared to be an online FPS, but that's not what the game is; so RPGers tended to give it a pass and FPSers were disappointed once they got into it. It didn't help that the development went on way too long and cost too much money to ever hope to turn a profit. It's also kind of sad to see Richard Garriott's career fizzle out on yet one more in a string of mediocre games.
The important thing, as others have mentioned, is a question on if you have a publisher, if you are going to look for a publisher, or if you want to self-publish.
If you are going to self-publish, take a long, hard look at what you're doing. Does this have to be in book format? Or, would setting up a convenient website be better? There's a certain cachet to having a published book, but for a lot of tech things I'd prefer to have an online reference. Even if you do have a compelling reason to put the work into dead tree format, having a companion website is highly advised.
If you have a publisher or want to find a publisher, I'd recommend doing that first. When my co-editor and I thought about our book, we wrote up a Table of Contents for the book and pitched that to the publisher. We went to a publisher of other books on the game industry and they were really receptive to our idea. If you're going to write the book on your own, you might want to write up a chapter in addition as you approach publishers.
Once you find a publisher, they'll give you the information you need. They might want everything submitted in Word format, as ours did. Use the tools they recommend to ease the process. The last thing you want is an irate publisher, trust me on this one.
Finally, work with an editor. If you're self-publishing, get an editor! Another pair of eyes with the ability to go through your work with bloody red pen is absolutely vital to ensure that you aren't writing boring crap. If you're working with a publisher, try to get on good terms with your editor from the start and build some respect both ways. The editor's job is to improve your work, so understand that every nugget that is created by your keyboard isn't always made of gold. Your editor is vital to the long-term success of your work.
Here are some lessons I learned along the way:
* It takes a lot of time. More than you probably think right now. Even though I was "only" an editor (ha!) for chapters contributed by others, it was a full-time job and then some. Expect to write every waking moment you're not doing something to ensure your survival (eating, sleeping, earning money). Do whatever you can to stay focused, because it's going to take a lot of work, and a lot of times it will be boring. Re-writing a chapter for the fourth time in so many weeks because it just doesn't seem to want to come together defines "test of endurance".
* Don't expect to get rich. Some people get into writing a book thinking it's the path to riches; it's not. A book that does well sells a few thousand copies. But, as one person put it, a book is an awesome business card.;) Use the book to open doors and provide other opportunities for you that can help you achieve your goals.
* It really is awesome to have a published book with your name on it. It's a tremendous sense of accomplishment to have your book sitting on your bookshelf.
I'd like to consider myself one of those "fellow dreamers", so there are a few points I feel I should address.
First, the industry is littered with the corpses of companies that thought money didn't matter. As much as it's fashionable to slag on Bill Roper for what happened to Flagship and Hellgate: London, his cardinal sin was believing that money didn't matter. He was used to an environment where the developer said, "We need more time," and the accountants replied, "It's worth the money we'll spend!"; instead, he had to face the harsh reality of a publisher that replied, "That's nice, how are you going to fund it? We aren't giving you any more cash."
The second issue is that we already have the business model of paying for benefits in place: we call these "expansion packs". Since you mentioned WoW, let's consider the previous expansion pack, The Burning Crusade (TBC) as an example. If you didn't buy TBC, you couldn't gain a higher level, you could do the very lucrative daily quests, and (perhaps most importantly) you couldn't play with your friends who did buy TBC. About any argument you can muster about microtransactions you can say about expansion packs as well; the main difference is that in the U.S. market we've been doing expansion packs for a long time, whereas microtransactions are the "scary new thing".
Also, as some people have pointed out, a lot of these items that give direct benefit have been part of the game already, sometimes given to people who have spent a lot of time in the game ("veteran's rewards"). Sony is now offering alternate ways to acquire the items.
Finally, as a professional online game developer, I think microtransactions will help us see a wider variety of games. I run the small online game Meridian 59, which uses the traditional subscription-based business model (and no charges for expansions, I might add). The problem is that someone spending $10.95/month on my game views the cost as "almost the same" as the $14.95/month to play WoW. However, my few hundred players don't generate nearly the income as Blizzard's millions and millions they brag about. So, to the player, they feel they are paying a comparable amount for a completely different product.
A properly developed game that uses the microtransaction business model (usually to replace the subscription fees) means that the player gets to control how much money is spent. If you decide not to play a month, you don't have to keep paying a monthly fee (or burn a month you already paid for because you wanted a multi-month discount). Any game that tries to nickel and dime the players is not going to have players long. If you're really interested, you can read up on more of my thoughts on my blog.
Did you actually play Tabula Rasa, or are you just basing this on what other people (that is, "the masses") have said? There isn't one universal definition of "fun" because it's a very personal and subjective thing. I actually find TR to be quite fun, personally, but I know that there are people who disagree. Does that mean they're right and I'm wrong, or vice-versa? No, it's just that we have different tastes.
This is why game design is very hard, because you have to anticipate what a lot of people will find fun. This also explains why we see so many clones and sequels instead of original games: because it's easier to copy an existing game that has been proven popular than to try to create something new that nobody is sure about. One of the hardest lessons a professional game designer has to learn is that your tastes in fun aren't universal; if you're fortunate, enough people will share your tastes in fun, though.
I believe the parent post's point is not that "the masses" need to STFU and enjoy what someone says is good, rather that "the masses" don't speak for everyone and thus the opinion of the masses shouldn't be taken as gospel. Further, the grandparent post's point works with this as well: people don't always know what's good or not, they tend to use mental shortcuts like looking at a particular individual on the team or going along with the groupthink on a topic.
Games, and especially online games, are a team effort. One person's contribution is only part of the whole, even in a leadership position. So attributing a game's success (or sometimes failure) to a single person misses the mark.
I'm not really seeing anything really innovative or niche coming from anywhere though....
The trick is you need to go looking for these games. Anyone doing anything truly innovative or highly focused on a niche will not have a large marketing budget. You really need to go scouring for the type of game you like, because it's not going to show up at your local Wal-Mart or Gamestop. But, particularly for online games, you really need to support anyone doing anything that sounds even mildly like what you want. Otherwise, they may never get the chance to do something bigger and better.
Sorry, but the style of game you make I can't stand, nothing personal, so I can't really comment on it.
That's fine. As I said, it's a niche game. My point isn't, "ZOMG PLAY MY GAME!" but rather, you need to make sure you really are supporting people who make games like you want. If you see someone making an interesting independent FPS, go support that person. Just because the graphics are DOOM style and they don't have aimed shots doesn't meant they will never make a better game. But, they probably won't have the chance to make that better game if you don't support them now.
Of course you aren't selling to those that go for the "ooh pretty" and base their purchases on that alone.
Unfortunately, that group of people is what we in the game industry call the majority. We've had the ability to deliver downloadable games for a while now. My own Meridian 59 was available for download as early as 1998. Why did it take almost a decade for games to become easily downloadable through a service like Steam (ignoring piracy issues)? Because the majority of purchases are made by people who see the box at the local store. Last retail stats I've read said that approximately 20-25% of games are sold through Wal-Mart stores alone (this was pre-Steam, though). Most of these people aren't the type that go online and do heavy research on a game, they pick up what looks cool (or what had the marketing that worked).
This is one of the biggest problems with independent game developers. The majority of people who buy games do it in stores, and a small developer has very little chance to get their games into retail.
I have a friend that works at Gamestop and he says they haven't moved enough at the $60 price point to worry about. They have even moved all the $50-60 games on a shelf in the very back of the store to make room for the games which ARE selling, which is the $30-40 price point.
Would those $30-40 games happen to be the used section? The same used games that game publishers would like to stop? The ones that have a MUCH higher margin for the Gamestop store?
You've just given the reason why game companies are so eager to stop second-hand markets for games. It's not just greed, it's because it cuts into the funds that keep the game companies alive. And, even if publisher did manage to cut prices down that low, then the Gamestops of the world would just drop the price on used games further (in this magical world where costs are infinitely small) and still sell more used games than new games.
Whereas you sell a 5-10 million at the $40 price point and look at the difference in your bottom line.
Not if the cost per unit is greater than that $40. As the old joke goes: they're still losing money, and they're trying to make it up in volume!;) Keep in mind that the $60 you spend for a game has to pay a lot of people: the developer who makes it, the publisher who funded it and distributes it, and the store that sells it. Also keep in mind that a lot of costs are fixed: it costs the same amount to ship a box of $40 games as it does $60 games, for example.
Many game houses will simply disappear in mergers or outright failure as they bet the farm on a $60 price point and come out a big loser.
This is a sucker bet, because it's already happening. Look at the merger between Activision and Sierra into the new "Activision Blizzard" company. This has happened around the same time that the price point of games started going toward $60. There's been problems in the industry for a while now; that's part of the reason why we have $60 games now. Game companies are worried about the state of the industry. Sadly, it's mostly the mid-sized companies that will get hurt the worst.
If the only way you can survive is to charge more than your cus
I'm an independent, professional game developer. I don't mean to attack you directly, but you're saying some things that seem logical but that the market doesn't really follow up on. I am one of the few people for whom graphics truly do not matter, and the game I run, Meridian 59, is a game where I hoped fun would matter more than graphics.
I just hope it means they will spend more on gameplay and less on flashy graphics crap. I mean seriously, look at how many truly great games were made with the Quake 2 and 3 engines.
A lot of people say, "Graphics don't matter!" when they actually do. Many people judge a game based on graphical presentation; many people buy games based on the screenshots, for example. And, while a game's graphics may not mean much once you get into the middle of the game, they certainly do color most people's impressions at the beginning. A lot of people have a really hard time getting into a game if it's not visually stunning.
I think what a lot of people mean is that they don't buy games based on graphical advancement. The problem is that once the envelope is pushed, then expectations adjust to accommodate them. Using your examples of the Quake engines, the games based on those engines weren't necessarily pushing the envelope on graphics. But, there was a specific minimum expectations set by the engine. Most people wouldn't play a game based on the old Quake 1 engine these days, even though that engine was quite impressive for the time. In a few years, people will look at the Quake 2 engine the same way we might look at the DOOM engine now. Expectations will have changed.
The reason why you have the "ooh, pretty!" games is because some developers are trying to sell engines. The makers of Quake, id, made a lot of their money licensing the engine to other developers. They made the original games those were based on in order to sell the engine. Crysis is the same way: FarCry or Crysis may not be particularly engaging games, but the graphical presentation moves the expectations and this in turn requires developers to license the engines from the company. It's how they make their money.
And with the economy getting worse every day try to aim for the $30-40 price point.
And, that's not going to happen. The problem is that these shifting expectations have driven up the costs of developing games. As the price to develop a game increases, the amount of money needed to recoup costs increases as well. The reason why the large publishers are talking about reducing the secondary market is because their profit margins are becoming razor thin. They need people to buy the newer games to continue to stay in business. A lot of larger companies are feeling the pinch, especially during these economic times, and they know people aren't willing to pay more and more per game.
Here's some perspective, when I started developing games professionally a little over 10 years ago, the budget for a large game was one or two million dollars. These days it can easily reach $10 million or more. The biggest issue is that games are a hit-driven industry; the big, profitable games make the money that covers the failures. Unfortunately, that only covers the publisher and often a developer will go out of business even when they have a hit game. Check out the fate of Iron Lore studios, the makers of Titan Quest: they went out of business despite having a rather popular game title and expansion.
Some thoughts from someone who works on the inside of the beast known as the game industry.
I often find myself wishing for video games that helped build social skills for these kind of boys -- the ones that are awkward and introverted in public, but if you can get them to open up they're nice teddy bears.
Ignoring the argument if I'm a teddy bear or not, what worked for me were text MUDs (the predecessors to today's MMOs like World of Warcraft). I learned how to interact with people at my own pace. It really helped me understand the importance of extroverting and talking to other people. Of course, it takes a bit of introspection to really understand the benefits; for most people, they're happy if they're not forced to grow. So, there's no magical game that will make introverts come out of their shells, but social interact in online games can help them grow if they want.
Now, a suggestion for your friend:
I just got done having a three hour bitch fest yesterday with a friend of mine who's BF is 'addicted' to World of Warcraft.
If she wants to be part of her BF's life, then she might want to start taking an interest in his interests. Gaming isn't just a "male" thing, and I can say from personal experience that there are few things sexier than a woman who is willing to play games; I say this as someone who met the love of my life 15 years ago at a college D&D group.:)
The trick is to find a good cooperative game and play together. WoW is okay for this, but his other social obligations in the game may interfere with playing with her. My GF and I played a lot of Age of Empires 2: Age of Kings together. Our current interest is Titan Quest, which is just $20 on Steam for the Gold version (base + expansion). If she has a larger budget and wants to go cutting edge, the upcoming Diablo 3 might be a good game to play together.
As I said, the important thing here is to pick a cooperative game instead of a competitive one (as most guys like). Avoid shooters, etc. And, make sure the time is special between them, not something where his friends are playing, too; otherwise it might feel that she's "crowding in" on his friends. If she gets into gaming, this is pretty much the ultimate bargaining chip for when she wants him to become interested in one of her hobbies.
Some advice from someone who is very happily living with a gamer girl!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you go back and look at earlier art forms, you will see that the fear of a "new medium" has been a problem a lot longer ago than just games and rock 'n' roll. Games are just a more recent example.
And, yes, the problem will probably resolve itself if we sit back and let things go at their natural pace. The problem is it's not guaranteed. As I pointed out in the article, the CCA did tremendous damage to the U.S. comics industry that it still has not recovered from. I don't want to see my industry suffer the same fate.
Note, however, that the natural pace is a bit slower than you seem to think. Games were fairly mainstream back in the days of the Atari 2600, which was much longer than 10 years ago. And, I think it will take longer than 10 more years before people start accepting games as legitimate. As other people have mention, even good ol' rock 'n' roll had to endure the PMRC and "explicit lyrics" stickers in recent memory.
Sure. But, consider that Marvel was one of the largest comic publishers at the time. They likely had enough political pull with the CCA to get that approved even if someone wanted to cry foul at that point. A smaller publisher might not have.
Also, by the 1970s, the damage had been done to the industry. Comics were already minimized in importance. That creativity didn't extend to creating new genres of comics to generate more interest with a wider audience. Compare this to manga and French comic books which didn't have the same restrictions. These comics cover a much wider (and often weirder) audience than U.S. comic books could. They've thrived while the U.S. comic industry has faltered. Go to any geek convention and see how many people are reading manga vs. U.S. comic books.
I'd like to avoid that happening to our game industry. But, it's probably interesting to note that most of my consulting work has been in Europe over the past few years. I'm just not happy to let this happen, so I write articles. :)
Two factors here:
First the CCA was made up of people with political agendas. They would routinely make contradictory decisions on things. As I pointed out in the article on Gamasutra, one person that was approving stories at the time had a problem with the fact that an astronaut character was black and denied CCA approval for that.
Second, the CCA changed over time. As cultural mores shifted, they started to change what they allowed. After the Comics Code wouldn't allow a goverment-sponsored comic story about the negative effects of drugs to be published, they changed the code to allow the negative aspects of drug use, for example. The original comics care was mostly about "horror comics", which had vampires and werewolves, etc., and were thought to be harmful to young minds.
I'm not a comics historian (although I have a keen interest), but I suspect one of those two reasons are probably at work for why that comic was published under the CCA.
Did your parents have to worry when you went to a bookstore? There was no CCA for books, so how did they know you weren't picking up something horrible like Huckleberry Finn? What about going to a museum? Did they steer you away from works of art like Goya's El Tres de Mayo, which depicts a vivid scene of violence and bloodshed?
In the end, the CCA did more harm than good. The reinforced the idea that comics were only suitable for children. There's a story about how Stan Lee did story in Spiderman about how drug addiction was harming someone. But, the Comics Code didn't allow *any* reference to drug use at all, even to show the negative consequences. The best part about this was that the story was done at the request of the government, trying to reach kids about the harmful effects of drugs! So, a comic book story couldn't even give the message, "Kids, don't do drugs."
Comics being relegated to the realm of children's stories is one reason why manga is so much more popular worldwide than comics from the U.S.; manga is able to reach a wider audience than just children.
The issue isn't really what's "art" (but that tends to be very closely related), the issue is how much games are respected. As I said in another comment, the biggest issue we face is hostility from politicians that feel they can score easy points off of trying to restrict games "for the safety of our children." Being considered "Art" helps, but that isn't the only issue here.
I'd like for games to be considered legitimate so that we can see the full potential of the medium. I'd love to see a game that tackles complex issues like a book does. But, if we're only considered mindless entertainment that must be regulated, we'll never see anything that really pushes the boundaries.
A few general comments here.
First, this article is intended for professional game developers. I wrote another article on this topic for game players and enthusiasts at RPG Vault: http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/807/807409p1.html Read that article if you want to see why legitimacy is important to everyone, and why attempts to restrict the content of games hurts more than just game developers.
The question isn't really if games are Art (with a capital A), but if they're seen as legitimate. The biggest example to show that games are not necessarily considered legitimate is in the numerous laws enacted to restrict the sales of games to "protect the children". Most of these politicians railing against video games are the same ones that would never think about trying to regulate books or even movies. Politicians will speak out against games because there is enough sentiment that games aren't really legitimate that the politician can score easy points. Thankfully, at least in the U.S., the courts have defended games in terms of free speech against various legislative attacks.
Personally, I think games are an incredibly powerful medium. I think that in the future we'll be able to develop games that have the same impact and meaning as classic movies and books; of course, we still have a very long way to go. On the other hand, we may not get that opportunity if we're hobbled by people who scream the battlecry "save the children!"
That guy from EA still creeps me out...
You mean Trip Hawkins? Funny enough, he's a lot more easy-going there than when he was at 3DO later.
The similarities between Warcraft and Warhammer are a bit more than "they both have orcs." The visual styles are rather distinctive and similar; it's more like, "they both have ferocious orcs wearing big shoulder armor fighting against the 'forces of good' lead by humans."
Blizzard's secret sauce has almost always been to take existing gameplay and setting concepts, file off the serial numbers, then polish them to a lustrous shine. The original Diablo was a simplified Moria (or Nethack without the puzzles, if you prefer) in real-time, for example. Not to say that Blizzard doesn't do great games or doesn't put some original touches on their games after the initial game of the series, but their biggest hits have cribbed pretty heavily from other sources.
That's one reason why people bring up the Warhammer/Warcraft comparison so often, in my opinion. All creative types "borrow" from others to some extent, but few succeed with that strategy on the grand scale Blizzard has.
I agree completely. I'm not a huge FPS fan, but I was enjoying TF2 quite a bit. But, when the class-specific patches came out and I figured out what it would take for me to get a lot of the nifty items for my classes of choice (even if that meant heading to an achievement server), I decided I would just play MMOs instead of I wanted to grind.
No, wait, grinding is boring there, too. :P
The question is: why was there an increase in weight gain? In the article you linked above, the primary reason mentioned was that people rationalized that they could eat more calories because they weren't consuming calories from the soft drinks. So, if you're educated about that, then you can avoid the weight gain from that particular source.
I personally switched to diet soda after being an avid fan of regular sugary sodas. I didn't change many of my other eating habits at the time, so I shed about 40 pounds (280 down to 240) just from the switch. Plus, I felt a lot better and less tired (despite drinking so much caffeine). So, in my particular case it lead to a noticeable drop in weight. Since then I've improved my eating habits a lot but haven't seen as dramatic of a weight loss as that simple switch.
Would it be better if I didn't drink diet soda at all? Probably, but it's something I'm not ready to give up yet. I think it's a good thing for people to get informed, but saying that diet soda is just as bad for you as regular soda isn't universally true for everyone. In my opinion, it's better for people to try to switch to diet soda and see if it helps instead of reading you opinion and thinking, "Oh, well, no reason to switch, anyway!"
Unfortunately, the problem becomes one of motivation. Who is more motivated, the griefer who enjoys the frustration of others, or the frustrated person starting to think that it's easier to log off forever than to fight the griefer? If you've ever seen the online trolls, even here on Slashdot, you know the painful answer to that.
I run an online game called Meridian 59 . It embraces a less restricted PvP philosophy with the intention that players can solve their own problems. Yeah, it doesn't quite work out that way in practice.
To address your specific suggestion, the problem is that the real problem makers won't flag themselves as villains. If you have it so that other people can flag individuals as villains, then the griefers will start flagging victims in order to harass them legitimately under the rules. The core problem here is that a coded system can't easily tell a person's intent (if at all). And, for most people, it's easier to walk away from a game rather than try to "fight the good fight" against the villains. Unfortunately, the people leaving are paying customers in the case of a commercial game.
Is there a solution? Perhaps this type of design isn't always doomed to fail, but you'd have to educate your players and get them to change their attitudes. Most people play games to dominate them, not to worry about conservation of limited resources. How to do that is left as an exercise for when you develop the game. ;)
I should be using OpenOffice. I send my documents around as .rtf files for maximum portability. I'm a cheap bastard who hates spending money, especially on overpriced software.
I use Microsoft Office products instead of OpenOffice.
For me, the main issue was envelopes. I was printing a lot of envelopes for my business, and my handwriting is atrocious. When I was trying out OO some years back, I couldn't get it to print envelopes no matter what I did. In Word, the process actually printed envelopes.
Maybe that issue has been fixed now, but why bother? I know that Office does what I need, and I have a valid license for it. Why install OO again to see if it fixed the one issue I had? Perhaps when my current version of Office is no longer the "norm" I'll try something else again. Until then, I'm using Word.
A lot of misconceptions here.
Just like Toyota and that failure we call the Prius? Er, wait... Large companies like the "Big 3" can focus on a lot of different projects. There's no business reason that they put all their eggs in the SUV/"light truck" basket other than simple greed; it was the most profitable thing to do in the short run, and they decided not to plan for the long run.
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that the reason why SUVs were so profitable was because of a loophole in the government regulations. A loophole the auto industry lobbied hard to keep in effect. They aren't the innocent victim here, they knew exactly what they were doing and are just sad the party ended as it eventually had to.
The problem is that this shouldn't be a liability. The companies, like the federal government, treated the retirement money as an asset to use and pay back later.
Also note the otherwise positive effect that these liabilities have had. Today, we have to set aside a chunk of our salaries to fund our retirement if we're smart. The pension meant that the worker didn't have to reduce his income, which meant a better standard of living and more spending to help the economy.
Which is why pensions shouldn't have been a liability in the first place. They should have set aside money over the employee's lifetime to fund the pensions. That's the way Social Security is supposed to work: those Social Security taxes you see on your paycheck go into an account (where you get your Social Security Number from), and that is paid out as benefits for you. Unfortunately, the large organizations decided that this money was better to spend than to save; this gave some great short-term benefits, but now it's bankrupting both the companies and possibly the U.S. government.
For those looking to assign blame, I don't figure it was the workers that advocated spending their pension money.
That's why we have this wonderful thing called "contract law" and things that deal with pensions and other employment details are called "employment contracts". Without contract law, business as we know it in the Western world could not happen. So, you might want to rethink that statement.
The issue is less that people were stupid for buying SUVs, but rather that they were a good economic decision in the past through a combination of factors.
Part of the problem with SUVs were that they were insanely profitable because they were less regulated. SUVs were classified as "light trucks" instead of as passenger vehicles, so the standards for things like fuel efficiency were much lower. Some companies also got tax breaks intended for industrial companies buy buying and SUV, making them even cheaper to buy than a normal passenger car. One doctor I knew bought and SUV for that very reason, because after the tax break it was cheaper than a car. In the days before $4/gallon gas, people didn't care much about fuel efficiency. So, the car manufacturers sold a lot of them and made good money because of lower production costs as well.
Some more info.
I'm a professional game developer, and this is one of the more insightful discussions on this I've seen. Players often confuse the terms "immersion" and "realism", and even some professionals make the same mistake. Usually when people say, "this game should be more realistic" they usually mean, "this game should be more consistent to my way of thinking." Part of what a good game does is set the expectations for the player so that the game is consistent.
The author of the article seems to be imprecise in his use of the terms. He often refers to "immersive simulation" which confuses the issues because he doesn't describe what is meant by "simulation". Not all games are simulations, using the standard definition, so not all games require "immersive simulation". A good game designer knows that the best immersion happens to the player when they enjoy the game. After a while, you get "in the zone" and don't notice details like the graphics or the input mechanism. However, sharp graphics and "intuitive input" make it easier for people to slip into that zone and make it harder for them to get jarred out, which is why there's been a focus on making the graphics more appealing and the controls simpler in many areas. How this has affected the quality of games is left as an exercise for the reader. ;)
My thoughts.
I spent my time and money resurrecting a game I worked on that was shut down: Meridian 59 . I worked with another of the original developers to form a small team that included 3 other people to maintain and try to expand the game. So, I have some perspective on this issue based on first-hand experience.
Running an MMO server isn't easy. Even if you have a developer and team that put maintainability at the top of the list, your software will still have bugs. Any software developer knows that for any non-trivial program, there will be something that doesn't work as well as you might otherwise like. Fix those bugs, and others suddenly bubble to the surface. (Or, possibly, they were too minor to deal with before, but now they're the most noticable thorn in your side.)
The problem with running a very small online game with a subscription is that that business model doesn't scale down very well. For my game, I have about 250 or so hard-core people who still pay for the game. With the ~$10/player I make (after initial billing service charges), I make about $2500/month. Now, take out my other costs (bandwidth is the big one), and we're not talking about much money, and practically no marketing budget to grow the game. Even at our previous peak of many times the number of players we have now, it was enough to keep a handful of people from starving and not much more. At our peak, I was only personally making $24,000 per year while working 80+ hours per week. After a few years, knowing that you're working for less hourly wage than a burger flipper takes its toll.
Dropping in another business model, such as an "item mall" system would potentially bring in more money, but it would also potentially harm the game. Since one of our goals was to preserve the game instead of letting it fall into oblivion, that runs counter to what we want. Our game is also heavily PvP-focused, so things like "free accounts" and "buy some perks" doesn't really mesh well with the game due to abuse and feelings of unfairness. I like the "item mall" type business model for games, but I'm a firm believer that you should design that into the game from the start, not slap it on later.
You also have to realize that these games have failed for a reason. There simply aren't enough people interested in the game to keep it going. Now, some games may be killed before their prime (like Earth & Beyond was), but the fantasy that someone can take a struggling game and turn it around is just that: a fantasy. If you don't add to an online game, it gets stagnant and boring. After a few years the engine starts looking dated. Even if you do a massive overhaul of the engine, you still have to worry about how the art assets look, and it's no guarantee that people will take any new interest in your game.
In the end, resurrecting M59 was the right choice. Personally, it gave me a lot of valuable experience and it's helped my career by giving me a very visible note on my resumé. And, there is a core of dedicated fans that do thank us for our work. But, it's not a source of reliable income for me.
As for open sourcing it all, I might legally own the code but I am still in contact with the original developers. This is some of their earliest code, and they've never been overly enthusiastic about sharing that code with the rest of the world. But, note that taking the code open source does not necessarily preserve the game for others to play, it just puts something out there for people to tinker with. The tech is only part of the equation, the game design is also important but not necessarily covered under the same concept.
My thoughts.
Actually, it's not billing information so much as a verifiable means of identification that they already have access to. When you give a credit card number, the credit card company can verify who you are. This is easier than taking faxes a driver's license, for example, since the company already takes credit cards and has a system in place for verifying credit cards.
Why is this an issue? Because it allows them to ban accounts based on identity. If someone goes in and makes the game unpleasant for others, they can ban the account and make it harder (but not impossible, obviously) for the person to sign up again right away. Even with a "free" game slated to be shut down, you don't want troublemakers causing people to view your service negatively if you can't keep the unruly people from hurting the game for everyone else.
Some thoughts from an online game developer.
What's the point in playing any game? After reaching the end (or whenever they get tired of it), it's likely a lot of people won't play a single player game after that. Was it time/money wasted? Depends on if you enjoyed it or not. The enjoyment in an online game for some people isn't just having a max level character you can point to and brag about, but if you have fun. I'm playing the game and I'm having fun, even though I might not see the max level. YMMV, of course.
It's a real shame, because I think Tabula Rasa is a fairly interesting game. I'm more of an RPGer than an FPSer, so I like the combat system what puts more emphasis on preparation and strategy rather than twitch action. I think TR's cardinal sin was that they didn't define what they were. They appeared to be an online FPS, but that's not what the game is; so RPGers tended to give it a pass and FPSers were disappointed once they got into it. It didn't help that the development went on way too long and cost too much money to ever hope to turn a profit. It's also kind of sad to see Richard Garriott's career fizzle out on yet one more in a string of mediocre games.
I edited a book on business and legal issues in game development. Not exactly a tech tome, but I'm a programmer by training, so I hope I can share some insight.
The important thing, as others have mentioned, is a question on if you have a publisher, if you are going to look for a publisher, or if you want to self-publish.
If you are going to self-publish, take a long, hard look at what you're doing. Does this have to be in book format? Or, would setting up a convenient website be better? There's a certain cachet to having a published book, but for a lot of tech things I'd prefer to have an online reference. Even if you do have a compelling reason to put the work into dead tree format, having a companion website is highly advised.
If you have a publisher or want to find a publisher, I'd recommend doing that first. When my co-editor and I thought about our book, we wrote up a Table of Contents for the book and pitched that to the publisher. We went to a publisher of other books on the game industry and they were really receptive to our idea. If you're going to write the book on your own, you might want to write up a chapter in addition as you approach publishers.
Once you find a publisher, they'll give you the information you need. They might want everything submitted in Word format, as ours did. Use the tools they recommend to ease the process. The last thing you want is an irate publisher, trust me on this one.
Finally, work with an editor. If you're self-publishing, get an editor! Another pair of eyes with the ability to go through your work with bloody red pen is absolutely vital to ensure that you aren't writing boring crap. If you're working with a publisher, try to get on good terms with your editor from the start and build some respect both ways. The editor's job is to improve your work, so understand that every nugget that is created by your keyboard isn't always made of gold. Your editor is vital to the long-term success of your work.
Here are some lessons I learned along the way:
* It takes a lot of time. More than you probably think right now. Even though I was "only" an editor (ha!) for chapters contributed by others, it was a full-time job and then some. Expect to write every waking moment you're not doing something to ensure your survival (eating, sleeping, earning money). Do whatever you can to stay focused, because it's going to take a lot of work, and a lot of times it will be boring. Re-writing a chapter for the fourth time in so many weeks because it just doesn't seem to want to come together defines "test of endurance".
* Don't expect to get rich. Some people get into writing a book thinking it's the path to riches; it's not. A book that does well sells a few thousand copies. But, as one person put it, a book is an awesome business card. ;) Use the book to open doors and provide other opportunities for you that can help you achieve your goals.
* It really is awesome to have a published book with your name on it. It's a tremendous sense of accomplishment to have your book sitting on your bookshelf.
Hope that helps a bit. Good luck with your work!
I'd like to consider myself one of those "fellow dreamers", so there are a few points I feel I should address.
First, the industry is littered with the corpses of companies that thought money didn't matter. As much as it's fashionable to slag on Bill Roper for what happened to Flagship and Hellgate: London, his cardinal sin was believing that money didn't matter. He was used to an environment where the developer said, "We need more time," and the accountants replied, "It's worth the money we'll spend!"; instead, he had to face the harsh reality of a publisher that replied, "That's nice, how are you going to fund it? We aren't giving you any more cash."
I believe in this issue so much I edited a book about business and legal issues in game development. Ignore business issues and you won't have a game, as Hellgate is showing.
The second issue is that we already have the business model of paying for benefits in place: we call these "expansion packs". Since you mentioned WoW, let's consider the previous expansion pack, The Burning Crusade (TBC) as an example. If you didn't buy TBC, you couldn't gain a higher level, you could do the very lucrative daily quests, and (perhaps most importantly) you couldn't play with your friends who did buy TBC. About any argument you can muster about microtransactions you can say about expansion packs as well; the main difference is that in the U.S. market we've been doing expansion packs for a long time, whereas microtransactions are the "scary new thing".
Also, as some people have pointed out, a lot of these items that give direct benefit have been part of the game already, sometimes given to people who have spent a lot of time in the game ("veteran's rewards"). Sony is now offering alternate ways to acquire the items.
Finally, as a professional online game developer, I think microtransactions will help us see a wider variety of games. I run the small online game Meridian 59 , which uses the traditional subscription-based business model (and no charges for expansions, I might add). The problem is that someone spending $10.95/month on my game views the cost as "almost the same" as the $14.95/month to play WoW. However, my few hundred players don't generate nearly the income as Blizzard's millions and millions they brag about. So, to the player, they feel they are paying a comparable amount for a completely different product.
A properly developed game that uses the microtransaction business model (usually to replace the subscription fees) means that the player gets to control how much money is spent. If you decide not to play a month, you don't have to keep paying a monthly fee (or burn a month you already paid for because you wanted a multi-month discount). Any game that tries to nickel and dime the players is not going to have players long. If you're really interested, you can read up on more of my thoughts on my blog.
Did you actually play Tabula Rasa, or are you just basing this on what other people (that is, "the masses") have said? There isn't one universal definition of "fun" because it's a very personal and subjective thing. I actually find TR to be quite fun, personally, but I know that there are people who disagree. Does that mean they're right and I'm wrong, or vice-versa? No, it's just that we have different tastes.
This is why game design is very hard, because you have to anticipate what a lot of people will find fun. This also explains why we see so many clones and sequels instead of original games: because it's easier to copy an existing game that has been proven popular than to try to create something new that nobody is sure about. One of the hardest lessons a professional game designer has to learn is that your tastes in fun aren't universal; if you're fortunate, enough people will share your tastes in fun, though.
I believe the parent post's point is not that "the masses" need to STFU and enjoy what someone says is good, rather that "the masses" don't speak for everyone and thus the opinion of the masses shouldn't be taken as gospel. Further, the grandparent post's point works with this as well: people don't always know what's good or not, they tend to use mental shortcuts like looking at a particular individual on the team or going along with the groupthink on a topic.
Games, and especially online games, are a team effort. One person's contribution is only part of the whole, even in a leadership position. So attributing a game's success (or sometimes failure) to a single person misses the mark.
Some thoughts from an online game developer.
Thanks for an interesting conversation. :)
The trick is you need to go looking for these games. Anyone doing anything truly innovative or highly focused on a niche will not have a large marketing budget. You really need to go scouring for the type of game you like, because it's not going to show up at your local Wal-Mart or Gamestop. But, particularly for online games, you really need to support anyone doing anything that sounds even mildly like what you want. Otherwise, they may never get the chance to do something bigger and better.
Have fun,
That's fine. As I said, it's a niche game. My point isn't, "ZOMG PLAY MY GAME!" but rather, you need to make sure you really are supporting people who make games like you want. If you see someone making an interesting independent FPS, go support that person. Just because the graphics are DOOM style and they don't have aimed shots doesn't meant they will never make a better game. But, they probably won't have the chance to make that better game if you don't support them now.
Unfortunately, that group of people is what we in the game industry call the majority. We've had the ability to deliver downloadable games for a while now. My own Meridian 59 was available for download as early as 1998. Why did it take almost a decade for games to become easily downloadable through a service like Steam (ignoring piracy issues)? Because the majority of purchases are made by people who see the box at the local store. Last retail stats I've read said that approximately 20-25% of games are sold through Wal-Mart stores alone (this was pre-Steam, though). Most of these people aren't the type that go online and do heavy research on a game, they pick up what looks cool (or what had the marketing that worked).
This is one of the biggest problems with independent game developers. The majority of people who buy games do it in stores, and a small developer has very little chance to get their games into retail.
Would those $30-40 games happen to be the used section? The same used games that game publishers would like to stop? The ones that have a MUCH higher margin for the Gamestop store?
You've just given the reason why game companies are so eager to stop second-hand markets for games. It's not just greed, it's because it cuts into the funds that keep the game companies alive. And, even if publisher did manage to cut prices down that low, then the Gamestops of the world would just drop the price on used games further (in this magical world where costs are infinitely small) and still sell more used games than new games.
Not if the cost per unit is greater than that $40. As the old joke goes: they're still losing money, and they're trying to make it up in volume! ;) Keep in mind that the $60 you spend for a game has to pay a lot of people: the developer who makes it, the publisher who funded it and distributes it, and the store that sells it. Also keep in mind that a lot of costs are fixed: it costs the same amount to ship a box of $40 games as it does $60 games, for example.
This is a sucker bet, because it's already happening. Look at the merger between Activision and Sierra into the new "Activision Blizzard" company. This has happened around the same time that the price point of games started going toward $60. There's been problems in the industry for a while now; that's part of the reason why we have $60 games now. Game companies are worried about the state of the industry. Sadly, it's mostly the mid-sized companies that will get hurt the worst.
I'm an independent, professional game developer. I don't mean to attack you directly, but you're saying some things that seem logical but that the market doesn't really follow up on. I am one of the few people for whom graphics truly do not matter, and the game I run, Meridian 59 , is a game where I hoped fun would matter more than graphics.
A lot of people say, "Graphics don't matter!" when they actually do. Many people judge a game based on graphical presentation; many people buy games based on the screenshots, for example. And, while a game's graphics may not mean much once you get into the middle of the game, they certainly do color most people's impressions at the beginning. A lot of people have a really hard time getting into a game if it's not visually stunning.
I think what a lot of people mean is that they don't buy games based on graphical advancement. The problem is that once the envelope is pushed, then expectations adjust to accommodate them. Using your examples of the Quake engines, the games based on those engines weren't necessarily pushing the envelope on graphics. But, there was a specific minimum expectations set by the engine. Most people wouldn't play a game based on the old Quake 1 engine these days, even though that engine was quite impressive for the time. In a few years, people will look at the Quake 2 engine the same way we might look at the DOOM engine now. Expectations will have changed.
The reason why you have the "ooh, pretty!" games is because some developers are trying to sell engines. The makers of Quake, id, made a lot of their money licensing the engine to other developers. They made the original games those were based on in order to sell the engine. Crysis is the same way: FarCry or Crysis may not be particularly engaging games, but the graphical presentation moves the expectations and this in turn requires developers to license the engines from the company. It's how they make their money.
And, that's not going to happen. The problem is that these shifting expectations have driven up the costs of developing games. As the price to develop a game increases, the amount of money needed to recoup costs increases as well. The reason why the large publishers are talking about reducing the secondary market is because their profit margins are becoming razor thin. They need people to buy the newer games to continue to stay in business. A lot of larger companies are feeling the pinch, especially during these economic times, and they know people aren't willing to pay more and more per game.
Here's some perspective, when I started developing games professionally a little over 10 years ago, the budget for a large game was one or two million dollars. These days it can easily reach $10 million or more. The biggest issue is that games are a hit-driven industry; the big, profitable games make the money that covers the failures. Unfortunately, that only covers the publisher and often a developer will go out of business even when they have a hit game. Check out the fate of Iron Lore studios, the makers of Titan Quest: they went out of business despite having a rather popular game title and expansion.
Some thoughts from someone who works on the inside of the beast known as the game industry.
To answer your important question first:
Ignoring the argument if I'm a teddy bear or not, what worked for me were text MUDs (the predecessors to today's MMOs like World of Warcraft). I learned how to interact with people at my own pace. It really helped me understand the importance of extroverting and talking to other people. Of course, it takes a bit of introspection to really understand the benefits; for most people, they're happy if they're not forced to grow. So, there's no magical game that will make introverts come out of their shells, but social interact in online games can help them grow if they want.
Now, a suggestion for your friend:
If she wants to be part of her BF's life, then she might want to start taking an interest in his interests. Gaming isn't just a "male" thing, and I can say from personal experience that there are few things sexier than a woman who is willing to play games; I say this as someone who met the love of my life 15 years ago at a college D&D group. :)
The trick is to find a good cooperative game and play together. WoW is okay for this, but his other social obligations in the game may interfere with playing with her. My GF and I played a lot of Age of Empires 2: Age of Kings together. Our current interest is Titan Quest, which is just $20 on Steam for the Gold version (base + expansion). If she has a larger budget and wants to go cutting edge, the upcoming Diablo 3 might be a good game to play together.
As I said, the important thing here is to pick a cooperative game instead of a competitive one (as most guys like). Avoid shooters, etc. And, make sure the time is special between them, not something where his friends are playing, too; otherwise it might feel that she's "crowding in" on his friends. If she gets into gaming, this is pretty much the ultimate bargaining chip for when she wants him to become interested in one of her hobbies.
Some advice from someone who is very happily living with a gamer girl!