Slashdot: The "Game Industry" model is collapsing

[Baron Munchausen]

Just like all the other ossified, vested-interest controlled "intellectual property" industries, games are not commercially viable anymore. It's just like big money in music and movies. No one is willing to take a risk on anything new. Any 'new' game must make millions because it costs millions to develop. So the same old same old stuff "that worked before" is constantly recycled and people are getting bored with it. So the industry is declining anyway. Meanwhile, cell phone and browser/flash games are all over the place.

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl.../03/31/0015225
Game Companies Face Hard Economic Choices

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that the proliferation of free or low-cost games on the Web and for phones limits how high the major game publishers can set prices, so makers are sometimes unable to charge enough to cover the cost of producing titles. The cost of making a game for the previous generation of machines was about $10 million, not including marketing. The cost of a game for the latest consoles is over twice that — $25 million is typical, and it can be much more. Reggie Fils-Aime, chief marketing officer for Nintendo of America, says publishers of games for its Wii console need to sell one million units of a game to turn a profit, but the majority of games, analysts said, sell no more than 150,000 copies. Developers would like to raise prices to cover development costs, but Mike McGarvey, former chief executive of Eidos and now an executive with OnLive, says that consumers have been looking at console games and saying, 'This is too expensive and there are too many choices.' Since makers cannot charge enough or sell enough games to cover the cost of producing most titles, video game makers have to hope for a blockbuster. 'The model as it exists is dying,' says McGarvey."

[Imp]

Which goes to show how flawed the game industry is no expert here but would guess the majority of extra cost goes in graphics.
The proliferation of free or low-cost games on the Web and for phones shows great graphics are not needed.
Kids want bright graphics that grab them.
Adults want clear & perhaps if a strategy game informative graphics.
Yes some games I want high end graphics so its imersive, very high as in near real or it wont work so just stick with clear graphics & an okay light model say for a RPG or FPS. I DO NOT need a light model for a strategy game unless it effects play.
They DO NOT need to be 3D & should only be so if it helps gameplay many games go 3D with worse control systems dodgy cameras etc.
Simply put all the money goes on graphics nothing is left to spend on the game so 9 times out of 10 the game is actually worse than the one it riped off so why buy it.
If the game was cheaper to produce with just okay graphics the publishers could then risk a new format. The truth is there is nothing new out there so of course its dying what you now buy is a game which covers a succesful format from 10 years ago with 3D graphics & possibly fidly controls or an interface that looks nice but is not that user freindly. Thinking about it the game industry is a bit like Vista looks nice but adds no real content taking one step back for every step forward.
Simple example take say FPS or RPG. Start with no weapon or something basic find a pistol or sword get bigger badder weapons to fight bigger badder enemies often along a linear path. There are so many other ways to do this but no same old same old. RTS gather resources & gain a greater variety of units as the game progresses stop please these formats are 20 years old.

[Azselendor]

One thing I've noticed is a cart-before-the-horse mentality with a lot of developers and artists that work in video games. You see the same thing with people trying to break into the music and writing industries. They want a huge block payout up front on an unproven product or they want the publishing house to pay them to complete a project that has some concept art and white board flow charts.

The demand for high end graphics, in many cases, is a moot point created by a sense of "I need to compete with " on their level.

But all one must do is browse the Xbox Live Arcade and you can find a dozen old and new games with little to no graphical updates and they are still hugely popular.

In fact, one could say that the Playstation 3 is a monument on this topic. They chose bleeding edge graphic capabilities over just about everything else and got a spectacular fail.

The fact is that game developers should not think about being on the bleeding edge of graphics and focus more on innovative game play then create a consistent style within the game.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Baron Munchausen

...says that consumers have been looking at console games and saying, 'This is too expensive and there are too many choices.'...

"Too mant choices", read: "Supply/Demand is imbalanced".

What it comes down to, there are a relatively finite amount of dollars available from consumers. As in any market, once you hit a particular saturation point, you are not increasing sales - only increasing competition for the existing sales. We have an "industry" run by media giants who will pump out 100 titles in a given genre, all basically the same, all with fundamental and deeply grievous flaws. Yet, they could produce 10 titles that were all finely polished, and all excellent games that will be talked about for years - and make the same total number of sales.

There are more gamers than ever, purchasing more games than ever. But the "game industry" today, is like someone bringing 50 cakes to a party with 30 people, and wondering why cake just isn't selling like it used to.

I, for one, have long dealt with the double dilemma of the profusion of (mostly shoddy) titles, and my meager entertainment fund - by purchasing used games for 10-20$. This gives me the luxury to mostly see which ones suck, as well as allowing me to purchase many times as many titles as I could otherwise afford. Many people out there come up with creative ways to deal with it, but the fact is, they still spend as much money on games as they can/will, and even though they get more games, they are less satisfied with their gaming experience than "the good old days".

We need a new paradigm, but things will have to get much much worse before we're able to support a better system than direct retail.

[capnq]

Originally Posted by Baron Munchausen

Just like all the other ossified, vested-interest controlled "intellectual property" industries, games are not commercially viable anymore. It's just like big money in music and movies. No one is willing to take a risk on anything new. Any 'new' game must make millions because it costs millions to develop. So the same old same old stuff "that worked before" is constantly recycled and people are getting bored with it. So the industry is declining anyway. Meanwhile, cell phone and browser/flash games are all over the place.

Much the same things are said in every cycle of the "console games are killing the PC game industry" debate, computer role-playing games vs. table-top/paper & pencil RPGs, RPGs vs. wargames, collectible card games vs. every other game format, etc., yet the industry keeps shambling along on its "last legs" with independent proto-mammals scampering away from the mainstream dinosaurs' footsteps.

The game industry has been "dying" since at least back when SPI, Inc. went bankrupt in '82.

[Imp]

Too mant choices", read: "Supply/Demand is imbalanced".

What it comes down to, there are a relatively finite amount of dollars available from consumers. As in any market, once you hit a particular saturation point, you are not increasing sales - only increasing competition for the existing sales. We have an "industry" run by media giants who will pump out 100 titles in a given genre, all basically the same, all with fundamental and deeply grievous flaws. Yet, they could produce 10 titles that were all finely polished, and all excellent games that will be talked about for years - and make the same total number of sales.

Good point in fact I would go so far as to say one good game will make far more long term than 15 mediocre ones.
It will hold its price longer & still be available in the bargain basement department years after release, its had a positive effect.
The mediocre game on the other hand may not cover its cost & has a negative effect causing people to buy less games because they are rubbish.
To this end there are now 2 software houses I will never buy a game from again because they are incapable of marketing a finnished product.
If they want to have multiple income streams why not do one big game & revisit old games that can be done cheaply & knocked out as such after all there is very little that is actualy not a ripoff of a previous game format.
Things like Cannon Fodder or Speedball great or amusing little time wasters that fitted on a floppy disk!!! Nowadays most people cant finnish the game properly before release let alone take time to optimise the code so it fits on a CD, no need we will release it on DVD.

Perhaps they try to market the games so they are good enough that you will still buy them (just) but not worth playing a second time hoping you will buy another one