The game crash

[Sandman]

An interesting article from the person that brought us A Gamers' Manifesto and Fanboy Intervention.

Life After the Video Game Crash

It's happened before. It will happen again.

Under the humour, there's some compelling points. I haven't the slightest intention of buying one of the new consoles; the cost is too high, and the games aren't interesting enough.

[lord of the mark]

Title is wrong - New consoles may crash (I personally doubt they will fall that hard - I dont get the impression everyone feels a need for a large screen HDTV to get a console) but the author himself points out that some of the simpler console mainstays have simply moved to hand helds (and similar games to cell phones, I might add). And of course the last video game crash was followed by a PC game boom (id love to see that again, but im not holding my breath}

[DrSpike]

I don't agree with the conclusions either, but it's entertaining and many valid points are made.

[lord of the mark]

"Let's say Sony and Nintendo and Microsoft came out tomorrow and announced they were cancelling their next-gen systems. I don't know why, maybe there's a plague or something. How long would you keep playing your current game machine? Forever? As long as good games were coming out for it?

History says otherwise. History says that you'd eventually get bored with the machine even if there wasn't a better one to replace it.

It sounds crazy, and it took everybody quite by surprise the first time the game industry crashed in the early 80's. Back then the Atari 2600 was king, it being the first really popular game console. "


well Im the last person to ask about the Atari 2600, as I still dont own a console, and I was hardly gaming at all in the 1980's (played some arcade games, upto 1983). But from what I can gather the library for say the PS2 not only larger, but rather more diverse than the 2600. I dont know the overall pattern of sales for the 2600, but again my impression for the PS2 is that the number of titles released, and the volume of games sold, has not really trailed off, despite it being a very old platform. Id bet that if there were no gaming platforms made anymore, the PS2 would keep getting new titles, and plenty of sales. Now if no more CONSOLES were made, but PCs were, the PS2 would lose sales to the new PCs. OTOH theyd have a steady supply of PC ports as new titles.

As for the PC, we get new titles with ever higher specs, but thats a function largely of an ever more powerful installed base, which is NOT, I would argue, a result of gamers buying more powerful rigs for gaming, so much as its the result of the steady cycle of new purchases driven by demographics, physical "depreciation" and non-game related obsolescence. IF no new PCs were made (an impossibility Id argue) there would still be a market for new games, and new games, based on new ideas would be made for quite some time. Case in point, if PC specs had frozen at those current when Paradox released EU2, Paradox WOULD still have published Victoria. The logic of applying the engine to a later time period was strong. They would just have had to have kept it within more restrictive specs. Come to think of it, that might have made Vickie a better game, since they would have had to make it leaner to fit into RAM requirements.

Now its quite possible that the current level of investment in console development is not sustainable - last gen, IIUC, Sony made money, MS lost (on the notion that they were buying a place in the market). Its quite possible that Sony will lose big this time. Its possible, but IIUC VERY unlikely, that both Sony and MS will lose big time. We could see retrenchment in the console game industry, as in past years weve seen retrenchment in PC games. Id be EXTREMELY surprised if we saw the console game industry come close to disappearance - just as the PC game industry has not been "doomed" despite repeated warnings. And of course the casual games industry (defined narrowly, Doc, as cell phone games, browser games, etc) is likely to keep growing fairly rapidly.

[CrONoS]

interesting

[DrSpike]

I agree with his view that the ways gaming progressed is the past is not going to be the norm now - he makes this case convincingly. I think where I differ is that there are other factors which call some of the conclusions into doubt, most notably rising disposable incomes and the changing of the playerbase to increasing be casual gamers, in large numbers.

[El_Cid]

I've kinda been saying the same thing and thinking the same thing for many years now. Pretty much all my internet personas over the years get involved in such discussions.

My general apathy over next-gen(although i do think nintendo may be onto a weird curve-ball winner with the wii - not that its something i'll ever be rushing out to buy.) is plain for all to see.

graphics, or more correctly the push for 'ultimate' graphics will i think be the straw that breaks the camels back, added to the crazy losses on hardware the article mentions.Next-gen is i suspect going to prove that to some extent.

This is it in a nutshell:

When over 50% of your game budget HAS to go into graphics, and most of the rest into marketing/publishing arm, well something will have to give.
Either that or you hope your game buying public is completely happy with spending +£50 per game on something that looks great, does nothing particularly interesting and is over in a few hours.

I see the malaise that has been creeping into hollywood over recent years(when was the last time you HAD to go and watch a movie, and werent dissapointed with it?), doing exactly the same in the mainstream games industry.

Spend +£250 on a game machine which will only ever have mostly rubbish/dull/uniteresting/poor games that have to concentrate on graphics over gameplay?

I think you have completely mistaken me for a different kind of fool Mr Games Industry.

There are two sides to that coin, though. Yes, there's a new generation of gaming kids out there. But the thing is, the original video game generation is growing old. I know, because I'm one of them, an Original Gamer. I owned Pong as a toddler, an Atari 2600 in grade school and an NES in 1987. I've logged hours on the Sega Genesis, the Atari Jaguar, the NEC Turbographx 16, the SNES, a Sega Saturn, a 3D0, a Sony Playstation, a Casio Fungiver 5000, a 4-bit Toyota Gamemobile... you get the idea.

But I'm 30 now, worried with mortgages and job stress and coffin shopping. My peers all have their own children, the household toy budget spent on the offspring, not the adults.

I know some of us still play games at 30, studies say about 25% of gamers are now over 35. But can you play games at 40 or 50 without looking like an intellectually-stunted manchild, there in your sweater vest, the control pad tangled in your long, gray, drool-soaked beard as the creeping hand of death stalks your every thought?

We Original Gamers, the hard core, bought every machine that came on the market for two decades. But for a whole lot of us OG's, the game consoles we own now will be the last we'll ever buy. There are millions of us, and it's just a matter of time.

heh - i'm one of those 'origonal' gamers, good ol 1981 was my baptism of fire(well blocky black and white graphics with no sound anyway).

I disagree that i wont be playing games forever - in my thirties now i'm as avid and hungry a game player as i ever was.

I also disagree about the whole "I'm grown up with grown up responsibilities - i cant find time for gaming" thing - i think much of reason i find it hard to make a game purchase these days is because many designers/games people are thinking this way, so games have for the most part become quite short, shallow even? RoN was for me a victim of that attitude.

SAVE YOUR GAME! - wow even back when i had a ZX81 and a tape recorder i could save my game so im sure its possible on current and future technology

You dont have to finish your game in one sitting, you can like play for those two hours you would spend watching a DVD, then save and carry on later - easy.

But i do agree i wont be buying anymore consoles - no 'next-gen' for me, simply its become a corporate rip off as far as i can tell. hype - marketing - spin, call it what you will.

Where is the next Sabre Wulf? Where is the next X-com? Where is the next Civ? not on the horizon coming to a console near you anytime soon. lots of short sexy looking generic fps though...oh joy!

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"History says otherwise. History says that you'd eventually get bored with the machine even if there wasn't a better one to replace it."

Historically, better machines have meant better games (on the whole, although I have yet to find a machine that scoffs the hours like Elite did on the BBC and Civ 1 did on my Amiga), so as long as the games are better to play then it shouldn't matter if all of the varied manufacturers stopped producing new machines tomorrow, as long as people made entertaining games for them.

I mean, (in SP mode) most of the big games of the past few years would have been possible on some of the most basic machines, and so we shouldn't think that bigger and better graphics means a better game. Elite is the primary example of this: with its ability to generate random star systems, then the game was theoretically infinite so those who enjoyed playing it could theoretically play for as long as they wanted. Er, theoretically! If no better machines are produced, then the developers will be forced to produce better games for the existing machines - to the huge benefit of all! (Fingers crossed)

I know some of us still play games at 30, studies say about 25% of gamers are now over 35. But can you play games at 40 or 50 without looking like an intellectually-stunted manchild, there in your sweater vest, the control pad tangled in your long, gray, drool-soaked beard as the creeping hand of death stalks your every thought?

This is a social problem (?), rather than anything to do with the quality (or otherwise) of gaming machines.

[Nostromo]

His analysis of the video game crash of 1983 (or is it 1984?) is too simplistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Game_Crash_of_1983

It makes me smile when I hear all these people criticize the game industry because its not innovative or revolutionary enough. And when a very innovative or even a revolutionary game does come out, nobody buys it. Face it, deep down, most people don't really care whether a game is innovative or not. Its just ****ing games, after all. They want a bit of innovation, just to keep things fresh, but nothing more than that.

For my part, I've becomed jaded about games. Not sure why, though. I tried the Civ 4 demo recently and I told to myself: "been there done that". Maybe the guy is onto something

[Standup]

If no better machines are produced, then the developers will be forced to produce better games for the existing machines - to the huge benefit of all! (Fingers crossed)

I think that's very true. If you look at the games produced for the Spectrum when it was launched compared to the ones at the end of its life the developers were generally getting much more out of the same hardware. One difference is that platforms are much shorter lived so maybe those extra tweaks are never quite found.

In PC gaming it feels that lazy or poor programming can be compensated for by ever increasing hardware specs. Can't quite get the programme to work in 256MB well raise the minimum spec. If you know all you've got is 48K and there's no why to increase the memory you have to innovate in terms of programming and gameplay.

I often wonder if games in the past were 'better' because i spent more time on them but i think it's a case of I now have to work or work longer hours and if I stay up to 3am playing Championship Manager then I won't be very effective the next day. This was fine for some of my early jobs but now I'm a grown up I can't sleep off the night before in the corner and ignore the phone.

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by duke o' york

edit....

Elite is the primary example of this: with its ability to generate random star systems, then the game was theoretically infinite so those who enjoyed playing it could theoretically play for as long as they wanted. Er, theoretically! If no better machines are produced, then the developers will be forced to produce better games for the existing machines - to the huge benefit of all! (Fingers crossed)

Ah yes i forgot that one! "where is the new Elite?" should be added to the others i mentioned.

And interestingly this provides a good example of why for me its all got pretty pants.

Elite was a game you could really lose yourself in - for months,even years. And todays game design abc is about the exact opposite of that mentality - its become so tied up with business/marketing and film people - its completely lost sight of one of games great strengths - the longevity of the experience. The ability to lose yourself in an interactive world for so much longer than that trip to the movies.

Gameing has got mean spirited and controlled by bean counters. In that enviroment its not surprising that for the most part it can feel pretty stale and disapointing.

Is it the end of gaming? No.
Is this next step on the corporate ladder of the Games Industry(tm) going to be hard for the big guys? Possibly yes.

I just dont know who they are making games for at the momment? because its certainly not me - or people like me(ie people with disposable income and a passion for games)?

Originally posted by standup
edit..
I often wonder if games in the past were 'better' because i spent more time on them but i think it's a case of I now have to work or work longer hours and if I stay up to 3am playing Championship Manager then I won't be very effective the next day. This was fine for some of my early jobs but now I'm a grown up I can't sleep off the night before in the corner and ignore the phone.

Well we just have to be more strategic with our time, but you can still put in the hours you used to(well maybe not quite....)with a well planned gaming schedule. Its true i dont do the overnighters anymore - but that might be because i just dont find modern games as engrossing(mostly)? Dont let real life damage your gaming fun - save often

Heh - CM(in its old form) was a game that really would eat up the hours!

[Sandman]

His analysis of the video game crash of 1983 (or is it 1984?) is too simplistic.

That's true, he does to skate over the fact that ET was an utter dog of a game.

It makes me smile when I hear all these people criticize the game industry because its not innovative or revolutionary enough. And when a very innovative or even a revolutionary game does come out, nobody buys it. Face it, deep down, most people don't really care whether a game is innovative or not. Its just ****ing games, after all. They want a bit of innovation, just to keep things fresh, but nothing more than that.

It's true, isn't it? Innovative games often sell very poorly. Gamers (hardcore or otherwise) have to accept some of the blame for sequelitis and Tolkienism. If anything, hardcore gamers have the most to lose from innovation. Their carefully-honed skills will count for less, and their online communities may depend on the continuation of a particular franchise.

As for the 'graphics over gameplay' trope, I'm unconvinced that it's anything other than gamer-specific nostalgia. Gameplay is such a hazy concept anyway.

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by El_Cid

Gaming has got mean spirited and controlled by bean counters. In that enviroment its not surprising that for the most part it can feel pretty stale and disapointing.

Well speaking as a bean-counter and a gamer, then I can understand why companies release games with short lives so that they can hook players and then release a sequel with very few improvements that could have been included in the first game, but as a gamer I am glad of games like Neverwinter Nights and Civ (well, 2-4) that allow keen players to create their own games with the engine and prolong the life of the game. I mean, since NWN had so many hooks in the form of persistant worlds and modules released by players that were so much better than the modules that were shipped with the game, then it will have held the attention of more gamers than it might have done otherwise, and ensured that they will buy NWN2 because the first one has proven to be so good (albeit not in the style they played. ).

This should be the future of gaming!

[El_Cid]

Originally posted by duke o' york

Well speaking as a bean-counter and a gamer, then I can understand why companies release games with short lives so that they can hook players and then release a sequel with very few improvements that could have been included in the first game, but as a gamer I am glad of games like Neverwinter Nights and Civ (well, 2-4) that allow keen players to create their own games with the engine and prolong the life of the game. I mean, since NWN had so many hooks in the form of persistant worlds and modules released by players that were so much better than the modules that were shipped with the game, then it will have held the attention of more gamers than it might have done otherwise, and ensured that they will buy NWN2 because the first one has proven to be so good (albeit not in the style they played. ).

This should be the future of gaming!

Indeed And its why i use Oblivion to be the poster-child of the illness that is endemic in the mainstream games industry.

Oblivion II, will most likely not have a modding componant available to the public(It was a seperate download for Oblivion as is). Mods are now buyable seperate downloads for the 360, and the offical ones the same for PC. This is the bean-counter mentality(no offence meant by the way....just dont know what else to simply call it).

And i'm glad that even as a bean-counter yourself( ) the games you really appriciated and feel deserve your respect and fond memmories are those games that epitimise the opposite of this emerging attitude within the mainstream games industry.

Originally posted by Sandman
As for the 'graphics over gameplay' trope, I'm unconvinced that it's anything other than gamer-specific nostalgia. Gameplay is such a hazy concept anyway.

Nostalgia - its a term that i hear often, especialy in these kinds of debate. The problem with the term is that it suggests something being recalled from a distant memmory, something from the past that isnt so familiar or recently experienced.

I'm not a nostalgic gamer - i'm a worried about the futre gamer who just happens to find games from the past(older than 5years say) can offer a more interesting gaming experience than 90%( i like to use that number, as it imho reflects a reasonable estimate in the context) of the current releases. And the reason i'm not nostalgic is because i play those older games now and can directly compare them to newer games, side by side. Often i do genuinely prefer the older game - they just offer me more of a gaming experience.

Yes gameplay is a hazy term - still you know when your playing a game with bad gameplay. It could be having to wrestle with a confusing interface(actualy one rare area where modern gaming has made progress), or experiencing a dull generic fps level that you have seen a hundred times before, maybe the game just doesnt draw you into its world? Maybe the actual game-mechanics dont work properly or as expected?

So yes its a wide ranging, all inclusive term with little 'pin-downable' specifics. Still i will argue again that most players will know when the game they are playing has a serious gameplay issue.

My ultimate worry is the mainstream games industy(can we call it MGI from now on?), being led by people who are often not from a gaming background, could be heading itself into a corner - a painfull corner. We had one already and it would be a shame to repeat the mistake.

I'm someone who thinks gaming is vastly underated in general. As one of the origonal gamers from the late70's early 80's its been a very useful life experience for me to have had gaming in most of my growing life. It's actualy been an incredibly positive experience that has had very real benefits on my life.

That may sound crazy, especialy in our current 'jesus vs GTA' gaming enviroment. But i learnt a lot from gaming.....yes i did say learnt, but dont be afraid of that word!

The learning was so good it didnt often feel like it was learning So i can see the potential the medium has to not only entertain, but to contribute to society as a whole.

What did i learn? well among the many things i learnt to program a bit. I learnt to manage well(and thats been useful in my real life as a manager of a companies and organisations), assets as well as people. I learnt about technology. I learnt about many things i either wouldn't have had time to try, or difficulty in getting access too:

1.Flying a plane - i got pretty good over the years, i'm sure it would help me get my pilot license if i ever wanted to.

2.Shooting - yeah i know. Still if its good enough for the military to use to train troops then its good enough for me. In real life i'm a 'marksman' level shot.

3.History - Civ(plus others). I learnt more from that game than i did in three years of schooling - well atleast it got me interested in history, i went out and learnt more on my own.

4. The world. Many games taught me something about a part of the world i never knew about - so i would read up and help my understanding of geography.

And many other subjects.

What i'm getting at is gaming can be a fun past time, but thats not all it has to be. And i worry that the current MGI is ALL about making money with light entertainment, and none of the positive stuff. I worry that its these people that will give gaming a worse name than it already has, and i worry that kids of today and tomorrow will never experience the broad and interesting world of computer gaming it was my privalige to, and gain the good things it can give you.

I guess i'm quite passionate about this, and why my views may seem pretty strong on the subject - i can only tell it as i've experienced it and see it and they are just my views, like everyone elses.

[FrostyBoy]

Humans feed on exploration because we feed on change; so forever, games will change - in essense it's not "better" than past games and future games, it's just simply good or great, depending on the individual. But what is better is the technological advancements, it is these advancements that cause change and change is what we want because we want to explore something new.

For some people, they prefer to change only the world they live in, hence the hardcore RPG gamers or FPS's; for others, they like to venture out and try completely new territory.

Bottom line is, the beginning was exciting, it's the baby to child phase. From the mid 90's to maybe 2015, we are passing through the teenage phase; this is the confusing, what are we doing, what is it, why are we doing it phase, it's all good and exciting, but we're not sure excatly what it is, why we're doing it and where we're going with it.
However, after that phase, technology will pull us through to a new type of game, a game that doesn't need change, just needs to be experienced and enjoyed. This could be in the realm of Virtual Reality and an evolving (learning) AI.