Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Quote (Bang For Our Buck)

Quote (R8.50 Mango @ 9th July 2009 13:24)

or maybe it's just that they think not everyone will want extended content and have to up the price to make sure that they don't make a loss.

I keep on hearing that comment, but I think that anybody would want more content. However, I do agree with this one, and any other post that might've made the same argument that I missed or am to lazy to read. It's really made me think about the entire argument and the real trouble in the industry that I think it represents.

It's not that they don't want to make more content and have longer development times, it's that they can't afford to waste time making all of that material.

Why? Well I think it shows the state of the industry. When you look at the development times of many movies, they can last for years or perhaps decades. However, game companies, in order to keep an income and profit off of their franchises, have to continue making games.

I said this on another topic a while back, why do you think there are so many sequels in the industry? Every game if succesful will have a sequel, prequel, or spinoff. And that is because the lack of a universal system to play games. The film industry has DVDs, and it will be the major format until another format comes along that is better.

But, for games, consoles have a short lifespan. No one makes the SNES, NES or PS1 anymore, so the games that were made then no longer are turning profit. Therefore, the only way that Square Enix can profit off of its older games is to? Re-release them. FFVI on the GBA, FFIV on the GBA and DS, and now FFVII on the Playstation Network.

So if you follow my crazy line of thought, you can see the economical problem that exists and how it affects the industry. Companies are forced to find a succesful franchise, and then make new games and content for it. Then they must find a way to capitalize on their classic games.

So, what I'm saying is, I don't think they have enough time or money to focus on special features.

I posted this on my "Bang for our Buck" topic (now closed). It made me think that my topic, which was about games being so pricey but not offering many special features, was about something much larger. Because there is not a universal format, video games have a limited lifespan. This creates a chain of cause-and-effect that leads to an industry dominated by sequels, prequels and spinoffs that are often not very original. And it also leads to numerous ports and re-releases that force us to buy the same game over and over.

Do you all think this is a problem like I do? And if you do, what do you think the solution is? Increased backwards compatibility? Or, some kind of universal format the way the film industry does?

So here's the supposed problem:

Because of constant console changes and updates, game developers are forced to continually make new games to capitalize on the market, and this makes a vicious cycle that weakens creativity and hurts the quality of games.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 10th July 2009 05:51

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Indeed, more back compatibility would be wonderful for the gaming community. Companies and consumers alike.

BUT, no matter what games or systems are currently the best, people will always want better. Better graphics, better sound, better kick-ass stuff. People have strayed away from wanting good storylines, and good characters. 90% of the market only cares about graphics. Wich is a load of bull. In the meantime the games have horrible plots and people in them. Wich in turn causes companies to lose profits sooner. People buy the game and dont care that the game sucks. It looks beautiful, thats all that matters. Then after a little while, they get sick of it and play something else. The biggest case I am going to make here ( and I know I will get flamed for it ) is Final Fantasy 7. Graphics and sound were total epicness for their day, but at the cost of what? Bad plot jumping around, horrible characters, and a translation that could kill the HotForWords lady.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I think there will NEVER be a universal format for video games. The majority of gamers want more and more flashy stuff and no heart and soul. Therefore the industry will HAVE to keep upgrading to meet the demand.

Oh I didn't think the FFVII plot was that bad. But I definitely there is a movement away from plot and character development. In a lot of the past eras you can see strong plots: there was FFIV and FFVI, later there were games like Vagrant Story and others on the PSX, and there were even some good titles on the PS2 (FFX probably had more depth to their characters than any other game I've played). I still don't see anything strong in the current generation, though. Hopefully FFXIII / Versus will fill that gap?

--------------------

Currently Playing : Final Fantasy V
Most Recently Beat : Elder Scrolls: Skyrim
Favorite Game : Final Fantasy X

The newest CoNcast is up! Have a listen!

I see some of your points, but as someone who occasionally works in film, and has taken courses in entertainment industry economics, I think your analogy also operates under several misconceptions about the film industry. First off, movies do not have the longevity of profitability you think they do. Most films actually lose money, and you can tell by opening weekend if a movie is gonna make profit or not. Studios rely on their major blockbusters to make up for those losses, and franchising (sequels/prequels) are incredibly important to the industry, and you only have to point at any randomly successful science fiction or comic book movie to see that. The industry constantly repackages the same stuff in a different way, no different from your complaint about the VG industry.

The big distinction you try to make is in formatting, but there too I think you are mistaken. The film industry has had its format wars before, Betamax v. VHS, or most recently Blu-ray vs. HDDVD, and the studios usually wait to see which is selling better, and then all begin manufacturing in that model, which means extinction for the competition. However, this isn't too different from all next gen consoles using the CD format now, whereas the cart was the old format and is now extinct. Nintendo tried to hold out with carts but after N64, they ditched it just like Toshiba ditched HDDVD. The "one standard" you're proposing already exists; DVD is to VHS as CD is to cart. You are essentially confusing platform (Xbox, PS3, Wii) with manufacturing format.

It seems to me that what you're saying is "all games should come out for all systems," but most of the same games are available on both PS3 and 360, with only Wii having a very different library, and really, that is because Wii just doesn't have the graphics capability for some mainstream games, but makes up for it in its first party library. Think of Wii as an art house theatre, that doesn't have Imax capability but shows a bunch of niche movies you really like and can't see anywhere else. Just like movies will sometimes release in Imax theatres and not all theatres have Imax, sometimes not all games are graphically capable of being played on Wii; or sometimes a movie studio will sign exclusive distribution deals with certain theatre chains, so might a game manufacturer sign exclusive distribution deals with certain systems.

I understand your point about extras. It's true there are DVD extras and you don't see the equivalent in the VG industry that much, the closest thing probably being a Squenix game with some new dungeons, but studies have actually shown that those DVD extras don't significantly increase sales. It's just a cheap additional option that might entice some bigger film buffs, sometimes trying to get them to buy an old product. And while it's true that old movies will often end up on these new formats, DVD and slowly Blu-ray, I don't think that's untrue of games either, because you could often get collection CDs of Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Sonic, etc. for a PS or Xbox Console. Plus, with things like Virtual Console and XBox Arcade, all those old classics will become even more readily available over the Internet. So I think there are more similarities than you think, and the VG industry isn't all that different. Let me know if I'm missing something.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 9th July 2009 21:57)

This creates a chain of cause-and-effect that leads to an industry dominated by sequels, prequels and spinoffs that are often not very original. And it also leads to numerous ports and re-releases that force us to buy the same game over and over.

While MMB raises better points than I think I will, I want to say that the quote above is where your argument loses me. I think it only works if you assume that the gaming public, which I assume should include you, is too stupid to actually look for games that have originality and instead are simply line up to purchase new games because they have a compulsion to buy whatever's new. I don't know about you, but I neither have the money nor the lack of brains to go down that road!

Yes, it's probably easier on developers to crank out moneymaking rehashes, and EA certainly proves that with all their sports games, as an example. But why do they keep selling? It's not enough to simply assume it's because they're there - it's because the players are willing to buy them. Companies learn fast when they lose money, but if they're not, they have no reason to change, and the bulk of the buying public is giving them the money they need... how could that be construed as a problem with the industry? It's a problem with the consumer.


--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Metroid, I see your points too, but while most films are not profitable, the major ones are. Even some of the ones you would not consider to be great films. Obsessed recently came out. It was made with a $20 million budget. In its opening weekend alone, it made $28 million. And the DVD I believe will come out this August. Aside from advertising, it will make a profit. (and most people wouldn't say it deserves it).

My point is not to say that films do not have a lot of formats, but those formats are fairly cost-effective to transfer between. That is why a movie like the Wizard of Oz, which is 70 years old, can still make money without new development teams. *There is a new development team that Square Enix uses, and Nintendo uses one too.

R51, I'm not saying we're stupid. This is not necessarily our problem, yet, it is the developers' problems. After they came out with the N64, eventually they stopped making the SNES, just as they had stopped making the NES. Then they stopped making the games that were on it, right? Because, why on Earth would they make games for a system that is not made anymore? Am I right saying that they don't make Star Wars for VHS anymore? Why? Because they don't really mass produce VHS's anymore.

Now, what happened with FFVI when they did this? They made a port to the Playstation, with new videos. That had to, While I could myself transfer some of my VHS tapes to DVD in about an hour. But they had to work much harder to transfer it to a new system. Then what happened? A new Playstation system came out, and now they don't make PS1 games anymore. My question is, are they working themselves too hard, but not receiving the benefits?

Okay, I'm rambling, and apparently not getting my point across. But here's what is worrying me. I am trying to find a film school, but I am interested in video games too. If I go that direction, and I create a popular game that sells well, will I have to painstakingly remake that game for a new system five to ten years later; while I could make a popular movie that can easily be transferred to any format?

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

MMB's points on the PSN, Xbox Live Arcade and Wii Virtual Console is exactly what I had in mind when I read the first post. I'd just like to add that I view PC gaming as a universal format for all games. Theoretically, any game is playable on it, or will be in the future. It doesn't take nearly as many resources to port a game as make a new one, so I don't really see it as a problem.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 10th July 2009 22:41)

Okay, I'm rambling, and apparently not getting my point across. But here's what is worrying me. I am trying to find a film school, but I am interested in video games too. If I go that direction, and I create a popular game that sells well, will I have to painstakingly remake that game for a new system five to ten years later; while I could make a popular movie that can easily be transferred to any format?

If that's troubling you, if you're worried about having to toe the company line, then I would suggest focusing on another career and doing filming or modding as a hobby. I think a lot of people who can't be bothered slaving in either industry fulfil their creative desires in this way. Some of the best games I've played have been free and independently created, although built around an existing game. The Nameless Mod and This Wreckage are probably my favourites. I can imagine that if they were preoccupied with, say, designing an EA Sports title we'd never have these games to play.

I think your problem with the industry is more to do with profiteering than formatting. On that subject, I've always thought about making a game company co-operative. I wonder if it would work. It would certainly solve that problem.

This post has been edited by sweetdude on 10th July 2009 23:44

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 10th July 2009 19:39)

If that's troubling you, if you're worried about having to toe the company line, then I would suggest focusing on another career and doing filming or modding as a hobby. I think a lot of people who can't be bothered slaving in either industry fulfil their creative desires in this way. Some of the best games I've played have been free and independently created, although built around an existing game. The Nameless Mod and This Wreckage are probably my favourites. I can imagine that if they were preoccupied with, say, designing an EA Sports title we'd never have these games to play.

I think your problem with the industry is more to do with profiteering than formatting. On that subject, I've always thought about making a game company co-operative. I wonder if it would work. It would certainly solve that problem.

Exactly, and I know how foolish that sounds when I say that, because I haven't tried creating something, and I don't know enough yet to be in either industry. But it does appeal to me, the idea of being independent, and the film industry seems to be well suited for me to do that. But the video game industry seems as if it is more closed off to that sort of thing.

Well, as for choosing another industry, I don't know. I'm pretty sure I'm not built for that, but I won't rule it out. Hey, if I'm being pessimistic and I don't make it, I could easily turn it from a career to a hobby. But if I do get lucky, and do become successful, then I will try and become independent, like most of my idols in film (Scorsese, Kubrick, and Spielberg) and in gaming (Molyneux, Sakaguchi) are. But I wonder if I could do that in games, which leads me back to the argument.

The independent gaming scene is not very strong. Sure there are some great games, but few third party developers have the money to truly stay independent and make good games. Square Enix is a good example, and as you can se they can take their time on projects. That is why their games are so good, I think. And I think that they prove that co-op can work.

*but for what it's worth, I'd rather toe the company line making games than.......I don't know... microwaves......well, maybe that's the true problem. Your sense of rebellion gets hurt when EA gives you a contract and tells you to work on Madden's menu screens. At least I can give a little creative input. Like changing a color?

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Your posts overall have this theme that somehow it's easier to make a movie than a game, and I think you're pretty far off the mark on that. I don't really have anything new to add to the whole "easily transferable format" debate. A computer programmer would know better than me, but I can't imagine that transferring a game from cart to CD, or Internet, is all that hard once you've actually coded the game. If it were, I imagine ROMs would be far less prevalent. Classic games will become more readily available as Internet distribution evolves, since it has very cheap costs. It's starting something from scratch that is the hard part.

Never tried to make a game myself, but I don't doubt it's hard. There have been lots of people coming to these boards to talk about their awesome new game, and nothing ever comes of it. Best progress I saw starting from scratch was Silverlance, but he's not really around anymore and I have no idea if he ever finished it. I can speak from experience, though, when I say that making a film is hard. First you have to raise the money, which is hundreds of thousands of dollars, easy, even for an indie if it's a feature length film, and that's projecting on the low end of budgets. Then you have to write, storyboard, cast, film, edit, etc. And for those with the work ethic to actually get through all that, then you have to actually try and sell the damn thing for distribution, with most people registering an epic fail, some getting straight to DVD if they're lucky, and others getting a small theater distribution if they're really lucky. With all the people you have to hire, it's essentially a small business but with little promise of a return, meaning that you can reasonably expect, and better be prepared for, lawsuits in the event cast and crew don't get paid or investors don't get repaid.

Don't mean to dash your hopes and dreams or anything, but that's the reality of it, and I found out about it through experience. I can totally relate to your career dilemma, since I thought of doing both things once myself, but ruled out video games when I realized I couldn't do math and therefore lacked the requisite computer science skills. I thought of going to film school but didn't, yet I ended up in Hollywood anyway studying the economic side of things. This isn't the first job choice I had in mind when I thought of working in entertainment, but it's been a unique experience and I've had fun with it. If you really want to do something, and have a love of the art that goes beyond the mere need for recognition and acceptance, you find ways to stick with it and make it work. You seem young enough that you have plenty of time to work that stuff out, but I would not pick one industry over another just because you think it is easier. These things are labors of love, but you can't ignore the labor part of it if you really want to make it work.

I didn't say one is easier than the other, both are equally hard enough to make me really question myself and if I can do either one. As for stories and ideas, I seem to have more and better video game ideas. But you're right, I could do calculus but I don't know about doing all of the programming. I have a couple years until I finsh college and try to find a school, so I'll let what happens happen. But you're right. Neither industry is an easy industry, and I'm sure that any last-remaining sense of confidence will slip away shortly. But I don't care. All of that stuff is worth it to me. But anyways...

What I was saying is that video games are more complicated, from what I gather, to transfer over to other platforms because of the sheer size and memory, and that is why they cost so much more and there is little space for extras (the reason for the other topic). My dad makes DVD's of his show (he's a musician), and while they aren't the best quality, they are fairly easy to make, copy, and sell. In fact, earlier I copied a disc rather easily from the Tivo with little effort. But that is not the only thing I am talking about.

It's good that you bring up the legal aspects, because that is another problem. Squenix brought in Matrix Software to remake FFIII and IV on the DS. Now, I will admit I do not know very much technically, but I do know films do not need entirely new development teams to switch from VHS, DVD, HDDVD, and IMAX. Well, they would possibly for 3D, but I don't know much. Now, back to the point, how does Matrix's involvement affect the previous developer's contracts? Will the original creators of remade games get royalties of something?

I don't know, but my point is that I see that as a problem I see in the industry that is thankfully being fixed by programs like the Virtual Console and Playstation Network, where those games will be archived and will continue to be sold. Because the problem would therefore be solved, partially, as the creators would continue to be compensated for their hard work making games.

It's true what you say about hard work. And many hard-working game designers have not been truly compensated for creating some of the greatest games of all time.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 11th July 2009 22:00

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Well, those discs that your dad sells are probably pretty much shooting with a digital camcorder, transferring to a computer, and then burning, right? That's the easy stuff, and probably equivalent to making a flash game, which many people are also capable of doing by themselves. Therefore, I don't see one or the other as necessarily being more complicated, assuming you have the requisite skill set for either. When you're talking about feature-length films and Next Gen quality games, however, that's a totally different story.

I think the major reason that games are more expensive to purchase is that they have fewer distribution windows. Major studio movies get distributed at the box office, on home video, TV, and also Internet these days, meaning they have more opportunities to make money. Most of that money these days is made on home video i.e. DVD, which wasn't always the case (VHS income was mostly through rent, not purchase, which meant most money was in box office) but like I said earlier, by opening weekend you can usually tell if a film will make a profit or not, because that tends to be a determinative measure of how much they will make in the other distribution windows. I can't speak with any sort of personal knowledge on the game industry, but I imagine the prices are a reflection of the fact that they are essentially distributed once and then done, and maybe if Internet redistribution evolves it might change that a little, but I doubt it because the prices just reflect the way the distribution systems have evolved differently with the technology. I won't get into the history of film distribution suffice it to say that it's been around a lot longer than games and in many ways it is an accident of history, keeping in mind that when the film industry started to develop in earnest it was still a good half-century before television was common in the home. When you think about it, just by combining the price of an Imax ticket and Blu-ray disc, you've pretty much got the equivalent price of a new release VG.

As for contracts, in the US most stuff made for a movie studio or video game company would be a work-for-hire, which means that the intellectual property rights would be owned by the corporation. The royalty rate would totally depend on how the contract was negotiated between the corp and the developers, and assuming you have the clout to demand royalties, most contracts today would have some provision dealing with distributions of that same game in new media, but would probably not cover remakes unless the person in question had some serious leverage. Assuming some disagreement on the terms and whether the contract covers it or not, they'd do what most people do, and that's sue and figure it out either in court or by settlement. I don't know how the law works in Japan, but I assume there is some equivalent, because Sakaguchi left Squenix but all the IP stayed with the corporation. If I had to guess, I would imagine that after the series started to take off, Sakaguchi managed to at least negotiate royalties.

Yeah, but my guess would be that Sakaguchi would still have some legal rights to the games he created, and since he was executive producer on most of those games, he probably still receives royalties whenever they remake an older game, for instance, FFVII on the Playstation Network. But that I can't tell.

An example would be Paul McCartney. He doesn't own the rights to the Beatles catalogue, but he still has rights as the performer/writer of the songs. I would think that, even though that is a different industry, the same would apply in film and in video games.

And yeah, films are a lot older than video games. Charlie Chaplin and DW Griffith were making films in the teens, before there was even a Hollywood. And for most of those years, until the 70's when they first developed the VHS, there wasn't a home audience. There was only the theatres and television. So all of the money was made through theatrical release and tv deals.

So I would agree that there are fewer distribution windows, but I believe that would in some way solidify my argument about films being easier to manipulate once it the work is finalized. To my knowledge, nothing exists that can copy a Playstation disc to the Xbox, because the coding is different. There isn't a DVDWii, DBox 360, DS (well, acutally there is). Okay, getting a little punchy. I would also say other than the differences in cartridges and optical discs, the size of video games makes programs such as Nero impossible to use on games.

But you brought up the "age difference" between the two mediums. Do you think that is the solution: maturity? That might be it. Because they might find a way to find a more universal software to produce games on in the future, and improve their means of distribution to lower the costs of development, while lengthening the lifespan of classic titles, which would make both designer and fan very happy.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Well, in some ways I think you're still conflating things with respect to format, because in the same way you can't get a PS3 game to work on 360 you can't get a Blu-ray disc to work on a DVD player, not without altering the system or player itself in some way. I don't want to go back and forth on the issue, but just like you can get most movies on either DVD or Blu-Ray, you can get most games on either PS3 of 360, again with Wii acting as sort of an art house theatre (although with sales well above art houses!).

You are right in some respect, and I understand what you're getting at. The film industry does lend itself better to one format for home distribution, and the push to move to Blu-Ray, and essentially kill HDDVD, is an example of that. But frankly, it also strikes me as a little anti-competitive, and if you think about it, there was one generation of universal format distribution in video game history - NES in the 80's. Unlike in the film industry, where studios push for universal format, that was upsetting to a lot of game developers who felt confined by Nintendo and carts, and was mainly responsible for the big jump to PS1 and CD by third party developers.

So, ultimately, while I think you overlook the similarities, you are right to point out the differences. Like I said, the way the distribution system works in Hollywood is an accident of history, and you pretty much laid out how it happened - threatre, TV, VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, Internet. Games have sort of developed in their own little historical accident, and the multi-system split that occurred when PS launched has, in my view, been a good thing for the industry. I liked having the option to trade in my Wii for a PS3 when it better suited my purpose, and I know some people with HDDVD players who swear its better than Blu-ray, and are quite upset at the switch.

Doesn't psp allow psx games and ps2 games to be played?

I think i even heard of games from the platform of xbox games on psp,i could be wrong but who knows.

I think one of the issues is,they push games to come out sooner than they are soposed to,and then the quality of the game itself is lesser and it is bugged.

Don't get me wrong,psx is a good console but it is when new generation consoles started to spew out games like mad and hope one is a hit.

And another thing:

I always used to think that they worked on the platforms before the game even came out,or at least i hope so.It would nullify any problems dealing with the whole platform issue,unless its a game that can give problems to consoles that are not next generation with good graphics and sound cards.

I guess games of new age like um:Cod4 halo 3,final fantasy 12 etc would be too hard on consoles like nintendo wii.


Hmm and wouldn't an old game give problems to begin with to new consoles? Whenever i play a really old game,my computer complains that my settings are too high and the game refuses to work properly because the game is too old and my computer has too high resolution,
the same might happen with sound i sopose.

This post has been edited by Magitek_slayer on 12th July 2009 15:21

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 11th July 2009 22:39)

But you brought up the "age difference" between the two mediums. Do you think that is the solution: maturity? That might be it. Because they might find a way to find a more universal software to produce games on in the future, and improve their means of distribution to lower the costs of development, while lengthening the lifespan of classic titles, which would make both designer and fan very happy.

Blitzsage, I just wanted to clarify something, because I was re-reading our conversation and we talked about a lot. Yes, I do think maturity makes a difference, in the sense that entertainment industries and their distribution methods tend to develop with technology. To that extent, I think that Internet Distribution will have a big impact across the board and you only have to look at the music industry, where it's had a significant impact on manufactured in-store distribution, to see how successful it can be.

I'm actually a huge supporter of it for movies. A professor of mine was a non-believer in Internet distribution for films, because he thought Blu-ray and other manufactured media would continue to dominate. He has a point, because with current technology movies take a long time to download over Internet, and that is just for standard definition movies. But, and he is a very respected businessperson in Hollywood who I could hope for a fraction of the success of, I also think he belongs to an older generation and fails to see how important Internet distribution is to kids these days. When the technology catches up, it might be possible to make high definition movies available over Internet distribution in a matter of minutes, maybe seconds, and that is where I anticipate the evolution of home video going for the film industry.

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 11th July 2009 15:33)

I can't speak with any sort of personal knowledge on the game industry, but I imagine the prices are a reflection of the fact that they are essentially distributed once and then done, and maybe if Internet redistribution evolves it might change that a little, but I doubt it because the prices just reflect the way the distribution systems have evolved differently with the technology. 

My quote above makes it sound like I don't think Internet distribution will make a difference in games, but I do think it will. Clearly, it's already being used to redistribute older games, and perhaps at some point it will be used to distribute new releases as well. What I meant by the above quote was that, even if the Internet is used to distribute new, Next Gen games, I don't think that will significantly change the price. Older games, yes, will have lower Internet distribution prices, but I think the prices for new release games have been pretty constant, and I don't really see it lowering development costs (distribution costs maybe, but not development costs). If it ever does evolve to the point where new releases are distributed on Internet, it probably won't be much, if any, cheaper than manufactured new release games you go into a store and buy. I also don't expect Internet distribution to change "exclusives" that much, especially with respect to Nintendo's first-party games, because those are its gold mine. Still, it will have an effect on the industry and it will be fun to see. It might be as close to that "universal format" you're aching for that we will get.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 11th July 2009 07:23)

Square Enix is a good example, and as you can se they can take their time on projects. That is why their games are so good, I think. And I think that they prove that co-op can work.

By co-op I meant a company where everyone owns equal shares and gets paid the same. The beauty of this is that, in theory, the games that would be made would be what the staff want to make, rather than the most profitable idea. So instead of wasting time on money-making sequels which you so rightly dislike, we'd get a much better variety of games based more on what the developers actually want to make. The emphasis is to keep the books balanced and everyone in a job. Any profit that is made would be invested directly back into the company. I think this would work very well in the entertainment industry.

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 13th July 2009 05:41)

If it ever does evolve to the point where new releases are distributed on Internet, it probably won't be much, if any, cheaper than manufactured new release games you go into a store and buy. I also don't expect Internet distribution to change "exclusives" that much, especially with respect to Nintendo's first-party games, because those are its gold mine. Still, it will have an effect on the industry and it will be fun to see. It might be as close to that "universal format" you're aching for that we will get.

OnLive is pretty much your answer here. Even if this doesn't become a universal distributor, it just goes to show what is possible in the future. Surely we will eventually see exclusives on services such as this?

This post has been edited by sweetdude on 13th July 2009 15:12

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

I think that sounds like a perfect idea to me. But it does seem to be perhaps too perfect, or at least temporary, like some sort of collobaration. But it is those ideas, I believe, that seem like they could not work at first, that most often change the world. The essence, in my opinion, of the idea of "thinking outside the box" is to come up with ideas that are good and pursue them. The idea might work if the design team is smaller and focused on doing what they want to do. But I believe that they would need some pull, or someone to independently back them and their project. But I love the idea.

And as for internet distribution, I agree. Both industries have and will undergo tremendous changes. In games, for instance, you have the Virtual Console and the DLC that offers add-ons for many games. It is only natural for new technologies to impact industries. But I do have to say, that I am sort of old school, traditional if you will, about some things. I for instance, still like to have a physical copy of a movie or game. But it is unwise to stand up to the tide of change.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (sweetdude @ 13th July 2009 07:04)

By co-op I meant a company where everyone owns equal shares and gets paid the same. The beauty of this is that, in theory, the games that would be made would be what the staff want to make, rather than the most profitable idea. So instead of wasting time on money-making sequels which you so rightly dislike, we'd get a much better variety of games based more on what the developers actually want to make. The emphasis is to keep the books balanced and everyone in a job. Any profit that is made would be invested directly back into the company. I think this would work very well in the entertainment industry.

That idea might work in the independent sector, or in Europe, assuming you have a trustworthy and competent group of people. But the studio system in Hollywood, for better or for worse, is straight-up corporate America, and in fact many so-called indies also follow the same basic corporate pattern. This is an interesting idea for a business structure, however, and I assume you are familiar with the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation.

Quote

OnLive is pretty much your answer here. Even if this doesn't become a universal distributor, it just goes to show what is possible in the future. Surely we will eventually see exclusives on services such as this?

That's pretty cool, and there are actually equivalent technologies developing in the film world, that purport to transfer a wide range of movies to your comp or TV almost instantly.

Quote (MetroidMorphBall @ 13th July 2009 21:13)

That idea might work in the independent sector, or in Europe, assuming you have a trustworthy and competent group of people. But the studio system in Hollywood, for better or for worse, is straight-up corporate America, and in fact many so-called indies also follow the same basic corporate pattern. This is an interesting idea for a business structure, however, and I assume you are familiar with the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation.

I was going to skirt around stating the American Individualism thing, and start screaming about capitalism, but I do agree that both industries are very capitalistic. But I do think that it will take game designers breaking the mode in order the stop the vicious cycle that occurs. Independence and co-operation, but also a good plan. But this problem's victims are the game designers, but the culprits are the major companies that control them. And they need to have the balls to break away from them. In the film industry, there was the Studio Era, where the Big Five had ultimate control over their stars and filmmakers. Can you not see a parallel between that era and video games today? Let's see, you got Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo that massively control all that goes on their consoles, and then you have the game companies that are so massive that they act as publishers: EA and Activision. Are they gaming's Big Five? If they are, will they decline in power as the studios did in the 50's and 60's?

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 13th July 2009 20:17)

In the film industry, there was the Studio Era, where the Big Five had ultimate control over their stars and filmmakers. Can you not see a parallel between that era and video games today? Let's see, you got Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo that massively control all that goes on their consoles, and then you have the game companies that are so massive that they act as publishers: EA and Activision. Are they gaming's Big Five? If they are, will they decline in power as the studios did in the 50's and 60's?

There are still six major studios, and they run like 90% of the American film industry.

Therein lies the paradox of your posts. The point of all the comparisons I made in my posts above was that, yes, there are many similarities between the film industry and the game industry, mostly in that they both follow entertainment distribution models, with nuances resulting from historical accident and different evolutions with new technology.

Of course, there are also differences, because when you come right down to it games are games, and movies are movies. But the beauty in both those similarities and differences is that, in spite of corporate operations, we have options. I can go to the art house theatre and watch a niche movie or I can check it out on Imax, or I can get a Wii or PS3, or watch something in DVD or Blu-ray quality.

On the one hand, you seem to embrace that kind of openness and diversity, like your call for more independent media or Sweetdude's worker cooperatives, while at the same time you keep begging for this "universal format" which might actually have the effect of stifling that kind of creativity. You follow what I'm saying? While I see Internet as the future, I certainly would not want that distribution method to succeed at the expense of ingenuity, and I'm sure new companies, new ideas, maybe new infrastructure, will continue to push the envelope beyond that, eventually replacing it.

Despite what might be seen as the ultimate critique of the capitalist structure, that it promotes monopolistic tendencies while pretending to encourage competition, we still have options, technology continues to develop, and despite seemingly insurmountable odds it is possible for little guys to break into an industry as an independent and hit it big. Think about how many people knew Google ten years ago! There is no need for this uniformity you speak of because the "market," for lack of a better word, will figure it out.

Yeah I get what you are saying. Not only that, but I don't think any company wants a universal format, so I do not think it would work. What I am saying in comparing the industries is this: the companies will do what they do, whatever is necessary to make a better profit. The problem's solution lies in the game designers themselves.

You keep saying art house, and those do exist in film, but not really in games, unless you consider Braid the art house for games. There needs to be a stronger independent movement in games. In the 50's and 60's, the French New Wave occured, and that eventually influenced the independent films from people like Scorsese, Coppola, Altman, and the filmmakers of New Hollywood. Of course, many of them were not necessarily independent because, as you say, the studios still controlled them, but they did to a lesser degree. And those filmmakers broadened their artistry. I think video games need a new wave in the same fashion. The publishers need to relinquish some control in order to give designers more freedom.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

I found this to be extremely relevant to the topic. Denis Dryack (possibly a.k.a. BlitzSage).

He talks about comparisons with the film industry, different formats and an inevitable single format eventually dominating gaming. I hope he's right. He says it's better for the developers rather than the consumer, but what's good for the developers is surely good for the players, right?

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Does it help that Denis Dyack is a complete nutjob that threw a tantrum after Too Human was poorly received and went on forums (notably neoseeker) demanding that the forum runners somehow sue/punish his forum-based detractors? Not the best spokesperson for a concept.

Really, I think that these three developers are too determined to sell consoles to come to some kind of agreement console in the near future. Possibly 40 or 50 years from now at a minimum, but not soon. If you want to play games where all third-party developers work on a common console, then play PC games.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

He's not the only developer to throw a tantrum. Harvey Smith did so with Blacksite: Area 51 and he's still pretty cool. Although, admittedly, he didn't seek forum revenge, as far as I'm aware. It's not like Dyack is a frontrunner for this concept, it's just good that somebody is discussing it.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 16th July 2009 12:00)

He's not the only developer to throw a tantrum. Harvey Smith did so with Blacksite: Area 51 and he's still pretty cool. Although, admittedly, he didn't seek forum revenge, as far as I'm aware. It's not like Dyack is a frontrunner for this concept, it's just good that somebody is discussing it.

Actually, on second thought, I bet that the reason Dyack is so for this concept is because he believes the current industry structure ruined him. Too Human was in development for about eight to ten years, changed target systems from PS1 to PS2 to 360/PC, and eventually had that nutty critical fiasco from last year. It was the changing console environment (along with his slow work and indecision) that made Too Human such a mediocre game. He probably bears a serious grudge towards the current system and really wants it to be on the way out.

But I still think it's bull****. The current structure isn't going anywhere until the entire game industry starts to suffer (which it isn't) and core properties like Mario, Zelda, Halo, and what have you start faltering (which they won't). Right now Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony all have console creation as a key part of their business structure, and nobody there wants to change that yet. If you want to be like Dyack and keep longer continuity on a system, then develop for PC.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

Quote (laszlow)

Does it help that Denis Dyack is a complete nutjob that threw a tantrum after Too Human was poorly received and went on forums (notably neoseeker) demanding that the forum runners somehow sue/punish his forum-based detractors? Not the best spokesperson for a concept.

Well, if I was he, I would be offended.

Quote (laszlow)

But I still think it's bull****. The current structure isn't going anywhere until the entire game industry starts to suffer (which it isn't)

But I'm not, so I agree with this. As much as I compare the two industries, they are not the same. And if change does happen, it won't be the guys making all of the money. Single Platform= Maybe, but it'll take a long time. I think sweetdude's co-op idea is what could really change things.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 16th July 2009 19:25)

Quote (laszlow)

But I still think it's bull****. The current structure isn't going anywhere until the entire game industry starts to suffer (which it isn't)

But I'm not, so I agree with this. As much as I compare the two industries, they are not the same. And if change does happen, it won't be the guys making all of the money. Single Platform= Maybe, but it'll take a long time. I think sweetdude's co-op idea is what could really change things.

I know this is going to invite a lot of laughs but I'll say it anyway: maybe illegal downloading really will destroy the entertainment industry? In theory, downloading could become much easier and faster due to improved availability and internet speeds. Then sales gradually start to descend when it becomes more popular. Finally the big investors pull their money out of the sinking ship of the industry and back into organised crime or whatever. That is how I would see the industry suffering, and the structure changing. Having said all that, I still believe it's a very unlikely scenario.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

You can still play PSX games if you own a PS2 or a PS thre.....nevermind.

Now to address the main question. The costs to make a whole new game can really add up. For one thing the final fantasy franchise is known for trying new ideas every game which means LOTS of funding on idea designing (whatever it's called)

But then at the same time they have to make a game with better graphics. (Because stupid kids these days only want graphics and no substance)

Re-Releasing a game or creating a spin-off is cheaper and caters to the fans of the originals so that means guaranteed revenue.
Point being is that the economy is in the shape were it makes more sense to Re-release games to make more money.

--------------------

If god is all-forgiving then why do we have to kill people in his name?

Quote (sweetdude @ 16th July 2009 10:42)

I know this is going to invite a lot of laughs but I'll say it anyway: maybe illegal downloading really will destroy the entertainment industry? In theory, downloading could become much easier and faster due to improved availability and internet speeds. Then sales gradually start to descend when it becomes more popular. Finally the big investors pull their money out of the sinking ship of the industry and back into organised crime or whatever. That is how I would see the industry suffering, and the structure changing. Having said all that, I still believe it's a very unlikely scenario.

It did incredible damage to the music industry. But really, in some ways I blame that on the actual industry being too slow to catch up to technology, and the pirates just reached that innovation first. Now, after numerous lawsuits, there has been some recovery, with iTunes owning a virtual monopoly on legitimate music download.

As for the film industry, statistics show that most lost sales are still the result of some dude going into a theatre with a camcorder and manufacturing. Internet piracy accounts for a much smaller fraction of that, probably because movies take longer to download. I think that's one reason my aforementioned professor disliked the idea of increasing the speed for digital download and making that the primary distribution source for home video, the fear that it would eventually evolve into a system of mass piracy. But if music distribution serves as any example, better for the film industry to get there first before the pirates, because if the pirates evolve first then it will put the industry on the defensive and force them to be reactionary, with the same end result that the technology develops in that direction anyway.

@Metroid: Did you know that the more a song is illegally downloaded, it gains exponential sales? Just an interesting fact.