Separating Games from the Industry

A lot was said after this years GDC in San Diego about the adverse effects of publishers controlling the tone of the games industry. The worst consequence is the effect on the games themselves. Games are dumber and shallower than they have ever been, and it doesn’t look like things will be getting better anytime soon. But maybe there’s an answer - one that doesn’t involve publishers.

Publishers are solely concerned with profit. Because this is so, they bankroll games not because they are good ideas, but because they are low risk and and guarantee a return. Publishers have had it so good for so long that we are in the crazy situation where many won’t even look at games that don’t project a greater than 200 percent return on investment. When you hear reports that publishers are cutting back and the industry is on a downturn, what they mean is they can no longer guarantee 400 percent profit margins. That, in their terms, is a grim situation and justifies the proliferation of souless licence games and sequels over genuinely new ideas. Gone are the days when rock star developers can defraud big publishers of 40 million dollars just on the promise of an unseen game idea (you can thank Ion Storm, John Romero, and Daikatana for that particular debacle). Now for the most part, publishers decide what gets made and how.

Anyone who works in game development has a fairly clear idea of just how bad the publisher/developer model can be. The worst effect for me is that games are dumbed down. In an effort to appeal to the broadest demographic, designers are being forced to homogenize and pasteurize their ideas till there’s hardly any real substance left. Deep content is jettisoned for surface gloss amid the mad scramble to hit deadlines (which are defined by marketing programs and sales windows, not whether a game is actually ready). Plagiarism has reached the stage where derivative ideas are being regurgitated at a third and fourth generation level. For the most part, game design is disappearing up it’s own bum. There’s only one thing found in that direction: shyte. Buckets of it. The games industry has been eating itself for so long we’re heading for the digital equivalent of mad cow disease.

Games did not use to be like this. There were always a lot of bad ones, but there used to be a lot of surprisingly good ones too. Now it seems as if the whole lot has been mixed together into a nice marketable slush of mediocrity.

There’s the argument that the publishers are only making this stuff because people want to buy it, but that’s only half the story. People have to choose from what is there - they can’t buy something that isn’t made. All the talk of games as art and the industry wanting to be taken seriously is just lip service if all we do is produce a continual stream of rehash.

During his lecture at this year’s GDC Warren Specter (of Deus Ex fame) encouraged us all to make the best licenced games we can (bottom post), and good on him. I agree, that’s a good work ethic. The problem is I could apply the same ethic to painting over the ceiling of the Sistine chapel with a nice even lilac hue of non-stick wash and wear wall paint. The point here isn’t how we are doing what we do, but what we are doing. The danger we face is falling into line and being good little workers when what we should be doing is fighting to make the games that are actually worth making.

Specter has never done a licence game, which perhaps gives him the luxury to hold such reasonable opinions. I’ve done several, and I can tell you they stop being fun pretty quickly. You never stop learning, and it’s always better to be making even ordinary games than digging ditches. But that doesn’t mean we should be content doing it, or worse yet, accept and support the process.

Several years ago I was privy to a conversation between managers of a (then) fairly important games company. They were remarking how the creator of a self funded game was ridiculed by publishers and developers alike when he showed it in a tiny booth at E3. They all thought his enthusiasm for the quaint little AI experiment was going to drive his fledgling games company into embarrassed anonymity. They smiled to his face, shook his hand, acted impressed, wished him well, and went away sniggering behind his back.

But it turned out his game didn’t make out too badly after all. The Sims is now the single most successful PC game ever released, and the same people who ridiculed it are hailing Will Wright’s genius and hurrying to find something similar to compete with it. The little corner display has spawned a multi-media corporation, not that Wright needed another one after the runaway success of his Sim City creations (which he sold to EA for a fortune before going solo). And that, in a nutshell, illustrates exactly what the industry heavyweights know about games. They can only see what is, and what has been, estimate the net worth, and market it. They are clueless about true creativity, and rarely have the ability to recognise it when they see it.

What’s happening in the games industry is not new. For a strong sense of deja vu you have only to look at the music industry, and you have only to listen to the radio or Video Hits to hear the result.

Publishers are like record companies. All they really have is money and distribution networks. If they ever lose control of distribution, they will very quickly lose their money too. Consider the major labels’ panic to crush the free swapping of MP3’s. All the rhetoric about the threat to artist income is a smoke screen (and has been shown to be false - MP3 distribution actually increases overall sales, especially of back catalogues). What they are desperately trying to prevent is the open distribution of product. If people can download the latest releases, there is no need for distribution networks and record companies lose their monopoly (radio stations and their symbiotic, often incestuous relationship with record campanies also become tenuous). Several major artists, including Prince, Sting, and David Bowie have experimented with offering their work over the internet, but with mixed success. Most of the record buying public are not yet internet or computer savvy.

But this is where the similarities between the music and games industries end, and where I see a big area of opportunity and hope. Games, as opposed to music, have always been digital media, and where the PC is concerned at least all the players are by definition computer and usually internet literate. Gamers are the earliest adopters of broadband and new hardware. Games released over the internet have a very real chance of being successful, and many already are (Doom anyone?). What this means is self-production is not only viable, it is natural.

So here’s the answer, or part of it: make your own games. The big players in the games industry are not going to support you, but the industry itself needs you desperately. Learn to code well enough to turn your ideas into something playable, or find people who can work with you to do that. Use the proliferation of free technology and open source tools to create your own ideas. There are many complete and very affordable games engines available that lay opportunities for development out on a plate. Then make your game available on the internet. The more independent, underground developers coming out with new game ideas, the better and healthier the industry will be.

And regardless of the effect on the industry, the more good games there will be. Speaking as a gamer, that’s all I care about.

The irony of the games industry is that while many of us get into it because we want to make cool games, most of us are hampered from doing that because we are in the industry. If making games is what you dream of doing, your efforts may be best spent doing it from the outside. Then, if you are successful, you will be able to continue doing it from within the industry if you choose, but on your own terms.

And that, for many of us, is the holy grail.

posted by monty · at 6:09 pm · filed under Editorials

 

20 Comments (RSS)

Grrr. No html in comments.

This engine is even cheaper: http://crystal.sourceforge….

Beautifully said.

As a consumer.. I am guilty of parting with my money, way to quickly after being hooked in by "Spectacle" (to quote a film term in some book I read once. Yes I read.). I love it when a game comes out with an exciting new hook.. Much in the same way as a I like a pioneering or cool special effect that is shown off in a movie trailer.

But lately those "Exciting Hooks" and "Spectacles" in games are now centred around sound and visual (RE: every gripe about games to day), but I won’t go there.

I’ve had three ideas that I’ve put into writing.. These games would have only a very slight niche audience, take too much to produce and would not be cost effective as far as "Cost against Return".

I am no longer within the industry and do not count myself as having any kind of area of influence when I was in it. But I think the best Game Designer, caught in the publishers sites, has to set out to create the same thing in a different way in order to keep my interest (Usually marked out on the packaging in a list of BRAG POINTS.

As a designer/developer, in the PUBLISHER SYSTEM you should try to get a new brag point on the box. So the publisher wants a FPS.. You serve them up one but you throw in a "inique weapon system, whereby the chance of getting some weapons is the same as winning the lotto." (just an example, but imagine the fun you would have a "GLORIOUS BFG of the LEECH" ). The example I gave came to me by simply combining one gameplay technique from another genre.

But still, I have yet to expand on MONTY’s valid point.. The Holy Grail.

Who know’s if an idea we come up with will shine among others that we create. I wrote a screenplay that I found to be kind of fun, but average. However it is turning slowly into something more (more as I find out).

But is an idea or a game really the Holy Grail? /dunno.. But I’d really like to play Burnout 2 when it comes out on the Gamecube next month. More Crash intersections, apparently.. Unfortunately no "Superior Michelin Tyres of the Jackal" though.

Is it possible that engines will soon be more popular then games. Should we be putting our efforts into creating the ultimate engine, which can be accessed by all levels of gamers and used to create a game that is tailored specifically for their consumption. (okay I read this and it sounded stupid.. Ignore)

Great thoughts monty.

The interesting thing is that there =are= still great games being made - Rez, Ico, Half Life, Deus Ex. But they always seem to come out of the blue and take everyone by surprise. So how do they manage to get made ? Publishers willing to take a chance or self funded perhaps.

"Make your own games" is a great goal, but it’s so easy to be discouraged by the sheer mountain of work that needs to be done, especially if you’re interested in a graphics intensive game. If you have no artists at your disposal, you’re out of luck. A friend and I have discussed that the only real option left for the non-pro is strategy titles where the gfx aren’t so vital - Civ3 style titles.

The music analogy is interesting. My immediate reaction was "no, it’s much easier to go cut an indy cd", but when you think about it, a huge amount of effort has to go into learning to play well enough, writing the songs, putting together a group, etc etc. The same kind of effort required to make a game. It’d be nice to think that all the horror stories of needing millions of dollars to make any kind of game are just that - stories.

On a tangent, the whole "mp3’s are killing music" argument by music companies is just insane. Want a reason for falling CD sales ? Try DVD’s. People only have a limited amount of income for entertainment, and the huge growth of DVD’s would pretty much account for falling CD sales all on it’s own.

Hmmmm… This all pangs of a hefty dose of idealism to me I’m afraid. Sure, there are shitty games out there, but what do you expect? Have you seen how many products are on the shelf these days? Sony for example, has already decided to limit their choice of titles for the PS2 to 250, or something like that. As a result any game that isn’t skewed toward what they consider to be the PS2’s demographic will struggle to hit the shelves.

Once again I think we as gamers concentrate too much on PC games and game development and judge the industry by it. Ken, who has written a great editorial here, still believes that text based adventures are king. I mean come on. How many PC games were available for sale in retail stores in those days? Were there stores back then that specialized in selling games software like EB? I doubt it. This is a massive industry now and unfortunately we can’t avoid the pitfalls that come along with that. We live in a capitalist society after all and people want to make money. I’m not saying that Publishers don’t have a tendency to strangle creativity or innovation but that’s the nature of the beast. This isn’t to say that every game that comes out of a big publisher is crap. Millions of people buy Madden or FIFA soccer every year (me), but that’s because they are great fun to play. I’m sure that the majority of guys who sit around me at work have never played either of these titles and would ridicule me for having done so. The freaky thing is I didn’t choose these games in particular because they don’t have depth, they do. I’m just wondering if the opinions expressed here are all that balanced.

As for games being dumbed down. Do you want all games to have the depth of story and complexity of Wizardry 7? Well I’m sorry but the vast majority of the general public would find such a game dead boring and I’m sure that games sales figures indicate just that. I think that we have a tendency to judge the whole industry on the games we like to play, I’m sure I’m guilty of it myself. But the fact is not all games need depth. How much fun was the bridge building game or Tetris or Soul Calibur? Yes publishers are trying to make the most money they can from titles but this comes down to trying to target the demographic for that title. This can mean the homogenous approach you mentioned earlier but not always.

As for the Holy Grail of Internet distribution, I’m sure it’s coming. But, I don’t think it will be the great games utopia that you think it will be. Can you imagine the piles of shit that we would have to wade through if every person that ever said "Hey, wouldn’t this be a cool idea for a game?" actually had the ability to distribute it themselves. Sheesh, what a nightmare. I’m always amazed by the amount of people who think that game design is so simple. Ideas are everywhere, and surprisingly enough many people have similar ideas. Ideas do not make a game. I have a small amount of experience with designing games, some have even made it to the shelf but I’m no guru. In fact I’d call myself a novice Game Designer at best. But one thing I do know is that it takes a lot more than an idea to make a game.

There are plenty of things that I agree with in your article Ken but I don’t see things quite as bleakly as you do. I’d also have to ask exactly how many different types of games you have played to come to the sweeping conclusions you have?

I think some of rob’s meandering criticisms are fair… in that innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum and the industry is faced with some harsh economic realities when it comes to choosing titles. Game developers reared on a heavy diet of male-oriented PC games could have a somewhat blinkered view of the industry they work in - now far different from when games like Leisure Sweet Larry were churned out for DOS-boys all those years ago. I think many have to face the fact that the industry has grown, matured and will never return to the halcyon days of small companies cheaply producing innovative games for a loyal and loving market.

The similarities with the music industry are compelling. Record companies have churned out homogenous rubbish for years now and still refuse to take direct responsibility for plummeting CD sales. When growth in the games industry inevitably falls flat how will game publishers react?

Early independent film-makers were gobbled up by large Hollywood studios that were risk-averse and bureaucratic. But independent film-making is still alive and kicking many decades later and the mainstream will always feed off creative individuals who have the ability and drive to do it on their own. Maybe the real battle is to make sure that developers themselves keep an open mind to new genres and designs as technology keeps changing.

The thing that amazes me is how many game developers (who are more often than not working on very mainstream type games themselves) can be so dismissive of very successfully *designed* games like The Sims.

At least games with some modicum of originality are dominating the charts these days… i.e. GTA3, The Sims … does anyone remember when we were stuck with Deer Hunter clones dominating the sales charts!?!

I’ve just come out of working on a licensed project which had very heavy publisher "involvement" - I’m talking spending hours next to the level builders telling them where to put every last single pickup in the game, and calling up at 8pm to get the colour of the tree texture changed from light to dark purple. Not one of the producers from the publisher had any previous experience making computer games, and as far as I could ascertain not one had actually played one in the last 15 years. The lead suit demonstrated the breadth of his knowledge the day he asked if the main character was made out of polygons.

These people were probably geniuses in their chosen field, marketing, for all I know. I wish them the best of luck. However, they were put in the position of making vital decisions on every level of making a product when they had neither the knowledge nor experience, nor indeed any interest in doing so other than to fulfil some voodoo marketing vision. My experience is no doubt being replayed today across hundreds of game studios around the world right at this minute.

So Rob yes … if every fool with an idea could publish a game we would be inundated with games of the calibre that makes us want to flush our heads. However there would still be a couple of true gems amongst the muck. A game made along the cynical pattern outlined above will be a pile of steaming horseshit every time.

Text adventures are king? Whoever said that? The only comment I’ve made recently is that they worked off a level of engagement with the game environment that very few modern games match. And by depth I did not mean complexity - you know what I mean because we’ve had the conversation many times. It’s cheeky using Tetris as an example because it’s the one I always use and you always scoff at! By deep I meant not shallow, not empty, not mindlessly bland and formulaic (you know, all those things you AGREE with).

As for an underground development community producing loads of bad games, well of course it would. That’s the freedom of it. The point is there’d be some good ones too, and probably some that are exceptional and *that wouldn’t have been made otherwise*. How could that be a bad thing? And who said game design was simple or easy? Or are you implying only "professionals" have anything worthwhile to offer?

But we all know you’re just playing the grumpy, contrary old grouch, next to whom I’m proud to wear the badge of idealist :P Not much any of us can do about your penchant for serialized EA sports games though :)

Ahhh, spoken like true mono genre gamer:)

Ooops…sorry forgot about Quake 3. Make that 2 genres:)

Allie, yeh I know what developing a licensed product is like. It’s not great. But I think there is some hope. Some people thought Buffy was pretty good and Lord of the Rings for PS2 was quite popular also. From what I’ve seen so far, the Matrix game could have potential too.

All I’m saying is that I don’t have quite the pessimistic attitude as others about the current state of the industry. Sure it’s changed a lot. But there is still room for innovation and independent development. Look at the massive mod communities around at the moment and there are still people publishing Shareware titles. Yes, if you want retail shelf space nowadays you will have to get deal with a large publisher. Sorry, but that’s reality.

What’s the answer? Well I’m not really sure what the question is, but all I know is I’m working in Game Development which is the best job I’ve had in my life and I’m playing some pretty damn cool games in my spare time. Whoot! Life is good:)

How do you always manage to make agreement sound like an argument Rob?

;)

I think Rob’s comment — "But there is still room for innovation and independent development" — is exactly Monty’s point. The tools are there, you _can_ try to push the envelope and make the game you want to make.

In any creative endeavour, people who pander to a market create something generic. It can be a good piece of generic rubbish but it’ll never be great. It’s true for films, music and games.

People who make a game that is true to an ideal often make crap. Ideals must be tempered by the reality of the environment and medium they exist in, but ideals are also where the real gems grow from.

BUT, you have to be willing to take that ideal, see it for the crap it is when realised and throw it out if necessary. Easy to do when you’re independent and burning your own money, but publishers aren’t too keen on that approach. They’d rather moosh it into a steaming turd with a nice shine and a good ad campaign.

Another practical problem with "indie" anything, is that it doesn’t pay many bills. At least not in the beginning.

My music career is a good tax write off though.

:)

Still, I would rather strive for an ideal and temper it, than make the same shit in a new skin.

PS. You should always strive to do the best at what you’re currently doing, even if that is a piece of homogenised crap.

Yes it’s hard, especially when publishers, designers or whoever else is calling the shots, make "just because" decisions — slowly or rapidly in some cases, driving your well intentioned clone into a "just another" oblivion.

But, making a few pieces of homogenised crap really well might just give a publisher confidence to let you try something else. Might.

And if all else fails, ignore the game and take pleasure in the micro task you have control of.

"And if all else fails, ignore the game and take pleasure in the micro task you have control of."

BACK TO YOUR CUBICLE CODE DRONE #65484764B7!!

Actually, this must be the first recorded usage of ‘mono-genre gamer’ as a dig in a forum.

Could it make it on http://www.googlewhack.com?

Allie’s "pile of steaming horshit" comment has had me chuckling for hours now. Her anecdote about the publisher asking if the main character was made of polygons would seem surreal if we didn’t have to deal with very similar things regularly from a range of publishers. I don’t know why such ignorance is so commonplace in the very people who most need to be conversant with the technology, but I suspect it’s because publishes are corporate animals entirely. The person making fundamental gameplay calls on your game is just another suit on it’s way up the corporate ladder, trying to put his/her stamp on their current task so they will be noticed and rewarded. That also explains why so often a new face at the publisher end of a project will come in and want to change everything - usually in the most arrogant, mindless way imaginable. All they care is that the project is in some way "theirs" and they can claim credit for part of it, at least that is how it appears to me.

My personal favourite is the email we got from one publisher of a 3D game we were making asking "what that white stuff in the background is" and could we get rid of it. After checking for any graphic artifacts or glitches, we asked them to clarify what they meant. It turned out they were referring to fog.

I believe this is one of the best discussions that we have had on the new big kid (nearly tops John Cusack). One common theme that seems to be running through the argument is that game developers are all part of something that they can change.. But for safety’s sake, let’s just keep making money. Screw the Holy Grail.

 Weeping Willowy 5 years, 8 months ago

Hehee … yup, Monty and Allie - been there. It’s especially fun when you’ve been employed to cover one specific aspect of the game (say, concept art - although in my case it wasn’t), you send it over to the publisher, you don’t hear from them for a month, and when you do, it’s all been completely, comprehensively altered (for the worse) by some guy who happened to be some guy’s best friend at college. Grrrrr …. (especially when the game comes out and they pick up that thing that Mr Nepotism did as a particular weakness in the game … double grrrrr)

The real problem for the Australian industry is that we’re easy fodder for cheap franchise and sequel work - basically, game sweatshops. Sequels and spinoffs are a doddle to do, they will make X amount of dollars for investors, where X is the exact amount of money they’ve been promised, and it will cost them half the price of hiring an overseas developer.

It’s a double edged sword. Sure, it’s great to see the work of Aussie developers out there on the shelves, but it’s really just grunt work in the end. It actively discourages the local market from design innovation. Why go to the trouble of coming up with an elaborate original concept and spending years pitching it to overseas publishers when you could dash off an X-Men Wacky Racers game or what have you in less than a year?

I’ve had this discussion with so many people and, like Monty, I can only conclude that the way forward is via independent means. Garage Games (http://www.garagegames.com) is a site I direct a lot of people to who have asked me about developing their own game. A great concept - the only danger is that it may come what it is attempting to beat. In the meantime it’s a fantastic resource.

He hee … I like John Cusack ;)

I wish I was as eloquent as some of you in expressing your ideas and views ‘(0_o)’

I think there is a lot of "pile of steaming horseshit" on the shelves and I personally am getting a bit tired of all the sequels for games that just regurgitate the last game with a few new graphics and new levels.

One thing that I have noticed is that more and more games are getting more visually appealing but lack game play. As big M said they lack substance.

But its not all bad, there are some needles in the haystack out there and if you can find them they are well worth playing.

I found a few games such as B1942 and WC3 and other tittles to be a lot of fun to play. (I know they are not the most recent releases but they are still good games)

On a side note one trend that I have noticed is that there is shift from single player interaction with the user to the multi player market, but then again I may stating the obvious.

Games such as WC3 and B1942 are not that interesting to play 1:1 against the computer, but go online and its a vastly different experience.

I think that with this shift to more of a multi player market it may make developers look a bit harder at what they are producing, because a lot of the time its games "multi player options" that will be the draw cards for new players. Everybody these days is looking for value for money and replayability.

What’s the point of buying a game and finishing it in 2 days, but if you can then play online and extend the playing experience that’s what the game companies SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR.

But then again they may want people just to buy the game and finish in week and then buy the next title. At the end of the day its about how much money the game makes!!!

I guess if you could keep playing a game for months and you would not get bored of it, you would be less likely to buy another tittle.

Hey I think I may have stumbled on something, maybe that’s why there is so many insubstantial game titles out there because the publishers want to you to buy the game and then once you have finished it in week you trade it in and buy another.

But then again that is a rather syndical view of game companies. Maybe the way forward is via independent means. I like the concept of gamers designing games for gamers, instead of these "suits" making games that are just associated with a dollar value. But then again without the backing of the big companies its hard to make it in the industry today.

PS: I think Computer companies have a secret deal with the hardware manufacturers, but that’s just a little theory I have hehe. Why else would you need the latest graphics card and fastest processors on the market - to play the latest games of course!!!!!!! Who needs a p4 2gz + processor and a G4 128mgs video card just to do word processing and email.

You’re not so wrong in that hardware theory. Some publishers do press developers to do things that no computer on the market could run at a decent framerate, theorising that their game will be so good that people will go out and buy the newest graphics card or what have you. I don’t know that there’s any formal link, but they are definitely encouraged to develop `up’`, so to speak.

It will be interesting to see what Multiplayer and Massively Multiplayer will do to the games industry. At best, forcing the industry online will mean that we no longer have to rely on the $90 boxes of crap at your local Harvey Norman for our fun, and that independent developers will gain a far greater chance of success by skipping the lengthy and costly process of outside production and distribution.

At worst, it will mean big companies pumping $20 a month out of us for the privilege of playing rubbish, rather than $90 in one go. The fact that MMOG is potentially so lucrative means that companies are going to go to a LOT of trouble to make sure those years of development and massive setup costs don’t end up producing a game that only runs a year (Motor City anyone?). In the case of MMOGs in particular, the market can’t sustain many titles. Not too many people will be subscribing to five different ones, so companies are going to concentrate on being either the Coke or the Pepsi of the genre.

Maybe the answer is in user/player created worlds - MUDs on acid. It’s far off right now but who knows? MMOG creation software might someday be in reach of (or even marketed to) the average consumer.

sites all good feeling the way it all strate up no nonsense

Related Posts

BigKid is now offering user logins for anyone who'd like to post news or make comments. Register & login now!

Feeds: 0.92 · 2.0 · Atom

Levelling