Re: Computer Games
Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:42 pm
Since I'm up, I may as well bloviate some more:
Noddy brings up a good point about the 'meh' factor. For all the money, dedication and technique needed for these big games, the industry depends on a consumer class which is ambivalent to the medium, even the most ardent game players can be very fickle. How many companies can count on any sort of unquestioning, long lasting, brand loyalties. A handful? EA Sports division, Nintendo Mario/Smash Brothers/Pokemon/(to a much lesser level) Zelda series, Grand Theft Auto? Who else? Only a few years ago you could've counted on War of Worldcraft, but they [and Blizzard] seemed to have peaked and are in a pretty dismal decline. Halo is on the wane- the multiplayer numbers for Halo 4 dropped off the map in less than two months- the game before? Was a top multiplayer game on the 360 for something like 16 months. CoD is produced with the knowledge that the fad will die out. Computer-only gaming may be more dedicated but whose audience can and will dissipate for reasons far beyond my primitive mind.
It's a format that requires a mass market, made for niches, and with the growing expectations of the game being high art, technologically on the cutting edge, a challenging game, a cinematic experience, a world class novel, and filled with a million secrets and easter eggs.
That's pretty crazy stuff. And the whole market is around 80 billion dollars; with no recent signs of growth. So everyone is fighting over the same nickels and dimes.
And boy are they fighting- all these "next-gen" games seem to be adopting free-to-play playing models while skipping the free part. I read about one of the new racing game where after purchasing the game, you can either grind for hours for a paltry sum of virtual money (to buy virtual car models) or you can pay a gradation of fees for that immediate satisfaction of realizing you just spent 60 dollars to have the opportunity at only spending three hundred more for a virtual Lamborghini.
To me, that's not a sign of a healthy industry.
Noddy brings up a good point about the 'meh' factor. For all the money, dedication and technique needed for these big games, the industry depends on a consumer class which is ambivalent to the medium, even the most ardent game players can be very fickle. How many companies can count on any sort of unquestioning, long lasting, brand loyalties. A handful? EA Sports division, Nintendo Mario/Smash Brothers/Pokemon/(to a much lesser level) Zelda series, Grand Theft Auto? Who else? Only a few years ago you could've counted on War of Worldcraft, but they [and Blizzard] seemed to have peaked and are in a pretty dismal decline. Halo is on the wane- the multiplayer numbers for Halo 4 dropped off the map in less than two months- the game before? Was a top multiplayer game on the 360 for something like 16 months. CoD is produced with the knowledge that the fad will die out. Computer-only gaming may be more dedicated but whose audience can and will dissipate for reasons far beyond my primitive mind.
It's a format that requires a mass market, made for niches, and with the growing expectations of the game being high art, technologically on the cutting edge, a challenging game, a cinematic experience, a world class novel, and filled with a million secrets and easter eggs.
That's pretty crazy stuff. And the whole market is around 80 billion dollars; with no recent signs of growth. So everyone is fighting over the same nickels and dimes.
And boy are they fighting- all these "next-gen" games seem to be adopting free-to-play playing models while skipping the free part. I read about one of the new racing game where after purchasing the game, you can either grind for hours for a paltry sum of virtual money (to buy virtual car models) or you can pay a gradation of fees for that immediate satisfaction of realizing you just spent 60 dollars to have the opportunity at only spending three hundred more for a virtual Lamborghini.
To me, that's not a sign of a healthy industry.