The games of today have come a long way from the games of old.
Graphical fidelity has greatly advanced and allows for more rich and
detailed environments. The streamlining of many often-used systems in
games has made gaming more accessible to the masses. Different genres
and new indie titles ensure that for every individual, there is a
game to cater to his/her specific tastes. Gaming has played host to a
myriad of innovations. However, despite this, there are many ways in
which gaming has been degressing. This week, I will be looking at the
potential causes of these worsening trends in gaming.
One
the main reasons that major gaming corporations cite to explain
downward trends in gaming is used
games.
According to game developers, used games are eating too much into
profits, meaning they have to produce other ways to make money
(through micro-transactions, DLC, etc.). There is some truth to used
games affecting profits of game developers. Gamestop is particularly
well-known for this. Gamestop's used game programs are responsible
for a very decent chunk of their profits. They actively try to get
customers to buy used and trade in their games through sales,
money-back guarantees, and special one-time offers.
While
this does result in an overall loss for game developers, there is one
critical detail being missed: Used games are nothing new to the game
industry. For years, people have been buying and selling used games
and companies have not had a problem with them in the past.
Furthermore, I could argue that used games are not as commonplace as
they were before. Because of recent developments in gaming, used game
sales for the PC are effectively dead. There are game trading systems
on services like Steam, but used games have long been absent, at
least from PC gaming, for awhile now. With the advent of online
pass systems,
console gaming has also begun to deter used game sales. Also, the
economy has been taking its toll on people's budgets, gamers being no
exception. For many people, trading in and barter games is the only
way to buy new games and support the developers they care about. This
means that there is a possibility that used games are necessary for
the industry to remain profitable in this economy. With all of this,
I find it hard to believe that used games the cause of the problems
in modern gaming.
So
then, if used games are not the trouble, then what could be. Many
people have made the argument that the problems are caused by the new
level of inter-connectivity present in modern gaming. I can see where
this argument is coming from. With the exception of the PC and the
original X-Box, gaming never really had any sort of online service
until now, and certainly not to this degree. Developers never really
had the capacity to change and impact the game post-release. For the
most part, the product that was released was the same product ten
years down the line. Any glitches that were there on day one would
still be there. Any overpowered/weak equipment in games would stay
that way. This gave developers tons of incentive to test and test and
test everything that got released. If they did not, then their
reputation would be ruined and people would no longer buy their
games. Nowadays, day 1 patches, downloadable content, and updates for
games are the norm. It is entirely possible, and this does happen,
for games to be horribly, awfully, disgustingly broken at release,
almost to the point of unplayability, only to be patched within the
first few weeks. (Isn't
that right, Fallout:
New Vegas?)
Furthermore, it
is true that content can be withheld from the game and released later
as DLC.
Capcom and the Street
Fight X Tekken
debacle have proven this to be true.
As
much as I dislike this (and I really
dislike this), I do not think this is the cause of all the problems.
While inter-connectivity has never been prevalent in gaming, it has
certainly always been present. On the PC and the original X-Box,
patches and expansion packs were used. Back then, developers had this
functionality. However, the problems we are facing now were not
around back then. Developers never (or at least not enough to be
noticed) abused the use of patches and DLC to adjust games and hide
away features in the name of profit. They might have hid away buggy
parts of games or worked around them, but they never fixed it and
released it later. No, something had to change to start this system
of overuse and abuse.
What I have come to believe is that the animosity towards used games
and the abuse of inter-connectivity are not problems of the industry.
Rather, they are symptoms of bigger issues. The question remains:
What are the problems? I believe that these issues are caused by two
connected problems: Overinflated budgets in gaming and overall bad
business sense in the game industry. These two problems are born from
one central problem: The gaming industry is trying really hard to
emulate the movie industry, when that is a grave mistake. Games have
become more graphics-intensive these last few years. The more
advanced graphics become, the more people need to be hired in order
to make these graphics and (more importantly) the more programs and
graphics engines cost to lease. This results in budgets for modern
games skyrocketing. They want cinema-quality productions no matter
the cost. The problem is that while the companies do this in order to
stay on the cutting edge and keep their consumer base interested,
this is not necessary. The truth is that graphics are only a small,
minor consideration to gamers when deciding what games to buy. We
gamers only take graphics into consideration when they begin to
affect whether or not they can play the game (as in, when the game is
incredibly ugly and hard to look at or when they lead to high load
times). I have never once heard somebody refuse to buy a game
specifically because the graphics were not as good as every other
game. Nonetheless, this over-inflation of the budget causes the
money-grubbing the modern gaming is becoming. It pushes deadlines up
and “inspires” many of the DLC schemes gamers hate.
But
this is not the only problem. Gaming has become more like the movie
industry when that is not conducive to business. Like movies, game
sales are usually tracked in the first week, and that is what many
people use to determine the overall success of the game. Also, games
tend to hype up their initial release and then let the hype fizzle
out after a few weeks. This is detrimental to the industry. It works
for movies for several reasons. One, theater ticket sales are only a
small
portion
of initial profits. Odds are that released movies have tie-in
products as well like toys, novelizations, even the inevitable movie
tie-in game (Ugh). Furthermore, after movies are released, they have
alternative methods to make money. Film producers can continue to
profit off of DVD and Blu-Ray sales as well as the syndication of
their works on TV channels like HBO. As a result, even a movie that
was a complete flop at the box office can profit in the long run.
Similar
to movies, games are trying to get tons of money through initial
sales. Unlike films, games generally do not have the added safety
nets that films do. As a result, with the current business model,
game companies have
to
recoup all of their losses within the first week. Combined with the
high graphics budgets, this is suicide. It means that any AAA game
that is not of a well known brand is almost guaranteed to fail. A
normal product normally would be able to fix the situation and still
make some sort of profit by changing the price or something, but
games have become increasingly inflexible as of late. Most modern
games are released at a flat rate of $60. Like any other product,
these prices are subject to change with the market. Unlike any other
product, these prices can take months or, as it often the case, years
to drop there prices. Instead of adjusting to supply and demand,
prices for games are nearly unchanging. Used games are not subject to
this and will often fluctuate with the demands of the market. This is
why Gamestop is able to profit from used games. In fact, I have heard
tales of times where Gamestop intentionally
opens up unopened games to pawn them off as “used” at a loss in
order to clear up shelf space. This mimicry of the movie industry
combined with the inability to use basic business sense when selling
the finished product (not
a service,
to the person who actually said that) is damaging the industry.
So
how do we fix these two problems. There are two ways we can do this.
First, we can vote with our wallets. We can support companies with
good business models and deny companies who use poor business models
or unethical practices. This is not done nearly enough in modern
gaming. Gamers have demonstrated an inability to live without. We do
not realize the power we hold over these corporations. So, this
strategy seems unlikely. The second option is to do what gamers are
best at: Bitch and Moan. Bitching and moaning are not bad. It is okay
to criticize game companies. They need feedback, now more than ever.
As one of my favorite game commentators, Shamus
Young,
once said, “If games aren't improving, than you haven't been
complaining hard
enough.” Input from the consumers is vital to improving the state
of the industry. The last alternative is to do nothing. This is the
worst possible option. At the rate games are going, if we do not do
anything, than game companies will eventually begin to collapse.
Budgets will grow unsustainable, given time. Nobody wants this. I
certainly do not want this. If I complain about the state of the
industry, than it is a because I love the industry. I hate these
practices because I love gaming. I write this blog post because I
love gaming. I love what these companies are able to do and I want
them to continue to thrive. Hell, I want to be able to take-part in
the creation of games. Everyday I hear about development studios
closing shop, I feel terrible for all of the talent set loose in the
process. We need to change this industry. We need to make it
sustainable, else we will be seeing a repeat of the Atari E.T.
Incident.
No comments:
Post a Comment