Joystiq has a post about an article saying that only 80 games per year will be profitable with the next generation. I’m assuming by “next generation” they mean the new consoles - Xbox 360, PS3, Nintendo Revolution. They say “Here’s hoping this won’t curb creativity and innovation as riskier markets have been known to do in the past.” Hahaha. I laugh at you. You think that there’s any chance this won’t curb creativity? Haha. I’m still laughing.
I don’t know what the statistics are right now for profitability of games. But I know they’re pretty low. Most games do not make money. But then a huge blockbuster comes along and pours money into the publisher’s coffers (*cough* World of Warcraft *cough*) and it funds development of all those not-as-successful projects.
Just in the five years that I have been in the industry, I have seen changes. There are changes in how difficult it is to get a project approved by a publisher. The process of signing a developer seems more rigid - in the past, projects could get signed by having someone with one successful title at the helm who talked the talk and could wow ‘em into giving the developers the bucks. But the days of the cowboy are going going gone. If you talk real good, maybe they’ll give you a chance to make a prototype with your own money that they can show to the big suits higher up and get them to decide to fund you. Ok, maybe I’m being extreme. But there’s certainly a sense at all levels that everything is riskier.
I’ve worked exclusively on PC titles, and things are a bit different there than on consoles. We have to support a min spec machine, and that limits what we can do at the upper end as well. There’s no point in pouring lots of time and energy into making fantastic high resolution art that only 5% of your users will see because only they have the newest new graphics card that supports it. So PC games have a different set of challenges, but they don’t have the huge art budgets we’ll be seeing for the next gen console titles. Yet.
But even so, the budgets on the PC side keep increasing. Even the PC art budgets are growing monumentally. And any AAA title that doesn’t have cutting edge graphics and snazzy whizz bang effects is going to quickly end up in the bargain bin. But unfortunately, having the graphical goodness doesn’t prevent the bargain bin ending either.
So we have this problem. Every game costs more and more to make. But consumers don’t want to pay more per game. I read some ridiculous article a few months ago (can’t remember where, sorry) that was about exactly this. They were saying how next gen console titles might cost $60 or $70, and consumers were getting all pissy about it. Hi. I work on games and I like to eat. And pay more mortgage. And not risk having my job outsourced to India or China where they have a lower cost of living. Yeah. So how long have games cost $50? I think it makes sense that if the cost of production increases, the cost of the games should increase too.
But to come back to my point (or my first point), I do think we’re in trouble in terms of creativity. Publishers are very risk adverse. Decisions are made by focus group. “Did you like game X? What would make it more fun!” Ok, focus groups aren’t game designers. Random people off the street don’t necessarily know what is good gameplay. I understand the need to hedge your bets. I understand that the publishers can’t just give money to the developers and give them free rein because an awful lot of developers don’t know how to manage themselves. But the system is becoming institutionalized, and we’re risking locking ourselves into a scheme where creativity is actually rooted out. If you ask a focus group what they want, they’ll tell you they want something like what they’ve seen before. That’s not how greatness is born.
Ok, this was a bit unfocused so maybe I’ll follow up on this with something more coherent. Maybe.
6 Responses to “Creativity Is Doomed”
On the other hand, what if you decided not to go big-budget, mass-market?
http://lostgarden.com/2005/10/game-business-model-learning-from.html
There are multiple ways to get profitable making video games
Publishers are in a weird spot.
The big hits pay the piper. But the big hits are inherently the off the wall things. Giving people what they have had before will almost never bring in big bucks.
But it’s hard to say how different you need to be. World of Warcraft is -not- fundamentally different from other MMOs… and yet it must be, on some level. Or maybe it’s just that Blizzard has built such a reputation that anything they make is gold, even if it’s no better than what others do. Maybe that’s Justice. Maybe it’s just a lot of sheep.
The safe things -are- the things that are more of what people had before. Compared to new brands, sequels and expansion packs are a lot more likely to actually be profitable. Of course, those have diminishing returns, too. The audience that wants an expansion pack is smaller than the original game audience, and the audience for the second expansion is even smaller, etc.
Interesting link, Lars. The main turn off to me about the “village” model, as he refers to it, is that he says things like “it can be funded with ’sweat equity’”. Yeah, I’m not really willing to live on ramen and work crazy hours to get my dream game made. I’m not sure how many people really are. But more power to them, I say. I like working a standard week and having a life outside my job. Even if that life is writing about my job.
The only game he mentions that I have actually tried is Puzzle Pirates. It’s a cute, fun game. Though the interesting thing is that all the pieces are puzzle games that have been done before. It’s how they’re put together into a Pirate game and the micropayment structure; the meta-game stuff that’s really unique.
Maybe that’s true for all unique games - they’ve got components we’ve seen before but they’re put together into something new and innovative.
And Jingle, I’m with you on the publisher situation. I understand that sequels are “safe”. But ultimately, no one really knows what the market wants. No one knows what makes something a huge hit. There is no science to it, and trying to reduce it to one just drains the energy from it all.
I know what you mean about the crazy hours thing - I’m an old married guy these days, and unlike in college, I’m around for dinner every night
The thing I thought was more interesting about it was the idea of intentionally running with lower overhead and building targeted games for niche markets that could sustain the effort and income level required to build those games. Not the part about killing yourself with long hours. Anybody who’s been out of college more than a few years would probably find such stretches counterproductive anyways. Once you learn how to actually write quality code and concentrate for more than an hour at a time, a ten hour day is pretty productive but more draining than an 18 hour one.
No, I definitely agree that the concept was cool. I was just saying it wasn’t an appealing business model to me, personally. I have lots of complaints about the existing system, but I can’t see doing anything drastic like starting up my own boutique shop to make village games, because I value my World of Warcraft playing time, my Kung Fu time, my TV time, my hanging with friends time. I’m not willing to sacrifice all in the pursuit of my niche game. Nope.
would you consider a simple price drop both combating piracy and expanding market to make more games profitable?
when I got time I was going to write this up a little more formally… but since I’m here I’ll throw in the (somewhat simple and not-entirely-thought-out) suggestion.
http://www.boardsofwanaka.com/blog/2005/11/17/next-gen-disection/