A Dirge for the Sinking Ship

Ask certain people in the know, and they will tell you that the current gaming market is unsustainable. It’s pretty rare that I turn my Sauron eye to the forums for support, but this particular comment about Electronic Arts’ recent layoffs is the kind of science I like to see laid on people. It ties together with troubling research I’ve done on my own end, and while I’m not on board with the full conclusion, there does seem to be some strong evidence that the gaming industry is stuck in the Death Star trash compactor and can’t seem to get 3PO on the communicator.

I honestly have a genuine fear about what the next 3 or 4 years might bring in the gaming marketplace. Even if there is not dire writing on the wall some troubling graffiti has turned up portending dark days ahead. The industry has been in a struggle for nearly a decade to monetize their transactions outside of the initial purchase, and instead of making progress the rise of the used market, an unreliable consumer base and the omni-present piracy revenue suck have just made things worse.

So, when Bioware and EA put so many resources into developing a hardcore gamers-game like Dragon Age, and people light pitchforks on fire because of optional DLC, I can’t help but feel intensely frustrated at what I see as thin-skinned entitlement and monumental naivete.

I consider many in the angry mob to be friends, and it does not give me pleasure to stand against them. But, I firmly believe that if you want to keep getting games like Dragon Age, like Fallout 3, like Uncharted 2, like The Beatles: Rock Band then gamers are going to need to get on board with or at least stop openly revolting against things like Day-1 DLC.

I have been watching with trepidation and concern the past 2 years as a conflict of game publishing ideology has erupted between the once mighty Electronic Arts and the laser-focused, unrepentant capitalism of Activision. And, as EA sheds hundreds of jobs, and more importantly dozens of projects, my worst fears are come true. The focus on scatter-shot approaches to new IPs and emphasis on driving quality over quantity is great for warming cockles in hearts, but ejaculating dozens of crappy iterations of go-to franchises has tragically triumphed as the profitable way to go.

The only way to sustain that emphasis on gamer-friendly qualities is by making a profit on the releases that do well to off-set the costs of doing business. Warden’s Keep isn’t about greedily slurping up the ignorance of gamers. It’s about funding the next Mirror’s Edge. It’s about having the resources to take chances on games that gamers love.

Have cake or eat cake. Sorry, kids, you only get to choose one, and I fear now even that choice may have been taken from our hands.

While we were all squabbling in the corner over meaningless skirmishes about DLC and dedicated servers, the war was waged on another front and it’s starting to look like we lost.

I hate to be dire, but I’ve seen 3 years of the Bobby Kotick doctrine, and if that’s what the future for companies like EA and TakeTwo and THQ is going to be then we’re going to sit back in a few years and long for the day when we got to whine about Day-1 DLC in a game like Dragon Age. Let me describe the future I see. Subscription based services married with microtransactions. Hobbled initial releases where the DLC is not just an optional quest, but key game mechanics. One-time required online authentication that prevents multi-player for used games. A virtual death of games like Mirror’s Edge, Dead Space, Ghostbusters, Brutal Legend, Borderlands or Dragon Age.

You're standing on the Titanic, and you're complaining about the color of the deck chairs.

If I sound mad, it’s because I am. It is an unfocussed rage that simmers and burns, because many of the kinds of games I adore are destined for the dust bin. And, the reality is that no one is clean in this fight. Publishers have adopted a model that is proving unsustainable to match the rising cost of development. Retailers who struggle against thin new-release profit margins have compromised the industry as a whole for their own profit. Gamers have waged their own zealot war against a changing marketplace, irresponsibly made unreasonable decisions about their entitlements and bent the rules as they see fit to get what they think they’ve got coming. Nobody comes out of this smelling like a rose.

As our well-informed forum commenter mentions in his post, the acquisition of Playfish along with the cancellation of mid-range games might as well be EA’s white flag waved in the breeze. You recall when Activision let go of Ghostbusters, Brutal Legend and the Chronicles of Riddick remake. These are exactly the kind of games that major publishers can’t afford to make any more if they can’t find a meaningful way to continue profiting beyond initial sales. These are exactly the kind of games that EA just ejected.

Let me put it this way, if having Day-one DLC in a game like Dragon Age means that Bioware gets to make the sequel, and not having it means they don’t, I will happily take the opportunity to make my informed purchasing choice and I will fold my arms and look sternly at those who gripe and complain. Drawing the line in the sand has consequences, and I’m not nearly invested enough in the ideology of consumer activism in the gaming marketplace to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If you want an industry that can take chances. If you want an industry that can be agile and adaptable to niche demands. If you want publishers that are willing to explore new IPs and put resources behind projects like Dragon Age, then you, my stubborn and well-intentioned comrades, need to turn down the righteous fury.

Comments

Ice cream for my wife and I? $11. Staring at each other knowing that we want to explore relationships with other non-player characters in Dragon Age until midnight? Priceless (well actually $7).

I almost died laughing. Nice one!

I leave for the day and look what happens? Awesome discussion, guys. I'll just leave my rant on the podcast to stand for my view of things, but I gotta say the new top area of the site is already paying dividends!

IMAGE(http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/7652/23963046.jpg)

I leave for the day and look what happens? Awesome discussion, guys. I'll just leave my rant on the podcast to stand for my view of things, but I gotta say the new top area of the site is already paying dividends!

I saw that earlier and am now convinced that you employed Doogiemac to install some kind of make Elysium look bad code.

I can only assure you that you need not have bothered.

To me it seems like there's an awful lot of risk being carried by the consumers in this exchange. How many games have we all bought that just SUCKED? I'm not talking about the game not being fun, I'm talking about the game being a bug filled unplayable mess. What's our recourse? Nothing. Once you buy it and install it, you're done. If Activision made toaster ovens and TV's their returns would be astronomical. In gaming, you buy it forever.

I personally don't have a problem with DLC but I'm not interested in being sold glorified patches. Far too many games are being sold now in a unfinished state. Going "Gold" used to mean something, now it just means it's moving into production mode. If a game needs 4 patches to be playable then the something is seriously wrong with our industry. There's absolutely no guarantee that the product you buy will even run on your system.

Gamers are getting older. We've seen and experienced a lot and it's becoming harder and harder to create something groundbreaking. Additionally we have more responsibilities and less time so we're just not going to accept sh*tty products. What was accepted as playable when we were in college is very different from what we'll accept today. If they want DLC and micro transactions to be the future they better clean up the present.

I voiced a similar thought in another thread, but I see day-1 DLC in the same light I see all DLC, and it's the same light I see Collector's Editions of games. The business model of selling games has shifted from a selling a monolithic product to selling a tiered family of products. You've got your entry level model at $60, which you can add to or not should you so desire.

As long as the initial $60 game is a complete product, I don't have a problem. Even games like Katamari Forever, which released alongside entirely new levels available at inflated prices, I don't have a problem with. I didn't pay $60 for everything ever made in relation to Katamari, I paid for the game in the box.

Even the act of selling unlock codes for locked on-disc content as DLC doesn't phase me. It's not part of what I'm buying for my $60. It's an optional extra. So be it.

The biggest problem the industry has with me is the second hand market. I loved Dead Space, but I picked it up used, so EA saw none of my money for it. This is as much a result of a market saturated in good games that I want to play. There's simply too many great games vying for the contents of my wallet for me to pay full price for each of them. In essence, it's the opposite of the 1984 videogame industry crash.

I personally don't have a problem with DLC but I'm not interested in being sold glorified patches. Far too many games are being sold now in a unfinished state. Going "Gold" used to mean something, now it just means it's moving into production mode. If a game needs 4 patches to be playable then the something is seriously wrong with our industry. There's absolutely no guarantee that the product you buy will even run on your system.

I'm glad you mentioned this... since in the beginning of VideoGames there were bugs.. and guess what.. back then you had NO way of getting the fixed.

So basically its always been this way... We used to reproduce a bug in my Magnavox Odyssey 2 in that goofy D&D type game..

I'm lazy and arrogant, so I haven't read every post in this thread. This has likely been said better by someone else.

In the past year the games I have enjoyed most are: Shadow Complex ($10 on XBLA), Battlefield 1943 ($10 on XBLA), LOTRO: Moria expansion (too complicated to say how much it cost, but it was cheap and available online), and Dragon Age (ok, $49 on steam). But this just leaves me feeling that I don't care if $60 AAA games go away as long as I get more of these kinds of games. I've been feeling for a while like I'm in the midst of a golden age of gaming, and I'm totally thrilled to have this hobby right now.

My big concern is that if games like Torchlight and Shadow Complex become the norm, it will slowly become OK that they cost $60 instead of $10 or $20 and the cost-to-quality ratio will sink like a stone.

Bear wrote:

Going "Gold" used to mean something, now it just means it's moving into production mode.

And these days, the problem isn't just PC games.

I would love to tell everyone how inane it is to complain about having more awesome available to you.

...Or that considering the delay, it's not unreasonable to believe that Bioware decided to do get a jump start on extending what is--for me--a 60 hour and counting experience.

...And that it would be just as disingenuous of them to hold back finished DLC, but I'm having way to much fun playing the content all purchasers received.

I posted my thoughts, roundabout ways, in the CC thread. I'll sum them up here: It's silly to expect something for nothing due to our percieved notion of our gaming-dollar's value.

I'd also like to add that our wallets will always speak louder than our mouths to publishers. If you like Dragon Age you can tell Bioware, all year, how great they are. That's all for naught if you don't buy the game and support the developer.

The video game industry, more than most others, is full of percieved value. A car that costs more to make costs more to purchase. We are buying an experience more than a physical object with a solid value. It is up to us to decide if that experience is worth our money. Even if Modern Warfare 2 cost millions more to make than Scene It: Box Office Smash they both have the same retail value. They are both worth the money to different people.

Excitebike was $50 new in 1986. Forza 3 is $60 new in 2009. The price to create games has increased by miles, while the price to purchase them has increased by inches. I, for one, consider myself lucky to be getting the quality of game for price that this generation is providing.

I will continue to speak loudly with my wallet. I will hold my credit card high as I add to my 400 dl'd Rock Band songs. I purchased Warden's Keep before I even booted up the game. I bought the Forza: CE. I support these publishers because what I'm getting is worth it, to me.

When video game prices rise higher than my percieved value, I will shut my wallet. Companies don't respond to 'thank yous', they respond to dollars. It's your choice what you're going to say with yours.

hubbinsd wrote:

I'm lazy and arrogant, so I haven't read every post in this thread. This has likely been said better by someone else.

Wait a minute...

An arrogant person wouldn't say that last part.

You're just lazy!

edit: oops, wrong thread, sorry.

skeletonframes wrote:

Excitebike was $50 new in 1986. Forza 3 is $60 new in 2009. The price to create games has increased by miles, while the price to purchase them has increased by inches. I, for one, consider myself lucky to be getting the quality of game for price that this generation is providing.

Yes, the price for games has increased by inches and games have gotten more costly to make (graphics whores not withstanding).

But you forget the other side of the equation: there are a hell of a lot more people with Xbox 360s and PS3s than there were people with NES's. The price per unit doesn't have to up if you're selling millions of units instead of tens of thousands.

MW2 raked in $310 million in 24 hours. In the US and Britain alone. I'm going to take wild guess and say it didn't cost them anywhere near that much to make, package, and market it.

What they really need to do is figure out a way to smooth out that big revenue pop. Wall Street doesn't really like unpredictable revenues. It likes the subscription model much better: steady, predictable revenues.

TheGameguru wrote:

I'm glad you mentioned this... since in the beginning of VideoGames there were bugs.. and guess what.. back then you had NO way of getting the fixed.

So basically its always been this way... We used to reproduce a bug in my Magnavox Odyssey 2 in that goofy D&D type game..

I agree with you for the most part. I just get the impression that many of today game's are released based on a calendar date and not a project completion. When a developer knows they can just fix the mistakes later there isn't as much pressure to get it right before it goes out the door. You don't get to pay for a partially completed package though, you get to pay full price. You can only hope that they fix the problems.

In part it may be somewhat tied to fact that pc's and consoles share the market. In essence it forces the developers to make multiple variants of the same game. The most recent example I can come up with is MW2. There was a bug that needed to be patched today because PS3 owners couldn't connect with each other online. It's very difficult to understand how something like that can happen if you're doing any kind of solid QA. It's easily understandable if they're pushing like crazy to get it out before the holiday season.

OG_slinger wrote:

MW2 raked in $310 million in 24 hours. In the US and Britain alone. I'm going to take wild guess and say it didn't cost them anywhere near that much to make, package, and market it.

I'm wondering what they spent in advertising? They were doing spots in the middle of major sporting events and that sh*t ain't cheap.

I got to page 4 of the comments and then had to stop. I hold little hope that anyone will make it to mine buried on page 5.

But look.

I killed possibly 70 million people. possibly 70 million. 70,000,000. People. And they still think I'm a God.

My point is, gaming will be ok. Gamers will forgive and forget this controversy in a few years, water under the bridge.

edit: oh and I'd call this a lament rather than a dirge. Unless you actually sang this, Elysium, in which case you must post it.

While we were all squabbling in the corner over meaningless skirmishes about DLC and dedicated servers, the war was waged on another front and it’s starting to look like we lost.

Is this how people feel? Like there's a war going on? What are the sides?

Staats wrote:
While we were all squabbling in the corner over meaningless skirmishes about DLC and dedicated servers, the war was waged on another front and it’s starting to look like we lost.

Is this how people feel? Like there's a war going on? What are the sides?

One side believes in truth, light, hope. That there's a chance that people will come to their senses, that wrongs can be righted.

The other side is Rob Borges.

Staats wrote:
While we were all squabbling in the corner over meaningless skirmishes about DLC and dedicated servers, the war was waged on another front and it’s starting to look like we lost.

Is this how people feel? Like there's a war going on? What are the sides?

Us vs Them, of course.

Holy crap! This article has only been posted for 12 hours or so, and I'm already grotesquely late to respond. So rather than make yet another long post to add my thoughts (that have already been expressed much better than I would have), I'll just say this: Parallax for President of Gamer Nation!

Also, who pissed in Elysium's Cheerios? Seriously. Somebody send him a case of Corona ASAP.

Demiurge wrote:

One side believes in truth, light, hope. That there's a chance that people will come to their senses, that wrongs can be righted.

The other side is Rob Borges.

I'm with Rob. Everyone knows truth, light, and hope is for losers

Staats wrote:
While we were all squabbling in the corner over meaningless skirmishes about DLC and dedicated servers, the war was waged on another front and it’s starting to look like we lost.

Is this how people feel? Like there's a war going on? What are the sides?

This is GWJer: Civil War.

You have to choose a side. Friend against friend. Brother against brother. You can side with the publishers and sign the DLC Treaties. Or you can side with the resistance.

Elysium will play Iron Man. Gaald will be Captain America. And I hear Vicarious Visions has already bought the video game rights. If you pre-order at Gamestop, you get to play as Wordsmythe.

skeletonframes wrote:

Elysium will play Iron Man. Gaald will be Captain America. And I hear Vicarious Visions has already bought the video game rights. If you pre-order at Gamestop, you get to play as Wordsmythe.

We have a winner!

One thing that concerns me is the vast differences in costs for games, for both developer and buyer. There's a whole load of inconsistencies in approaches

At the high end publishers want to increase the price, and with MW2 activision-blizzard managed to get the public to buy what they were selling, I don't know what the development or advertising budget, but I don't think it's a stretch to say they've made money on it. There's a small set of blockbusters that everyone wants their game to measure up to

You've also got the "Red Queen's race" for development costs on high-end platforms, console and PC, so that unless you've very clever with overall art direction to get up to the 'expected' standard takes a lot of resources, and there's a certain section of the audience that won't look twice at your game if it doesn't equal the competition. Not just the graphical look, but the whole games needs to be a big experience, soundtracks and surround that would make a movie from 15 years ago envious, professional voice acting, animation and mo-cap, even researching your topic down to the N-th degree. It doesn't surprise me that some games are expensive and only going to get more expensive following the current trends.

There's different rules for making your games on different platforms. The Wii is cheap to develop for, but it's only been a hit for nintendo. Piracy and second hand trades are always present, and all platforms are affected. Games one one platform are 'nerfed' to protect sales on another.

I wonder how long before we hear from Dennis Dyack again about the 'One Console' future. Parts of it made sense and still do, just that each of the platform gatekeepers are in it for themselves. Commercial pressure is the only thing that can really *make* it happen. FWIW I think that the PC is currently closest to fulfilling this role as it's currently the most 'open' platform to develop for, but unfortunately doesn't have a consistent set of rules for putting your game on it. Microsoft have always dragged their feet with games on windows (and according to John Carmack, Apple is no better for supporting games on their platforms and doesn't really want to) just letting it exist and not a lot else. A hybrid between steam and an equivalent to Media Centre it would help a lot.

There is a lot to say on this topic, but I find it impossible to say "This is what needs to change". The answer probably lies in a combination of a lot of things. Just using one tactic to counter a combination of different market pressures probably won't save anything. If making the big RPG from 10 years ago by modern standards and selling it in the same way doesn't work now, then something has to give. Companies need to be realistic in the expectations and priorities. If the budget will let them do either a long epic story or a game that looks cinematic, but not both, in a business world they have to choose, or find some way to make it work. Overreaching with no expectation of success is dumb.

Mirror's Edge keeps being brought up as an example of a bit of a gamble that didn't really pay off. If DICE really wanted to make ME2 but couldn't get the budget or the sales expectation to finance it, they would need to make choices and compromises. What are the important bits to the game we want to make, what is necessary and what is extraneous.

skeletonframes wrote:

If you pre-order at Gamestop, you get to play as Wordsmythe.

Wow, those f*ckers really are evil.

Just as a random thought, lately I've been asking myself "Diablo 3 or Torchlight MMO".

Both are looking to be release around the same time (D3 is 2011 by best guess, TL MMO is 18-24 months away) and I have difficulty really deciding which one I expect to be better. I'll accept that they are not the same game, and they have different decisions behind them, but one has taken about a decade of on-and-off work, and one will have about 3 years (including a SP release). I expect both will be successful, but on totally different scales. Two approaches to what is practically the same game.

Staats wrote:
While we were all squabbling in the corner over meaningless skirmishes about DLC and dedicated servers, the war was waged on another front and it’s starting to look like we lost.

Is this how people feel? Like there's a war going on? What are the sides?

Good guys and terrorists. Do you really want to let the terrorists win, dude?

I saw this on Gamespot and thought it relevant. It looks like the Dragon Age DLC has already brought in over 1 million dollars in sales. That's some pretty nice frosting on that cake for EA.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/rpg/...

I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I like games, and I play games. I pay for what I think will be fun if the price is right for me. It's interesting reading some of the perspectives here though.

sithcundman wrote:

I don't really have a dog in this hunt. I like games, and I play games. I pay for what I think will be fun if the price is right for me. It's interesting reading some of the perspectives here though.

This is pretty much where I stand. I may think certain things are a bad value, but so what? I find bad values at the grocery store, baseball game, and all over the internet. I just don't buy things that are bad values.

I think the discussion is good, as informed consumers will make better choices in the long run. But he outrage is more than a little silly.

I feel like the people who are truly outraged about this would be the same people that would go buy a new car and get mad about having to pay extra for floor mats. The floor mats don't make the car do what it was intended to do, it's just extra content.

I wonder if publishers that do know they will have Day One DLC have ever thought about selling the game at a lower price point to offset the DLC cost. The lower price point would bring in additional purchases (as Steam has proven) and a larger audience for the DLC.

V-O wrote:

I feel like the people who are truly outraged about this would be the same people that would go buy a new car and get mad about having to pay extra for floor mats. The floor mats don't make the car do what it was intended to do, it's just extra content.

I wonder if publishers that do know they will have Day One DLC have ever thought about selling the game at a lower price point to offset the DLC cost. The lower price point would bring in additional purchases (as Steam has proven) and a larger audience for the DLC.

I think the idea is that DLC is gravy.. no publisher goes into day 1 thinking their AAA title isnt worth full retail price with enough content to justify that price (thats a consumer decision)

In re: to Steam deals that is usually a byproduct of those consumers not really willing to pay full price in the initial release window.. but more than happy to buy at a later date at a reduced price.

Which in its own way is awesome since really shelf space for older PC games is hard to find these days.