Within the Falling

I remember the first time I attended a party with the popular kids in my high school. It was, overall, a tepid and stressful affair where I spent most of my time wondering if I was acting the way I needed to act to be invited back again next time. Which is not to say that I was actually being judged — in part because I come from a small rural community where there just weren’t enough of us to be too exclusive— but largely because I think now that everyone else in the room was feeling stressed out about the same thing.

I grew up in a place and an environment where I had the luxury of rarely having to worry about anything really important, like working to help support the family or whether a someone might kill me on the way to school. In the absence of actually stressful things in our lives, I suppose most of us go ahead and busy ourselves by creating things to feel stress over instead. For me, popularity was my luxury stressor. There are a lot of reasons why I chose that particular stressor, but I valued how I and the things that were important to me were perceived by strangers.

I don’t know if it’s nearly as simple as saying that I had a choice between just being comfortable or making myself mildly miserable while trying to make other people happy, but I don’t feel like that’s completely off the mark either. At least a component of chasing popularity is predicated on the idea that what you think of me is more important than what I think of me. And down that pathway there can be a lot of self-compromise and potentially soul-destructive decision making.

Which is all part of the reason I wish gaming weren’t as popular as it has become.

I increasingly think of many of the most popular games on the market in that same way I think of myself during that aggressively social phase of my life. Call of Duty seems to spend a lot of time trying to make sure it is being the things that will be most popular. It comes into the fraternity house all popped-collar-cool and smelling of Axe body spray. It hops out of its black Jeep Wrangler, fires off a few cool comments, and saunters inside with its arsenal of weaponry and Jerry Bruckheimer stories. It spends every moment of those stories calculating exactly what the next move is to attract the maximum number of people.

In the same way that popular people mostly pull it off, so too does Call of Duty, or Madden, or whatever the game of the moment is. It’s not that they become bad games just because they are trying to be popular — on the contrary, to be a bad game would not be cool at all — but they do fit into a certain fixed box of conformity and formula, and so they always feel like a flashy shell with nothing on the inside.

More and more, that’s what I feel like the big-business side of the industry has become. It is a behemoth, a “Big Man on Campus,” a hyper-popular force that is at the breaking point of sustaining itself, because while the currency of popularity in high school may only just be ego and self-worth, the currency of popularity in the games industry is dollars. The reward for popularity in gaming is extraordinary dollars, but the trappings that the popularity requires exact a seemingly equally extraordinary cost. The system seems caught in a garish spiral, where popularity is rewarded with money that is spent entirely on maintaining that popularity.

The reality is that if the big-budget games, the AAA mega-franchises all went away tomorrow, the broad cultural cachet of the industry would drop like a stone. Which, for those of us with a passion for diversity and innovation in games, would probably not be a bad thing. If it all came crumbling down tomorrow, and we were left only with small to mid-size developers working on niche and passion projects, I have a hard time thinking that we would actually be playing any worse games.

Do we, perhaps, need another videogame crash like the one some of us saw in the ‘80s? Let the whimsy of the cultural zeitgeist move on to suck the soul from the next medium. I try to think what the big popularity spike of gaming has brought us, and though I suppose bigger budgets, more titles and easier watercooler conversations may all be in the mix, I also think stymied innovation and a combative industry that doesn’t really trust its own customers have their place on the list.

I realize there is an element of elitism in that whole argument. Or, even perhaps “element” is too conservative, and what I actually mean is “The argument is built entirely on a foundation of elitism.” Let’s say for the moment, though, that I’m willing to embrace that. Let’s say I’ve increasingly come to the place of wanting something that looks like the industry of old back, the one that wasn’t all that popular and was a secret and diverse landscape. Let’s say I believe that if that means we jettison every single major publisher to get there.

If anything, the diversity and complexity of the independent and small-market scene tells me that the industry could survive a bubble-burst and perhaps even be better in the long run. The natural counter to that is that, since there is this healthy, independent scene in the same space as the big budget titans, why not just have both? And yet, I might argue that the independent scene exists despite rather than because of the other. If the opposing force to the innovation and growth in the indie scene disappeared, might we end up with a gaming culture far more healthy?

I know that I’m not thinking about the business of all this. I know it’s idyllic and naive to imagine an industry in this kind of shape and scope. I know that what I’m supposed to say is that, in the end, the business goes where the money flows, and to suggest that an industry as culturally relevant and big as gaming has become should be influenced by anything besides soothing the thin-skinned whims of fickle investors might make for a nice fairy tale, but is otherwise stupid.

I know all of that, and you know what? What has that approach gotten gaming, other than a bloated industry on the precipice of collapse, where innovation is measured in monetization schemes instead of artistic innovation, where consumers are in open rebellion over the thinly veiled schemes of publishers to cheat their way to a profit, where a game can sell three-million copies and the developer has to close their doors because they didn’t make a cent in profit off the enterprise?

And yet, here at the crux of it all, I can’t actually bring myself to wish for the collapse of the industry, corrupt and misguided as I may think it is. I can’t sit here and say, “I wish it would all come crumbling down tomorrow so that a smaller but greener industry could build from the ashes.” I can’t do that, because so many people — so many gamers who just happen to be employed by the companies that make and publish the games — would suffer. This industry, broken though it may be, isn’t made up of an army of anti-consumer automatons bent on power-mad world domination. It is made up of us, and many of us — of our tribe — would feel exquisite pain within the falling. How can I wish that ill on them?

In the end, this industry as it stands today — both the good and the bad — is what we have made of it. Its popularity is a testament to the artistry of what has been accomplished, and now also the shackle that holds the bulk of the business from progress. We spent a long time wishing that games were as socially central as television or movies. Now that we are there, we reap what we’ve sown.

The popularity of gaming is a curse and a blessing. There is no turning back, only the question of how we might nudge the Titanic slightly from its inexorable course.

Comments

You're not the only one who feels this way, by a long shot. I for one think the crash is coming, and the first nuts and bolts are starting to loosen on the train. There's going to be a huge backlash with XBone and PS4 regarding used games. Yeah us PC gamers might be used to the limitations thanks to Steam, but we generally aren't paying $60 a game anymore either. Microsoft and Sony's arrogance will doom us to another cycle of gaming desolation, which will probably show history repeating itself with Nintendo coming to save the day again.

Elysium wrote:

And yet, here at the crux of it all, I can’t actually bring myself to wish for the collapse of the industry, corrupt and misguided as I may think it is. I can’t sit here and say, “I wish it would all come crumbling down tomorrow so that a smaller but greener industry could build from the ashes.” I can’t do that, because so many people — so many gamers who just happen to be employed by the companies that make and publish the games — would suffer.

First, I certainly don't wish for anyone to lose their job, regardless of what company they work for. I also don't wish for "the collapse of the industry" as a whole, but it would not bother me much if the AAA publisher part of the industry collapsed. The budgets for those types of games, and the desired/required ROI on them by publishers has reached absurd levels. When, as you pointed out, a game sells over 3 million units and is considered a financial failure, the system is broken.

Second, if the type of collapse I described happened, I'm confident that the people actually making the games would still be able to make games that they were passionate about making, thanks to the rise of the crowdfunding model, which would surely mature and evolve at a rapid pace if said collapse occurred. Not only does this model cut out the middle man - publishers who more often than not influence the direction of the game being made - but it also allows game development budgets to be a lot more reasonable, not to mention the highly increased potential for profit that the developers would receive.

One thing I think about with the 'collapse' scenario is what's needed for the industry to sustain itself.

THQ died in the last year (which was pretty unforeseen, say, 5 years ago), what happens if another big publisher goes down. With the used game controls and licensing changes that seem to be a "pray I don't change the deal further" situation, what happens if one or two game retail chains die. How about developers?

I'd imagine we'd be running the Amiga 500000 by now.

If the entire AAA industry came crashing down tomorrow, I wouldn't sweat it. Yeah, it sucks for all the people who will lose their jobs in the process, but the very existence and health of the indie scene right now is seeing even big mainstream developers starting their own indie studios. They'll survive, and gaming as a whole will be better for it. I guess I don't need to actively wish for it, but I won't be sad when it inevitably happens, which I believe it will.

Sean, some of us think the popular kids and the rest of us can coexist. Copycat.

I think the movie industry is a fair parallel at this point. Summer blockbusters share a lot of similarities to bro-worthy AAA game titles: explosions, boobs, lens flares. There is enough space in the market for those to stand side-by-side with movies that are more interesting to the fringe population, for lack of a better term.

While I participate in very few of the big-budget games or much care for the hype and advertising that surround them, I do not regret their existence. I personally see them as a necessary part of the system. With the numbers of games they can sell, they provide funding and incentive for development of new hardware and technology (right now that seems to mean new consoles). Smaller developers, who can afford to take more creative risk, can then use that infrastructure to do amazing things. Would PC gaming exist if the development of the PC wasn't driven by the need to have better business spreadsheets?

Banquo wrote:

Would PC gaming exist if the development of the PC wasn't driven by the need to have better business spreadsheets?

I'm pretty sure most PCs can handle spreadsheets fairly well by now. I mean, apart from all the gunk that users somehow get into them.

Minarchist wrote:

I think the movie industry is a fair parallel at this point. Summer blockbusters share a lot of similarities to bro-worthy AAA game titles: explosions, boobs, lens flares. There is enough space in the market for those to stand side-by-side with movies that are more interesting to the fringe population, for lack of a better term.

Core Games = "Indy Film Guy"
DudeBros = People who keep buying Fast & Furious tickets
DLC = 3D, DBox, IMAX, etc
Griefers = People who talk, use their phone and/or kick your chair
Dashboard Ads = Preshow ads, Trailers, Branded drink cups and popcorn buckets
Notch = Kevin Smith

The finance/operations guy in me says large studios need a way to hedge risk (and probably control costs better), thus open themselves up to more risk due to innovation.

I mention costs because with risk comes failure and you want to fail at a lower cost. It also improves the profit margin when you succeed, and lowers the threashold for a success.

In the movies (from what I understand), some do this by doing two or three blockbusters to finance more risky, medium budget movies that may or may not make bank.

Some of this might be letting WoW or CoD or whatever be your cash machine and earmarking a portion of the proceeds for lower cost, higher risk projects.

That also entails the company would need to have a tolerance for failure. In tech companies private equity have provided more of these type of conditions, ironically enouogh.

Mmmm just theorycrafting here, but another part would be identification of standards and wrapping strong cost controls (in terms of maximizing the efficiency of employees) in the large money making franchises.

What is interesting is that the larger companies, cost wise but not in mentality, are in a better position to produce more innovative products because they can spread certain costs across the whole company (e.g. licensing, facilities, overhead, etc.).

Steam Sales=$2, 2nd-run theaters.

Enjoy what games you want to enjoy. IGNORE all the rest. One shouldn't vex themselves over an entertainment product.

Tenebrous:

That's an interesting tack on the issue.

The way I see it (disclaimer: IANABM), the big companies with their big box games are suffering from same-itis because the big businesses don't have a consistent model for evolving or revolutionizing their existing franchises without huge risks involved. As you put it, they essentially don't have effective R&D.

It boggles my mind that marketing people or executives who don't play games essentially decide to put feature bloat into the big titles (Mass Effect, Tomb Raider) based on guesses and conjecture rather than solid consumer research, pilot programs and prototyping. In my mind, it seems most reasonable to only field a product or product feature and upgrade it or merge it with a big product line when it already has a pre-existing market base.

I'm not sure if that makes any kind of sense, being neither a developer nor a business person. Would it make sense for a large company to essentially bankroll and fund a bunch of indie projects? I know I'd pay for a mid-range Dragon Age or Mass Effect game with just the narrative part, but I don't know how many people would be of like mind. Would it make sense for EA to test out that market with a smaller-than-mid-sized game?

Scratched wrote:

I'd imagine we'd be running the Amiga 500000 by now.

That only happens in my best dreams.

OK, second best dreams.

'innovation', 5 times that word was used within the article
I want a month-long moratorium on using this word within the entire games industry.

So I guess what Sean is trying to tell us, is to expect less AAA in the "Week Ahead" column?

Anyways, I don't want to see AAA come crashing down, but at the same time I don't exactly see the titans of industry finally getting their heads out of their rears and fixing what's broken in their business model. They've known this was going to be an issue a long time ago and here we stand today. Maybe it's always been this way, just some of the names changed? I dunno.

If we did have a crash that's probably fine for us in the long run. In time we'd probably see companies like Paradox and Atlus take the place of EA and Square-Enix, but hopefully they will have learned from their predecessors mistakes and could properly budget their projects and keep their sales estimates reasonable.

MeatMan wrote:

Second, if the type of collapse I described happened, I'm confident that the people actually making the games would still be able to make games that they were passionate about making

This is truth. Look how many interesting games have formed from people who left the AAA industry. People were completely ga-ga over the new Supergiant game at PAX East, and that's a company founded by ex-EA. Telltale and Double Fine made huge news last year and both those teams were founded by ex-LucasArts. Chris Hecker, another ex-EA/Maxis, is doing something cool with SpyParty. The list goes on, and on, and on. These people would be making games regardless of whether or not AAA existed. It's only recently that the barriers for self-publishing have come crashing down that it's feasible, although very hard work, to strike it out on your own.

Strangeblades wrote:

Enjoy what games you want to enjoy.

This is also truth.

Interesting read, and it crystallises my own feelings. I've been looking forward to the next gen, but it looks like it's going to be a combination of 'more of the same' in creative terms and an absolute disaster in terms of business model.

I would somewhat like to see the industry burn, but the human cost would be too terrible.

wordsmythe wrote:
Banquo wrote:

Would PC gaming exist if the development of the PC wasn't driven by the need to have better business spreadsheets?

I'm pretty sure most PCs can handle spreadsheets fairly well by now. I mean, apart from all the gunk that users somehow get into them.

It's probably a pointless aside, but I always found it impressive that a friend of mine used to run calls on spreadsheets that would bring a machine with 2 quad-core Xeon CPUs to its knees.

RolandofGilead wrote:

'innovation', 5 times that word was used within the article
I want a month-long moratorium on using this word within the entire games industry.

To be replaced with? When you're talking about innovation it's a bit tough not to use the word.

I wrote a three paragraph post discussing the topic of innovation without using the word once.

I think when people use that word, they just want to see something different or even creative. Not necessarily new mechanics or new genres, but just something to get us out of the rut of games designed by committee based on focus groups in order to maximize returns.

Let's be honest, I don't think there's much more that can be done to really improve the core mechanics behind a lot of the popular genres. There's a lot of different things you can still do, but nothing that's really going to be mind-blowing and will rewrite how games in that genre are designed or implemented.

The "different" doesn't even need to be entirely mechanical. Maybe we just need a wider variety of settings, characters, art styles, etc. on display to get the AAA industry feeling fresh and interesting again.

EDIT: I think this is why the mid-tier and indie spaces are so interesting right now. There's all these different voices making products. We know full well when we buy a game from the AAA developers what we're going to get. Smaller developers, and especially the new ones, we haven't had as much exposure to. It's like listening to a band you've never heard before: it's exciting and surprising because you don't know what to expect.

I like games. Sometimes they have lots of A's. Sometimes they exist on some tier that relegates them to less marketing dollars.

I know that the promise of every game, regardless of tier, is capable of being garbage for a variety of reasons. If they happen to exist on that tier with lots of A's when they fail, we all pay very close attention and judge the industry. If they don't, we just move on and play a new game. The focus on AAA failure is ignores the vast amount of middle tier crap that gets released.

I don't care if some games suck. Heck, I've even gotten over gamers craving upgrades in their shooters that ruin most of them for me.

But I hope the system that produced Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, Dishonored, Red Dead Redemption, Halo, Batman, my favorite sports games, Rock Band, and so many other awesome AAA games keeps doing so. I don't want to save it to protect jobs, I want more cool games.

Jayhawker wrote:

But I hope the system that produced Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, Dishonored, Red Dead Redemption, Halo, Batman, my favorite sports games, Rock Band, and so many other awesome AAA games keeps doing so. I don't want to save it to protect jobs, I want more cool games.

At what cost?

It's something I've been thinking on, besides the three-four-five-six hundred dollar price that people estimate for consoles or the fifty-sixty-seventy dollar base price of a game itself, what are you willing to pay for those AAA games? The AAA part of the industry seems balanced really high now that the inclusion of the shopping list of restrictions and requirements (see xbone thread) just seems like the bare bones they need to keep going, and that's what they starting the generation with.

I became aware of the 'balanced high' term when Westwood were talking about how they designed Red Alert2, that units in the game were very powerful, there was a high cost to some units but they were extremely effective if you could find the right way to use them, and a great loss if you had them killed. In my mind I have the image of the AAA part of the industry as a jenga tower building itself higher and higher, it's impressive that they can go so high, but each new tier has an out of proportion cost to go higher and it's going to make a hell of a mess if/when it collapses with a lot of fallout.

RolandofGilead wrote:

I want a month-long moratorium on using this word within the entire games industry.

Yeah, not happening

IMAGE(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/gamelife/2013/06/e3_banner_flickr.jpg)

Unknown Soldier wrote:

Yeah us PC gamers might be used to the limitations thanks to Steam, but we generally aren't paying $60 a game anymore either.

Us console gamers aren't paying $60 a game either, pal. As a 360-jockey, my average layout is in the $15-$25 region. And that's not even necessarily predicated on the used games I buy either.

I buy maybe one or two full-priced, week-of-release games a year at $60. The rest of the many, many games I buy are either smaller downloadable XBLA games at $10 or $15 (*very* occasionally $20 for a standout title), or 3-12 month old titles that have been marked down, whether they're physical discs or digital copies.

It remains to be seen whether the same rapid price-dropping model we see on current gen will carry over to next gen, of course, but that will largely influence my decision on when to jump into next-gen. Like you, I have no interest in a $60/game model for a platform.