Support NeoGAF

[Opiate]

I'm not going to debate you on general economic theory, you seem to have a very good handle on it

However in my defence I'd point out that my argument has been centred upon the production of software for HD platforms, and how that relates to the other sectors of the industry. Not a global theory covering the manifold directions gaming has spidered into over the last few years.

So yeah, my point is a simplification but I believe its extremely pertinent and accurate one for the area in question.



Again its a matter of perspective. As a content-provider you simply deal with the technologies that are available to you. Refusing to deal with the additional challenge of moving from an SD to HD standard is like fighting the tide of history. You simply go where the money is presumed to be.

Which brings up the subject of Wii, a huge topic in itself which is why I'd hoped to avoid it if at all possible.

As you correctly pointed out Wii demonstrates that you don't need to reinvent the wheel graphically to create a market leading product. I totally agree.

However you can counter with the view that Wii's success was largely the product of it creating a new market, one that specifically responded to the novelty and accessibility of its user interface. Furthermore its equally arguable that the way it differed technologically from its competition essentially consigned it to become obsolete sooner than they did, and prevented it from enjoying the full benefit of third-party software franchises.

Despite it being cheaper to develop for, Wii saw no benefit in terms of third-party software support. Furthermore being unable to create a technologically competitive version of leading multi-platform franchises like CoD or GTA essentially prevented it from growing its user-base beyond what Nintendo themselves were offering

Absolutely, there are other factors, and I'm not intending to suggest the push for monopolistic competition / oligopoly is the only motivating factor for these major publishers. What I'm saying is that one of the major reasons third parties did not support the Wii was that it went strongly against the strategy these huge publishers had adopted -- to raise the barriers of entry to prevent competition from ever having a chance to threaten them.

The last time I looked at the publishers totals for the 360 (which was in 2010), Ubisoft/Take 2/Activision/EA were 88% of the retail software market. People say the 360 is good for "third parties," but what is really true is that it's good for the four or five biggest publishers in the world. This is also why there has been such an enormous exodus of independent developers to PC, iPhone, iPad, and Facebook/Browser gaming.

So with that in mind, this push for better technologies was one that these major publishers eagerly participated in. They clearly have had chances to bail out -- not just to the Wii, but to portable systems, to social gaming and to iOS -- and almost every one of those opportunities has been missed. In their absence, companies like Zynga, Gameloft, and Rovio have risen to extreme and rapid wealth thanks to the vacuum EA/Take 2/Ubisoft/Activision created and refused to fill. Again, this is not simply incompetent leadership; it's a deliberate attempt by major publishers to create an oligopoly a la the big three music labels, and crowd out smaller publishers from competing in the space they've created.

Which gets back to my point that if you look at things on a product scale, once a certain technological standard has been set for that genre, you simply can't put that genie back in the bottle.

I'm not sure this is true, but I could be convinced by it. Surely the DS's success in Japan is evidence that this isn't always true? Japan somehow managed to go from PS2->DS without any issue. Why does CS remain one of if not the most popular PC FPS, even when we've had a decade of games come out and best its graphical prowess? How is WoW still so popular when lots of MMOs have come out with better graphics since then?

Edit: upon further reflection, these examples seem fairly rare, and are almost non existent on the home console systems. So I certainly think what you're saying seems true on some platforms.

 

[Opiate]

Clear, as another note that I wanted to separate in to its own post to make sure its read: I appreciate the intelligent conversation and hope I don't come off as overly combative. This is a reasonable conversation and I feel you've made good points -- I wouldn't take the time to respond in detail if I didn't. Thanks.

 

[Yagharek]

Absolutely, there are other factors, and I'm not intending to suggest the push for monopolistic competition / oligopoly is the only motivating factor for these major publishers. What I'm saying is that one of the major reasons third parties did not support the Wii was that it went strongly against the strategy these huge publishers had adopted -- to raise the barriers of entry to prevent competition from ever having a chance to threaten them.

The last time I looked at the publishers totals for the 360 (which was in 2010), Ubisoft/Take 2/Activision/EA were 88% of the retail software market. People say the 360 is good for "third parties," but what is really true is that it's good for the four or five biggest publishers in the world. This is also why there has been such an enormous exodus of independent developers to PC, iPhone, iPad, and Facebook/Browser gaming.

So with that in mind, this push for better technologies was one that these major publishers eagerly participated in. They clearly have had chances to bail out -- not just to the Wii, but to portable systems, to social gaming and to iOS -- and almost every one of those opportunities has been missed. In their absence, companies like Zynga, Gameloft, and Rovio have risen to extreme and rapid wealth thanks to the vacuum EA/Take 2/Ubisoft/Activision created and refused to fill. Again, this is not simply incompetent leadership; it's a deliberate attempt by major publishers to create an oligopoly a la the big three music labels, and crowd out smaller publishers from competing in the space they've created.

Heh. This is probably the first time I've read anyone make that argument about the context of this generation's trends, and I'll be damned if it's not one of the better theories I've come across.

I guess the extension to that argument is that if we want to see more diversity and competition (and thus more new developers, cheaper prices, viable but smaller operations than the big publisher cartels) then what we need is more platforms like the Wii, like iOS, like DS that cater to the new, "casual" (I hate the term but it's convenient) market rather than the oligopoly you named (EA/Ubi/Acti etc).

Is there any real analogue for a successful (profitable if not prolific) smaller publisher in the music business that can thrive in the shadows of the big three publishers? Maybe smaller publishers like Rising Star should be taking notes.

I guess I liken the potential for the Wii/iOS market is that which was delivered out of the home computer revolution in the UK/EU in the 1980s. Spectrum/C64/Amiga/Amstrad etc all brought to bear a ridiculous diversity of game ideas and so many of these are still fondly remembered today (witness Retro Gamer magazine).

I'd love to see a market emerge that fosters that kind of creativity whilst making it viable for smaller publishers and developers to stay afloat. But that would be antithetical to the current "Gaming Industry" self-fulfilling narrative that their cohorts in the media like to write about.

 

[totowhoa]

Edit: nvm, I responded to an early post on page one. Didn't realize I'm both pages and days behind on this now.

 

[jump_button]

You dont see pre-owned DVD in big shops, It devalue games making them into something you beat and toss away something maybe game devs have to do to fix this mind set

 

[Clear]

Clear, as another note that I wanted to separate in to its own post to make sure its read: I appreciate the intelligent conversation and hope I don't come off as overly combative. This is a reasonable conversation and I feel you've made good points -- I wouldn't take the time to respond in detail if I didn't. Thanks.

Thanks man, I didn't find your tone at all combative, I enjoyed our discussion greatly. I would have continued it had I not lost track of this thread at some point shortly after making my last post!

 

[aquavelva]

You dont see pre-owned DVD in big shops

Libraries are FILLED with movies I can get for FREE. I saw the entire Nip Tuck series for the low, low price of $0. I'm guessing libraries are going to destroy the entire movie industry too.

It devalue games making them into something you beat and toss away something maybe game devs have to do to fix this mind set

Most games are just that though. It's very few games worth keeping IMO. Why? Because quite frankly a lot of them are just fucking horrible.

 

[CecilRousso]

The thought of 60 dollar games with 4-5 hour gamelength defining the game industry is a strange one to me. Perhaps it´s because I don´t play retail console games that much anymore. Major purchases for me the last year have been games like Portal 2 (22h played), Skyrim (60h), Shogun 2 (10h so far), The Witcher 2 (about 20h I guess), Civ 5 (44h), etc.

Is the situation for console games that bad, or are you guys just buying the wrong games, or what is the reason for this "60 bucks for 4-5 hour games"?

 

[Reuenthal]

As you make note, the "backing" given these games is quite weak in several cases. Syndicate was clearly sent to die, for example, once it became clear that it was not going to be a hit as it approached release. Most were EA Partner games which require dramatically lower investment, and EA now seems to be cutting back on this program and focusing more on internal development.

But generally, the answer is that no system is perfect and no publisher can reasonably expect every project they greenlight to be a big hit. That's simply an obvious truth in what is fundamentally a creative medium. You can expect every musical artist to produce a blockbuster record every single time (almost all eventually fade away, in fact), you can't expect every movie made by Spielberg or Lucas to be a gigantic blockbuster, and so forth. Creativity is fundamentally disorderly and not easy to control through traditional business mechanisms. You can't pre-package creative output like you can, lets say, a PC component, which has quantifiable value and yield.

And this is the fundamental problem not only that EA faces, but that all major publishers face in any creative medium; in theory, a truly competitive market for games or movies or music would see "publishers" rise and fall in rapid succession, as you cannot expect any specific publisher to be able to sign every great new artist or new developer or new director with an eye for profitable film making. It just isn't possible, because "talent" is far more subjective in these fields than it is in, say, CPU manufacturing. Major publishers/studios/etc handle this problem by raising the barriers to entry -- that is, they make it extremely difficult to break in to the market. If you're an outsider looking to make a hit movie, for example, then step 1 in the process is "have three hundred million dollars ready to produce the movie." If there are 10,000 people out there with good ideas for a movie that could possibly compete with Avatar, then perhaps only 1 of those people has the sort of money needed to actually create that movie. Or perhaps 0 of them do. This is how the same 5 or so movie studios (Paramount, Fox, Universal, etc) the same 3 music labels (Sony BMG, EMI Universal, and UMG) and the same 4 major game publishers (Ubisoft, Take 2, EA, Activision) control something like 90% of the market place: they make it so expensive to be successful that no one else can reasonably compete.

Another way to think of this concept: EA does not necessarily have the most talent (they can be good, of course), but they absolutely do have the most money, by definition. As such, it is in their best interest to redefine the marketplace so that the market is primarily defined by production values, rather than necessarily about having great, creative game ideas. If it's simply a competition of talent, then EA has to not only compete with Activision/Ubisoft/Take 2, but also with every little guy who has a great game idea.

If the competition is instead one largely or primarily based on production values, then the only real competition EA has is those other 3 companies, and the thousands of little guys with good ideas but little money become mostly meaningless. Again, this strategy is not unique to game development, can be readily observed in other creative media, and is known in economics as "raising the barriers to entry," which simply means, "making it harder for little guys to break in." I hope this isn't too long or boring: I'm just trying to express the idea as clearly as I can.

What I am not understanding is that although their objective in your view is to make it too expensive for others to enter, they are not making money trying it.

Even if they succeed with their goal, if the model of hugely expensive AAA games is not very good/sustainable/highly risky, they will probably still not making money.

Why is 'controlling' the market so important if you are not making money?

I am not saying you are wrong, the answer might be that EA are just not wise.

 

[robertsan21]

prices would have come down long ago if the industry was getting a share of the resells.

whoever said that is a fucking idiot.

 

[SpacePirate Ridley]

Just start the work with RCT4 Braben (pretty please!)

 

[tranciful]

App store is proof that prices will go down when publishers can compete with price. Used game sales is undeniably part of what is keeping price competition from happening with the console market. This whole argument will be moot when DD takes over though

 

[Maleficence]

Give your single player games replay value and make them special enough that people want to keep them and you've solved that problem.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Or maybe because the developers haven't bothered giving gamers a reason to play after the credits have rolled.

If stores aren't reordering more copies of your game, I think the problem is more than just the used game market. But hey, developers and publishers are going to keep trying to make used game sales the boogeyman despite the used game market being around for generations.

 

[robin2]

The AAA industry insists in ignoring its faults and putting all the blame on the costumers.

 

[JDSN]

Im glad I bought L.A Noire new, the millions copies it sold ensured a bright future to Team Bondi. What a joke, this is the only fucking industry in which product creators and journalists are constantly reminding their consumers how much do they suck.

 

[1-D_FTW]

What I am not understanding is that although their objective in your view is to make it too expensive for others to enter, they are not making money trying it.

Even if they succeed with their goal, if the model of hugely expensive AAA games is not very good/sustainable/highly risky, they will probably still not making money.

Why is 'controlling' the market so important if you are not making money?

I am not saying you are wrong, the answer might be that EA are just not wise.

It's kind of the way all business seem to work. Drive out the competition at any cost and then reap the benefits when you're the last survivor.

It's kind of the reason I always laugh at these diehards who get so worked up about the scummy consumer and their malicious 2nd hand ways. There are tons of ways to combat this. Used games are a symptom of the greater issue. And if they're not going to address the real issue, then screw em'. Every man for himself and the consumer should sell their games.

I'm also not losing any sleep because IMO this is something that can't be monopolized. The industry seems more open than ever for outsiders to break through with a hit. As the industry matures, the dream of the big publishers monopolizing things is met by the reality that creation tools are allowing the little guys to build more and more impressive creations.

Sure, EA may be tightening their grip on the AAA publisher world, but it seems to me that publishers of all kinds are kind of antiquated and obsolete in the new world order. The creative process has become a lot more democratic in recent times. So hopefully their strategy ultimately turns into an epic fail and money sink.

 

[BHK3]

Im glad I bought L.A Noire new, the millions copies it sold ensured a bright future to Team Bondi. What a joke, this is the only fucking industry in which product creators and journalists are constantly reminding their consumers how much do they suck.

Isn't team bondi closed down now?

At this point, I just have a simple opinion. Make a good, long single player game and you'll get my purchase. Don't have any sort of day one dlc, pre-order dlc or disc locked bullshit and you will go a long way, release free DLC down the line if you really want to be respected. Criterion a few years back released a bunch of free DLC and paid DLC, to the point where people asked for more dlc. They released good dlc, free and paid, and earned the respect of all their fans. I'm not going to bring valve into this since other companies need the spotlight on how to be a good developer too. Don't act like a fucktard and you won't get treated like a fucktard.

 

[ii Stryker]

If its a game like Syndicate or Enslaved I'd agree.

Open world western RPG's will still sell well though because of the sheer volume of content they offer.

 

[aquavelva]

App store is proof that prices will go down when publishers can compete with price. Used game sales is undeniably part of what is keeping price competition from happening with the console market. This whole argument will be moot when DD takes over though

All the App store proves is that people have come to expect paying 99c for mobile apps. When the App Store first came out, apps were pretty much all cheap. A lot of the Cydia developers moved over to the App Store so more people can have access to their software.

If app store developers felt they could get away with charging $60 for Angry Birds, they would.