-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jimquisition: On variety in AAA space (by using a metaphor with pasta sauce)
- Thread starter AHA-Lambda
- Start date
NullPointer
Member
I'm starting to think that the Lord of the Rings prophesied this as well. The ring of power is that one perfect game, and the Fellowship is a ragtag group of publishers trying and failing and succumbing to the power of the one true homogenized all-genre mainstream game design. The design to rule all other game designs.
I'm pretty sure that makes Activision Mordor and EA Gondor.
Or something.
I'm pretty sure that makes Activision Mordor and EA Gondor.
Or something.
Had that on my mind too.
Really think the fact people don't know what they want is the important bit. Don't just throw tons of focus groups onto something. It's why Apple did so well with iPhone and iPad, they created products no one asked for. Who wanted a smart phone that couldn't multitask or a computer with cell phone parts? Millions apparently.
Really important when you factor the last point. Make developers develop what they want to. No one knew there was such a huge market for car sims before Gran Turismo, a game without any goal before Minecraft...
Ingueferroque
Banned
Love you Jim!!!!
Jake Tower
Banned
EA is Saruman.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
I haven't really seen the same commentary elsewhere. Could you provide me with a link or two? (Not trying to call you out...I'm genuinely interested in seeing more on the subject)
NullPointer
Member
Good point. EA used to be cool way back when, and still manages to have rare moments of brilliance now and then.
Z
ZombieFred
Unconfirmed Member
I have to agree here but I think it's really coming out from the general folk here and to others how we are now hugely aware of the "AAA" market copy and paste has become too much and repetitive and how it really is affecting quality and innovation to a lot of loved series with a specific audience when it is not needed. Hell, I am very happy to see titles such as Dark Souls, Walking Dead, X-COM, Catherine (yes even that game sold great) Fire Emblem, all these "niche" titles are selling great and making a fair amount of money with a lot of praise and shows how there's still a big audience there is for it.
There was always an audience for these kind of games, just look at Splinter Cell pre 2008 for example with Chaos Theory and how that got universal praise (both the genre and the audience) and how that sold nicely too. The AAA market is utterly heading to a disaster that is not needed.
You don't read several comments a day on GAF claiming homogenization leads to the industry's decline? Just browse today's Splinter Cell thread.
I thought his original comment was inappropriate in the first place. I may have gone over the line as well, but that's to make my point. I have nothing against him as a person or a journalist.
Cool to see you took it lightly.
I'm of a similar mind. I like that he flat-out stated that "mid-tier" games and profits aren't terrible because they're not gangbusters. We've got unnecessarily binary product choices, and a lot of gamers seem to be left in the cold. If gaming as a medium or hobby "dies," it won't be because it was a dated cultural phenomena, but will be due to things like rigid objectification of audience (focus testing, homogenized, inorganic creative elements) or changing nature of technology. The latter is hard to speculate about because it would take a massive change in technology to see how that could be, but so far there are still NES games I play and have fun with.
Too much business in my entertainment. Fads aren't so great for society, not so great for my games either.
Well sure maybe, but I think he was more inclined to choose a game that he liked a lot, as I recall he had major reservations about Heavy Rain's writing and the handling of some mechanics. I didn't play the game but I remember reading his comments about it on Destructoid some time ago.
Too much business in my entertainment. Fads aren't so great for society, not so great for my games either.
Well sure maybe, but I think he was more inclined to choose a game that he liked a lot, as I recall he had major reservations about Heavy Rain's writing and the handling of some mechanics. I didn't play the game but I remember reading his comments about it on Destructoid some time ago.
Jim -- I very much liked your episode, but I see a critical and important distinction between your pasta example and how the video game market is structured. To be specific, I don't think EA/Take 2/et al. are simply ignoring lessons of business past. Instead, there is a real, substantial advantage to the approach they've taken, even if it lost (some) of them money in the process.
The big four publishers -- EA, Take 2, Ubisoft and Activision -- were (and still are) trying to create an oligopoly, and that is achieved by raising barriers to entry. This is similar to the film and music industries, where 80-90% of the entire market is dominated by 3-5 companies. They accomplish this by making movie making (and music production) such an expensive endeavor, and at such low profit margins, that nobody in their right mind would want to enter the market to compete, because it's so expensive for such low returns.
Another way to put that idea is this: EA is not necessarily more talented or innovative than a guy in his garage making a game like Minecraft. I mean, often EA is more talented -- there are some terrible indie games out there -- but sometimes they are not. However, what EA always has over every indie studio is more money. Lots and lots more money. So it behooves companies like EA to create a market where the cost of entry is very high, and where the first step to realistically competing against EA's games or Activision's Call of Duty is "start with 100 million dollars to invest."
Of course, this process only functions in the console/AAA space, where costs are high. Consequently, when costs are very high, risk taking tends to be very low. It is not a functional model when the cost of entry is lower, as it is on PC or Facebook or iOS -- which is why we see more indie success stories on those platforms, where indies don't just have occasional success but can become huge companies in their own right, like Riot Games, Gameloft, Rovio, or Zynga. The success of those companies in non-traditional-AAA spaces shows what's going on here. As soon as EA/Activision/Ubisoft/Take 2 aren't the default, automatic winners because only they have the money to even plausibly make a big, expensive hit game, new studios prosper and grow in to production houses in their own right. If it had cost 100 million dollars to make League of Legends or 250 Million to get Angry Birds off the ground, neither of those companies would exist in the form they do today.
So, to summarize my point: extremely high development costs will naturally suppress anyone's willingness to take big mechanical risks. Spending more money makes you less willing to roll the dice on an unproven dormant concept, and that isn't unique to video games. Further, the reason development costs have continued to rise unabated is that high development costs actually have significant benefits for the big four publishers, who can muscle competition out through the sheer size of their wallet even if it's unhealthy for the ecosystem as a whole. Going back to your example, Campbell soups is a very large company; if Campbell/Prego could simply raise the cost of doing business so that Ragu could not possibly keep up with costs and would lose just because their wallet is too small, they would have.
The big four publishers -- EA, Take 2, Ubisoft and Activision -- were (and still are) trying to create an oligopoly, and that is achieved by raising barriers to entry. This is similar to the film and music industries, where 80-90% of the entire market is dominated by 3-5 companies. They accomplish this by making movie making (and music production) such an expensive endeavor, and at such low profit margins, that nobody in their right mind would want to enter the market to compete, because it's so expensive for such low returns.
Another way to put that idea is this: EA is not necessarily more talented or innovative than a guy in his garage making a game like Minecraft. I mean, often EA is more talented -- there are some terrible indie games out there -- but sometimes they are not. However, what EA always has over every indie studio is more money. Lots and lots more money. So it behooves companies like EA to create a market where the cost of entry is very high, and where the first step to realistically competing against EA's games or Activision's Call of Duty is "start with 100 million dollars to invest."
Of course, this process only functions in the console/AAA space, where costs are high. Consequently, when costs are very high, risk taking tends to be very low. It is not a functional model when the cost of entry is lower, as it is on PC or Facebook or iOS -- which is why we see more indie success stories on those platforms, where indies don't just have occasional success but can become huge companies in their own right, like Riot Games, Gameloft, Rovio, or Zynga. The success of those companies in non-traditional-AAA spaces shows what's going on here. As soon as EA/Activision/Ubisoft/Take 2 aren't the default, automatic winners because only they have the money to even plausibly make a big, expensive hit game, new studios prosper and grow in to production houses in their own right. If it had cost 100 million dollars to make League of Legends or 250 Million to get Angry Birds off the ground, neither of those companies would exist in the form they do today.
So, to summarize my point: extremely high development costs will naturally suppress anyone's willingness to take big mechanical risks. Spending more money makes you less willing to roll the dice on an unproven dormant concept, and that isn't unique to video games. Further, the reason development costs have continued to rise unabated is that high development costs actually have significant benefits for the big four publishers, who can muscle competition out through the sheer size of their wallet even if it's unhealthy for the ecosystem as a whole. Going back to your example, Campbell soups is a very large company; if Campbell/Prego could simply raise the cost of doing business so that Ragu could not possibly keep up with costs and would lose just because their wallet is too small, they would have.
Part of the reason for this problem is because it's late in a console generation. You tend to get more variety and new IPs towards the beginning of a console generation because publishers, developers, and console manufacturers are still trying to define the experience of the new platforms.
The OP notes Skyrim as an example of alternative success, but Skyrim was probably a success because Oblivion was one of the earliest games to define the current console generation (and Fallout 3 built off of that, leading to Skyrim's popularity). Guys like Ubisoft have already admitted that new IP does better closer to console launches, which is why a lot of publishers are probably holding back new IPs until we get new hardware.
The OP notes Skyrim as an example of alternative success, but Skyrim was probably a success because Oblivion was one of the earliest games to define the current console generation (and Fallout 3 built off of that, leading to Skyrim's popularity). Guys like Ubisoft have already admitted that new IP does better closer to console launches, which is why a lot of publishers are probably holding back new IPs until we get new hardware.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Yeah, I've posted a bunch about it myself on various forums. I thought you meant game writers have trod this ground a lot, which interested me.
Jim Sterling
Member
Fantastic points all round, there, and likely a good part of the reason.
I do need to point out, maybe in another episode, that I am well aware of the big barriers as to why my idealistic vision for the world is nowhere near close enough to reality. Between your points, and the whole dodgy issue of publicly traded companies, there are "good" reasons as to why sense can't prevail in the big budget industry. The very best I can hope for is to maybe at least justify those developers and publishers that *are* keeping it sensible. I know a couple studios have really loved the recent Jimquisition and feel further validated in the path they're personally on, which is great.
Eventually these larger companies may just run themselves into the ground, so such studios can step out from their shadow.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Been saying this for years, huge 'niches' being ignored because everything has to be cod/gears of war/uncharted
You'd think cs still getting massive numbers online all day every day after 14 years would be a hint that tons of people aren't finding the games they want to play anymore ,but these asshole publishers are just too blinded by greed and staring at graphs and thinking ME TOO.
@ stirling above: watch out,any mere suggestion for AAA publishers running themselves into the ground for a mini crash usually gets met with a lot of vitriol on here.
You'd think cs still getting massive numbers online all day every day after 14 years would be a hint that tons of people aren't finding the games they want to play anymore ,but these asshole publishers are just too blinded by greed and staring at graphs and thinking ME TOO.
@ stirling above: watch out,any mere suggestion for AAA publishers running themselves into the ground for a mini crash usually gets met with a lot of vitriol on here.
Yeah, big games are focus tested into mush that appeals to the broadest audience thinking they'll play your shitty, tacked on multiplayer for years to come. Ugh.
Make a horribly divisive game with a clear vision that YOU would like to play. Don't spend a billion making it. People with similar taste to yours will be drawn to it, and they'll feel like you made it just for them. It'll be awesome.
Make a horribly divisive game with a clear vision that YOU would like to play. Don't spend a billion making it. People with similar taste to yours will be drawn to it, and they'll feel like you made it just for them. It'll be awesome.
Earthpainting
Member
He's really been hitting out of the park lately. I don't always share his opinions, but he always demonstrates he put in the thought where at the very least I can see where he's coming from.
I think the phenomenon on the video at hand is also part of the reason why the Japan audience and myself have largely migrated to handheld systems. Their preferences were not met on home consoles and so the balance has dramatically shifted towards portable games. It is an ecosystem where the B-tier game still exists by non-indie developers.
I think the phenomenon on the video at hand is also part of the reason why the Japan audience and myself have largely migrated to handheld systems. Their preferences were not met on home consoles and so the balance has dramatically shifted towards portable games. It is an ecosystem where the B-tier game still exists by non-indie developers.
Absolutely agreed, and I am hopeful we'll see some significant turnover. I do think the diversification of platforms helps us in this regard: while EA/Take 2/et. al have a veritable stranglehold on AAA console releases, their presence is much weaker virtually everywhere else, and that provides opportunities for new talent to prosper in the PC space, iOS, Facebook, and in other places. Sometimes I don't like that talent, personally (e.g. Zynga), but sometimes I do (e.g. Riot, Mojang). Allowing for new blood means sometimes I won't personally like that new blood, but it's better than an industry that suppresses all new blood of any kind.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
its weird how ive gone from not standing them man to hanging on his every word. I still think he is a troll reviewer but as a consumer advocate, he is one of the best we have.
BRocknRolla
Member
Excellent and intelligent comparison.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
This is a interesting post. Do you think that Sony's/Nintendo's sudden embrace of indies a forward thinking strategy and a way to push back against the oligopoly model? its getting to the stage that even the platform holders cant compete with EA et la either.
Absolutely, it very much helps. Sony is better positioned than Nintendo to capitalize on it, but both are thinking ahead.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
I hope so. I think for me personally, early this generation, games that typically are classed as AAA became less more about fun and more about experience. While I concede there are many many who love their cinematic experiences, Im finding increasing value in the downloadable short, arcade releases. I predict that next gen, the bulk of my games will be PSN/XBLA content and very few retail releases. So im all for the embrace of indies.
I want to give this its own post because I think it's an important point (I originally edited this in to my last post).
Not only are the number of big publishers dwindling (Eidos is now part of SE, Midway is gone, THQ is gone, etc.), but the actual number of major releases from the remaining publishers is dwindling too (EA released 70+ retail games in 2007, but released just 17 last year). So it isn't as if THQ is going under and EA or Activision is picking up the slack.
This isn't a sudden trend that took hold last year, either. It's been a persistent pattern now for at least the better part of a decade, if not longer. You can see how a market could slowly die or become irrelevant with a trend like that. You need new blood to rise up, but EA/Take 2/etc. are all working very hard to prevent it, because it's obviously in their own personal, short term interest to do so.
Not only are the number of big publishers dwindling (Eidos is now part of SE, Midway is gone, THQ is gone, etc.), but the actual number of major releases from the remaining publishers is dwindling too (EA released 70+ retail games in 2007, but released just 17 last year). So it isn't as if THQ is going under and EA or Activision is picking up the slack.
This isn't a sudden trend that took hold last year, either. It's been a persistent pattern now for at least the better part of a decade, if not longer. You can see how a market could slowly die or become irrelevant with a trend like that. You need new blood to rise up, but EA/Take 2/etc. are all working very hard to prevent it, because it's obviously in their own personal, short term interest to do so.
Excellent video.
This is how I feel about MMOs too... Seems that developers tried to take people away from WoW, and were for some reason surprised when the game they made didn't have the subscriber base. Well, because they have WoW. Developers who chase the mythological sales of games like CoD are going to be disappointed. Let Activision have it's realistic military FPS- That market is already gone.
I hope that we see some more developers going back to genres that were forgotten this generation. Like the RPG, for instance.
This is how I feel about MMOs too... Seems that developers tried to take people away from WoW, and were for some reason surprised when the game they made didn't have the subscriber base. Well, because they have WoW. Developers who chase the mythological sales of games like CoD are going to be disappointed. Let Activision have it's realistic military FPS- That market is already gone.
I hope that we see some more developers going back to genres that were forgotten this generation. Like the RPG, for instance.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
I only hope that as time progresses, PSN AND XBLA grow to fill the void. The only danger is the big publishers trying to raise the barriers of entry there too (Capcom being currently the worse offender)
The problem with trying to create an oligopoly in entertainment is that we are now in the era where even the established oligopolies are having trouble keeping what they have. I think it is very telling that THQ, one of the biggest publishers of the PS2 generation, got gobbled up by European nobodies, fairly new companies like Crytek and Gearbox, and the remains of Sega. Big companies Ubisoft and Take-Two only really bought publishing rights to the South Park and WWE licenses. This era for the consoles really feels more like how Hollywood felt during the Fall of the Studio System. It has increasingly expensive productions, competition from newer more convenient technologies, and an explosion of successful niche European and Asian studios.
It really feels that large publishers are threatening to collapse under their own weight, and the successful independent companies are going to rise up to more economically fill the void... And that Sony and Nintendo realize this, which explained their newly found focus on indies.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
EA/Take 2/etc. aren't deliberately raising barriers to entry in certain big-budget genres, and then enjoying oligopoly profits as a result. It's the other way around: they're competing in the genres they think they can be most profitable in, and as a result of that competition, budgets rise as companies try to one-up each other.
It might initially seem like a minor distinction, but it isn't. It's why, for example, the MMO genre has huge barriers to entry but has been a spectacular failure for most big publishers.
After seeing Opiate's first post, I realize that he brought up something that I failed to consider; that the pasta sauce parallel is in fact somewhat loose relative to this video. Not that I think the message of the Prego parable is any less true (there can be more than one highly profitable audience group for a market). But the idea that AAA market is deliberate on the part of certain developers, and that the targeted companies (Activision, etc.) have an interest in their tactics, and has managed to pay out decently enough for them (in real and passive, market-affecting terms) makes these situations different.
I still agree with the overall message of the video though, not to say that Opiate didn't.
Funny how the bolded works out, both because of the rising cost of AAA game production, but because I'd assume that this is exactly the preferable scenario; produce fewer games when the competition is smaller.
I still agree with the overall message of the video though, not to say that Opiate didn't.
Funny how the bolded works out, both because of the rising cost of AAA game production, but because I'd assume that this is exactly the preferable scenario; produce fewer games when the competition is smaller.
While this is true, I also worry about a market that can't handle two WoWs and two CoDs... maybe the online nature of these games (and, therefore, their replay value) makes redundancy comes faster, but I often ask myself where is my Skyrim game that is not Skyrim, for example.
Assuming that the major publishers are only interested in just their part of the market leaves the ignored market open for someone new to come in and take a large market by storm. For example, a game like Minecraft, which is from a small company, did something that had never been done before, and hit it off bigtime. Valve was also a fairly small companies when Steam was launched and now they have like 70% of digital PC game sales.
Using the pasta sauce example, it would be like if Prego and Ragu ignored the chunky sauce market, but some newcomer to the pasta sauce industry didn't and reaped all the benefits of it.
Good points... Part of it comes from the 'demand' that exists in the minds of the developers that Sterling alluded to. Developers believe (or are directed to believe) that there is no audience for a open world RPG and instead would make another shooter in the hopes that they get a smaller piece of a larger pie.
And you are correct, it is the community around WoW and CoD that ensure that the people who play those games religiously ONLY play those games. It's pointless to try and tear them away, they aren't going anywhere... Although finally, nearly a decade later, it seems that people are getting tired of WoW and are ready for something different.
RoboGeorgeForeman
Banned
Really didn't like the style of the episode, but the points he made were good.
That Ted talk is excellent. Opened it randomly in this page and ended up watching it again
This. It's silly to think that the management of these big publishers are sitting around, laughing about how purposely raising development costs and lowering profit margins worked great at shutting down John Q Nobody Studios, only then to look at Medal of Honor's numbers and jump out the window.
I don't disagree with the gist of your argument, my 2 cents here.
1) It'll likely to be big 5, if you include Zenimax Media.
2) The success of Gameloft, Rovio, Zynga has more to with them taking advantage of new and growing platform by being there early and/or replicating successful game models there. That is not to say they don't deserve any credits at all but Minecraft would be a better example to illustrate how small developer ever stood a chance for runaway success.
CrankyKong
Member
Definitely agree with alienating people part.
I love grid strategy games like fire emblem and Xcom but good games like that arent very common, at least not on consoles.
I love grid strategy games like fire emblem and Xcom but good games like that arent very common, at least not on consoles.
Similar threads
- Locked