Forgive me if this come's off as too "blog" in its content. I don't have a good outlet to write this, but I think it's something that needs to be stated, collectively, and discussed.
This video game industry is out of touch. Not necessarily those responsible for making games, that is to say, developers. The ground level guys get it. Programmers, audio guys, designers, they are all gamers, they have passions, and they "get it". Publishers, however, don't get it. Profits, media sharing (and monetization), online interactivity and requirements, DLC, and "microtransactions" drive this ship, and are putting the industry in jeopardy; however no one but the vocal minority (us) is paying attention.
Unfortunately, we aren't calling the shots, and our collective pull seems to be hampered, often from the ears publishers, design leads, project managers, etc. The industry has become reactionary, where the goal is no longer the end product, but the metacritic metrics and the consumer dollar. Publishers no longer strive to bring about the "next big thing" and instead are aiming for the "what's making the most money now". Major innovation is almost an exclusive trait to Indie developers, while publishers struggle to grasp simple concepts.
As an example, media sharing has become a massive boon to the video game industry. Videos that let consumers interact, share, observe, and ultimately consume your media via a 3rd party (often YouTube, Twitch TV, etc) are massively popular. As of late, this has been in "danger", as Google and Publishers (Activision, EA, Sony, MS, etc) seem to be upset that they are missing that "piece of the pie" via ad revenue. This is irrational, detrimental, and short sighted. Particularly when they are paying millions of dollars (potentially billions) per annum to advertise their games...when this accomplishes much of that for free, long after those ad campaigns are proclaimed dead.
These broadcasters, bloggers, vloggers, and passionate gamers drive your sales, however marginal, and help your product at the end of the day. Did you publish a terrible game? Is it so bad, it's good? Fortunately for you, there are people who exist who WILL play your game, specifically to experience how terrible it is, and they probably discovered it on YouTube, NeoGAF, Twitch, etc. Is that percentage small? Of course. It is a percentage none the less? Of course. Are you missing out on any money from those people generating ad revenue and paying for their hobby / bills? Absolutely not. Are you making more money from these marginally extended sales? Of course. The idea that this is something that needs to be "curbed" and exclusive to "partnered" individuals is absurd. There is not enough money in the universe that can buy the type of exposure your game will get via YouTube, Twitch, and other media outlets (at least not in an effective, meaningful manner).
Frankly, the people calling the shots here are out of touch. Instead of embracing the future, improving content discovery, delivery, and ultimately investing in free exposure (resulting in more money), they are spending money to hamper these developments, thus (and almost certainly) losing them money.
To compound problems, the industry as a whole seems to be trapped in a "bubble" where the voice of the gamer doesn't exist, and they haven't seen reactions to poorly planned DLC or microtransactions. Media coverage, YouTuber's, message boards (such as "The GAF") and many other outlets have made it explicitly clear over the course of 7-8 years that DLC needs to be meaningful, fairly priced, and most importantly, not impede on the experience delivered to gamers when they purchase your product. Unfortunately, that bubble has been holding strong, and nearly a decade later we are STILL seeing major publishers who have collected MASSIVE amounts of data, customer feedback, and any number of charts and graphs...experimenting with DLC and microtransactions. We're still seeing experiments with this content to "test the waters". This is not only insane, but it is wasteful, unproductive, and naive.
To add insult to injury, game prices have risen. 10 years ago, games were $10 cheaper. Due to the increase in price and the introduction of DLC, games have risen in price, at times nearly two fold, with titles like CoD often running you $110 for the full experience when the annual cycle is all said and done. Now, I understand that post release support costs money, however, season passes have been getting progressively more expensive, with content getting progressively less "fresh" and less "meaty". CoD features a number of recycled assets and layouts in order to maintain its annual release cycle, and the quality of the content has suffered as a result.
We've also seen very little evolution in the quality of provided services. Few are willing to experiment with subscription services for content delivery, particularly annual releases. Instead we've seen publishers chase the day 1 dollar, and ignore all else. It is short sighted to think that this model is viable, particularly when the rise of indie games seems to be so strong among gamers. Indie developers have seen impressive profits and support through programs like the Humble Bundle, PS+, and other deals that otherwise wouldn't be possible under the thumb of a publisher.
I can go on and on about things that are wrong in the industry and have stifled progress the last decade. Focus testing, imitation, massive marketing budgets, community managers instead of community TEAMS, lack of transparency and fan appreciation, numbers driven development instead of creatively driven development...the industry is just full of qualities that will, in nor short amount of time, cost a lot of people jobs, money, and profitability. The structure of everything is archaic, and has failed to evolve with the consumers that keep it afloat; resulting in studios struggling to survive. If you think that is an exaggeration, examine the list of development studios that closed between 2006 and February 2013 (likely more to add to that list!).
Source
There is a strong chance that a good number of these studios would still be open if publishers would express more flexibility, instead of trying to maintain a rigid and fragile ecosystem that they have crafted to their own benefit (and ultimately demise). This industry is driven by money, and that is undeniable, and absolutely reasonable, and acceptable. However, it continues to be harmed by greed, and that is a very real problem. Publishers have focused too much on striking while the iron is hot and chasing a demographic, instead of investing their money on tools. Investment on development tools to reduce budgets, development time, and improve the quality of development will stretch far further than chasing a genre, title, or demographic in general. Delivering meaningful content to consumers at fair prices in a timely manner will ultimately benefit the publisher more than pushing out a title that fails, and ultimately results in a studios failure.
So...what is your input, Neo GAF? Do you think the current industry model is viable over the course of future generations? More studio closures? How can we possibly get enough leverage to talk to studios, to break that "bubble" if they stubbornly pretend we don't exist, and that this isn't a problem? Discuss, ye intelligent minds of gaming.
This video game industry is out of touch. Not necessarily those responsible for making games, that is to say, developers. The ground level guys get it. Programmers, audio guys, designers, they are all gamers, they have passions, and they "get it". Publishers, however, don't get it. Profits, media sharing (and monetization), online interactivity and requirements, DLC, and "microtransactions" drive this ship, and are putting the industry in jeopardy; however no one but the vocal minority (us) is paying attention.
Unfortunately, we aren't calling the shots, and our collective pull seems to be hampered, often from the ears publishers, design leads, project managers, etc. The industry has become reactionary, where the goal is no longer the end product, but the metacritic metrics and the consumer dollar. Publishers no longer strive to bring about the "next big thing" and instead are aiming for the "what's making the most money now". Major innovation is almost an exclusive trait to Indie developers, while publishers struggle to grasp simple concepts.
As an example, media sharing has become a massive boon to the video game industry. Videos that let consumers interact, share, observe, and ultimately consume your media via a 3rd party (often YouTube, Twitch TV, etc) are massively popular. As of late, this has been in "danger", as Google and Publishers (Activision, EA, Sony, MS, etc) seem to be upset that they are missing that "piece of the pie" via ad revenue. This is irrational, detrimental, and short sighted. Particularly when they are paying millions of dollars (potentially billions) per annum to advertise their games...when this accomplishes much of that for free, long after those ad campaigns are proclaimed dead.
These broadcasters, bloggers, vloggers, and passionate gamers drive your sales, however marginal, and help your product at the end of the day. Did you publish a terrible game? Is it so bad, it's good? Fortunately for you, there are people who exist who WILL play your game, specifically to experience how terrible it is, and they probably discovered it on YouTube, NeoGAF, Twitch, etc. Is that percentage small? Of course. It is a percentage none the less? Of course. Are you missing out on any money from those people generating ad revenue and paying for their hobby / bills? Absolutely not. Are you making more money from these marginally extended sales? Of course. The idea that this is something that needs to be "curbed" and exclusive to "partnered" individuals is absurd. There is not enough money in the universe that can buy the type of exposure your game will get via YouTube, Twitch, and other media outlets (at least not in an effective, meaningful manner).
Frankly, the people calling the shots here are out of touch. Instead of embracing the future, improving content discovery, delivery, and ultimately investing in free exposure (resulting in more money), they are spending money to hamper these developments, thus (and almost certainly) losing them money.
To compound problems, the industry as a whole seems to be trapped in a "bubble" where the voice of the gamer doesn't exist, and they haven't seen reactions to poorly planned DLC or microtransactions. Media coverage, YouTuber's, message boards (such as "The GAF") and many other outlets have made it explicitly clear over the course of 7-8 years that DLC needs to be meaningful, fairly priced, and most importantly, not impede on the experience delivered to gamers when they purchase your product. Unfortunately, that bubble has been holding strong, and nearly a decade later we are STILL seeing major publishers who have collected MASSIVE amounts of data, customer feedback, and any number of charts and graphs...experimenting with DLC and microtransactions. We're still seeing experiments with this content to "test the waters". This is not only insane, but it is wasteful, unproductive, and naive.
To add insult to injury, game prices have risen. 10 years ago, games were $10 cheaper. Due to the increase in price and the introduction of DLC, games have risen in price, at times nearly two fold, with titles like CoD often running you $110 for the full experience when the annual cycle is all said and done. Now, I understand that post release support costs money, however, season passes have been getting progressively more expensive, with content getting progressively less "fresh" and less "meaty". CoD features a number of recycled assets and layouts in order to maintain its annual release cycle, and the quality of the content has suffered as a result.
We've also seen very little evolution in the quality of provided services. Few are willing to experiment with subscription services for content delivery, particularly annual releases. Instead we've seen publishers chase the day 1 dollar, and ignore all else. It is short sighted to think that this model is viable, particularly when the rise of indie games seems to be so strong among gamers. Indie developers have seen impressive profits and support through programs like the Humble Bundle, PS+, and other deals that otherwise wouldn't be possible under the thumb of a publisher.
I can go on and on about things that are wrong in the industry and have stifled progress the last decade. Focus testing, imitation, massive marketing budgets, community managers instead of community TEAMS, lack of transparency and fan appreciation, numbers driven development instead of creatively driven development...the industry is just full of qualities that will, in nor short amount of time, cost a lot of people jobs, money, and profitability. The structure of everything is archaic, and has failed to evolve with the consumers that keep it afloat; resulting in studios struggling to survive. If you think that is an exaggeration, examine the list of development studios that closed between 2006 and February 2013 (likely more to add to that list!).
Source
There is a strong chance that a good number of these studios would still be open if publishers would express more flexibility, instead of trying to maintain a rigid and fragile ecosystem that they have crafted to their own benefit (and ultimately demise). This industry is driven by money, and that is undeniable, and absolutely reasonable, and acceptable. However, it continues to be harmed by greed, and that is a very real problem. Publishers have focused too much on striking while the iron is hot and chasing a demographic, instead of investing their money on tools. Investment on development tools to reduce budgets, development time, and improve the quality of development will stretch far further than chasing a genre, title, or demographic in general. Delivering meaningful content to consumers at fair prices in a timely manner will ultimately benefit the publisher more than pushing out a title that fails, and ultimately results in a studios failure.
So...what is your input, Neo GAF? Do you think the current industry model is viable over the course of future generations? More studio closures? How can we possibly get enough leverage to talk to studios, to break that "bubble" if they stubbornly pretend we don't exist, and that this isn't a problem? Discuss, ye intelligent minds of gaming.
