Support NeoGAF

[gerg]

Thinking about the matter, I, too, now struggle to see much of a problem. Stump's pretty much convinced me that the natural business cycle works - if a major team disbands, they'll be able to find work and move up the corporate ladder, working on smaller games, eventually towards bigger titles.*

Reading Rubin's blog post again, he pinpoints that his concern focuses solely on the mid-term, about what will happen to the AAA market in the next two to five years if disrupted teams are only given smaller projects to work on. He seems to be worried that there'll be less creativity and less output in this area of development. And yet, that said, I'm not find much reason to be alarmed - I imagine that the industry will just correct itself. Is there any merit in that concern?

*Of course, this all depends on how successful smaller titles are, an argument relying on a quarry of empirical data to which we don't have access. I'm really not sure how to resolve the argument about the profitability of smaller, competitive titles.

Bear in mind, I think that what he says is true - it seems to follow logically from the conditions we have agreed upon. I'm just not sure of the significance for anyone who enjoys anything other than AAA games. Business wise, I think the consequences could be more problematic, but I'm not convinced.

 

[captscience]

And my point was:
a) Yes, they are able to get big budgets and almost all of those examples prove it.
b) Even if they weren't able to get big budgets, they can just as easily work their way up the ladder as a studio.

The studios that got big budgets were often working on existing IP. This is all about diversity. Yes talented studious could work their way up but the idea is that with such a large and sudden amount of free talent, there will be a gap in time before they all work their way back up into producing large games.

If AAA refers to quality, there are plenty of AAA lower budget and indie titles. If AAA refers to profile, who gives a shit what's #1 on the charts as long as the stuff that debuts at #100 is still profitable enough to be made? Frankly, I don't care if Dudebro #43893821923 has heard of World of Goo, the developers just got stinkin' rich off making the game and it's clear other developers can follow in their footsteps, so where's the beef?

I agree to a large degree. The problem is when there are talented creative individuals who want to make big budget titles and can't, then we as gamers lose out. In a healthy environment your two definitions of AAA should merge more often than not.

 

[charlequin]

As a result of the massive consolidation of the music industry, people's listening habits have changed enormously. I'm of the opinion that ready (and cheap/free/pirated) access to music is the result of industry consolidation, not the other way around--as the music industry claims. The gaming industry is now facing the same possible outcome. Cheap, free, pirated, and "casual" gaming is poised to undermine the monolithic and massively consolidated big gaming publishers.

Right. Exactly.

I would maintain that the technological situation for games is quite different from music, however. Part of what we've been seeing in the wake of the music industry's slow and steady collapse is that music industry money is not actually necessary to produce 99+% of the music people that don't just follow the current popular hits actually want to listen to; the industry's money redistribution served almost entirely to unnecessarily boost the cost of records and to be funnelled into dubious promotion exercises. Ultimately, most music just made by 1-5 people in a room together and plenty of people can easily afford to do that whether they're getting paid by a record company or not.

I am quite skeptical that what people expect out of "the games industry" is nearly as easily portable to a non-publisher-financed model, or that a hypothetical games marketplace three or four years after the current model collapses under its own weight looks much at all like what we have now.

so where's the beef?

I am curious as to what reasons, if any, you see to pay attention to the status of the industry at all given your contention that nothing which can happen to it can conceivably make any material move towards having less than a surfeit of content.

 

[conman]

Reading Rubin's blog post again, he pinpoints that his concern focuses solely on the mid-term, about what will happen to the AAA market in the next two to five years if disrupted teams are only given smaller projects to work on. He seems to be worried that there'll be less creativity and less output in this area of development. And yet, that said, I'm not find much reason to be alarmed - I imagine that the industry will just correct itself. Is there any merit in that concern?

This was my point in bringing up the film industry example. Cheap, free television content really seemed like it was going to doom the film industry back in the 1950s and '60s. At the same time, government and public sentiment turned against the film industry. McCarthy era blacklisting sent hundreds of prominent film stars/writers/directors/producers into other industries and countries. Anti-trust suits fractured the industry even further. The film industry's eventual recovery only looks "cyclical" in retrospect, but there was nothing inevitable about the industry's recovery. The film industry could have just as easily gone the way of vaudeville or derigibles, just another piece of past history.

The gaming industry isn't in quite as dire a state as the film industry was back then, but it could be, given the right time and circumstance. Negative public sentiment and legal acts have dogged the medium for the past decade or more. Piracy could become an even bigger problem. Increased budgets could limit production even further. The global economy could get worse. But that's a lot of "ifs."

My point is that it is a mistake to assume that this is simply "cyclical" and that the industry will magically "correct itself." If it does, it'll only look cyclical in retrospect. If it doesn't, then it'll be just another part of history and we'll all be playing only iPhone games from here on out.

*Of course, this all depends on how successful smaller titles are, an argument relying on a quarry of empirical data to which we don't have access. I'm really not sure how to resolve the argument about the profitability of smaller, competitive titles.

You're not alone. No one is sure. It's the next big area for venture money in the industry. There was an article just today in Gamasutra about how venture money is disappearing from big budget games and moving into other areas. The sudden boom in small titles could end up being a big bust (like the dot com bust or more recent real estate bust) and only be profitable for a handful of folks, or it could end up being a lasting market. No one knows. Which is exactly why it's so profitable at the moment. Lots of buying and selling happening. Venture capitalists thrive on uncertain markets.

Bear in mind, I think that what he says is true - it seems to follow logically from the conditions we have agreed upon. I'm just not sure of the significance for anyone who enjoys anything other than AAA games. Business wise, I think the consequences could be more problematic, but I'm not convinced.

It could be tough for the biggest publishers (EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Capcom, Sega, etc) and their affiliates, but it seems like everyone else stands to gain. If the big guys start shedding their development talent, hopefully that leads to more independent/contracted studios forming. One big negative consequence, though, is that it could give console manufacturers even greater power. Similar to Apple, companies like Sony, MS, and Nintendo could single-handedly dictate the direction of the market if the big third-party publishers start hurting too much. They're already looking for ways to circumvent retailers and milk publishers for more money. But it's all impossible to say and totally just a bunch of guess work.

 

[Kittonwy]

Thinking about the matter, I, too, now struggle to see much of a problem. Stump's pretty much convinced me that the natural business cycle works - if a major team disbands, they'll be able to find work and move up the corporate ladder, working on smaller games, eventually towards bigger titles.*

Stump's business "cycle" is nothing but a vicious downward spiral. How is working on smaller games moving "up" in the corporate ladder? If you're already working on big titles, then you're forced to go back to smaller titles, you're going backwards. As big publishers are consolidating teams, there will be fewer lead positions for those who are from developers that have been dissolved.

Reading Rubin's blog post again, he pinpoints that his concern focuses solely on the mid-term, about what will happen to the AAA market in the next two to five years if disrupted teams are only given smaller projects to work on. He seems to be worried that there'll be less creativity and less output in this area of development. And yet, that said, I'm not find much reason to be alarmed - I imagine that the industry will just correct itself. Is there any merit in that concern?

The problem is the industry is responding to higher costs, higher risks by allocating resources to fewer, more proven franchises, costs aren't getting lower, advance in technology isn't making game development and creation of assets cheaper, it's making development of assets MORE EXPENSIVE, it's not a cycle, it's a vicious spiral. The more expensive games become, the more risk there will be and failures will be much more catastrophic. It's not an hypothesis, it's already happening.

*Of course, this all depends on how successful smaller titles are, an argument relying on a quarry of empirical data to which we don't have access. I'm really not sure how to resolve the argument about the profitability of smaller, competitive titles.

Bear in mind, I think that what he says is true - it seems to follow logically from the conditions we have agreed upon. I'm just not sure of the significance for anyone who enjoys anything other than AAA games. Business wise, I think the consequences could be more problematic, but I'm not convinced.

The problem is you have people working on smaller titles who would have been working on much bigger titles and you're going to have to wait years until these guys get another crack at a big budget title, in the meantime you have fewer developers working on big titles and you have fewer developers working on original big budget titles because they're way too risky. Even if an independent studio manages to eventually find a publisher, it takes much longer to ramp up and they have to constantly struggle with having a tech demo that needs to be constantly updated while they're constraint by having an inadequate workforce that might not necessarily have well-established practices, at the same time having to compete with well-oiled machines like Infinity Ward and Bungie, it's much harder this generation because of the costs and pure man-power involved to make a big budget game.

 

[gerg]

My point is that it is a mistake to assume that this is simply "cyclical" and that the industry will magically "correct itself." If it does, it'll only look cyclical in retrospect. If it doesn't, then it'll be just another part of history and we'll all be playing only iPhone games from here on out.

Of course, there are lots of different variables each playing their own part.

You're not alone. No one is sure. It's the next big area for venture money in the industry. There was an article just today in Gamasutra about how venture money is disappearing from big budget games and moving into other areas. The sudden boom in small titles could end up being a big bust (like the dot com bust or more recent real estate bust) and only be profitable for a handful of folks, or it could end up being a lasting market. No one knows. Which is exactly why it's so profitable at the moment. Lots of buying and selling happening. Venture capitalists thrive on uncertain markets.

I wasn't talking so much about up-and-coming markets, such as Facebook and browser games. Rather, I was talking about the types of lower A-tier and B-tier titles released through a pretty traditional model that compete most directly with the big blockbuster games (so I'm discounting downloadable titles). Stumpokapow seems adamant that their continued development means that they must be profitable somehow - and thus the transition from smaller development to bigger development is still effective - whilst I think it could just as easily resemble developers retreating into known and familiar loss-making development rather than experimenting with unknown loss-making development (read: the Wii and the DS). If smaller, competitive titles just aren't profitable, and if bigger titles are too risky, then I think that a problem may exist.

 

[conman]

I wasn't talking so much about up-and-coming markets, such as Facebook and browser games. Rather, I was talking about the types of lower A-tier and B-tier titles released through a pretty traditional model that compete most directly with the big blockbuster games (so I'm discounting downloadable titles).

Seems to me like you're deliberately and arbitrarily limiting the possibilities (which is exactly what Jason Rubin was doing).

It might be safe to step down the ladder that way (and that's a damn tempting move if you've got a family to support), but it's far from the only option. Not just that, but those lower-tier projects are precisely what are disappearing from the big publishers' production lines. Seems like the perfect time to start taking your pipe dreams more seriously. As someone who's also in a volatile, trend-driven industry, I am painfully aware of what those decisions are about and how much it sucks to have to make that decision.

But this is stepping well outside of my own knowledge base. I'm happy to play armchair analyst about large-scale trends, but once we start talking about real people with real jobs, it gets a bit fuzzy.

Anyhow, as a whole, I hope that all of the "floating" talent in the gaming industry right now ends up taking root somewhere outside of the big publishers. If what we're missing is innovation, then independence and stubborn commitment seem like the best ways to take up the slack.

 

[Deku]

RE: Pachter's cyclical analysis. It is correct insofar as the industry has gone largely from a defined publisher/developer division to one where you have a few large publishers doing all the publishing and most of the development internally with a few independent developers.
That said, that framework doesn't adequately explain the layoffs. It assumes that there's some sort of outside event. Pachter describled a specific scenario where these large publishers suddenly find themselves stuck with high fixed costs and "no games being developed"

But he doesn't go into why no games were being developed or how these publishers found themselves in such a position to begin with. Perhaps Mr. Pachter can write a more in-depth note on it, but the cyclical thing, well, I don't think it's cyclical insofar as its a trend that's reach saturation. The business cycle and high development costs may have exacerbated the situation

There's also an odd incongruity with his chosen examples. He mentioned Take2 as his example of a publisher with high fixed costs due to their games being perpetual delayed, but most of the layoffs have been outside Take2, nor is it a publisher who has announced a disproportionate amount of layoffs compared to the rest of the top tier publishers.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Irrespective of some of the complaints, I found Jason to be an awesome panellist and I hope he is a regular.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Episode 4

HD: http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/402?ch=4&sd=1_hd
SD: http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/402?ch=4&sd=1

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

Episode 4

HD: http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/402?ch=4&sd=1_hd
SD: http://www.gametrailers.com/episode/bonusround/402?ch=4&sd=1

Thanks for the post:

OT, omg they talk so much on the "music genre dieing" etc if FAR to much focused on the
Actibliz and GH, and totaly undercut the fact that what THEY want out of a "music game"
Rock Band has been doing sinds 2007 and in the EU sinds 2008......

I hate that they completely overlook that fact.

The Natal Talk from Rubin is totally how I think about Natal also.
For me the interaction with my tv/xbox is far more important than the "games" on it.

I want to be able to say to my parents BUY a xbox360 arcade (and natal) I make you an gold account and they can watch netflix/VOD on the machine without understanding the controller what so ever, and just use natal for the interface.

 

[Deku]

Interesting that he qualified his natal comments by saying that the 'next xbox' would sell way more (with the tech) than without it.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Interesting that he qualified his natal comments by saying that the 'next xbox' would sell way more (with the tech) than without it.

What he says feels perfectly logical. Natal as part of the next XBOX standard equipment is a given, just like some sort of motion detection/control is a given for the next Sony and Ninty platforms. Motion controls aren't going anywhere but up. No one can be fully certain about how optional motion controls will push sales with current systems, though they can do nothing but help the current MS and Sony systems broaden their appeal in a Wii-dominated, gesture-heavy, iPhone/touch tablet/touch screen/trackpad-filled world. It's just a matter of whether your expectations of how much they do help can be met or not.

 

[Ermac]

Does anyone know what shoes Keighley is wearing in Part 4? I like 'em.

 

[geoffmk]

:lol :lol

 

[Deku]

What he says feels perfectly logical. Natal as part of the next XBOX standard equipment is a given, just like some sort of motion detection/control is a given for the next Sony and Ninty platforms. Motion controls aren't going anywhere but up. No one can be fully certain about how optional motion controls will push sales with current systems, though they can do nothing but help the current MS and Sony systems broaden their appeal in a Wii-dominated, gesture-heavy, iPhone/touch tablet/touch screen/trackpad-filled world. It's just a matter of whether your expectations of how much they do help can be met or not.

I'm not disagreeing. Pachter's example of a cheap 'green screen' type insertion of the player into a virtual world talso seems genuinely interesting and something that paired with the power of a game machine, could yield some very creative &graphics intensive, but not necessarily pure gaming, experiences.

I think my objection is more along the lines of if he's looking for the next Xbox for NATAL to take off ,he'd have to be very certain Sony or Nintendo won't have something else to offer.

 

[SolidSnakex]

OT, omg they talk so much on the "music genre dieing" etc if FAR to much focused on the
Actibliz and GH, and totaly undercut the fact that what THEY want out of a "music game"
Rock Band has been doing sinds 2007 and in the EU sinds 2008......

They didn't really touch on that because the discussion was about the downfall of the music game genre. While GH might've been trying to imitate what RB has been doing for awhile now, it doesn't change how the most hyped music game in recent memory (The Beatles: Rock Band) tanked compared to the expectations that were placed on it. So the question was why did that happen. Shane pretty much hit the nail on the head with his comments about it.

 

[J-Rzez]

The music genre has been effectively killed for me. It doesn't matter if it's tuba hero, or anything else new. I'm completely burnt out on hardware packages. Give me a $60 game with an absolute TON of new music (READ: NEW MUSIC not the same old beat songs from the same damned bands), but perhaps a few songs from other great artists (extremely popular ones at that) that have not made an appearance yet. Give me some The Goo Goo Dolls, The Fray, some Third Eye Blind, Funeral for a Friend, etc. (how can you ignore The Goo Goo Dolls and The Fray?! I'm shocked by this). I'm tired of the same old, same old "traditional" rock songs. That's all I want now, music. Concentrate on getting more and new tunes. DLC wise especially.

Natal will be far more useful to me at a UI supplement than gaming I think. I have to agree there. It'll become a standard for the next gen machines, and I'm sure it's already being integrated into the Next-box and PS4.

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

They didn't really touch on that because the discussion was about the downfall of the music game genre. While GH might've been trying to imitate what RB has been doing for awhile now, it doesn't change how the most hyped music game in recent memory (The Beatles: Rock Band) tanked compared to the expectations that were placed on it. So the question was why did that happen. Shane pretty much hit the nail on the head with his comments about it.

Yeah but they talked about what they "want out of a music game" and they do not even mention that rock band if doing what they ask for?
That is what I found weird about the conversation

 

[gerg]

Interesting that he qualified his natal comments by saying that the 'next xbox' would sell way more (with the tech) than without it.

I haven't watched the episode yet, but I can agree with this. I doubt that next generation will show a graphical leap similar to the transition from the Xbox and the PS2 to either the 360 or the PS3. I think that a Wii-style upgrade is much more likely, and that both Sony and Microsoft will use motion controls (or some other value) to differentiate their consoles.

I think my objection is more along the lines of if he's looking for the next Xbox for NATAL to take off ,he'd have to be very certain Sony or Nintendo won't have something else to offer.

Sure. But "the 720 will do better with Natal-type technology than without it" doesn't necessarily contradict "the 720 will be outperformed by the PS4 and the Wii2".

 

[SolidSnakex]

Yeah but they talked about what they "want out of a music game" and they do not even mention that rock band if doing what they ask for?
That is what I found weird about the conversation

Rock Band isn't doing that though. They're talking about releasing music packs instead of disc products. They've already got another disc product scheduled for RB this year (Green Day). Their point is that stuff like that should be released in downloadable form. Same for The Beatles: Rock Band.

 

[maeh2k]

Interesting that he qualified his natal comments by saying that the 'next xbox' would sell way more (with the tech) than without it.

Microsoft has always had a pretty consistent strategy for the 360. They want it to not only be a game device, but a general media and entertainment center in the living room. So it's a media center extender, it has movie downloads, twitter, facebook...

However, right now, it's still mainly a game console and people buy it primarily for the games. With the addition of Natal they can of course provide additional experiences for an expanded audience and do some neat things with the overall interface, but I suspect they won't radically change the systems other entertainment applications.


Now if I were MS, what I would do is "pull a Nintendo" (looking at the Wii or DSi). With the rising game budget we've seen a lot of people have said that the next console generation can't make as big of a leap as the ones before.

I'd go with a minor upgrade in power, reduce energy consumption, keep a mass market price point, go for a sleeker look, Natal standard.
Try to make it a device that's not just for gamers, but for the entire tv owning population.
I'd include a web browser, video chat, social networking, social gaming, everything boxee does.
Maybe even completely replace any kind of receiver people have on their tvs, so that pretty much everything that goes into the tv goes over the xbox.

They'd have some serious advantages with the xbox. The whole television and entertainment experience could be controlled via one interface taking full advantage of Natal and the power of the xbox.
They could also integrate XBL in the general entertainment process. They already have some kind of party viewing thing in there. I think it would be pretty cool to have that XBL experience e.g. in normal tv viewing and make it a more social experience (seeing what other people are up to, offer chat, party viewing, achievements )


edit: I think the windows phone 7 series UI would lend itself rather well for such a device.

The hub structure would fit nicely. You'd have hubs for photos, which are aggregated from facebook and other services, zune on the tv, television hub, games, internet, ...

With Natal mimicking touchscreen input you could maybe control it much like the phones.
Now think about the integrated bing version on the phones. I'd keep that. So when you watch tv and would like to use search you could launch bing with maybe just a voice command and input the search, again via voice.
Also Natal can identify the people using it, so you could somehow personalize the experience and effortlessly switch between the users. E.g. you keep the calender in place and the xbox opens the calender of the person who gives the command. And of course it would (as with the 360) log in the right users for gaming.

On a widescreen HD television you could also fit more of these menus. (less swiping)

http://www.engadget.com/photos/windows-phone-7-series-interface/#2710480