Solution to game industry's woes: New games, not sequels
Electronic Arts posted a major loss on Thursday. According to the company, it realized a $310 million loss and will be forced to lay off 6 percent of its staff due to worsening financial conditions and bleak outlooks.
Of course, EA, as a public company, blames its results on economic factors and just about everything else, besides what it should really blame: itself. But the problem facing the video game industry isn't unique to EA. Each company in the market is facing the same problems, and they're all forced to blame it on ludicrous reasons.
But as anyone who follows the industry knows, the real reason behind poor performance is the general lack of innovation coming out of developer studios lately.
I don't think there's any debating the fact that innovation in the video game industry is practically nonexistent. Every time I turn around, there's another crappy first-person shooter hitting store shelves with the same basic mechanics and control scheme. Even better, there's always a new sports title out there to whet your appetite. But whatever you do, look past the same player models, and derivative gameplay, and look at the new enhancements made to this year's stadiums!
What a joke.
If EA and the rest of the video game developers that are struggling right now really want to turn things around, they need to stop making sequels and start making unique titles that people would rather play.
I know, I know: sequels are being developed because they're a "sure bet" and developers will turn a profit on major franchises with each iteration released. That may have been true a few years ago. But now, I think the public has finally woken up and realized that derivative gameplay and the same old junk isn't enough to make them want to spend money anymore.
Think of it this way: which company in the industry right now is performing exceptionally well? Nintendo. Is that just a coincidence? I think not.
Nintendo is performing so well because it offers gamers something unique. Instead of the same control scheme and the same basic gaming concepts, the Wii and DS allow you to experience video games in a totally different way. And although some of us were suspect of its ability to become a success, we all know now that innovation and being unique really does matter in today's environment.
Realizing that, why can't EA, Take-Two, and the rest of the major developers stop their practice of offering derivative titles and start releasing games that break the mold? Ostensibly, the suits in the corner offices are deciding that sequels are the key to their business, but I'm starting to think that it's time a developer gets back in the upper-echelon and makes some decisions that can have a major impact on the industry.
Unique gameplay is what the public is calling for. With each passing month, more people want a Wii and innovative titles. And in the process, the "copy cat" mentality that has permeated every area of the video game industry has felt the effect.
Enough with sequels. Bring on the fun.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
The DRM also needs to go... I recently passed up a legit copy of the Witcher because of the DRM on it, and it wasn't even StarForce.
yea, didnt think so
*crickets chirping*
Well, okay, there's Fable II. Which looks just like (insert Dungeons&Dragons/WoW/EQ meme here).
=================
Don has a damned solid point. Here's a few he missed:
* There was once a time when you could take a game and modify the unholy crap out of it, until it became another game entirely. Counter-Strike for instance was a MOD of Half-Life. Team Fortress/Weapons Factory (team-based multi-character play) were MODS of Quake (then HL, then Unreal Tournament, then...?) Well folks - no more. Consoles aren't capable, and games makers don't want their "brand" diluted.
* Consoles are part of what killed things. When it was just PC's, a games house wasn't shackled to the console maker. Here's what happened:
-- Making a PC game only requires knowledge of C++, knowledge of a decent graphics API (e.g. OpenGL) and a compiler.
-- Making a console game requires an expensive SDK, expensive licenses, special compilers, special "development" consoles, a percentage of sales going to the console maker, and in many cases, approval up-front from the console maker...
* The last point is why games are so damned pricey nowadays.
* IMHO, maybe if games makers with ambition and creativity abandon the console and start making PC games again, then this wouldn't be a problem. Test the concept out there then go console later if you want...
* DRM sucks. It hangs things up. Hell, the original DOOM was shareware, yet it (and Quake) -- in spite of being pirated 98 ways from Sunday -- made idSoftware enough cash that they can afford to compete in NASA's Lunar Landing Challenge today... Why? Because there are, on balance, more honest folks than thieves out there.
Granted its more complicated than that, but thats defiantly a big part of the equation.
p.s. i'm not condoning piracy nor high prices. just giving some insight on the matters
Just because you don't appreciate something different doesn't mean it's a bad thing (or irrelevant, or not innovative)--it's just not your thing. Everyone has a different definition of fun--and lots of people voting with their wallets right now tend to view the same-old remakes as irrelevant--not the Wii. Sorry if the truth hurts you.
And to the Wii-fit thing, it actually gets people to do things while gaming. The only other time I've seen at least some physical activity is with DDR, plus the Balance Board is very accurate, and those who want to be fit, it is a great start, especially if there is no time during the day to go the gym. I know the part with the jogging may seem a bit awkward, but it is innovative nonetheless. It all just is what someone defines as fun.
Also for the innovative thing, I don't really find First Person Shooters that innovative, they are one of the most popular genres of games but really there isn't that much difference between games these days. I mean there are some that may be different, such as Fallout if I'm correct... One game that does seem quite innovative is Mirrors Edge for both the PS3 and 360. But in all it just comes down to what the general public prefers.
1) The cost too bloody much
2) I'm tired of being treated like a criminal
Yet how often does the company then turn around and actually remove DRM (which saves them money as that is one less piece of software to license AND they don't have to invest the time integrating it into their game engine) and drop the prices down???
I can think of only one instance.
Who else can remember the "patch it to hell" process that some companies use? EA is WAY up on this list! They release a buggy game, then roll out patch after patch over the next year or so and in the process of "fixing" the bugs, they ALSO patch out the game play that players had discovered and was enjoying. Or, they have a bug in the game that they DON'T patch and instead reset online user accounts that are caught using the "unintended feature". Can anyone say "Battlefield xxx"???
However, many yearly games (EA sports in particular) are guilty of the minor upgrade each year, and expect to charge full $$ for it, too. I could see it if they charged an upgrade price ($15) to move up from the previous edition, but I would agree that people are sick of paying what amounts to a yearly subscription to get the latest Madden release.
As far as innovation, Steam's Portal product I thought was very innovative; Kudos to them for a great mind-bending experience.
You know, I own several ambrosia games and as far as I know, they are almost impossible to pirate. Crack yes, but cracks never work quite as well. Why not use that model? Make expiring serial numbers. You have to request a replacement and then they will send you one.
One small change and new eye candy is all it takes for you.
?Nintendo is performing so well because it offers gamers something unique. Instead of the same control scheme and the same basic gaming concepts?
I would disagree.
The game companies that are showing good revenue, those game companies understanding of the consumer. EA, and some of their acquisitions do not seem to understand the consumer. Many game companies do not seem to understand the consumer.
While many love to bash Blizzard it is difficult to brush aside their huge subscription base to WoW and the huge success that WoW has had. Also, look at Diablo, Diablo II and now the players are chomping at the bit to get Diablo III (Yet a third Sequel).
While being new and innovative is important, if a game company does not truly understand the different personality types of their consumer any innovative new games they create will only create niche markets.
One huge problem with the game industry today is that most of the game companies out there were built during the honeymoon phase of a new industry when consumers were willing to put up with games that were far from adequate (because it was accept inadequate or have nothing). Many companies are still producing games for that initial type of gamer.
Innovation is wonderful but only if the innovative company understands the consumer. If the game company understands the consumer a sequel can often be a bigger money maker (and mor fun) than the original title.
Mr. Reisinger is doing just that, and I agree. I use to play PC games but I've stopped because of the lack of creativity or depth. I played the first person shooter and then got bored. It all came down to getting better at the same thing. It was sorta like playing a sport without playing a sport. I also tried the strategy genre but also got bored. I have played a few very creative titles, yet they never got fully developed because they were produced by indie companies that lacked resources.
My point is, like most corporate driven industries, creativity goes to hell as profit driven strategies become dominant. The movie industry, energy industry, auto industry, etc., all lack options, creative options that might actually be better, more fun or more entertaining, not withstanding environmentally better or more healthy, yet such options simply don't exist. They don't exist because the in-situ collective of buyers and users support the very marketing interests and strategies of the profit base of the corporation in question. It's incestuous and often times downward in cycle until a new paradigm comes along or is forced into existence by circumstance (auto industry changing because of high oil prices...with our tax dollar support!).
Basically, you gamers are jacking off to your own self interest. I hope it's satisfying.
First of all, as much as it pains me to defend the hegemonic behemoth that is EA, in the past year they have already publicly stated their commitment to innovation in IP's & gameplay, and have already lived-up to their word with Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Spore and Boom Blox.
Second, anyone wanting to drag out the old argument about sequels should remember that their own negative feelings of the games themselves, while often justified, do not usually reflect the financial return of those games. If your point is that the poor returns of EA and Take Two were due to sequels, then how do you explain that each company's top moneymakers were both sequels (Madden 09 & GTA IV)?
Finally, your example of Nintendo as a company that is doing the right thing regarding sequels is just plain wrong. YES, Nintendo introduced an innovative control scheme, for which I congratulate them; but the actual GAMES that they've been trotting out are merely new editions of their 25-year-old IP's! Of course, this does not make fans of those IP's bad --- just your argument.
Better textures does not make for a better game. It is the same people that think that FX in movies makes a good movie.
More enemies? wow
Bigger worlds does not make for a better game. Take world of warcraft or Everquest. They are constantly expanding, but it is the same gameplay against different graphics. It works because most gamers are drooling monkeys and think that doing the exact same thing with different graphics somehow makes it something new.
Very, very few sequels make any meaningful gameplay changes for iteration to iteration.
People see 'game title 5' and think it is a new game.
People see upgraded graphics and think it is a new game.
Gameplay > graphics
Somewhere along the line the game industry and gamers forgot that.
Errrr... because they have families to feed? What are you 5? "I think they should innovate and do a price cut! That's a great way to make money!" Seriously, I think you're 5.
-
by moshelinho
November 2, 2008 9:01 AM PST
- i donot completely agree with you. There are games, whose sequels are or rather, were eagerly awaited, like the Simcity sequel, the NFS sequel (NFS: Pro Street).
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (45 Comments)and wat EA did to these sequels? they tried to innovate it so much that they gave a shocker to the fans. I just loved Simcity 4, after 4 years i was guessing we will get a more immersive detailed and better. What we got was a piece of junk, costing much much higher than wat it was worth. the same they did with the NFS: Pro Street which was almost unplayable.
and you are talking abt gamers wanting new games, new controls etc. what do you say abt the GTA sequel. the latest GTA sequel which is like th 4th or 5th of the GTA series, sold the highest number of copies ever on the day of its launch. How about call of duty series, the 4th installment is the best of the series i have played.
Wat i believe is that sequels are not the problem, the problem is when gaming companies make sequels, they have to set higher standards than the predecessor as the comparisons are always going to remain. this is wat happened with EA. they made bad sequels which didnt live upto expectations. while GTA got a gr8 sequel and u know how it is selling.