Comments on: Solution to game industry's woes: New games, not sequels

Consumers have finally woken up and realized the game sequels just aren't enough to make pull out their wallets.

[rccypher]

I hate to break the news to you but EA is one of the few game developers that is innovating. Can you say SPORE? Ok now that I've said that let me say this, you want more people to buy SPORE release it for and support it for Linux, then REMOVE THE DRM. I don't know how many people myself included would rather steal a copy of a game than buy it and not be able to install it more than three times. You want to know why EA's stock dropped so much, sure the economy is a factor but frankly, their draconian DRM is a bigger issue than anyone realizes. I mean who is going to spend 80 bucks on an ultimate edition of SPORE or any other EA game if they can't remove it from their computer when their Gran kids leave for the summer, or when their hard drive is full. These DRM issues are lack luster BS. EA get the rod out of certain orifices.

[Lerianis]

There is also another problem: the extremely high prices of games right now. EA and others need to stop charging 60 dollars for a new game, and cut that price in half or more, so that people who would normally pirate the game because of the high price will now buy it because it is cheaper.
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.

[n0th3r3]

Lerianis says games are too expensive, but they're barely able to make the business model fit as it is. Back in the day when games cost fifty bucks, developers could bang out ten games a year for a few grand apiece and if one of them was a hit they'd be fine. Some companies like "Pop Top", game companies without an emphasis on graphics, can still get away with that. But for modern, blockbuster games like Halo or Madden, the development stage can take years and years. Each title costs millions to produce and they're charging little more than they did in the 80's. Subsequently developers are less likely to take risks. EA would love to lower their prices but as you pointed out, people like to steal games, and to remake their losses they have to raise prices. A business can't compete with "Free". You want better, cheaper, more diverse gameplay? Stop stealing videogames.

[mitchell2percent]

nice example, have anymore though?






yea, didnt think so

[Penguinisto]

Well, there's Spore, then there's...

*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.

[manuel_v_v]

@ Lerianis, one of the reasons why prices keep increasing is because they arent selling as many titles (due to piracy) and they are trying to profit by increasing prices on what they DO sell, but at the same time people are then inclined to pirate games due to the ludicrous prices. Its a bit of a vicious cycle.

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

[cahomsy]

It's not just the gaming industry, it's a bane to every entertainment 'industry'. Take someone else's idea and run it into the ground is too easy and doesn't require anyone to think.

[jeffhesser]

I can't help but think this guy doesn't game much... His unusually grumpy look for his profile pic kind of drives that home. Are sequels a cash-in by developers? yes. Are they devoid of creative and innovative features? NO. As this industry is continuing to mature we are getting more in depth story telling and immersive game play. The mere fact that he decides to reference the Wii as the kind of innovation we need drives home his complete lack of understanding of this industry. It serves a vast market and moves a LOT of units but if running in place with a Wii-mote in your pocket (Wii-fit... seriously) is your idea of positive innovation, your opinion is COMPLETELY irrelevant.

[Zoobie]

I hate to point this out, but what has become irrelevant is people dismissing the Wii. It's a fantastic business model that's made Nintendo a ton of money. Just because it doesn't play high-def games with traditional controllers, an undefined demographic referred to as hard-core gamers have determined it's worthless. Accept it for what it is--a family/party toy with popular first-party software. All entertainment industries need more than one demographic to be financially solid. How boring would television be if the only three channels were the "War" channel, the "Japanese" channel, and the "Race" channel? A lot of people would never buy a TV if that were the case. I may not like Hannah Montana on the Disney channel, but she makes enough money that Disney can afford to do new things on ESPN. I might think Hannah Montana isn't innovative, but other people don't think first-down lines are innovative; it's all in the eye of the beholder. Similarly, you may not care for Mario Party, but the fact is, Nintendo is reinvesting profits in R&D and that's good for everyone.

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.

[JordyKun]

I agree with Zoobie on this. I mean yeah the Wii doesn't have the highest end capabilities the PS3 and the 360 does, yet take into account its console size, and the type of people the Wii appeals to. The Wii, with motion control, and some unique games is quite innovative, granted the 360 and PS3 have voice communication and Nintendo is starting to get into that with Animal Crossing: City Folk. It's all a matter of opinion and the ratio of hardcore gamers to the casual, the Wii does have some very good titles though, so anybody who says that the Wii is a crap system and all that really doesn't know what they're talking about.

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.

[AnotherReader]

It's funny. Every time one of these companies does a survey to ask customers why they are not buying games or why they are stealing them instead, they tend to get the same answers over and over again:
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"???

[Lerianis]

Uh, AnotherReader.... EA releases the "Harry Potter" games and those have never seen a patch because they work out of the box. As to patches for action and RPG games.... I can't blame them for having to do that, with all the items in there, all the combinations.... someone is going to find a combination that totally messes up the game.

[BadEnuf]

Sequels and expansions work as long as there's a significant jump between releases; look at the Civilization series to see what it takes. the Warcraft series also benefits from this. The new Starcraft II is 10+ years past the original release and the buzz is palpable for it; Blizzard would be nuts not to move on it.

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.

[egghead1619]

Sequels are fine as long as there is some true innovation between iterations. Take for example the first few Madden games released; they went from cheesy graphics and simple AI to realistic models and complex AI. Story lines also help to sell games (and their sequels,) as can be seen with sci-fi games. The recently announced Star Wars game, Star Wars: The Old Republic, is being developed by the EA acquired company Bioware in conjunction with LucasArts. The main draw of the game is the heavy reliance on story and with Bioware's team behind it, also behind the critically acclaimed Knights of The Old Republic titles, the game is expected to be a hit. I only hope that EA executives realize that the end result of money can be greater if the means to get there are accepted widely by their customers (i.e. don't dope up your applications with expensive and potentially damaging DRM. Go for the accepted standard of requiring the disc in the drive, or logging in to play, or many other non-intrusive verification protocols. Also keep in mind that it is our legal right to make archival copies of our legally obtained game files and our right to resell to another. Disregard these rights and you will be held liable.)

[mitchell2percent]

Though i do agree with most of your thoughts, i dont think we actually have the right to sell our copies. I think thats the illegal part

[myles taylor]

He's not saying that we have the right to make copies and then sell, he's saying we have the right to make copies AND sell the game at any time. After selling it you would have delete the copies.

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.

[pmfjoe]

In some ways I agree with the writer, however as an avid simulation/strategy game player I do normally enjoy sequels however I cannot help but think these companies could save money and make better products if the could re-use the code from the previous game in the same way that MMORPG developers do. It seams with the current system a lot of time is wasted by the developers completely reinventing the wheel so to speak with each new version on the game. The reinvention also tends to lower customer satisfaction as in many cases while new features are added old features are no longer implemented in the new version.

[sankoz]

You don't have the slightest idea about the gaming industry and games in general do you. You probably wouldn't know the difference between first person shooting in COD4 and Bioshock. To you it's all first person shooting. And by the way did you notice the 4 next to Call of Duty, that means it's a 4th installment and people still buy it. How about GTA4. Why would anybody stop developing sequels if they are making money? And by the way, there are A LOT of "innovative" projects that never get released because they are just because they wouldn't sell well. Next time, please do your homework before you post something like this.

[The_Decider]

You are the reason the gaming industry puts no effort into games.

One small change and new eye candy is all it takes for you.

[Zoobie]

I think you just reinforced the authors point. The mass market, whether you like it or not, thinks Wii Sports is innovative. The mass market also tends to view all first person shooters the same way; therefore, what you think is innovative is never commercialized because the publishers know you will buy it but the mass market won't.

[theronjames]

I'll go out on a limb here and completely agree with you. Not in the absolute but generally speaking what you point out I must agree with. When purse strings tighten, people look for value more that ever before. If I already have Madden from 1 or 2 years ago am I going to pay full price for the next "upgrade" or am I looking for something more satisfying, something really different and exciting compared to what I already have in my Game library. Years ago, I use to be a hard-core gamer, and at the time, it did not matter to me, but hard-core implies a bit of fanaticism. The majority of gamers today are not hard core. They are much more discriminating when buying their next game because they have lives and interest outside of games so a game must really "bring it" to get the dollars out of the pocket.

[mitchell2percent]

last sentence: exactly, i play all of my games religiously because they are hella fun to me. basically i own halo, cod 4, too human, oblivion, and viva pinata. and im gonna go get end war on release. why only these? because these are the best ones of the genre, and all of the other ones are the same crap over and over again. why the hell would i go buy something that is basically the same?

[semi4]

?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.?

?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.

[rufusrm44]

I think supporting the gaming industry and being an active gamer is a bit idiotic; it's not much different than arguing that our current political system is great because you're happy to be a republican or democrat. I really think it takes a strong person to critically analyze a system or collective that they enjoy being a part of yet can see it's shortcomings.

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.

[Johnny_Socko]

I am a gamer. I know gamers. You, sir, are no gamer.

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.

[The_Decider]

Spore was a great idea, but they delivered an extremely repetitive, dumbed down game.

[aaronbucks]

WOW. talk about some bashing. EA is the premiere, Ultra video game company of our time. NOT often to they put out something not worth playing. Come on? yeah there are Sports franchises, but they also have Survival horror(Dead Space), racing (in every aspect), i mean whatever genre they decide to pursue they give a not just mediocre but excellent game play/fun factor. The game industry is at a peak, there are tons and tons of actually good videogames out there right now, we have hit an era where graphics are so good, vibrant, and realistic that we do have to focus more on gameplay. obviously you dont game at all, or care to read reviews from other websites. We are hitting prime time next gen gaming and the games are only gonna get better, and there right its not lack of quality, its this economic struggle that is bringing people to actually think more about how they spend there money, thanks

[iconoclast04]

Nintendo is doing well because they're bringing non-gamers into gaming. But ask a true gamer what he thinks about the Wii. It's game library is full of crapware and simple games that use the "innovative" controls in some arbitrary and unnecessary way. I have no problem with sequels, as long as they advance from game to game. There is innovation in gaming, but it comes in more subtle ways with things like AI, better textures, more enemies, bigger worlds, etc. And it doesn't always come from the mega-developers like EA.

[The_Decider]

AI has been and always will be crap in games. I have played AI mods for quake 2 that really do give the mobs intelligence. But it is impossible to get past the first level.

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.

[n0th3r3]

I don't think the answer is new titles. Most Wii games are crap. The reason Nintendo has been successful is they've realized that at some point, graphics and gameplay become redundant and they've emphasized new ways to interact with old game formulas. The $250 price tag and free Wii Sports don't hurt either.

[The_Decider]

Exactly, and I have been saying the same thing for years and got ridiculed for it.

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.

[d--keller]

Your right Don. Make innovative games that no one will buy. Why spend a few grand remodeling the stadiums and rake in millions when it would be totally awesome to create a new genre and hope.

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.

[sinicalrec]

The Wii's success isn't within the gamer market, it's with the fact that they are pulling in people who don't normally play video games. For instance I sir have a ps3, a 360 a ps2 an xbox a playstation a n64 and a super nintendo. To me the Wii is simply the Gamecube but with a controller gimmick. I'll admit playing that wii sports crap is fun, but let's be honest here, playing against the AI all day gets tedious and far too easy. As a gamer I like to immerse myself in the world that I'm playing in, gaming has evolved past the simple run of the mill hey I got an hour to kill let's swing a stick around for a little bit. Today's games has stories that match hollywood movies. Today's games involve character creation and depth in ways we've never seen before. Yes the graphics have gotten prettier but that doesn't mean video game developers don't innovate. I take a look at some of the Wii titles and I see crap after crap after crap. Yeah they got wii sports, whoopdee doo your most notable game is a game that comes free with a purchase of a system. Oh wait Mario Galaxy so that makes it two....hmmm what else am I missing here, um perhaps Wii carnival games? Or all the Petz iterations, or what about Ice Age 2? Let's face it the most immersive game the wii has is No More Heroes and that's a stretch compared to games like GOW, Resistance, Fable 2, Fallout 3, and Dead Space and need I go on? If you really want to talk innovation then quit riding the wii wagon and it's motion sensitive controller and take a look at Little Big Planet, there's a innovative a game for ya, a game where you create the levels......out for the ninten- oh wait my mistake I mean Playstation 3

[Kainchild]

EA needs to come up with new unique games instead of just making games based off of other stuff. That's the only way they are going to survive.

[moshelinho]

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).

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.