- Related Stories
-
Next-gen consoles take center stage
May 11, 2005 -
Game makers see workplace changes
March 8, 2005 -
Game publishers sweat console change
September 23, 2004
(continued from previous page)
have a genre based around those play dynamics. Without that level of innovation, my fear is that the industry is doomed to stagnation."
The developers of Microsoft's Xbox have a very different take, however.
J. Allard, head of the company's Xbox division, says game developers have been eagerly pressing him for details and have been nothing but enthusiastic about the capabilities of the as-yet-under-wraps console.
The next game consoles?
But the software company has been listening to developers' concerns, he added. They've released a standard set of tools aimed at streamlining many of the development practices. Other open-source tools and game engines have also made independent developers' lives somewhat simpler.
"With more development tools, developers won't be stuck worrying about nuts-and-bolts tedious stuff and can spend more of their time on improving or innovating other parts of a new game," said Schelley Olhava, a game analyst with research company IDC.
Allard also touted a new "marketplace" feature of the Xbox system, in which developers will be able to post downloadable content ranging from trailers to demos to rub-on tattoos. That will help developers and publishers make extra money for their games and could provide publishers with a way to experiment with new ideas cheaply, a little bit like pilot shows on television, Allard said.
He likened the pilot idea to the way "Clerks" director Kevin Smith came from nowhere to make a hit movie funded on credit cards at the same time studio budgets were routinely crossing the $100 million.
"People say publishers are going to make fewer bets," Allard said. "I want them to make bigger bets."
Details of Microsoft's Xbox will be released Thursday night on MTV. Sony executives declined to comment for this article.
Publishers under the gun
Indeed, it is the publishers--an ever-shrinking circle of companies such as Electronic Arts and Take Two--that actually fund most of the games that are produced, much like record labels pay musicians to record albums.
Historically, industry console transitions have led to increases in game development costs, said Peter Dille, senior vice president of worldwide marketing at THQ, one of the industry's largest publishers. Consoles are typically updated on five-year cycles.
"What happens with each cycle is that the cost of development increases by 50 percent, and we expect history to hold form this time around," Dille said. "What we'll see is costs will go from a range of $3 (million) to $10 million up to around $5 (million) to $15 million."
Analyst, IDC
Today, many if not most games don't make money, and small publishers often survive on the backs of just a single hit or two a year, if they're lucky. Boost the average cost of production up to $10 million, and it will be even harder to turn a profit. Analysts say that is almost certainly going to dampen publishers' appetite for risk.
Dille predicted that much of the extra development will be made up in an expansion of the market. But analysts including Olhava have been pessimistic about that prospect, noting that console household penetration has stayed in the 40 percent to 45 percent range for years.
"With higher costs, we're likely to see fewer quirky titles, meaning those that aren't based on a proven formula," she said.
Financial analysts expect more consolidation among publishers, as the smaller ones lose the ability to compete effectively. Some predict that big media conglomerates that aren't now in the business will enter, seeing the opportunity for dominance.
Others say a funding system more like Hollywood's is likely to evolve.
"There are entrenched funding mechanisms in Hollywood that support $70 million movies," Spector said. "The movie-funding model is going to come to gaming, it's just a question of when."
See more CNET content tagged:
game console, Hollywood, NPD Group Inc., video game, game company
For better or worse, I believe Warren has touched on the inherent mentality of the American people. In the beginning, things were small: small business, small game developers, small bicycle industry, small movie producers. And it was good. But in true American fashion, where there's money to be made, there will be gobs upon gobs of cash. Everything tends to get bigger around these parts.
Are the movies of today better or worse than the movies of old? I can't honestly say, being that my knowledge on the subject is woefully inadequate. I can honestly say, though, that my enjoyment of games over time has increased, as the experience has gotten more and more involving. Is that just me getting distracted by the flashing whizbangs and whirling doodads? Possibly. But it doesn't matter how big the company is, only the best games will make it to the top of my favorites list. We can always count on the good, the bad, and the ugly. Heck, even amongst my Doom 3's, my Far Cry's, and my Unreal Tournament 2004's, I STILL boot up Deus Ex or Anachronox when I need to scratch an itch.
One thing Warren possibly overlooks is that the bigger the game industry gets, the greater the chance becomes that people like himself, John Romero, Tom Hall, Will Wright, etc., become "more than kings. Gods" (to quote Deus Ex). Suddenly, a Spielberg equivalent in the game industry becomes possible. As long as the good games keep coming, I'll keep buying.
Independent development will never die and it's up to the authors of the various mega-engines to open them up, as they have in the past, to small developers so that they can at least code on equal footing. I certainly worry about the industry getting bigger, as gaming has always been about the people, but I think the true gamers will always understand that the people behind the curtain are the ones who matter. The game may say "EA" on the cover, but I always watch the credits because that's what counts.
BIG name companies in game development should not fret, just
return to your roots and start hashing out games for re-emerging
platforms like Amiga, which has been seeing game development
pick up in recent years, of course it's a horse race right now
between OS4 and Microsoft's Longhorn (for public consumption).
Don't forget that the home game consoles aren't the only platforms for game development. Game developer hobbyist and small start-ups have plenty of room to play on hand-helds and cell phones.
Also, creativity and innovation doesn't die with larger budgets. Pixar and Dreamworks, two lone players in full-length CGA films, are keeping the theatres loaded and the masses awed by their creations. I'm sure that the large game software vendors, even in fewer numbers, will be able to do the same.
People like the animations from those types of movies, and don't seem to be paying attention to the story, or lack thereof rather.
Gamers are increasingly distracted by the bells and whistles ans confuse that with good gameplay. Some of the best games ever, are still good games today even though the graphics might suck.
Half-Life 2 is a perfect example. As a tech demo it is a tremendous piece of software. Outstanding graphics and physics among other things. But as a game it is a very vanilla game. But people are drooling over it, because of the extras.
By and large sequels ruin things. Quality goes down, as quantity goes up. It also makes the industry stale. Everyone just makes clones of what sold a lot of units, and anything that could be unique never makes it to market. Take a look at what games are available. Nearly everything has a number at the end of it, or can be accurately described as "just like game x". That is not a sign of a creative and dynamic market.
It is like the game Mythica, a MMOG that looked to be a true evolution in MMOG. But that project got cancelled in favor of a project by the original developers of Everquest. A group of people that proved to be quite arrogant, and good at developing static, vanilla content. Do you really want a game developed by people that thought that sitting around for hours, literally doing nothing, was compelling and challenging gameplay? People finished novels while logged into the game waiting to finish something. But, EQ made a lot of money so people copy it over and over. The only game of the genre that is a standout is world of warcraft and that game is a terrific refinement, but nothing all that unique or different.
Although consider a game that has gorgeous graphics and sharp gameplay, such as Namco's "Ace Combat" series or Tecmo's "Ninja Gaiden" or Konami's "Metal Gear Solid" series. Even though money for the most part doesn't change the quality of games on the whole for the better, every once in a while you'll get a gem that is worthy of genre-defining significance.
Is this just a matter of needing a large number of necessary skills?
Or, is this also a matter of being squeezed out of a market, by unavoidable IP licensing-costs?
game is playable then people will buy it. Personally I'm sick of
these games with incredible graphics where you have to memorize
100 different joypad manouvers.
- Nintendo Has a fix
- by KireiGrey May 19, 2005 11:55 AM PDT
- Nintendo says this wont be a problem for them, Nintendo will support the low budget games as well as high budget ones. Nintendo's innovation has always lead them to do their best in making game develoupment easy, and to allow more freedom.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(11 Comments)