As someone who got back into games heavily this year (to the point of where I had to cut myself off) I would say that the biggest gaming "issue" was DRM and the Spore debacle. As far as big changes to the whole landscape, I would say the Wii Fit is a monumental genre-changer.
My favorites from the list (20 is a lot):
3. You Don't Want DRM - You Want Services
2. Casual MMOs? For Kids!
5. The Inevitable User-Created Content Entry
9. Free To Play, Pay For Items
18. Games & Social Connectivity, Duh
Recession aside, gaming continues to be a bellwether technology segment and has been largely successful this year. I suspect next year will be a bit rockier for many studios as large public companies like EA and TakeTwo start to feel serious investor pressure which likely dry up M&A activities. Smaller studios will have a harder time getting funding and casual games will continue to proliferate but not be well-monetized.
Casual games (for the sake of argument, let's consider them Flash-based) have seen a rise in popularity but revenue has been disappointing due to the reliance on advertising, an area that only looks to be getting worse. Conversely, free-to-play games where you pay for add-ons have been growing with virtual goods becoming an integral part of the gaming ecosystem. My bet is for this trend to continue in 2009 and we'll start to see a backlash toward goods.
------
Don't forget you can follow me on Twitter @daveofdoom or listen to me on the Open Sources podcast series.
How we define our individual identities and the forms of social participation that we pursue to shape these identities drive our engagement. Whether it's software or gaming, we shape the world around us.
This existential viewpoint also explains a bit why Spore is such an interesting game (despite its archaic DRM)--we get to define our universe and then engage with it.
The Game Anthropologist gets to the root of the issue:
The long and short of it? The game makes the player. When we play games, we are at the outset making an agreement that we are going to do whatever the game tells us to. We can change our minds. We can find out beforehand what is in the game.
This is nearly the exact same sentiment as we see with open source. Users make the software and while we may initially agree with what the software tells us to do, we can change our minds and modify it accordingly.
Contrast that approach with packaged applications that force you into their way of doing things, or SaaS applications that require you to change business processes to meet their model.
Back in 2005, I wrote about the open source angle for a Release 1.0 report (PDF available for free download):
Within the open-source space there is an underlying thread of reciprocity and support of the group as a whole over individual concerns. Certainly, not everything done in the open-source realm is noble or even beneficial, but by and large the community does support a greater good--the furthering of open source and open standards across all technology platforms and devices.
Not much has changed in the last three years, though the trend of benefit for the greater has been manipulated beyond selflessness and into other means that help users. While a completely for-profit company, Dell's Ideastorm is one example where the community helps to define how Dell should modify its products. Most participants seem to accept that they will use Dell products and as such want them to be better.
Despite the guiding hand of writers and game engines, it's the players that shape the game. Just like open-source projects, without a relationship (and obsession) between developers and users most games will flounder.
- prev
- 1
- next
