Editorial Five features that irreversibly ruined gaming forever

[racofer]

I think it's cute when people don't understand the codex.

 

[The Ticktockman]

I think it's cute when people don't understand the codex.

I also think it's cute when people mask their mistakes with smart-ass attitudes.

 

[racofer]

I think it's cute when people don't understand the codex.

I also think it's cute when people mask their mistakes with smart-ass attitudes.

He he. The irony.

 

[The Ticktockman]

I think it's cute when people don't understand the codex.

I also think it's cute when people mask their mistakes with smart-ass attitudes.

He he. The irony.

This keeps getting better. I really like it when people misuse the word irony.

 

[racofer]

I think it's cute when people don't understand the codex.

I also think it's cute when people mask their mistakes with smart-ass attitudes.

He he. The irony.

This keeps getting better. I really like it when people misuse the word irony.

Take it easy champ, you seriously don't want to pwnzor me in here in front of everyone, do ya?

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Hey everybody, it's The Ticktockman and racofer show!

They are very upset about each other. What crazy things will they do next?

 

[racofer]

Hold on to your your butts DU! Coming up next weak on this very same bat channel and bat hour!

 

[obediah]

Cripes, another "CONSOLES RUINED GAMING!" post. Look. If anything, the advancement of consoles as focused gaming systems helped push PC gaming into new heights. If not for the technological advances of Super Mario, John Carmack would maybe not have been as inspired to recreate the experience on the PC (which was thought impossible at the time). The concept of a PC port was turned down, but the tech went on to make things like Wolfenstein 3D and Commander Keen. Tech from one field pushes others.

Consoles did ruin gaming. Maybe you were too busy doing stretches to try for big bewbies to remember the days when every PC game was a unique endeavour. For better or worse, most came with a thick manual that you weren't getting anywhere until you read. You had to learn an engine, control scheme, and rule set - then you generally had to bear down and grind through some real challenges, be they puzzles, tactics, strategy or simulation.

The issue I have between consoles and the PC is that they can offer fundamentally different experiences, neither of which I see as being superior or inferior to one another. They're just different, and that is the shit that a lot of publishers don't GET. Many just see the possibility of another SKU, another item on the shelf out there, and either consoles get a shit PC port or the PC gets a shit console port. It's square peg, round hole. Even as consoles and PCs start to equal each other in power, the fundamental issue isn't that - it's the input system you're dealing with, and that it's still far more easy for me to hit up other people via Teamspeak then try to get the damn Party feature working on Live. If I want a more complex input system (or even, I should say, something insanely SIMPLE that merely revolved around the mouse), PC is ideal, and you're not going to get that same experience on console. On the other hand, if you want to play an action game or something that requires quick and concise motion (not the micro scale of an FPS, but like a platformer), console's the better choice, as a controller has more of a tactile feel to it.

Hmm, I apologize. It seems you have a rough idea about how consoles killed PC gaming. I guess you've never put the two together, but the whole "PC Elitist" shebang of the last 20 years has been a defense mechanism. Believe it or not, we really aren't bothered that somewhere a 12 year old kid is deeply moved by FFVII, or that a grandma loves wii bowling, or that a barely sentient frat boy thinks reading in games is for fags. We were bothered, because we knew there would be competition and we were david to the console/casual goliath. And sense we're a pack of heathen atheist/agnostic/fair-weather Christians - we knew how it would end.

Real PC gaming was never a large market, and it could never be a large market, just like MERP or Avalon Hill games or or the tiny scale cold war miniatures the old fat nerds would play with when I was a kid. EVERY PC HIT has made concessions to console gamers or casual gamers. While some of these were fine games, the writing has always been on the wall where the industry was going, and that we don't have the numbers to steer the industry in any way.

PC gaming is dead, and has been for years. A few times a year the rotting corpse may release an indie fart, but that's it. Console and casual gaming are doing pretty well on the PC however.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Allow me to repeat the quote, so you might understand the stupidity of what you said:

Yeah, I fucking hate people who have reasonable opinions balanced by years of actual experience in the gaming industry.

You generalized the entire game developing "community", therefore including people like Todd.

R00fles!

Sorry Racofer, but I for one would LOVE the opportunity to hear from and grill Todd Howard

Ha!
Haha......hahahaha!

I bet it would be a very immershunvee dialog, full of bloom and whistles.

You left the last part of my sentence out of your quote. It read 'ahead of your boring and irrelevant ass anyday.'

 

[BearBomber]

Todd and Annie are totally the exact same person

THAT WAS A SECRET MORON!

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

which system works best for the experience you want to create. You CAN get a gamepad for a computer, yeah, but it's not the same kind of flavor.

I undestand what you're saying, but I argue there's no reason why a PC couldn't offer the same experience as a modern console, and more. The same games could be made for it (and I often wonder if it wouldn't be profitable for Nintendo and the others to port their games to PC), there's no reason why games are made in a way that requires constant upgrading (though I accept it as a part of the hobby). Eh, I'm repeating myself while you surely understood what I meant, while systems are bought for the games they have / promise of games they will have, PC is technically a superior system in every way. A modern PC can even look better than any console.

And I met Todd Howard. He's totally shorter than me. That made me feel pretty awesome in a very odd way.

I'm sure standing beside Mr. Howard can make you look pretty good in many ways. Especially if you put your "Games I worked on" next to his "Shit games I worked on".

PC gaming is dead, and has been for years. A few times a year the rotting corpse may release an indie fart, but that's it. Console and casual gaming are doing pretty well on the PC however.

Even though PC is still the largest platform, and a plenty of PC-exclusives which are definitely not indie games are released every year. Some of them are pretty good, too. PC gaming won't die, as the market won't go away.

 

[Stereotypical Villain]

Hey everybody, it's The Ticktockman and racofer show!

They are very upset about each other. What crazy things will they do next?

I'm not sure, but it looks like Tick is about to kiss Rac. I mean, it was to be expected with all that sexual tension built up, but still.

 

[Annie Mitsoda]

Demno - Agreed, PC games can look MILES better than console. But you do pay for that experience, and thinking of the average user and the finagling one has to occasionally do to make shit run - it becomes a more select experience. Not dissing it, but in terms of ease of use and multiplayer functionality (such as the throwing down on Castle Crashers I did with a group of friends last night), consoles do have a leg up. Certainly you could try to streamline the experience - and various companies have occasionally put forth suggestions to do such - but the financial support isn't there for it. People put forth the "ain't broke, don't fix it" argument, and these attempts die with a soft sighing noise.

BUT - while I agree with your points, I'm fine with the way the systems THEMSELVES are organized currently. I save my ire for those who only invest in bloated projects that risk far too much money on astronomical sales projections. That shit has to stop, or more devs and publishers both will collapse, and then goddammit we'll have another gaming crash. ONE WAS ENOUGH, THANKS. But at least PC gaming ain't dead. Woooo and glory be for that.

Also Tick and rac - it's ok to make out. If there's anything people on the internet have a secret yearning for, it's dude makeouts. I'm not into yaoi myself, but you get something going, get a charge site up, you could be making BANK, lads! :twisted:

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

Certainly you could try to streamline the experience - and various companies have occasionally put forth suggestions to do such - but the financial support isn't there for it. People put forth the "ain't broke, don't fix it" argument, and these attempts die with a soft sighing noise.

Well, that's disappointing to hear. Care to share any examples?

BUT - while I agree with your points, I'm fine with the way the systems THEMSELVES are organized currently. I save my ire for those who only invest in bloated projects that risk far too much money on astronomical sales projections.

I never undestood why it's better to make expensive games with high sales expectations than making much cheaper games with lower sales expectations, myself. Not that I have ever bothered to research economics much. Maybe it is thought that most people only buy, say, three games an year and every new game competes for a slot, so that it's either no profit or almost all profit? Roughly something like that?

Damn economics, I just want to play some games.

 

[Zomg]

There are lots of fixed costs, like getting physical copies onto limited shelf space, that make blockbusterism the correct strategy for making money. Plus, advertising is sort of a self-catalyzing process where the more you spend the bigger the payoff per dollar until you've completely saturated every game-buying brain available.

 

[Murk]

I'm very glad Obediah's taken the task of speaking for everyone in regards to PC Gaming.

For better or worse, most came with a thick manual that you weren't getting anywhere until you read. You had to learn an engine, control scheme, and rule set - then you generally had to bear down and grind through some real challenges, be they puzzles, tactics, strategy or simulation.

Oh god...

 

[Zomg]

I remember buying Master of Magic and going, "Jeez, this is just Civilization!"

 

[PorkaMorka]

There are lots of fixed costs, like getting physical copies onto limited shelf space, that make blockbusterism the correct strategy for making money. Plus, advertising is sort of a self-catalyzing process where the more you spend the bigger the payoff per dollar until you've completely saturated every game-buying brain available.

Not necessarily

I don't feel like googling it, but stardock made a lot of money on it's less than blockbuster titles

 

[Zomg]

That works because it's a niche strategy which is inherent to the blockbuster model (because there are too few blockbusters of too few genres and styles to suck the cash out of every obscure pocket of demand). It's not the same thing as someone like EA releasing twenty times as many games with all of them limited to 1/20th of their current average production+promotion budget.

 

[Annie Mitsoda]

I honestly wish I knew WHY they did the blockbuster strategy. IT DOESN'T WORK. The market is simply too saturated to get the sales numbers they expect. And the way I figure it, any good company doesn't just stick to what they know, but invests a respectable (but not ludicrous) amount of money into R&D - riskier, more low-budget titles in the case of games. I really would love hearing a publisher rep explain it to me, because as a dev, seeing companies cut their funding on more interesting projects (like EA's Dead Space, which nearly got canceled about a skrillion times) for more same-y titles drives me nuts.

 

[Zomg]

The blockbuster model protects the big publishers because gambler's ruin will reliably kill off small competitors and non-subsidiary developers. If EA was developing twenty times as many games, many small companies with diverse sources of capital would be competing head-to-head with their titles and the winners would be able to incrementally grow with success, instead of the current state where the payoff for a developer turning a publisher's massive investment into a megahit is a buyout and eventual dissolution. I still think the fixed costs and advertisement angles explain as much or more of the dominance, though.

 

[obediah]

PC gaming is dead, and has been for years. A few times a year the rotting corpse may release an indie fart, but that's it. Console and casual gaming are doing pretty well on the PC however.

Even though PC is still the largest platform, and a plenty of PC-exclusives which are definitely not indie games are released every year. Some of them are pretty good, too. PC gaming won't die, as the market won't go away.

Right - what are they? The latest (last) version of MS Flight Sim, and ...
You say that as long as games sell for Windows, PC gaming is alive. I was there early on for both computer and console gaming. I enjoyed both of them, but they were very different beasts. I can pick up nearly any game for any platform and relive the joy of early console games. But the fun of old computer games is hard to find ( impossible without indie games).

Even before xbox 1, the PC market was mostly console games that were better suited to keyboard and mouse, like FPS and RTS. A few, like Operation Flashpoint, felt like real PC games, but most were just more-of-the-same kill kill kill fun.

 

[oldschool]

Well, the gaming industry has been chasing the Hollywood model of success for quite a while now. Even game design is pushing harder towards barely interactive cutscenes.

A couple of articles discussing blockbuster strategy vs long-tail economics:

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/6014.html Blockbusters FTW!

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5520.html Long-Tail economics

 

[Azrael the cat]

I honestly wish I knew WHY they did the blockbuster strategy. IT DOESN'T WORK. The market is simply too saturated to get the sales numbers they expect. And the way I figure it, any good company doesn't just stick to what they know, but invests a respectable (but not ludicrous) amount of money into R&D - riskier, more low-budget titles in the case of games. I really would love hearing a publisher rep explain it to me, because as a dev, seeing companies cut their funding on more interesting projects (like EA's Dead Space, which nearly got canceled about a skrillion times) for more same-y titles drives me nuts.

It is a stage all markets go through - though for the gaming industry to still be stuck in the mass-market phase at its current quantity of sales displays an incredible lack of commercial expertise. It strikes me that games are brainstormed as if they are still art-products: i.e. the design developers think of an idea, then go to the publisher, then once production is underway and ONLY THEN are the marketing execs called in. Hence marketing is treated as 'advertising', rather than a study of which markets to aim at, and how to reach them. This leads to 'once-size-fits-all' products with a lot of failures.

In a mature commercial market, marketing is the start of the product cycle, as the marketing end determines what target market has potential profitability, and then asks the designers etc to come up with a product that services that market. This leads to niche or segmented marketing, as it is always more profitable in a mature market to create separate products for separate niches - if you don't, then someone else will and each niche will buy the product that is specifically aimed at them, rather than you're 'one-size-fits-all' product that doesn't really fit anybody.

Even in the movie business, major studios realise the need to devote a significant portion of their budget to indie divisions, often disguised as separate 'independent' production-houses that are really fully or mostly owned by a major studio - and which have access to that major studio's infrastructure.

I'm not saying 'go marketing, boo artistic development' - the BEST way to have varied niche products is for them to be purely artistic. But at the moment gaming is in no-man's-land, with the commercial focus and need for profits restricting 'for-the-sake-of-it' innovation, while lacking the competition and marketing nous to diversify from mass-market to segmented-marketing.

Edit: and btw I don't think that a more segmented market-focussed approach would hurt the creative end of the games. If anything it would help it - the single biggest thing holding back decent game writing is that, unlike ANY other published artistic medium, the artistic designers and writers get selected before they have created a script. Imagine if movies worked that way - that rather than directors calling for script writers and choosing the best work out of the ones submitted, a lead writer was just appointed at the start and that was the script that was used, regardless of whether it ended up being good and regardless of what other scripts are out there? Actually you don't have to imagine - that's how TV soaps are written (that's trash drama, 'days of our lives'-type-stuff for you Americans, not sure if you guys use the term 'soaps'). Development companies want to have writing and story akin to what you get in movies (Bioware I'm looking at YOU), but use the artistic model of the worst crappy daytime TV shows.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I remember buying Master of Magic and going, "Jeez, this is just Civilization!"

Speaking of Civilization, I remember little militia guys kept popping out of my city with which I could explore. I eventually discovered you could click ON the city and make other stuff too! How cool was that?