Researching: the death of the CRPG industry

[hoverdog]

i'd go with "hope's meltdown"

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

]
First, Morrowind came before ToEE. Second, ToEE was the highest selling Atari title for awhile, although obviously it didn't sell as much as much dumbed down (from Daggerfall, which almost bankrupted Bethesda) Morrowind.

Morrowind sold close to 2 mill, ToEE 2k.
What difference does it make? The point is EA was late to the honey well because they didnt know the industry, didnt know the gamer, and didnt know the product.

And I'm not blaming EA for anything. The consolidation was inevitable and it doesn't really matter which company ended up on top. Could have been Interplay if Herve wasn't busy funneling money out of the company.

Im not sure what you mean. What is consolidation? A multiplatform game or a EA's accessible theory? I'm not saying you are blaming EA. I'm saying that outside of common sense tutorials EA is wrong. It is as commie said their own self fulfilling prophecy. They would be hyping 2D art and strategy if they were selling Pokemon and Fire Emblem.

Because it wasn't a mainstream game.

Then I can say because it didn't go mainstream and we can go around in that circle.
How do you define mainstream? Maybe I should have said successful. For me It’s about profit, being able to sustain a sequel, and entering the conversation with other more mainstream games of its genre. Its not about Final Fantasy sales though Torment is the west's Final Fantasy ...

Bethesda didnt create a market for western RPGs. It was already there when Torment was released. You know how I feel about the subject. The classic CRPG should have, could have and still can double their audiance (or better) simply by going multiplaform. Dont have to change shit else. Thats a good thing and that is mainstream.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Morrowind sold close to 2 mill, ToEE 2k.

2K? Are you absolutely sure?

Overall, yes, ToEE sold less, but it was in development for a year plus. Morrowind was in development for quite a few years. In the end, ToEE could have easily been a more profitable title.

What difference does it make? The point is EA was late to the honey well because they didnt know the industry, didnt know the gamer, and didnt know the product.

Like I said, I'm not blaming EA for anything. The consolidation and everything it brings was inevitable. EA simply happened to become one of the key players.

Im not sure what you mean. What is consolidation? A multiplatform game or a EA's accessible theory?

Consolidation, not consolization.

The mergers or acquisitions of many smaller companies into much larger ones.

Because it wasn't a mainstream game.

Then I can say because it didn't go mainstream and we can go around in that circle.

There is no contradiction.

How do you define mainstream? Maybe I should have said successful. For me It’s about profit, being able to sustain a sequel, and entering the conversation with other more mainstream games of its genre.

Mainstream - mass appeal. Obviously, games with stronger mass appeal sell more.

Bethesda didnt create a market for western RPGs. It was already there when Torment was released. You know how I feel about the subject. The classic CRPG should have, could have and still can double their audiance (or better) simply by going multiplaform. Dont have to change shit else. Thats a good thing and that is mainstream.

Let's agree to disagree.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

2K? Are you absolutely sure?.

I was thinking 200K . You posted those numbers years ago.

Overall, yes, ToEE sold less, but it was in development for a year plus. Morrowind was in development for quite a few years. In the end, ToEE could have easily been a more profitable title.

Probably would have if Morrowind was PC exclusive.

Like I said, I'm not blaming EA for anything. The consolidation and everything it brings was inevitable. EA simply happened to become one of the key players.
Consolidation, not consolization.
The mergers or acquisitions of many smaller companies into much larger ones.

I just don't see how it affects CRPGs. There are plenty small studios out there. There is one down the street from where I live. Too bad they rather make Saw games. Still the quality, quantity in small capable studios are there in spades and so is the audience by my measure.

Let's agree to disagree.

Then all hope is gone

This is familiar. We will butt on this until you are proven wrong.
Obscure RTS games like Tropico and Ruse which are a lot less marektable than something like ToEE sell more in units than they cost to port and and sometimes manufacture. To what extint do you disagree with me. Is ToEE less apealing than Ruse or Tropico?

If Minecraft does well will it change your mind? If strategy ports are successful and an ugly game like Minecraft is as well can I get a witness? We are on fuking Tropico 4 and we cant get another game like Planescape? Minecraft is announced on the Xbox with SNES graphic glory and we cant get a real D&D RPG?

 

[SCO]

The difference is that a real rpg takes time, resources, writers, artists, actors even without the marketing.

It's more effort than a shooter or football game for less return.

 

[DragoFireheart]

How exactly, other than watching trends of what consumers buy, do companies know which games are going to be more profitable than others?

 

[wwsd]

Has any of the big publishers ever considered reducing devekopment costs instead of "making the games more accessible" to sell more units?
Do we really need voice acting by known actors, for example? Do we really need a new graphics engine for each new "franchise"? Do we really need all those cinematic cut scenes? Can't we just watch a movie instead?

Exactly. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that they themselves promote. Who spends untold millions on advertising? Who hypes 'next gen' graphics(actually from 5 years ago), well known actors doing VO work?

Gamers DID NOT ASK FOR THIS STUFF!!! Not even casuals who are happy with HOG's and Farmville and those diner management casual things. Even the original casual game superfranchise The Sims is pretty primitive technology-wise.

Fact is that it's the publishers who create an artificial demand for such things and then whine that they have to sell 10 million copies to break even!

It seems to me that it's very much a vicious cycle: with increased production values, celebrity voice actors and the likes becoming more common, publishers will feel that they also have to do this stuff to keep up with the Joneses (even though they are assholes).

It's not so much a problem with casual gamers, who will happily live a life without CPRGs, but rather the increased section of people who are somewhere in the middle between real RPG fans and casual gamers. The kind of people who think they're really aware of what good games are, and who will have massive orgasms whenever they see a developer guy talking about how "You can be whoever you want, do whatever you want, we've got real dynamic dragons, you can FRY FUCKING SALMON!1!!" Basically the kind of people who have been brainwashed by the constant flow of press hype about Grand Theft Auto and all its open-world bastard children.

Even if the promises of "a real world of NPCs going about their business" and "realistic conversations" turn out false in the end, it'll be too late once these people have already bought the game. Because before that, even the most "critical" gaming magazines will still hand out those 9.5/10s and proclaim that this is THE BEST GAME EVA that will, like, totally blow RPG fans away with the massive open world that you can play in. Of course some of them will actually play the game without blinders on and realise the dissonance between the actual game and what the press and developers say, but for the vast majority it will be too late.

This is simply because of the natural tendency for consumers to never be overtly critical of something that they've just shelled out $50-100 for because they bought into the hype. It's more comfortable to think of all criticism as convenient after-the-fact talk by whiny nerds who live in the 90s; or better yet, they aren't aware of any serious critical notes at all, and they will satisfy themselves with the delusion that they are somehow in the loop as to what makes a true hardcore RPG, and that this is it.

To get back to the point, this behaviour of the vast majority of consumers (and the more casual gamers who may still buy the overhyped shitty ARPG as well) reinforces the behaviour of publishers to make a sequel that has even more "dynamic" bullshit and even more "immersion" with, of course, even better graphics and an even bigger actor than Patrick Stewart appearing for even more than 5 minutes in the game so you can put his name on the box. Because it's just got to be bigger and better. And of course, the increased prevalence of these kinds of games will convince more gamers that this is the shit.

After Oblivion, it's simply impossible in PR terms for Bethesda to make Elder Scrolls V: Elsweyr or Elder Scrolls V: Black Marsh in a quirky setting, because the kids want Oblivion but with snow and dragons, not some alien setting that will not have any glorious fortresses built on massive cliffs. Of course there will always be some conscientious people who will try to add smatterings of "lore" to the game, but even they will simply serve the marketing purpose of labelling this stuff a "real RPG".

So to summarise a rather long-winded point, the problem is not evil money or evil publishers, the problem is not casual gamers (who will happily stick to Farmville), but the problem is that we have somehow entered a cycle where the "mid-level" consumers want the kind of stuff that gets peddled out to them nowadays, the publishers feel the pressure of competition, and the developers will feel the pressure to give those consumers what they want, aided by a massive machine of marketing and press. When we entered this cycle is something that I doubt can ever be pinpointed to an exact moment, as clean breaks hardly ever happen, but here we are.

This might sound familiar.

Many cable channels are created to fulfill a specific programming niche, and their name is Exactly What It Says on the Tin — the Golf Channel shows golf, the History Channel shows history programs, the Game Show Network shows Game Shows, and so on.

Some channels, however, are not as wedded to their original concept as others. Meddling Executives look at the Demographics to whom their channel appeals and decide that, hey, since the people watching their Speculative Fiction channel are mostly 18- to 31-year-old males, and Professional Wrestling is hot among that demographic, surely no one would mind if they started showing Professional Wrestling!

The fans of the original programming will mind, of course, but the channel tends to keep going regardless. This may show up with only a couple of odd programs in the schedule, but far too often, given enough time, a channel will have pretty much abandoned its original concept. Whether or not the former invariably leads to the latter is a subject for debate.

Since the network is strongly impacted by the ratings, and the highest ratings go to generally the same few demographics, this tends to lead to networks becoming more and more like each other, either in similar programming or outright airing the same shows.

It could be argued that the changes to network programming are inevitable and necessary. Some changes can be chalked up to the changing landscape of TV. As the number of channels goes up, networks re-align themselves to try and hold some of their market. That, or the parent companies who might own seven or more cable channels each shuffle stuff for "synergy" or to reduce redundancy.

History Channel - History, Made Every Day.
MTV -formerly an initialism of Music Television.
SyFy - Now trademarkable and easier to market other goods and services on without the risk of being associated with science fiction.

Similarly, the term RPG is now a brand of its own in entertainment media, with all the marketable possibilities that this entails, malleable and to be redefined, diversified or spun-off with the right PR overtones as needed for the required amount of commercial success.

Exactly. The aforementioned process really blurs the idea of what an RPG is, just like the idea of what a "History Channel" or "Music Television" should be is also blurred. From the music on MTV comes the idea that this somehow constitutes a lifestyle, and so MTV will give us more of this lifestyle. The History Channel can stick to boring facts and shit, but you can carve out a much bigger part of the market when you also broadcast stuff about alien landings, endless series about Hitler, and speculative stuff (what if Hitler had landed in the US?). The idea of what they should be doing becomes increasingly blurry, and before anyone takes notice, it's already too late (turning back now = less fans, less consumers, being beaten by the competition who don't have these old-fashioned considerations).

 

[sgc_meltdown]

behaviour of the vast majority of consumers (and the more casual gamers who may still buy the overhyped shitty ARPG as well) reinforces the behaviour of publishers to make a sequel that has even more "dynamic" bullshit and even more "immersion" with, of course, even better graphics and an even bigger actor than Patrick Stewart appearing for even more than 5 minutes in the game so you can put his name on the box. Because it's just got to be bigger and better.

I'm all but certain that hedging their investments is what's driving the new shit. This successful AAA game is pushing the graphics envelope with bloom and a first person view and it's about world war 2. Money has talked: this is what people want to buy, so this is what we will make. If it is different it will mean risk and failure. The next guy in line comes to the same conclusion, and the next.

This shit is why we've been seeing movie remakes as well. That movie did great 20 years ago or in argentina you say?! Well well why fix what ain't broken? Except for all these bits. They would make the audience uncomfortable or confused. Show me your proposed changes later.

Speaking of which, high profile change only comes when another game featuring all the safe big features like graphics and open world exploration has something new and ripe for cloning, or takes something previously ill-regarded and makes it a blockbuster hit (Peter Jackson: high fantasy genre, Max Payne: third person shooter), but often only in a superficial stylistic sense meant for milking the initial wave of success and associated consumer confidence as long as possible, not out of wanting to expand the new ground that was broken.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

The difference is that a real rpg takes time, resources, writers, artists, actors even without the marketing.

It's more effort than a shooter or football game for less return.

It depends. If you are talking about something like American Football or a high profile shooter then an original game or even a follow-up like Gears 3 is going to take a lot more resources than something like Kotc or something with a larger budget like Torment and that’s assuming you had to build the Infinity Engine from scratch. I would also argue that there is more profit to be had with such a game. Backbreaker was the last original football game and it wasn’t very profitable (if it was at all) and no-name shooters seem to preform worse than no-name RPGs.

 

[wwsd]

behaviour of the vast majority of consumers (and the more casual gamers who may still buy the overhyped shitty ARPG as well) reinforces the behaviour of publishers to make a sequel that has even more "dynamic" bullshit and even more "immersion" with, of course, even better graphics and an even bigger actor than Patrick Stewart appearing for even more than 5 minutes in the game so you can put his name on the box. Because it's just got to be bigger and better.

I'm all but certain that hedging their investments is what's driving the new shit. This successful AAA game is pushing the graphics envelope with bloom and a first person view and it's about world war 2. Money has talked: this is what people want to buy, so this is what we will make. If it is different it will mean risk and failure. The next guy in line comes to the same conclusion, and the next.

This shit is why we've been seeing movie remakes as well. That movie did great 20 years ago or in argentina you say?! Well well why fix what ain't broken? Except for all these bits. They would make the audience uncomfortable or confused. Show me your proposed changes later.

Speaking of which, high profile change only comes when another game featuring all the safe big features like graphics and open world exploration has something new and ripe for cloning, or takes something previously ill-regarded and makes it a blockbuster hit (Peter Jackson: high fantasy genre, Max Payne: third person shooter), but often only in a superficial stylistic sense meant for milking the initial wave of success and associated consumer confidence as long as possible, not out of wanting to expand the new ground that was broken.

In a sense, it's highly similar to films. You get all sorts of bloated shit that people will inevitably love. The differences:

1) The film industry seems to have a larger amount of critics who will obligingly call a spade a spade: when a film is a bloated piece of shite, there are more of them who will say so. Unlike gaming journalists whose M.O. is to look back at a game after a year and decide that they might have overrated it a tad (but we still think it's brilliant, of course!). Unfortunately it doesn't matter that much because shit films often still perform well at the box office, but at least you get the idea that not everyone has lost their heads.

2) The best people involved in film will still often make something incredibly good, even if they only have a shoestring budget, even if mainstream wouldn't touch it with a barge pole because of too much swearing, etc. In games, it seems to be much more all-or-nothing: everything is pretty buggy nowadays, and (to move into strategy gaming for a minute) games by the likes of Paradox Interactive are basically put on the market as buggy pieces of shite for both official and unofficial patchers (and modders) to have fun with, taking years of retroactive development to become playable. With games it seems to be much more either-or.

Of course this is all a pretty pessimistic point of view, and undoubtedly there will be a really good RPG again someday, but it can be pretty disheartening to see what goes on in the meantime.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

It seems to me that it's very much a vicious cycle: with increased production values, celebrity voice actors and the likes becoming more common, publishers will feel that they also have to do this stuff to keep up with the Joneses (even though they are assholes).

It's not so much a problem with casual gamers, who will happily live a life without CPRGs, but rather the increased section of people who are somewhere in the middle between real RPG fans and casual gamers. The kind of people who think they're really aware of what good games are, and who will have massive orgasms whenever they see a developer guy talking about how "You can be whoever you want, do whatever you want, we've got real dynamic dragons, you can FRY FUCKING SALMON!1!!" Basically the kind of people who have been brainwashed by the constant flow of press hype about Grand Theft Auto and all its open-world bastard children.

Even if the promises of "a real world of NPCs going about their business" and "realistic conversations" turn out false in the end, it'll be too late once these people have already bought the game. Because before that, even the most "critical" gaming magazines will still hand out those 9.5/10s and proclaim that this is THE BEST GAME EVA that will, like, totally blow RPG fans away with the massive open world that you can play in. Of course some of them will actually play the game without blinders on and realise the dissonance between the actual game and what the press and developers say, but for the vast majority it will be too late.

This is simply because of the natural tendency for consumers to never be overtly critical of something that they've just shelled out $50-100 for because they bought into the hype. It's more comfortable to think of all criticism as convenient after-the-fact talk by whiny nerds who live in the 90s; or better yet, they aren't aware of any serious critical notes at all, and they will satisfy themselves with the delusion that they are somehow in the loop as to what makes a true hardcore RPG, and that this is it.

To get back to the point, this behaviour of the vast majority of consumers (and the more casual gamers who may still buy the overhyped shitty ARPG as well) reinforces the behaviour of publishers to make a sequel that has even more "dynamic" bullshit and even more "immersion" with, of course, even better graphics and an even bigger actor than Patrick Stewart appearing for even more than 5 minutes in the game so you can put his name on the box. Because it's just got to be bigger and better. And of course, the increased prevalence of these kinds of games will convince more gamers that this is the shit.

After Oblivion, it's simply impossible in PR terms for Bethesda to make Elder Scrolls V: Elsweyr or Elder Scrolls V: Black Marsh in a quirky setting, because the kids want Oblivion but with snow and dragons, not some alien setting that will not have any glorious fortresses built on massive cliffs. Of course there will always be some conscientious people who will try to add smatterings of "lore" to the game, but even they will simply serve the marketing purpose of labelling this stuff a "real RPG".

So to summarise a rather long-winded point, the problem is not evil money or evil publishers, the problem is not casual gamers (who will happily stick to Farmville), but the problem is that we have somehow entered a cycle where the "mid-level" consumers want the kind of stuff that gets peddled out to them nowadays, the publishers feel the pressure of competition, and the developers will feel the pressure to give those consumers what they want, aided by a massive machine of marketing and press. When we entered this cycle is something that I doubt can ever be pinpointed to an exact moment, as clean breaks hardly ever happen, but here we are.

Why is Oblivion the symbol of decline? Months ago I posted the thread below
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=53283

that Dragon Age Origins took the torch from Final Fantasy 7 as the most negative influence on the genre.

If I were to take examples of a decline or negative influence I would start with those two titles, throw in Diablo and maybe 20 others before I get to Oblivion. I may have a bias because I liked the game and I pay attention to its fans both personally at work and online. I only see one aspect of Oblivion’s gameplay where it’s appeal runs counter to the game’s the OP is harkening for.

Its not the graphics whores, its not EA's new idiot casuals who supposedly need accessibility and it isn’t the LARPers that give pause when I state that a game like Torment would have at least double the appeal as a 360/PS 3 game. What gives me pause is the OCD crowed that wants to do every fucking thing in a 100 hour game. Beyond that I have no problem with Oblivion’s appeal or its fans. I understand why people like the game and its cool how the fans badgered Beth to get rid of the level scaling. Oblivion is a game that appeals to the masses because it does a lot of things that people want. Not because it tried to or promised it. It did it.

I’ll take it a step past that and say that for the most part Oblivion’ success is an indicator that a game like Torment could be successful. A fraction of Oblivion’s success is a boon for most companies and a fraction of people who liked Oblivion would like Torment.

Oblivion has gameplay. Its not clickfest Diablo, or endless filler combat like Dragon Age. Its GTA with horses, a poor man’s Sims. There is room for real thievery, there is that living world that people wanted, there is pure murder, the ability to poison people, craft, repair, pick locks, make spells etc etc. you have unpredictable AI, realistic physics, some strong quest, and the feeling that you will see shit you never seen before. If Bethesda really knew their audience they would let you sneak into people’s houses and shit on their floor.

Be it that I did something I had never done but have and will in the future in creating a random character I ended up with a Breton born in the year of the Atronach (sp?). She could not regenerate magika so I had to roleplay her as a good character to receive the blessings from the gods. That eliminated the Dark Brotherhood quest and next to the level scaling the biggest flaw in the game. So for me, the game even had a decent dose of roleplaying.

A lot of RPGs have gotten away from the G in RPG. I can live with a lack of roleplaying. That was a bonus in Oblivion. I apreciate strategy RPGs that lack any true roleplaying but you better give me the G in RPG. Origins had more roleplaying than Baldur’s Gate but there was no game to be had.

The combat is second fiddle Oblivion. Worse would be that games like Dark Alliance, and Daggerdale were selling as well as Oblivion then you could say that shitty action combat was carrying multimillion sales errr Diablooooo.

Bethesda slapped everybody that said Elves and Dwarf shit couldn’t go mainstream or was too geeky and delivered to the RPG starved console masses their first open-world RPGs. The fuck do you expect?

Its really simple. You are overanalyzing. The Elder Scrolls games are the only fucking RPG of their type to millions of people. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SELL EVEN IF THEY ARE SHIT. Let me repeat that. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO SELL EVEN IF THEY ARE SHIT. All these poor Playstation owners got for 15 years was blob combat with feminine freaks with giant eyes and razor swords. Thats all you got on the N64, the SNES, the Genesis lol. Any god damn western RPG could have dented that market.

 

[Azrael the cat]

How exactly, other than watching trends of what consumers buy, do companies know which games are going to be more profitable than others?

I'm not sure how much this applies to gaming, but in more competitive markets, a large company that simply follows existing trends won't stay at the top. Look at, say, the car market. They need their 'existing trend' product, of course, but they also need to constantly take risks to try and pre-empt the next CHANGE in consumer tastes. They do that through extensive consumer surveying and testing, hiring psychologists and sociologists to make micro and macro predictions, economists to work out when people are likely to be replacing their vehicles, and so on.

The crpg industry (and gaming industry)'s lack of an 'innovation offshoot' (car makers don't normally formalise the off-shoot, but in entertainment industries they often have a whole different division and studio name for their 'indie' division) is the best indication available that it is currently under-competitive. Companies can make big money following the existing formula, and that shouldn't be possible - there should be enough companies ready to leach off that formula that the market gets crowded and the big players need to do something new to break back out of the pack.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Has any of the big publishers ever considered reducing devekopment costs instead of "making the games more accessible" to sell more units?
Do we really need voice acting by known actors, for example? Do we really need a new graphics engine for each new "franchise"? Do we really need all those cinematic cut scenes? Can't we just watch a movie instead?

Exactly. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that they themselves promote. Who spends untold millions on advertising? Who hypes 'next gen' graphics(actually from 5 years ago), well known actors doing VO work?

Gamers DID NOT ASK FOR THIS STUFF!!! Not even casuals who are happy with HOG's and Farmville and those diner management casual things. Even the original casual game superfranchise The Sims is pretty primitive technology-wise.

Fact is that it's the publishers who create an artificial demand for such things and then whine that they have to sell 10 million copies to break even!

It seems to me that it's very much a vicious cycle: with increased production values, celebrity voice actors and the likes becoming more common, publishers will feel that they also have to do this stuff to keep up with the Joneses (even though they are assholes).

It's not so much a problem with casual gamers, who will happily live a life without CPRGs, but rather the increased section of people who are somewhere in the middle between real RPG fans and casual gamers. The kind of people who think they're really aware of what good games are, and who will have massive orgasms whenever they see a developer guy talking about how "You can be whoever you want, do whatever you want, we've got real dynamic dragons, you can FRY FUCKING SALMON!1!!" Basically the kind of people who have been brainwashed by the constant flow of press hype about Grand Theft Auto and all its open-world bastard children.

Even if the promises of "a real world of NPCs going about their business" and "realistic conversations" turn out false in the end, it'll be too late once these people have already bought the game. Because before that, even the most "critical" gaming magazines will still hand out those 9.5/10s and proclaim that this is THE BEST GAME EVA that will, like, totally blow RPG fans away with the massive open world that you can play in. Of course some of them will actually play the game without blinders on and realise the dissonance between the actual game and what the press and developers say, but for the vast majority it will be too late.

This is simply because of the natural tendency for consumers to never be overtly critical of something that they've just shelled out $50-100 for because they bought into the hype. It's more comfortable to think of all criticism as convenient after-the-fact talk by whiny nerds who live in the 90s; or better yet, they aren't aware of any serious critical notes at all, and they will satisfy themselves with the delusion that they are somehow in the loop as to what makes a true hardcore RPG, and that this is it.

To get back to the point, this behaviour of the vast majority of consumers (and the more casual gamers who may still buy the overhyped shitty ARPG as well) reinforces the behaviour of publishers to make a sequel that has even more "dynamic" bullshit and even more "immersion" with, of course, even better graphics and an even bigger actor than Patrick Stewart appearing for even more than 5 minutes in the game so you can put his name on the box. Because it's just got to be bigger and better. And of course, the increased prevalence of these kinds of games will convince more gamers that this is the shit.

After Oblivion, it's simply impossible in PR terms for Bethesda to make Elder Scrolls V: Elsweyr or Elder Scrolls V: Black Marsh in a quirky setting, because the kids want Oblivion but with snow and dragons, not some alien setting that will not have any glorious fortresses built on massive cliffs. Of course there will always be some conscientious people who will try to add smatterings of "lore" to the game, but even they will simply serve the marketing purpose of labelling this stuff a "real RPG".

So to summarise a rather long-winded point, the problem is not evil money or evil publishers, the problem is not casual gamers (who will happily stick to Farmville), but the problem is that we have somehow entered a cycle where the "mid-level" consumers want the kind of stuff that gets peddled out to them nowadays, the publishers feel the pressure of competition, and the developers will feel the pressure to give those consumers what they want, aided by a massive machine of marketing and press. When we entered this cycle is something that I doubt can ever be pinpointed to an exact moment, as clean breaks hardly ever happen, but here we are.

This might sound familiar.

Many cable channels are created to fulfill a specific programming niche, and their name is Exactly What It Says on the Tin — the Golf Channel shows golf, the History Channel shows history programs, the Game Show Network shows Game Shows, and so on.

Some channels, however, are not as wedded to their original concept as others. Meddling Executives look at the Demographics to whom their channel appeals and decide that, hey, since the people watching their Speculative Fiction channel are mostly 18- to 31-year-old males, and Professional Wrestling is hot among that demographic, surely no one would mind if they started showing Professional Wrestling!

The fans of the original programming will mind, of course, but the channel tends to keep going regardless. This may show up with only a couple of odd programs in the schedule, but far too often, given enough time, a channel will have pretty much abandoned its original concept. Whether or not the former invariably leads to the latter is a subject for debate.

Since the network is strongly impacted by the ratings, and the highest ratings go to generally the same few demographics, this tends to lead to networks becoming more and more like each other, either in similar programming or outright airing the same shows.

It could be argued that the changes to network programming are inevitable and necessary. Some changes can be chalked up to the changing landscape of TV. As the number of channels goes up, networks re-align themselves to try and hold some of their market. That, or the parent companies who might own seven or more cable channels each shuffle stuff for "synergy" or to reduce redundancy.

History Channel - History, Made Every Day.
MTV -formerly an initialism of Music Television.
SyFy - Now trademarkable and easier to market other goods and services on without the risk of being associated with science fiction.

Similarly, the term RPG is now a brand of its own in entertainment media, with all the marketable possibilities that this entails, malleable and to be redefined, diversified or spun-off with the right PR overtones as needed for the required amount of commercial success.

Exactly. The aforementioned process really blurs the idea of what an RPG is, just like the idea of what a "History Channel" or "Music Television" should be is also blurred. From the music on MTV comes the idea that this somehow constitutes a lifestyle, and so MTV will give us more of this lifestyle. The History Channel can stick to boring facts and shit, but you can carve out a much bigger part of the market when you also broadcast stuff about alien landings, endless series about Hitler, and speculative stuff (what if Hitler had landed in the US?). The idea of what they should be doing becomes increasingly blurry, and before anyone takes notice, it's already too late (turning back now = less fans, less consumers, being beaten by the competition who don't have these old-fashioned considerations).

Again, though, look at the market. How many different history channels are there to choose from? How many music channels? Obviously some things just can't support competitive industries, and I'm not expecting 50 different (or even 3 different) history or music channels to pop up. But if there WAS (i.e. if it could sustain a competitive market - like gaming almost certainly can), then you'd have your 'pure music/history' channel, your 'music/history lifestyle' channel, your 'more general age/demographic segment' channel, and so on.

The industry has gone into a crap stage, and might stay here a long time, but there is nothing inherently bad about the industry growing. The more the gaming industry grows, the more likely it will turn highly competitive, and the more likely we'll break the current rut. It will never go back to the 'good old days' of intelligent games dominating the market though; more like having low-to-mid-funded, but fully professional, sub-studios where newish developers go to 'prove themselves' by creating something innovative, before they get picked up by the company's mainstream studio.

 

[Whisper]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_14/87-The-Conquest-of-Origin.4

"Spector's games (Ultima VII Part 2: Serpent Isle, Ultima Underworld, System Shock and many more) consistently brought returns a small studio would think quite respectable. But the economics of a billion-dollar corporation are different. For EA it makes more sense to reach for the sky with every single project. The games that die or get cancelled become tax writeoffs, and the rare hit pays for all the rest. The worst case is the mere modest success, a mediocre return on equity without corresponding tax advantages".

 

[Carlos' Bitch1]

As a wise chap from Holland once uttered...

What happened is that gaming went from a niche hobby for and by nerds to a full blown entertainment industry in just two decades.

 

[Wyrmlord]

I know people will be annoyed by my saying so, but with Witcher 2 selling 2 million copies, New Vegas selling 5 million copies, and Skyrim selling 7 million copies, it is a huge stretch to say the cRPG industry is dead.

It's akin to saying that James Cameron is yesterday's news as of the release of Avatar.

Now, you may not be fans of Witcher 2, New Vegas, or Skyrim. But do you realize that - whether or not those games are up to your personal standards - the idea of singleplayer cRPGs being a dead genre in this day and age is utterly ridiculous? Lucas Arts adventure games are a dead genre, but cRPGs? COME ON!

 

[Jaesun]

This is what Wyrmlord actually believes.

 

[Infinitron]

Fucking necros.

 

[Kosmonaut]

Fucking Wyrmlord.

 

[Menckenstein]

Mannimarco'd.

 

[Mother Russia]

The Ultima series was extremely profitable. Gariott is a fucking multi millionaire with hundreds of millions of dollars to his name, mainly due to Ultima.

Just wanted to get that out there.

 

[Roguey]

I know people will be annoyed by my saying so, but with Witcher 2 selling 2 million copies, New Vegas selling 5 million copies, and Skyrim selling 7 million copies, it is a huge stretch to say the cRPG industry is dead.

It's akin to saying that James Cameron is yesterday's news as of the release of Avatar.

Now, you may not be fans of Witcher 2, New Vegas, or Skyrim. But do you realize that - whether or not those games are up to your personal standards - the idea of singleplayer cRPGs being a dead genre in this day and age is utterly ridiculous? Lucas Arts adventure games are a dead genre, but cRPGs? COME ON!

Those are all action games with role playing and a console market focus.

 

[DaveO]

After the Great 8-bit Video game crash of the early 80s, PCs were a primary market. Consoles got better and were able to give PCs a run for the money(especially considering the cost of building a new machine versus a console). Newer markets have been developed with all of the mobile devices and Apple iGadgets out there.

Copying software for backup or archival purposes became more difficult. A number of PC games have not helped matters by having forms of DRM as part of the installation, and this helped to alienate people.

 

[Raghar]

New Vegas selling 5 million copies, and Skyrim selling 7 million copies, it is a huge stretch to say the cRPG industry is dead.

How much money received original developer? If nearly nothing, it might be one of the problems.

The other is. Few years ago when I talked with some poeple from industry, I seen they were irritated by fact RPGs require much more programming than a regular action game. That picking up items, inventory, using items, placing items on stuff, actual nonlinear interactions... They can make an action game much easier than proper RPG. Now look at current Firaxis projects. It looks like boys who played MMO (nothing wrong with that at least they have passion for RPG and similar games) went into companies that are making games using a simplistic view they acquired when they played stuff without thinking about consequences and stuff around.

We received Civ V, and the new strategy. Also they made few simplistic games, which would be a freeware games when they would be made few years ago. Now they are for money.

Everyone who did DM and was quality one knows what they are missing. Out of school education. All that economy books, mythology books, quality fantasy books. Also they are missing willingness to not mimic stuff they seen around, and risk theirs own hide. At least some game developers in the past were those that made games they wanted to play, and that was supposed to be extraordinary, and didn't give a shit about what people want.

I guess we are in era of vacuum. They made simplistic shit, but they are yet to discover a simplistic shit would get them nowhere. Actually there are already some indie/low income/freeware games that are appearing which means we are in phase 2 already. You might view this vacuum as an epidemy. The problem is with Japanese companies. They are not in synch, thus they will add another vacuum to some extend, and then hopefully goes at least some of them out of business.

You should be happy for Dark souls, because it has stats. Otherwise people might see ME3 as an RPG.