|
|
The sky is falling
Author: Brett ThomasPublished: 2nd February 2008
- Site Links:
- About
- Email Editor
- Newsletter
- Privacy
- RSS
- Score Guide
- Our Other Websites:
- Auto Express
- Channel Pro
- Computer Buyer
- Computer Shopper
- Den of Geek
All content © bit-tech.net 2000-2009
© Copyright Dennis Publishing Limited licensed by Felden
Comments 26 to 51 of 63
Welcome aboard, but I have to disagree. I do buy games, but if I'm going to spend $50, it's got to be somthing worthwhile. For me that means an innvotive story, and somthing different in gameplay. The only games i expect to buy this year are the orange box, bioshock, and Stalker (yeah, i'm a little behind). The rest of the offerings seems lik the same old crap and so the developers aren't getting any of my money.
As I said in another thread, I think the piracy arguement is bogus. Sure, lots and lots of people pirate games. Guess what, if they couldn't pirate the games they would do somthing else with their time, but i think it is highly unlikley that they would ever pay for them. The fundamental flaw in that arguement is that it sees pirates as potential customers otherwise. They are not. If anything, I think piracy works to the advantage of the industry because a lot of people pdownload games and then go on to buy them. If they couldn't try them first they wouldn't take the risk with thewir money that the game may suck and they can't get a refund.
I think the biggest threat to gaming is the lack of innovation. People are willing to pay for good quality, but there seems to be relatively little of that to be had.
He's or she's saying NPD is true... but the conclusion is false. PC sales may be low but PCs are also not dying.
Multiple reasons - indie developers may very well be holding second jobs to help pay for development, for instance, or do more than just develop games. StraDock for instance doesn't just make games... they make home office utilities. Alternatively, they may very well be happy making money from a niche audience and so their talent and costs are already very low. As well, the money goes to different things. An indie will probably be building their own engine or using one of the cheaper ones such as Torque. Indies may self publish nd self market. The scope also tends to be different - indies usually are not so much trying to be ambitious so much as focus on a single thing and do it very very well. Large companies tend to focus on grand epics.where everything is good; but those that work more like indies and focus on something very specific tend to come across much like a smaller developer. CoD4 for instance. So while there is true, some of it is just this different perception we have of indie and big developer.
That may be true but it's also one of many reasons, all of which have an effect. Some download it because they lack money. Some may download it out of curiosity, play for five minutes, and forget about it. Some may go through games so quickly, buying it may not be a good investment. Some may get it because they want it and don't feel like they should pay. And many other reasons that are some shades of the above. Piracy is good, bad, and neither - the real question is encouraging people to buy the game while ignoring the people that would have never brought the game.
Lepermessiah, you're kind of under my worth-replying to threshold sorry.
To develop games that actually sell in actual quantity, you need to make a game of the same kind of things as you see on the shelves in game retailers. Not kooky little MMO games which you're quite keen on. This requires teams of dozens of staff working for 18 month months beyond two years even. No one makes up the costs of game development, there's a heck of a lot of work, frightening amounts of work - a whole mini industry if you like - involved in basically cutting the costs of game development through middleware. But the fact is people want to play games like Burnout, Call of Duty 4, Assassin's Creed etc.
Sure you can make less sophisticated games with lots less content but as a rule that's not the PC gaming market. The PC gaming market wants highly sophisticated games to use the expensive hardware they enjoy tinkering with.
Well, this is a finance issue I don't think you understand. A game needs to pay back the development costs and return a profit in a short order. If it doesn't sell pretty darn well when it first comes out then no amount of trickle sales will eventually lead it into profitability. The publisher simply wont do that again.
Those games emphatically sold disasterously. They were a real eye opener to the industry at large. People will keep buying them in dribs and drabs sure but when you needed to sell 500,000 to make back a three year development cycle that is of no use whatsoever. Interesting how the games you cite like this are exactly the highly sophisticated very expensive games which are the polar opposite of what you were talking about above.
If that was the 'biggest' problem then piracy would be lower in the US, would it not? That's what you're saying. But that's not true. In fact Germany is the world's best market for PC gaming.
That logic would be 'amazing' if that's what I was saying, but I wasn't. I never said you shouldn't buy high-end PCs. I'd be pretty shagged if you didn't because it's my job to do just that. I just find it a paradox that the PC gaming crowd complains about price (as you just did) when in fact they buy a £300 graphics card every year more or less at the same cost as buying EVERY AAA title on the platform in the same year.
The reason they don't drop the prices is because it doesn't help. There's mountains of evidence on this front. Pricing analysis is one of the very core tennents of the business. Game shops are rammed to the gills with bargain basement software. Much of it only just came out. I think Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance is the finest RTS game to have graced the planet. It's now £17 quid bundled with the original. It was released in November. It sold bugger all, it's still selling bugger all.
Thanks for the welcome. I'm sorry you disagree but I think I it can be clearly demonstrated that this simply isn't the case. There were some really truly great games released last year. Many of which sold depressingly low quantities.
Sure I agree, there's a lot of rubbish around. The thing is the rubbish isn't really aimed at us (the collective audience) it's aimed at the folks who go into Game/HMV etc and buy something off the shelf because they like the look of it. Movie licenses, endless sports sequels etc. The casual crowd.
That crowd essentially vanished because they were first to push off to consoles and retailers devoted a much more space to non-PC titles because they were/are being paid better for that placement than PC game publishers are paying. That's why I have to take issue with this whole line that the issue with people buying games on PC is because the games aren't good enough. The games are great. They sell by the truckload on consoles when they're on console as well.
So what are we saying exactly? That it's just the really savvy people with high standards in the PC gaming crowd that's the issue here because they recognise all PC games as being the crap that they are and therefore are too smart to spend their money? I don't think so. Because I know my friends are playing all the good games from last year, many just don't buy them. This can't be some revelation surely?
Perhaps I should add something positive anyway. I've got a gaming clan of pals and we're celebrating our 10th anniversary this year. \o/ Anyway, we have a few lan parties a year. One around my place next weekend. We've taken to basically picking a current good PC game with multiplayer (but not always) and putting in a bulk order for a game for everyone. In fact several games for everyone late last year, with the glut of fantastic games.
Alright we're older and we can afford it but this is pretty concious decision that if we aren't actually going to help the PC gaming industry at least we wont be the cause of further harm. I feel pretty good about putting in that big order of games and I think it's bloody great value for money. Sure I haven't (yet) got around to playing them all but this is a platform I'd desperately rather did not go belly up. But it takes more than just ragging on publishers about it at the end of the day.
Sebbo, just because you like a writer doesn't mean that his/her stories don't have holes in them. Try doing some thinking and research for yourself...you might learn something.
First of all, thanks for all the great comments. I am glad to see that I've provoked some discussion on the issue, especially enough to generate someone who states that s/he is from the industry at large.
Speaking of...Welcome, Lurks! I hope you'll find our community to be a bit more open-minded and less offensive than the angle you've taken towards me personally. Deciding that I should 'let go of the self-delusion' or even bringing my age into this at all really does not help bolster your point, nor does it earn my respect. In fact, it turns things personal and erodes your presence - so I hope that from now on, we can speak like qualified individuals who are properly affiliated with this industry.
So, let's talk about those qualifications on my end. You pose points that simply because they 'won't tell [me], that assume' that these figures are not released (pronouns changed for reference). In fact, your general tone reads as if you feel I put very little effort into the determination of these figures that I seem to so carelessly bandy about.
However, that's pretty far from the truth. The truth is that I've been a respected journalist with a respected professional publication for a few years now. The truth is that I (and Bit-tech proper) have a very good working relationship with Valve Software, and have even written an article on digital distribution specifically before [i]with the help of Valve. The truth is, there is a wall - and nobody except a potential publisher on Steam gets the figures of Steam's sales. Period. Not me, not Wired (who also wrote on the issue), not anyone.
You pose that this is because of weak sales, and I cannot argue for or against that point - which I specifically state. You can't account for figures you don't have, you just know that they're not there. You say 4%, I would appreciate it if you could please walk me through where you deduced those figures. If you have information on this, I'd love to talk to you either here or on another medium (drop me a PM!), because if I can get some proper figures it would make me a happy man.
However, my take on that study being incomplete is exactly that - my take. I feel that things defined properly per-unit on console do not translate to per-unit on PC. I feel that digital distribution not being included whatsoever needs to be clearly stated on the tin that the figures are incomplete. Not a footnote on the back page that nobody really reads - this includes the reporting on the issue, and does not absolve our own. I feel that what defines the inclusions should be clearly listed - are they all retail sales of everything, or just the biggest companies? What about all the indie designers that sell via the net? If we're talking about only the top 10 or so publishers, are we limiting the console sales to them only as well? Are they releasing equal numbers of games on each of the platforms in question? Are we looking at games only released across more than 2 platforms to remove statistical variables of choice not being an option? Shouldn't we?
There's SO much more I can write here - I haven't even touched on so many aspects of what you wrote and I want to get to the piracy section of it in another post. But there's only so much time at the moment, so we'll pause here to let more discussion ensue.
But along with it, you mention that you're a games designer - I would ask that you identify yourself and the company you work for. By all means, please drop me a PM or an email for this one. I think it's only fair - you know who I am, and you now know my credentials. :) I would appreciate knowing likewise, so that I can understand who it is that I'm talking to. That information will be kept confidential, I just think that when one speaks with authority, it's helpful to know what that authority is. Trust me, you'd be surprised how many people I've had tell me they're everything from games designers to marketers to electrical engineers working for AMD - and found out they're in high school or uni and were just trying to sound smart. ;)
Anyhow, thanks for joining and talking with us - I hope the conversation continues. I ALWAYS welcome challenges to my view, I know it's not the only one there is and that it may even be wrong. But it is researched and I levy my professional opinion very, very carefully. :)
well there is multiple pc architectures, but only x86 and x86_64 are used for gaming
Newsflash - NPD and it's 88,000 figure for Crysis is meaningless, just as NPD is meaningless for mostly all PC games.
Why? Because Crysis sold more than a million copies worldwide. That's why.
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=612
with that out of the way, "Bem-vindo".
there is an edit button on your post, if you can't see it then you are in the front page, go to the forums and on "bit-tech.net" chose the forum thread you wish, then you can edit your post or do other more advanced stuff, ;)
i really think there are ways to streamline the process, there are people that can be cut out (i call them parasites), there are steps that can be cut out, etc....
i think i would prefer to sell a game at a constant rate of about 4000 copies during each month (when i need to sell 20000) rather than i would like to sell 15000 in the first month (the game is selling like mad because it is a great franchise), 5000 on the second (people see it is crap but the fans still buy it), and then 1000 on the next months (some fans that were late are buying it).......
"Crysis has sold 1m copies in less than 3 months"
what about the other countries? what about the country were i live? do you have any statistics on that? if you have you will notice that piracy is higher here than in the US, that i am almost sure, there is no one i know that did not download at least one music from the internet or that does not have a copied cd/dvd, even old people pirate here. when your wage only permits you to eat and buy some clothes and almost nothing else it is a little hard to buy a 75$ game for your 3 year old computer that was mid range at the time...... "work harder!" you say, and i say that here almost everyone earns the minimum wage and it is hard to get another job when you work 40 hours a week and also have to go to the university and study.... "games are not a right" you say, i agree, so i buy them with money i save while not eating and wearing things i like, but i am sure as hell not going to spend my hard saved cash on malformed abortions like the ones EA is always giving birth..... if you think i am exaggerating ask the people from here..... "change your government" you say, i am 1 in 10 000 000 and have tried......
here the same expansion costs £26 and comes alone (the expansion it self is a standalone game).... the pricing analysts are very smart to price this game higher in a place were people earn less[/sarcasm].... you want to compare prices?
Crysis: UK = £27.85 ; here = 37£
UT3: UK = £22.93 ; here = 33£
Supreme commander: UK = £9.95 - £24.90 ; here = 37£
those price analysts are really smart [/sarcasm]
you want to see for yourself?
throw a game into the search function and compare to the ones in bit-tech shopping
http://www.fnac.pt/pt/Default.aspx
here the bargain bin is mostly covered with orange EA boxes full of crap, barbie games and other malformations inside non original boxes, if i want a game that came out last year i have to order it from the shop, it takes forever to get here and then i pay from the nose.... thank God i know ways around this or else i would be f***ed, but almost no one knows how to avoid this and end up paying about 40£ for a game that costs 10£ in the UK....
wow that is a big post, sorry for that, at the end i don't want this to look like a rant, it is not a rant, i am simply saying that Europe is not a country (as some people think) and that there are people in countries with very different situations that make piracy bloom and transform into other interesting and powerful markets.... look at China, because of the piracy there are other kinds of markets blooming, if you cut piracy there there would be lots of discontent people and a lot of unemployment...... and the government would not approve.....
edit: i have to add the next, because i feel the same way:
BTW, I think I may be the only one who had Xenon as a visited link.
So basically you're arguing that all people want is the same old crap. I read that as saying "we can't try anything innvative because the investment is too large to take a risk. The problem is that so much of gaming IS the same crap, and it's not somthing that as many poeple are willing to pay for. As I see it, if we have gotten to that point, then the industry IS dying because it cannot adapt. If all the industry can promise is more of the same with shinier graphics, then why bother spending the money?
Same issue, if the industry only wants to make games that will sell 500,000 copies in the fiorst 3 monthst, then it's excluding a rather large customer base who want somthing different. Same response, if it's more of the same thn I will continue to pass.
As you point out, there are a lot of gamers out there who can afford new AAA games. You're coming to the conclusion that they are not buying them because they are pirating them. To some extent that may be true, but I think to a greater extent it's because people don't find them to be worth the money. If it's just a shinier version of last years game with nothing else really new, why buy it? Just to keep the industry in business? I don't think so.
Some of which also sold very very well. If, according to your theory, the primary cause of low sales is piracy, why is this?
Again, if you're willing to spend money just to support the industry, then more power to you. For me, and I think a lot of others, they will get my money only if the produce things that I want to play. I'll gladly keep plunking down money on HL2 expansions because I really enjoy them. They're innovative, story driven and very enjoyable. The other indistinguished crap? Not worth my time and money.
Just one thing, does Bret ever do a positive article?
Well I'm sorry you felt it was a personal attack. Perhaps on reflection I've been too argumentative. I wouldn't say I was enraged but I was certainly highly irritated so I apologise.
All due respect, but I can't find any mention of you on google on any publication other than this web site. Which was, until quite recently, basically a hobbyists enthusiast web site. A very good one, and one I know the founders/owners and appreciate the work
I've spent about 15 years in the games industry. About half of that as a journalist and I *do* appear on Google. If you want to push the issue I'll tell you via PM but I'd rather let my statements stand for themselves. I don't see why I should be subject to more scrutiny than the legions of other posters here. Or is it just because they agree with you? :)
Precisely. A potential publisher. Or are they not part of the games industry? Let me remind you about why that fact is or is not relevant. The threat to PC gaming is if games aren't selling. You're kind of saying that PC gaming is doing fine because that study doesn't cover digital distribution. Then later on you woe-is-me about PC gaming anyway which makes it a little hard to distill your point but ultimately if DD was doing really well, then publishers would be very keen to keep doing PC games. But that's not actually the case.
There's a very real feeling emerging that even if they broke even it would be better not to do the PC version because some people might just pirate on the PC rather than buy the console version.
The bottom line is that there's a lot of data for retail because that industry is well developed. Actual figures are generally kept secret also, depending on territory but again if you're in the industry you gain access to them. Take a look at the UK's all-format chart from Chart-Track. This is by SKU.
http://www.chart-track.co.uk/index.jsp?c=p/software/uk/latest/index_test.jsp&ct=110032
This tells you that in games retail in the UK the PC has one title in the entire top 40 best selling games at retail. This is a diabolical situation and unfortunately it's not elevated magically to some secret game selling utopia by the secret numbers of games sold via digital distribution.
Sure but you spent a lot of your time making conspiratorial conclusions just because these numbers aren't public. I fail to see how that is an important corner of the whole issue. I appreciate you'd like to know. And so would your readers. But the individual companies don't want to tell you and they have their reasons.
Digital distribution share of PC entertainment software sales, not Steam. It's an internal EA figure, I don't know how they got it but it's been leaked fairly widely. If you call up some actual journalists in the games industry who comment on such things they'll most likely also be familiar with that. Could EA's figure be wrong? Maybe, probably, but I expect it's in the ballpark. In a previous job I had access to some information on Steam sales. And in my current job I've spoken to publishers who have described how Steam is doing for them. No specifics but 'not significant' would be a reasonable summary.
Well you know, this is pretty much journalist 101 stuff I have to say. NPD is a market research outfit specifically aimed at retail. You may as well take umbrance at the lack of <BLINK> tags saying "THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE STEAM" at the top of Chart-Trakc or "THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE DELL" in GfK's retail reports. These market research people cover a sector, that's what they talk about. It's only inexpert viewers coming in afterwards that decided to slam them because shacknews did a story about it.
Conversely you'd be absolutely amazed at how many web writers tell me that they're respected journalists. :)
Well that's my beef really, I don't think this is researched. You don't actually say much other than you couldn't find figures and then launch into a whole rhetoric about how this is symptomatic of the industry wanting to fail and then this orwellian stuff about giant conglomerates. Did you talk to any publishers? Those evil conglomerate types? You could maybe get a quote from them on how they view the PC games sector and what plans they have.
It'd be really *very* interesting if some of you journalists asked the hard questions which I cannot in my professional capacity, such as calling up Microsoft and asking them to clarify their support for PC gaming and/or the Xbox 360 and how they came to decide that Halo Wars would not end up being a PC game. I think that would be very enlightening if you pressed hard enough.
Anyway, you seem like a reasonable bloke. The reason I'm taking the time here is because I think you're essentially barking up the wrong tree. Writers like you, and sites like this, are places that the industry can come read columns and try understand the PC gaming market a bit better. And that needs to happen.
And, as your forums have so far demonstrated to me with frightening clarity, PC gamers could also do with understanding how the games industry works. So far I've seen everything from a elementary failure to comprehend the machanisms of capitalism through to the same sorts of extremist left 'information wants to be free' stuff in order to justify piracy as you see in the MP3 downloading crowd.
I just want to add to this chap Cthippo who incidentally claimed that some PC games sold very well. Very few games world wide on PC sell very well and pretty much none that you'd call 'core games'. In the UK the situation is disasterous. Nothing sells but Football Manager. There isn't a single PC AAA title from the boom season still in the all-formats top 40 chart now. Not one. Two years ago they'd be several in the top ten.
Well, that's not entirely how I view it. We each bought SupCom:FA, CoD4, Crysis and some other game I forget. All leading lights of PC games. All great games. All fo which we intend to play and having bought a copy will kind of ensure that we do. And the industry being what it is there wont be any more decent PC games until the summer so we've got plenty of time eh?
I don't think you could say that it was foolish for us to buy those games. There is an element of concious support there but mostly just by ensuring we didn't go and pirate those games because it's oh so easy to do. That's my point.
Xbox 360, Wii, and soon PS3 all have options for indie developers to release games to the platforms.
I fear piracy is significantly more prominent than you allude.
And Crytek just announced a cross-platform version of the new Crysis engine.
So when did you write this article? 2004 and just decided to post it today?
I do not consider Mark Rein to be any old guy. He releases a statement just a couple days after this study, using it as his backup that consoles are killing the PC industry. If the PC market wants to look for why there are flagging sales in the proper retail market, I think that they should look at the games they're releasing. It's much like the music industry: The labels say 'sales are declining' while people everywhere say 'We're sick of the same old teen-pop trash.' Even the teens. The labels changed the industry to suit a fickle but huge demographic, trying to exploit it for every quick dime it was worth - but in that, they earned the ire of the rest of the world. Now, their target demographic has changed, too - and they're out in the cold. But rather than say "Why?", they say "pirates."
Just like the recording industry, the software industry is now looking for scapegoats in my opinion. "The games aren't selling on PC." "But...consoles are selling." One could say that consoles are tapping into the PC - it's one way to read the figures, if you withhold certain info. But another view could and maybe should be 'The PC market has moved away from us. Why?'
Consoles have a barrier of entry. A huge one, at that. You can only buy in with significant investment - so the only games out there are produced by the same publishers that many PC gamers are saying "We're sick of this drivel." When it's the only option, people will buy it - they want to play in their living rooms. But if you want to know why the Wii is so damn red hot, or the Nintendo DS, it's because not every game out there is produced by EA, THQ, etc. The real figures don't lie - gamers want more variety. Even console gamers.
Instead, the industry at large, or at least some pretty big head honchos for it, are saying "PCs are being killed by consoles." They're not trying to say "Why are we off the mark?". They're excusing the behaviour. And if you look, it's the heads of the big boys that are doing it.
My argument is that the study doesn't look where PC gaming has MOVED. We ignore digital distrib. We ignore independent delivery. We ignore everything aside from retail brick and mortar sales, and then we put true market figureheads up there telling us how this exact study means that PC gaming is dying.
The figure is important not even so much for the number itself but for the truth in disclosure. If you're going to comment publicly on PC sales, the public expects that you are going to count PC sales - not your version of it. That's like the Record companies saying "music sales are down" when iTunes has sold over two billion songs - simply because they only count CDs.
At the end of the day, though, you have to understand - I'm a gamer, and often my views are from a consumer perspective with a journalist's information gathering techniques. When I write these columns, I speak as an open letter from the consumers - who, as you can see, largely see things here. A view which you call in one post 'uneducated'. Is this how the industry sees us? We're not buying things because we're 'uneducated'? Are our opinions that worthless?
It's my hope that people like you DO see this. DO challenge it. TELL US how it's different. And then follow through with something we can see. I'm glad if this article ruffles the feathers of a few in the industry - it means the industry is listening to someone, cause it sure isn't listening to the readers of my columns.
If you've read my work before, you'll see that I took a similar approach with NVidia after the Vista debacle. Once you get through all the fluffy hearts and kittens of PR and get down to it, there was a lack of true support - the interest was elsewhere. By writing my column against them, I had their driver team on the phone 2 days later. They didn't listen to the pissed off consumers, but when one of those pissed off consumers was able to shout loud enough for people to hear, they had to respond.
Do you know how many angry people there are at the games industry? The people who hate the Bioware buyout ALONE on this forum is troubling. But their sales figures AREN'T being listened to. In the end, it DOES come down to business - I'm not stupid and I do understand that point. But there's business, and then there's BAD business. People are starting to see the patterns of the latter. And even hitting the industry in the wallet is not inducing change. People - no, CUSTOMERS - are speaking...and nobody is listening.
My column, as orwellian as it is (I tend to do that to emphasise a point and encourage consumer/industry action - illustrate an endpoint on the line and people start tracing back and saying "oh, yeah...") is stating just that. One of the biggest industry heads is taking this single study, as incomplete as it is in the big picture, and spinning it just as bad or worse than ShackNews or anyone else. He's using it to explain a bigger shift to consoles. He's used piracy to explain that, too. He uses anything he can, actually. He is showing us that this industry, at least the groups doing all the buying and M&A, are abandoning us.
Eventually, SOMEONE needs to listen to the consumer. We're not buying PC games because we're buying console? No - we're not buying PC games because most aren't worth buying. The few top games of 07 are not the only things lining those retail shelves, and they're not enough to save it. As great as 07 was, there was also a whole lot of crap. A WHOLE lot.
Of course the industry wants PC games to survive. But the industry wants PC gaming to survive on ITS terms. Multi-platform ports and infinite sequels are becoming the norm, we feel. Piracy preventions that prevent legal users from playing games while pirates have no trouble. Eight hour gameplay for $50. Little replay value. Big budget, low delivery. This is what your consumers see you as.
And that's why I write what I do - so you can answer to it. So you can choose to say "hey, I saw you. I disagree." So you can give us your reasons and tell us why it is different and if you agree with ANY of it, maybe how you can help change it.
Or, barring anyone from the industry listening, at least I can remind a consumer base that they're not alone in feeling abandoned, and we can all go support our favourite indy developers and buy it online. And Mark Rein and others can ignore those figures and moves, slide over to console only, and we can get a whole new crop of PC developers. Just like the early 90s when Bethesda and SSR and id sprung up. It's not doom and gloom, it's the end of one era.
Sorry, that turned into a little rant of its own, but I think it's worth posting anyhow - we'll move back on to the discussion now. :) Actually, I'll take you up on that PM offer - not because I'm scrutinizing, but because I want to know just whose feathers I've ruffled - and I want to follow up on those other questions and talk with you about a follow-up that you would see as a fair approach. I could do that as a proper article, as opposed to a column where I'm inclined and permitted to put my view into words.
Umm, read the article again EssentialParadox. He's not arguing that PC gaming sucks, he's arguing against the very low percentage figure that was reported regarding PC games market share.
I found both your takes on this issue good food for thought...
My own grasp of the entire concept is shaky and Naive prehaps but surely the 'Games Industry' just has to accept like many industries before (From the likes of Heavy manufacturing to telecoms) the the golden era of massive profitability is gone never to return...
Business models are not eternal and must constantly evolve to match market conditions but with an increasing conglomeration it becomes ever more apparent that only one avenue is being taken... is it the right one? I only know that from my perspective as a gamer I can see the thin end of the wedge approaching...
The argument that eventually pushing profitability over and above sustainability will have serious repercussions is one that strikes a chord with me, again I know thats a naive view point but it is my opinion... maybe when it's a widely held one some Industry Figures may pay attention to it?
I guess it depends on what you call "selling well". If it takes a million units in the first 3 months (or more) ala Crysis, then no, not too many games are selling to that level. Looking at the Chart Track list, I find it interesting how many games on that list are not what I would consider To pevel games or even ones that are competition for the PC. I doubt we'll ever see "Mario & Sonic at the Olympics" (#1) or "DR KAWASHIMA'S BRAIN TRAINING" (#5) or NEW SUPER MARIO BROS. (#8) as Bit's GOTY. Sure, some of us may play them when we have a few mates over, but they are not serious games. I don't think anyone here is going to pass up up a copy of Crysis or SupCom to get "BIG BRAIN ACADEMY: WII DEGREE" (#13). These games represent not competition so much as an enirely new market that did not exist 5 years ago.
on a more fundamental level, I think your views represent those of the industry. You're putting out huge blockbuster games that cost millions upon millions to make, and when they don't sell millions upon millions of copies like they did in the past you assume people aren't buying them because they are pirating them. To some extent that may be true, but have you considered the possibility that people aren't buying them because they don't want them? Or perhaps that they don't want them on the terms that you are offering them (oppressive copy protection, in-game ads, $50 plus pricetags)? I think the industry as a whole has forgotten that people have a choice, and they they can choose to not play games until somthing they actually want comes along.
Lets take a look at what did sell, eh?
1. World of Warcraft: Burning Crusade* – Vivendi (Blizzard) – 2.25 million
2. World of Warcraft – Vivendi (Blizzard) – 914K
3. The Sims 2 Seasons Expansion Pack – Electronic Arts – 433K
4. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare* – Activision – 383K
5. Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars* – Electronic Arts – 343K
6. Sim City 4 Deluxe – Electronic Arts – 284K
7. The Sims 2 – Electronic Arts – 281K
8. The Sims 2 Bon Voyage Expansion Pack – Electronic Arts – 271K
9. Age of Empires III – Microsoft – 259K
10. The Sims 2 Pets Expansion Pack – Electronic Arts – 236K
So, we have a bit over 3 million for WOW, 1.5 million for the Sims, and under a million for everything else combined, all of which were sequels. Granted there are somewhat different distribution models at work here, but I think this shows a shifting customer interest away from "more of the same" to new technologies that are incompatible with the industry's old business model.
I'm a student in game design myself and hope to soon be in the industry, and let me tell you I haven't met one person that works in the industry that actually likes their publishers, not one. Why? Because what do the publishers demand? More of the same constantly, every game pitch has to be backed up with other simmilar games that have done well financialy (ie sold in the first months) and creative ideas that would set them apart are constantly being cut and thrown out for mainstream ones. This watering down of all games not just PC games as a whole is a big problem.
I also love how you say you bought all those games and don't even get around to playing them. Yea because thats how your real consumer does things right? Buy a bunch of big titles for the full release price of $60+ so that you can not even get around to playing half of them. I rarely buy games at their full retail price or near their release dates, because I just can't justify spending that much money on a game very often. When I do, you bet its going to be a game packed with value. The last 2 games I've bought for full retail price are Orange Box and Oblivion.
Real people buy games on their own terms, not on what the industry wants them to do. If the majority of the industry had it their way we'd all be playing Enter the Matrix and Beowulf movie games and crappy emulated PC ports over and over.
No, that's quite right. I guess I just felt there ought to be a bit of a difference when you're front page column on a well respected PC enthusiast site. Which may or may not be justified but either way the goal was obviously to stimulate debate and I'd say you hit the jackpot there :)
I do write from the point of view of a gamer too, just not on pro stuff. Probably going to regret this here's an example on the very subject: http://www.electricdeath.com/blog/1230
Sure, look I agree but I wouldn't call me the guy you need to tell this stuff because you're preaching to the choir! You have a much better voice than I do but I do think that the industry might take the criticisms a bit more seriously on the stuff they do get wrong, and there's a lot, without the generic demonisation of game publishers.
If I had some magic way to make game publishers listen... but they're big companies and they have structures which just don't lend themselves to some big flash of light revelation about how something is actually a genuinely bad idea. You mention PC game copy protection and I'd call that a prime example too. But equally, and that above thread I linked is a good example, there's a real lack of understanding from gamers about what it is that game publishers DO apart from being the bogeyman when stuff isn't quite right.
That's journalism in action alright. There's a bit difference between calling out companies and their products directly and talking about stuff generically though. Those companies will be looking out for what sites like this are saying and they'll be damn interested in fighting fires. I'm not sure the games industry will get motivated by the column though. I did because I'm in the industry and I'm a gamer and PC enthusiast, which is why I read Bit-tech. A lot of the stuff you're unhappy about, well we're unhappy about, is ultimately down to the corporate suits who are barely aware that they work in an entertainment industry.
Skirting close to pet beef. Bioware... and the dumbing down of games in general for the mass market. I hear it. It'd be great if PC gaming stayed around just to be the last bastion of intelligent non-pandering games as it has been for many years. Unfortunately sales is sales. When it costs millions to make a game, you have to maximise sales. So your PC version will show up but it wont be the game you wanted it to be. Fans of System Shock 2 will know that from playing Bioshock only too well. Hopefully it doesn't ruin the game for you but that's the kind of nature of the business really. If you're a game dev, do you make some intricate game which 200,000 people will love you for or do you try take your whole vision to millions of people and make some compromises to make it more accessible. It's going to annoy us but you can see why they do it right? It's not just about the money. Sometimes making things more accessible is a good thing. Sometimes it tears up the very essence of what made something good in the first place.
As for EA buying Bioware. I don't think there's clear evidence it's a terrible thing, yet. Plenty of great studios are owned by EA. And, to be frank, Bioware was doing a great job of pissing on their own legacy all by themselves without EA's help... I'd be more concerned about Pandemic if anything. I've started to rant haven't I. Buggery.
At the risk of getting circular. You say sales figures aren't being listened to because digital distribution isn't being counted. But it is. I mean what game publisher wont know how many games they're selling via DD? As far as game publishers are concerned, business is booming. Sales are going through the roof. It's just not on the PC. Why are these problems on the PC and not on consoles?
Hang on a mo. Mark Rein is not one of the biggest industry heads. He's just a guy at one game developer who is unusually forthright with opinions and gets a bunch of press as a result. I like Mark, especially having witnessed how upset he gets when he gets repeatedly sniped on ctf_face :) But I don't think you necessarily should put 100% stock in what he says as an industry leader. In this case, let's be honest, a reasonable factor in UT3 not selling that great is because it's not that good. You get this a lot with game developers. You have to appreciate they've lived and breathed something for years, they have to believe in it and often appear almost religious in self belief that it could be anything other than their game not being that great. It's a very difficult thing to understand unless you can imagine basically working on making something for two years of your life.
It's a shame more people in the industry don't talk more about the issues but you know, companies in the end are fearful of saying things. Statements in public need to be cleared and then they turn into something that isn't very interesting anyway. My own company is a nightmare like that. I'd be glad people like Mark Rein and Jeff Minter exist to brighten up the place and provide a bit of genuine developer insight but he's a guy with an agenda and a world-view perspective which you need to appreciate to put his statements in the right context. I loved to read the Yak's hissy fit about how people have no taste on Xbox Live Arcade because they were downloading Frogger instead of Space Giraffe. But, you know, you can understand why he says that :)
Sure, there's a lot of crap. I'd love to be drawn on what's wrong with game development and publishing, and there is a hell of a lot that's wrong but let's stick with the script. The few top games of 07 just didn't sell very well on PC. The good games, not the crap ones. So, as I said earlier, what is the conclusion. Either a) PC gamers have much higher standards than anyone else and even 'great' games aren't worth buying because the the bum-rays of jebus himself did not shine out from the DVD case or... b) PC gamers don't buy crap games but they don't buy guy games either. They pirate them. Which is more likely? Is there some explanation I have left out? It's certainly not that PC gamers are buying via Steam and the industry just, you know, forgot to count them.
In fact I think I might even argue in many respects PC gamers have *worse* taste collectively. The excitement about Crysis being the best example. Even in a favorite genre of mine, World in Combat got universally high scores despite being a seriously unfun ridiculously shoddy derivative RTS game but with some flash graphics on top. Meanwhile SupCom:FA, the best RTS game the world has ever seen, goes by with barely a fizzle. People are idiots!
S'alright mate. We all love a good rant :) Based in the US from your title? Shame, I'll be by the office next couple of weeks.