Video Games, Quality thereof and You

[Warren Castille]

I'm enjoying the discussion about the shift in gaming demographics and the concept of objective quality shifting away. Can we continue that discussion here?

[OttoVann]

I think basing the idea that BF5 is objectively worse than BF4 is suspect when using metacritic scores because it is a very common and borderline acceptable practice to nuke metacritic scores with bad reviews when the game plays well but online service is disrupted or down.

 

I also find it suspect that because adults spend more money than minors on videogames, that videogames aren't primarily driven and marketed to them and that a lot of games are made today with that demographic in mind.

 

I see no problem with 31 year olds spending more money on kids than 12 year olds on average, because they are buying games for said 12 year olds.

 

Does any of this make sense?

[Kellach Woods]

BF5 is out?

 

I thought Hardline wasn't 5.

 

Also, most of the studies show play times being higher among the 30's crowd than the teens crowd.

[Wymsical]

I guess that depends on what you consider quality. I think a significant portion of the changes can be attributed to the age of gamers changing and the people targeted slowly widening. For example, a common complaint that I see is how much more difficult all games used to be and how a more 'accelerated' experience is common now. To be fair, 'easy' is simpler to make but I also think the aging gaming population is partially to blame as well; some of us simply don't have as much time anymore and we're buying games that let us take things at our own pace with more progress/success rather than agonizing over that nearly-impossible last level for hours.

[OttoVann]

BF5 is out?

 

I thought Hardline wasn't 5.

 

Also, most of the studies show play times being higher among the 30's crowd than the teens crowd.

 

Isnt BF5 the one that had a ton of launch issues?

[Kellach Woods]

The "easy" part is also a shift in the intended goal of the game.

Most of the early console games were essentially arcade ports which essentially required people to put in coins in order to be profitable. If it wasn't profitable, no operator would buy it. Once that part of gaming essentially got whisked away, the main reason for the difficulty (dying = money) left as well.

 

Now (at least single player), games are about selling an experience, and difficulty often goes against that.

 

* * *

 

Nah, that was 4 - had a ton of launch issues. Hardline's launch was smoother but I think less people were interested in it since it was essentially "COPS IN TANKS AND ROBBERS IN APCS" with no real thought as to what that actually means.

[Warren Castille]

I think basing the idea that BF5 is objectively worse than BF4 is suspect when using metacritic scores because it is a very common and borderline acceptable practice to nuke metacritic scores with bad reviews when the game plays well but online service is disrupted or down.

 

I also find it suspect that because adults spend more money than minors on videogames, that videogames aren't primarily driven and marketed to them and that a lot of games are made today with that demographic in mind.

 

I see no problem with 31 year olds spending more money on kids than 12 year olds on average, because they are buying games for said 12 year olds.

 

Does any of this make sense?

 

I follow. Let me play Devil's Advocate.

 

If a game comes out and is a solid A (Let's say it's a 90/100), people will play it and enjoy it. It's a good game, memorable, the sort of game you recommend when people buy the system it's on. "Man, you've gotta buy Save the Princess Happy Smile. It's genre-defining!"

 

It gets a sequel a year later. It's more of the same - still solid, but not a refreshing new game like the original was. Is that game better or worse than the original? How do you define that? Something like Portal comes out and completely bends how you look at first person puzzle navigation. Portal 2 does the same exact stuff as the first game, just differently. So... Is Portal 1 "better" objectively? All Portal 2 did was copy it. It could have been an expansion pack. How do you determine what's worth a new score or not?

 

Battlefield games (and CoD specifically, but that's been alleviated a little in recent years) are notorious for being Same Game, New Paint. It's the problem Madden has every year; It's last year's model with some new gimmicks, for better or worse (FIRST PERSON FOOTBALL! QB VISION CONE!). Is Madden 2015 better than Madden 2005? They're basically the same, barring rosters and graphics.

 

As for 31 year olds buying their kids video games: I'm not so sure about that. If that 31 year old had a kid right as they turned 21 that kid is 10. I know the reputation Xbox Live has, but I don't think there's that many 10 year olds buying the New Hotness every year. In my opinion it's a lot more likely that the kids who grew up playing their NES and SNES and Genesis and Playstations just kept at the hobby. The same people I would play games with after school are still playing games now, after all.

[Mercer]

Happy to, Warren. So the common misconception is that video games have ever been a children's 'toy'. Dating back to the late 70s and early 80s, video games have always been a predominately adult activity. It may not seem that way the average gamer today, as when we were born the NES had just come out and the market was just recovering from the Video Game Crash.

 

What has changed is the astronomical increase to video game development. This fancy graph from 2013 does an excellent job of showing the exponential growth of game design cost:

 

 

Edit: Image at most post. 

 

Ok, so the other part of this is the publisher's taking a cut ontop of development costs. Afterall, publishers are the ones taking the risk of marketing and manufacturing the game. In the last five years, a new clause has come up in that relationship, that if a game doesn't hit a metacritic value then the developer earns even less money from the publisher.

 

Metacritic is a very important part of today's developer culture because of the importance common gamers place in critic scores. A low quality game drops sales and lowers the pay out per game sold for the developer.

[Desu Nee]

One thing Yahtzee said and I agree is that, to survive in the AAA Industry, you either make a bland, grey mass of genres easily swallowed by anyone, AKA Call of Duty, or you make something niche that is so good that you become the House name of sorts, like FROM Software.

 

It's interesting to see these things, sometimes I actually wonder if Dark Souls will become a sub-genre on itself.

[Desu Nee]

Happy to, Warren. So the common misconception is that video games have ever been a children's 'toy'. Dating back to the late 70s and early 80s, video games have always been a predominately adult activity. It may not seem that way the average gamer today, as when we were born the NES had just come out and the market was just recovering from the Video Game Crash.

 

What has changed is the astronomical increase to video game development. This fancy graph from 2013 does an excellent job of showing the exponential growth of game design cost:

 

 

Edit: Image at most post. 

 

Ok, so the other part of this is the publisher's taking a cut ontop of development costs. Afterall, publishers are the ones taking the risk of marketing and manufacturing the game. In the last five years, a new clause has come up in that relationship, that if a game doesn't hit a metacritic value then the developer earns even less money from the publisher.

 

Metacritic is a very important part of today's developer culture because of the importance common gamers place in critic scores. A low quality game drops sales and lowers the pay out per game sold for the developer.

Is the dollar value fixed? There is lots of variables, like inflation and modern coin value there...

[Warren Castille]

It's interesting to see these things, sometimes I actually wonder if Dark Souls will become a sub-genre on itself.

 

FROM has that on lockdown at the moment, though Lords of the Fallen doesn't immediately come to mind.

[Desu Nee]

It's interesting to see these things, sometimes I actually wonder if Dark Souls will become a sub-genre on itself.

 

FROM has that on lockdown at the moment, though Lords of the Fallen doesn't immediately come to mind.

LoF was less of trying on the genre and more like a real rip-off to be fair. I've played it, and just felt like I was playing a more buggy, slighty faster paced Dark Souls II. The world and scenarios too ain't something to write home about.

[Mercer]

Happy to, Warren. So the common misconception is that video games have ever been a children's 'toy'. Dating back to the late 70s and early 80s, video games have always been a predominately adult activity. It may not seem that way the average gamer today, as when we were born the NES had just come out and the market was just recovering from the Video Game Crash.

 

What has changed is the astronomical increase to video game development. This fancy graph from 2013 does an excellent job of showing the exponential growth of game design cost:

 

 

Edit: Image at most post. 

 

Ok, so the other part of this is the publisher's taking a cut ontop of development costs. Afterall, publishers are the ones taking the risk of marketing and manufacturing the game. In the last five years, a new clause has come up in that relationship, that if a game doesn't hit a metacritic value then the developer earns even less money from the publisher.

 

Metacritic is a very important part of today's developer culture because of the importance common gamers place in critic scores. A low quality game drops sales and lowers the pay out per game sold for the developer.

Is the dollar value fixed? There is lots of variables, like inflation and modern coin value there...

 

Dollar value is not fixed but according to inflation is about a 120% decrease in the value of a dollar. In 1985 $20 would equal $43.89 in 2015. This does in no way explain the the astronomical rise in development cost. Source - Inflation Calculator

[Warren Castille]

It's interesting to see these things, sometimes I actually wonder if Dark Souls will become a sub-genre on itself.

 

FROM has that on lockdown at the moment, though Lords of the Fallen doesn't immediately come to mind.

LoF was less of trying on the genre and more like a real rip-off to be fair. I've played it, and just felt like I was playing a more buggy, slighty faster paced Dark Souls II. The world and scenarios too ain't something to write home about.

 

Oh, I know. I'm just saying that there are folks who've noticed.

[Mercer]

I guess that depends on what you consider quality. I think a significant portion of the changes can be attributed to the age of gamers changing and the people targeted slowly widening. For example, a common complaint that I see is how much more difficult all games used to be and how a more 'accelerated' experience is common now. To be fair, 'easy' is simpler to make but I also think the aging gaming population is partially to blame as well; some of us simply don't have as much time anymore and we're buying games that let us take things at our own pace with more progress/success rather than agonizing over that nearly-impossible last level for hours.

This is a side effect of rising developmental costs. Games need to be more approachable to read a wider range of audiences. This coined the now famous term "We want the CoD audience".

[Desu Nee]

 

This is a side effect of rising developmental costs. Games need to be more approachable to read a wider range of audiences. This coined the now famous term "We want the CoD audience".

COD could release an empty blue-ray and it would still sell. I can't even complain, I bought COD Black Ops and World at War to play with friends mostly. It's was pretty joyful fun playing Zombies at night and surviving to wave 60 something.

 

All in all, I honestly believe that, much like music, the more fresh ideas have gone to the Indie industry.

[Mercer]

 

This is a side effect of rising developmental costs. Games need to be more approachable to read a wider range of audiences. This coined the now famous term "We want the CoD audience".

COD could release an empty blue-ray and it would still sell. I can't even complain, I bought COD Black Ops and World at War to play with friends mostly. It's was pretty joyful fun playing Zombies at night and surviving to wave 60 something.

 

All in all, I honestly believe that, much like music, the more fresh ideas have gone to the Indie industry.

This is very true, but also dangerous.

 

Something that Valve has been criticized for is the lack of moderation in their green light and early access services. Low quality games have flooded the market, and some games never leave Early Access, becoming abandonware after gamers have already paid for the game they are beta testing. Practices like this, where large amounts of mediocre games flooded the market, is what lead to the first video game crash.

[Warren Castille]

I'm not sure the comparison to Greenlight is fair. Games come out and have to sell, and buying Early Access is basically handing someone your money and then waiting for them to run home and come back with your product. The solution is the same as the mod fiasco: Don't buy shit in EA and people will stop having incentives to cash out.

 

Of course, having said that, I own Killing Floor 2 and was eagerly awaiting giving them my hard-earned spacebux.

[OttoVann]

How old is the CoD audience and how much attention is given to them buying your game?

 

In what Warren quoted me, he mentioned near the end about 10 year olds not buying the new hotness every year, I agree their parents are. I don't have much outside of opinion for this, but I imagine kids are more susceptible to the "gotta have" new stuff than older for a variety of reasons but most predominantly because they want to play with their peers who will also be on it.

 

Back to my original point to reinforce, I think the CoD audience is what most publishers and developers go after, I think the CoD audience definitely does not average 31, and I think the CoD audience has the most free-flowing money swirling around it due to people in that bracket not only buying the CoD for themselves, but because their children want it - and they are content with Same Game.

 

I also don't see a problem with a bulk of game revenues and profits being made off of that, if that's the case.

 

We can also squarely and unequivocally blame rising production costs on games to the graphics (or visuals) arms-race. People demand hyper-realism or HD, spend thousands of dollars for a machine capable of it, and wonder why costs went up. However, I wonder what the average cost of production was for 2013 and especially 2014 since those years have seen explosive growth in the 'indie' market, games that typically retail for sub $20 and show it. Those production costs are way down, especially for the 8/16-bit renaissance we are having (which I fucking hate personally).

 

Rambling now, but that's all I have to add for now.

[Desu Nee]

 

This is a side effect of rising developmental costs. Games need to be more approachable to read a wider range of audiences. This coined the now famous term "We want the CoD audience".

COD could release an empty blue-ray and it would still sell. I can't even complain, I bought COD Black Ops and World at War to play with friends mostly. It's was pretty joyful fun playing Zombies at night and surviving to wave 60 something.

 

All in all, I honestly believe that, much like music, the more fresh ideas have gone to the Indie industry.

This is very true, but also dangerous.

 

Something that Valve has been criticized for is the lack of moderation in their green light and early access services. Low quality games have flooded the market, and some games never leave Early Access, becoming abandonware after gamers have already paid for the game they are beta testing. Practices like this, where large amounts of mediocre games flooded the market, is what lead to the first video game crash.

Unfortunately, that will always be a side-effect. A very cynical part of me is convinced not stronger moderation will happen because you have to pay 100 dollars to get your game on greenlight, and Valve, specially this past year in general, has been quite greedy, and there WILL always be bad games.

 

It won't cause a crash however. The gaming industry isn't in a big bubble because people still buy AAA games. The first crash was caused because people weren't even BUYING games. Period.

[Xavieraux Reinardes]

I actually have a very positive view of the future of games, but I think it's not in (most) triple A studios.

 

Examples being the rebirth of the mid-high range studio as exemplified in CDProjekt, CCP, and Paradox, as well as the rise of indies/rebirth of "garage video game development" as seen in Limbo, Titan Souls, Bastion/Transistor, and of course the occasional kickstarter game such as Pillars of Eternity and Wasteland 2.

 

Tools will continue to get better and easier for independent teams, now many game engines and toolkits such as Unreal Engine 4 are making cheaper models for indie developers to use the engine.

 

AAA gaming development will always exist just as AAA movies will always exist, but 90% of the time the better/more meaningful stuff is going to come from lesser known studios, or games with much smaller budgets than the triple-A games. Just like how most of the best movies every year tend to be independent films, or artistic directors given a budget and free range with that budget.

[Desu Nee]

How old is the CoD audience and how much attention is given to them buying your game?  

 

In what Warren quoted me, he mentioned near the end about 10 year olds not buying the new hotness every year, I agree their parents are.  I don't have much outside of opinion for this, but I imagine kids are more susceptible to the "gotta have" new stuff than older for a variety of reasons but most predominantly because they want to play with their peers who will also be on it.

 

Back to my original point to reinforce, I think the CoD audience is what most publishers and developers go after, I think the CoD audience definitely does not average 31, and I think the CoD audience has the most free-flowing money swirling around it due to people in that bracket not only buying the CoD for themselves, but because their children want it - and they are content with Same Game.

 

I also don't see a problem with a bulk of game revenues and profits being made off of that, if that's the case.  

 

We can also squarely and unequivocally blame rising production costs on games to the graphics (or visuals) arms-race.  People demand hyper-realism or HD, spend thousands of dollars for a machine capable of it, and wonder why costs went up.  However, I wonder what the average cost of production was for 2013 and especially 2014 since those years have seen explosive growth in the 'indie' market, games that typically retail for sub $20 and show it.  Those production costs are way down, especially for the 8/16-bit renaissance we are having (which I fucking hate personally).

 

Rambling now, but that's all I have to add for now.

You and me. What people see in PIXELS PIXELS PIXELS PIXELS is beyond me. Not to say I hate all games that style, Cave Story and Risk of Rain comes to mind. They're popular too because, as I made a game before, pixel games are cheap to make art, cheap to program in most cases, and cheap to make backgrounds and stuff. Low risk Medium Profit in most cases.

 

 

Gaming is a VERY expensive hobby, almost unhealthly so, with all companies trying to squeeze your money for all it's worth, getting borderline illegal in many cases. It's a wild west by all sense and purposes.

[Mercer]

There's a lot going on with the indie scene and AAA scene, in a lot of ways they are complete opposites. AAA developers have their names out there, they have established franchises to draw from, but little creative freedom. Indie developers are idea people, but their ideas aren't as well developed in most cases.

 

The end result is the same though, poorly created games that are either stagnent or can't preform as grandly as their creators hope. There are exceptions to this rule, of course. Out of the muck comes grand new enterprises like Dark Souls, Dragon's Dogma, Binding of Isaac or Killing Floor. They will get refined more over time as they reach a larger audience.

 

There's no real answer for any of the problems the video game community has right now. There are underlying currents of mistrust between gamers, developers and publishers that has been growing for years now. There's little trust let to give out, and more of it being destroyed as the months go on.

[Desu Nee]

I actually have a very positive view of the future of games, but I think it's not in (most) triple A studios.

 

Examples being the rebirth of the mid-high range studio as exemplified in CDProjekt, CCP, and Paradox, as well as the rise of indies/rebirth of "garage video game development" as seen in Limbo, Titan Souls, Bastion/Transistor, and of course the occasional kickstarter game such as Pillars of Eternity and Wasteland 2.

 

Tools will continue to get better and easier for independent teams, now many game engines and toolkits such as Unreal Engine 4 are making cheaper models for indie developers to use the engine.

 

AAA gaming development will always exist just as AAA movies will always exist, but 90% of the time the better/more meaningful stuff is going to come from lesser known studios, or games with much smaller budgets than the triple-A games. Just like how most of the best movies every year tend to be independent films, or artistic directors given a budget and free range with that budget.

I do have to note however one thing. Not always the Dev/Artistic Director is right.

 

 

Shaylaman, John Karmack, and George Lucas were given full liberty to his movies/daikatana/starwars prequels. And we all know what happened.

 

Not everyone is a Kojima.

[Desu Nee]

There's a lot going on with the indie scene and AAA scene, in a lot of ways they are complete opposites. AAA developers have their names out there, they have established franchises to draw from, but little creative freedom. Indie developers are idea people, but their ideas aren't as well developed in most cases.

 

The end result is the same though, poorly created games that are either stagnent or can't preform as grandly as their creators hope. There are exceptions to this rule, of course. Out of the muck comes grand new enterprises like Dark Souls, Dragon's Dogma, Binding of Isaac or Killing Floor. They will get refined more over time as they reach a larger audience.

 

There's no real answer for any of the problems the video game community has right now. There are underlying currents of mistrust between gamers, developers and publishers that has been growing for years now. There's little trust let to give out, and more of it being destroyed as the months go on.

I don't think we're heading to a crash, but I won't deny we're in to a turning point in the industry.