 |
| |
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
A while back i prepleged purchase of Moo3(yes i know its a stupid thing to do, but i was making a point), which was based on the way Stormhound particularly, and the guys at Quicksilver had been open and frank with us all. Now i just don't know. Looks like i might have to wait(like i'm waiting for Civ3 to get MP). Maybe the way games are produced today is just not the right way to go about it?Although i'm not sure how else it could be done. Yin was ok(he was warning us of just this kind of thing), just got a bad rap.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stormhound
|
 |
New Jersey
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
Computer gaming has followed the classical life-cycle pattern of most industries:
Once upon a time, games were lovingly hand-made by dedicated (not to say obsessed) individuals who wanted to squeeze every ounce out of a computer. The games were not infrequently self-published, packaged in ziploc bags with cheaply printed manuals, and put on as many store shelves as could be reached. The quality varied enormously...some games were gems, some were trash.
Needless to say, these games made money. Business people...whose job it is to come up with ways to make more money...noticed. They pumped in money to improve production values, do advertising, provide support. The number of companies (both developers and publishers) mushroomed as more people saw the money to be made. The market became saturated with products, as it was the quantity (not the quality) of games that changed.
Businesses hit hard times, because with so many choices the consumer could now be more selective. Putting out games became riskier, because the cost was great and the returns sometimes just weren't there. Publishers demanded more and more control over the content, to ensure that they got a product that THEY wanted that would minimize the chances of a big flop...not to say that there aren't still some big flops. The industry is contracting right now, and probably will for a while. The publishers have a tight hold on what gets out, though the internet is helping to change that. The common consumer, however, still depends upon the store shelves and packaging, where much net-published software is never to be seen (unless it gets lucky, becomes a smash hit, and gets bought...just as lucky starter companies in other industries sometimes are).
Oversimplified, yes. And I don't deny the publisher's right to make money (after all, they're risking theirs). I'm as capitalist as the day is long. But the focus has shifted. Software is no longer a cottage industry...it's big business, just like cars or computers or appliances. Anyone who wants to believe otherwise is an idealist; anyone who does believe otherwise is suffering from a misguided sense of reality.
QS is up against that reality, and my job status is one of the effects of that. There will be others. It's not the direction that's in doubt, it's the destination.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stormhound
Computer gaming has followed the classical life-cycle pattern of most industries:
Once upon a time, games were lovingly hand-made by dedicated (not to say obsessed) individuals who wanted to squeeze every ounce out of a computer. The games were not infrequently self-published, packaged in ziploc bags with cheaply printed manuals, and put on as many store shelves as could be reached. The quality varied enormously...some games were gems, some were trash.
Needless to say, these games made money. Business people...whose job it is to come up with ways to make more money...noticed. They pumped in money to improve production values, do advertising, provide support. The number of companies (both developers and publishers) mushroomed as more people saw the money to be made. The market became saturated with products, as it was the quantity (not the quality) of games that changed.
Businesses hit hard times, because with so many choices the consumer could now be more selective. Putting out games became riskier, because the cost was great and the returns sometimes just weren't there. Publishers demanded more and more control over the content, to ensure that they got a product that THEY wanted that would minimize the chances of a big flop...not to say that there aren't still some big flops. The industry is contracting right now, and probably will for a while. The publishers have a tight hold on what gets out, though the internet is helping to change that. The common consumer, however, still depends upon the store shelves and packaging, where much net-published software is never to be seen (unless it gets lucky, becomes a smash hit, and gets bought...just as lucky starter companies in other industries sometimes are).
Oversimplified, yes. And I don't deny the publisher's right to make money (after all, they're risking theirs). I'm as capitalist as the day is long. But the focus has shifted. Software is no longer a cottage industry...it's big business, just like cars or computers or appliances. Anyone who wants to believe otherwise is an idealist; anyone who does believe otherwise is suffering from a misguided sense of reality.
QS is up against that reality, and my job status is one of the effects of that. There will be others. It's not the direction that's in doubt, it's the destination. |
Exactly my thoughts on this too. The only resonably high profile 'cottage' games producer i can think of is shrapnel games(they of Space Empires fame) and they are mail order only, at least i haven't seen Space Empires IV on the shop shelves in London.
I think games producers/publishers could be making a big long-term mistake. They are trying to sell computer games like music cd's/DVD's. This seems IMHO like the wrong approach. The obvious one is that a music cd costs £14, a game £29-39. So for the guy on the street you can blow £14 on an 'average' cd listen to it a few times, stick it on your shelf and think oh well. You can do exactly the same for a video game - it just cost's 2-3 times as much. This is important when most pc users are technology-savvy and may know how to find or pirate software.
Another difference is exposure to the product. TV/Radio are perfect for music and you can watch/listen and find out which songs/artists you like. Games don't really have this outlet, ok there are websites and magazines, but not everyone is online who buys games and £5-6 a magazine is not cheap.
So games compared to music have less mass exposure but higher off the shelf cost.
This would be fine if the product was generaly good and people knew that games from such and such a company were nearly always good(This used to be the case). But its a very faceless industry now and even the mighty names seem to fall(Civ3?CTP2?etc). So in the face of rising piracy(which is bad - i always buy originals) and diminishing returns you would think that it was in the publishers interest to ensure excellent quality and try to build their names and reputation. I'm sure if people knew they would be getting good value they would show their support.
Its a vicious circle in which the stakes are so high(finacially) that more and more often it seems no-one ends up the winner. This is not a whine so much as a statement from the buyers end(I've been buying games since the 80's).It's how it is. The end result is that i buy less games these days, maybe 2 or 3 a year compared to upto a dozen 5+ years ago. I probably am not the only one.
I am extremely carefull when buying software now, there have always been bad games - we just seem to have a higher proportion of them now, mostly due to rushed final stages of production(which is i'd imagine always the case to some extent - but it's getting beyond reasonable). So i think the only way to reverse the situation is to make/allow more time for the games production to ensure you get a great,and as near as finished product. Patches are fine, it's just quite obvious when the problems are more serious. Heck you could even lie to your programing team and set a dummy/false release date, keep the pressure on to make that date but have a saftey margin already factored in. These are all just my opinions, i've never produced/published a game(I did get a 5 line program published once in a magazine ), but i feel something needs to change, at least if the games producers want to start getting more of my money again
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2002 04:42
Neither does he restrict his "insights" to civ3. 
|