GDC panel; the viability of PC gaming

[RPG of the year!!]

I mean, you all have *brilliant* ideas of "they need to stop making crappy games", which is, I'm sure, something that has *never* occured to *any* game producer out there ...

Actually, no, that hasn't occured to a large number of game producers.

Chuck Cuevas, John Romero et al. believed with absolute conviction that their shit sandwiches couldn't miss. Todd Howard is under the impression that he produced an RPG masterpiece. These jokers thought that X-COM: Enforcer was just peachy keen. Brian Fargo couldn't be happier with his baby. Herve Caen thought he was steering Interplay towards Successville by greenlighting console trash and cancelling Fallout 3 and Baldur's Gate 3.

For people like them, it's inconceivable to stop hatching shitty games. Due in large part to the fact that it would require realizing that they don't crap out lumps of pure gold and the birds don't sing their names. Admitting that you're capable of mistakes is bad, mmkay?

To ponder that perhaps you should stop making crap you must first acknowledge, "I'm making crap". That's just not gonna happen to an industry run by Todds and Herves.

 

[Brother None]

Well, you're singling out the extremes there, RPG, the fungus on the rot on the infestation, so to speak. If the entire industry were staffed by Herve Caens, it wouldn't be alive right now

 

[zioburosky13]

Reason why PC game is declining: too many shitty PR with lousy management skill who wants nothing but money rather than goodwill.

But there is another reason: economy. If you take a look at China (one of the country with highest piracy, not just electronic consumer product but everything), people there just too poor to afford any foreign stuff. Given the current exchange rate (50.00 USD=387.365 CNY), that's 2/3 of monthly living cost for a blue-collar family.
It will be better if publisher let the local dealer to publish/distribute the goods according to the local market economy status for example instead of 50 dollars per game, maybe just 5 dollars for the local. That way, they can sell more and able to gain more profit. (The cheaper it is, the more people will buy).

 

[Sorrow]

It will be better if publisher let the local dealer to publish/distribute the goods according to the local market economy status for example instead of 50 dollars per game, maybe just 5 dollars for the local. That way, they can sell more and able to gain more profit. (The cheaper it is, the more people will buy).

Exactly! I was thinking about this lately.
Due to the local market, things like games and music CDs are about 10+ times cheaper on the West than in third world countries, like Poland for example.
Since the value of CD with game is relative and and games are usually "localized", prices should be proportional to incomes in given country.
Selling games for 2/3 of monthly living cost of a family is just a common thievery . A theft of hard work of the person that is buying those products.

 

[Mick1965]

Also, they are supporting their competitors. Hardware industry isn't an ally of the software industry, it's its competitor.
People pay for their hardware with money that they could spend on games.

Ok, seriously, that's not what the word "competition" means in this context, please don't use it as such. That's like arguing cars are competing against oil prices. Don't be redic.

This is a fair point though, Kharn. When you buy a new car it doesn't double the cost of your oil, but when you're shopping for a new PC game you have to factor in any hardware upgrade costs you may need for that game. If your rig can't cut it then you might decide to put off purchasing the game till later. When later comes around and you've bought the new hardware, chances are the game will now be on special. As you said, it's not a direct competitor to game sales, but it has to be a factor in the number of sales for a new game.

Mick

 

[RPG of the year!!]

Well, you're singling out the extremes there, RPG, the fungus on the rot on the infestation, so to speak. If the entire industry were staffed by Herve Caens, it wouldn't be alive right now

Ah, but I said the industry is run by Herve Caens and Todd Howards. Which is why for several years most PC games have fallen into one of two categories; "shitty failure" or "shitty success".

I didn't say the entire industry was staffed by them, either, since every now and then(to phrase it generously) a game that's marginally decent or even halfway good manages to slip out among all the hype about the next BIG SHINY.

 

[TheSarge]

The Rainbow Six series. After R6:RS the franchise was respectable. Bullets killed you. You're shot in the head? You are lilely quite dead. So sorry, no head for you. Start over and try again. But that's to hard for the average (or rather, very average) Console Gamer. They want to go all Rambo on everyone and the concept of "getting shot is a bad thing" just doesn't resonate with them. They think you're supposed to be able to shrug of gunshot wounds.

Considering DooM and Quake are the basis of FPS's and the more realistic came later on,I wonder how you came to that conclusion.(and it's not a matter of shrugging off the damage -at least in those- but a hit on health,just like in FO and so on)
Personally I don't want reality in that form in games,it bores me,I want to do stupid things like rocketjumps,wallbouncing of enemies to keep them pinned and so on....when I play an action game,it's action I'm after and not a sneaking game.

Maybe you should try an action game,the satisfaction of pulling off a rocketjump and avoid their shot with it,while in mid-air killing them is something that's very satisfying.(as I'm sure you find it satisfying to pull off a headshot/sneak past someone)

I'm not objecting to realistic shooters,I'm just objecting to the words used,since I don't think that non-realistic games means they're dumbed down or that they mean that someone thinks the damage could be shrugged off.(cause being hit by a quadrocket is certainly something you won't be able to shrug off)

You haven't played R:6 Vegas, have you? If you had you'd know that the player can literally shrug off multiple round from a HMG in that game. You don't need a health pack of a medkit or anything to heal. Nope. You just keep your head down, stay alive long enough, and you eventually heal completely. Compare that to R6:RS where you couldn't heal in the field at all. If you were lucky enough to get shot and not die (a rare event in R6:RS) you stayed injured until you sat out a mission.

Now, in my mind making things more arcade-like and less realistic IS dumbing it down. The more complex things are the more of a challenge it is. I, however, seem to be the exception to the rule: The slavering masses of vidiots seem only to want a quick cheap thrill and some eye-candy. Strategy? Tactics? The requirement that you actually think your way through a situation? Heck no! it's all about who can twitch their thumbs the fastest. Makes me wanna slap one of them. Please tell me I'm not the only one who feels this way.

 

[Sander]

The Wii is the king of the time-wasters no doubt, but as far as anything deeper? I'm not sure. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess came out but was essentially a re-hash of Orcarina of time. I haven't seen any innovation at a level deeper than Wii sports. I couldn't even imagine something as complex as Fallout on the Wii. Then again it depends what you want out of gaming. I certainly hope gaming doesn't simply become re-hashes of previous games and/or innovative, but shallow time-wasters. Innovative and deep will do me just fine.

That's not the point. Regardless of the quality of individual games, the Wii itself was an innovative product that did not focus on graphics, unlike its direct competition which still trotted along a standard path.
And this showed heavily in sales. The Wii outsold the PS3 by miles and is giving the X-Box360 stiff competition. This because it had a good idea that set it apart from the rest of the horde.

As I said, this hasn't happened in PC gaming in years.

 

[TheWesDude]

i have been thinking about this for a while and here is what i have come up with as problems as to why computer games are selling less.

1) the old standards for computer games have mostly left the building. the old series and games and for the most part the people who made those games arent out there anymore or else not out there doing what they did that was successful. this is a minor reason why i stopped buying games. the last game i bought was might and magic dark messiah. i saw that title and thought ooo rpg! install it and its an action/adventure game. oh well.

2) games are released too buggy and problematic. i shouldnt need to buy a game from a store, take it home, install game off 5-6 CDs, then go to the web page and download a patch or else not be able to play it untill that patch comes out. this right here is a major reason why i stopped buying games.

3) the games that are being released, dont have anything uniqe about them that makes them interesting. they dont have a good hook that is cool or special. all i see for the vast majority of games is how groundbreaking or how advanced the graphics are. thats fine, if i wanted art i would go to a museum, if i wanted entertainment, i would buy a computer game. oh wait, i did!

4) the game stores are dissapearing. i remember i used to go to a gaming store and i would see like a shelf of console games and a shelf of mac games and like 6-8 shelves and some asiles of computer games/books. now its the oppisite. this makes it hard for me to go to a computer game store because i know they are not really going to have a game i want unless they are lucky. major reason i dont buy computer games.

5) MMOs now take up my time. rather than spending upwards of $500-$650 a year on games, i now pay for monthly subscriptions while i wait for good games to come out. and now im lucky if i buy 1-2 games a year. there is an adaquate subsitute to spending tons of money on new games all the time. so i dont need to psend money on crappy games as a temporary holdout till something good comes out.

6) i dont pirate games, i buy everything and pay for it. unfortunately due to the quality of games comming out, i have a hard time justify shelling out the money for crappy games. i would rather just play my MMO.

7) more innovative and uniqe copy protection schemes that cause problems and even can prevent from working on some computer.


i see the reason for piracy being the kind of problem it is, is due to the nature of the gaming industry itself. shiny graphics, regujitated crap, nothing innovative or uniqe in the game, that all attracts someone who is simple and likes the instant gratification type of person. unfortunately, for the average instant gratification type person, going to the store and paying for the game is too much effort and they can just dload it off bittertorrent.

the gaming industry itself is the cause of piracy.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

Now, in my mind making things more arcade-like and less realistic IS dumbing it down. The more complex things are the more of a challenge it is.

But, more of a challenge isn't necessarily more fun, and the same is true of more realistic. Try a realtime 747 flight from London to New York on a flight sim and tell me how much fun it is.

A good game is a good game, is a good game. In the early years of home-computing there was very little available other than good, quick, dumb fun (I'm thinking of my old 48k Spectrum, now) and there was nothing wrong with it at all. I loved R-type....

I, however, seem to be the exception to the rule: The slavering masses of vidiots seem only to want a quick cheap thrill and some eye-candy. Strategy? Tactics? The requirement that you actually think your way through a situation? Heck no! it's all about who can twitch their thumbs the fastest. Makes me wanna slap one of them. Please tell me I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I say again, there is nothing wrong with superficial games that provide a quick few minutes of frantic fun. Not everybody has the hours to spare grinding away at deep, involved gaming.

There is something wrong if quick pleasure is the only thing being offered...

 

[zioburosky13]

Here's an interesting article I found: source here

"Yokoi held that toys and games do not necessarily require cutting edge technology; novel and fun game play are more important. In the interview he went as far as to suggest that expensive cutting edge technology sometimes gets in the way of developing a new product."

 

[Sorrow]

Now, in my mind making things more arcade-like and less realistic IS dumbing it down. The more complex things are the more of a challenge it is.

But, more of a challenge isn't necessarily more fun, and the same is true of more realistic. Try a realtime 747 flight from London to New York on a flight sim and tell me how much fun it is.

A good game is a good game, is a good game. In the early years of home-computing there was very little available other than good, quick, dumb fun (I'm thinking of my old 48k Spectrum, now) and there was nothing wrong with it at all. I loved R-type....

Which has nothing to do with TheSarge's post. R6 was a great game, beause of complexity and realism. It wasn't series for everyone, but for realism and complexity fans. Dumbing down such series is wrong.

 

[Rainstorm]

You haven't played R:6 Vegas, have you? If you had you'd know that the player can literally shrug off multiple round from a HMG in that game. You don't need a health pack of a medkit or anything to heal. Nope. You just keep your head down, stay alive long enough, and you eventually heal completely. Compare that to R6:RS where you couldn't heal in the field at all. If you were lucky enough to get shot and not die (a rare event in R6:RS) you stayed injured until you sat out a mission.

Nope I haven't and as DDD pointed out I misunderstood what you were saying...
I read it as "R6 is the only way games should be,all others are dumbed down",hence my reply...so I was off with it due to misreading/misunderstanding.

Now, in my mind making things more arcade-like and less realistic IS dumbing it down. The more complex things are the more of a challenge it is.

Like I wrote I like games like Quake and such,I'm no fan of R6 and similar games with realism in them...
But I can understand why people like the concept and if they've made that to the R6 series I can understand your frustration over it.
Like written previously,I'm not against these type of games,they're just not my cup of tea...and IMHO these games should stay true to the original.(and continue to be realistic,it's the basis of them)

I, however, seem to be the exception to the rule: The slavering masses of vidiots seem only to want a quick cheap thrill and some eye-candy. Strategy? Tactics? The requirement that you actually think your way through a situation? Heck no! it's all about who can twitch their thumbs the fastest. Makes me wanna slap one of them. Please tell me I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I don't care much for graphics,but I do care for cheap thrills...but at the same time I do get a lot of tactics and such since I've played a lot online in a clan.(the only reason I don't nowadays is that I've not found a game I really like since the original UT)
So...I want simple,stupid gameplay that I can throw myself into in a couple of minutes and frag away and since I play CTF,I will get the tactics and strategical thinking within the simple gameplay online.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUKN3947869020070315

Just to show that the gaming industry may be moving towards a better business model with smaller budget games that concentrate on playability rather than presenetation (albeit, this article does focus on consoles)...

Attendees at the recent Game Developers Conference in San Francisco said that "flOw" may be the first downloadable hit on Sony's online network for its new PlayStation 3 and that the time is right for programmers to take risks.

"Fail fast and often. Be a rebel," said Vander Caballero, design director at Electronic Arts Inc.'s Montreal studio.

Will EA start to take more - but lower stake - risks to deliver innovation?

 

[Sander]

Oh goodie, they're going to change one shitty business model for another. From 'everything's biiiig!!' to 'let's do everything small and quick'.

 

[Sorrow]

So... I bought a game today. And it installed some kind of malware on my computer. Luckily it required me to reboot the computer before running, so I just uninstalled the game and I'm going to return it to store tommorow.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

 

[Morbus]

Maybe StarForce? Yeah, it's malware, I urge you to return the game and STEAL it after by downloading (if you know how, that is) a cracked version. At least I do that with all games that I wan't to play but have starforce and other kinds of malware with it. It saves money (I don't pay for the game), it saves trouble (I don't install starforce and the game runs better) and tells the industry I don't want StarForce (I don't buy games with SF).

 

[Sander]

Maybe StarForce? Yeah, it's malware, I urge you to return the game and STEAL it after by downloading (if you know how, that is) a cracked version. At least I do that with all games that I wan't to play but have starforce and other kinds of malware with it. It saves money (I don't pay for the game), it saves trouble (I don't install starforce and the game runs better) and tells the industry I don't want StarForce (I don't buy games with SF).

Right, that does it, you're banned for two weeks. I'm getting really fucking tired of this bullshit.

 

[Goweigus]

Sorry if I'm off topic at all....

Ya its bad to talk about that.... its illegal!

It seems to be more ethical and legal to buy the game then download it or whatever. I don't know wether or not this is really legal or how gamers view this, I see nothing wrong with it as its more like downloading a patch to fend off an evil virus.....

Buy games people, so hopefully they will stop doing this Malware crap....

Playing without paying IS stealing!

 

[Sorrow]

Maybe StarForce?

Yes .

Maybe StarForce? Yeah, it's malware, I urge you to return the game and STEAL it after by downloading (if you know how, that is) a cracked version. At least I do that with all games that I wan't to play but have starforce and other kinds of malware with it. It saves money (I don't pay for the game), it saves trouble (I don't install starforce and the game runs better) and tells the industry I don't want StarForce (I don't buy games with SF).

Buy games people, so hopefully they will stop doing this Malware crap....

I have better idea . I've returned the game to store and I'm going to write an e-mail to producer and distributor telling them why I didn't want their game and I'm going to ask them why they don't write any warning that their game is protected by an aggressive copy-protection program. It would save me a bus ticket to the store, because I boycott such games by default .

It saves money (I don't pay for the game), it saves trouble (I don't install starforce and the game runs better) and tells the industry I don't want StarForce (I don't buy games with SF).

I don't want *any* DRM programs (harmful or not) to be installed on my computer. My computer is *my* territory, I don't want any non-neccesary programs to install without my knowledge or consent. And frankly, I'm getting fed up with cd-keys and juggling CDs too. It's time for a "respect gamers" crusade !