The Indies Will Ruin Everything!

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

The Indies Will Ruin Everything!

Major game developers are going to have to change if they're going to survive this next generation of consoles.

Read Full Article

I still have a real problem with this "8 to 10 time more expensive to develop for" this a close to off the self PC part and most of these people have been making game for the PC for years.

Are they really that different? There is a strong smell of bullshit about the whole thing.

Any company that is spending 10 times as much cash to make a AAA game on the next-gen consoles is doing something seriously wrong. It should actually be a bit cheaper, if anything, since the overall process of development will be about the same as last-gen but with more relaxed limitations on memory and processing speed and better tools.

If you look at any of the videos of the development tools for the Unreal 4 engine, you can see how this generation's tools offer a far greater ability to make changes on the fly (walking around in-game while editing the level and seeing changes in real time, re-compiling code segments and tweaking entity scripting without even restarting the engine, etc). It should be easier to get more content finished in less time.

Where the heck are they dumping all the extra money?

Indie developers are ruining the march towards gaming Nirvana, where we can see the ultra-high-fidelity textures of the narrow corridors we're herded along and count every last hair in the beards of the generic Middle Eastern terrorists we gun down by the truckload.

So, much like Jim Sterling, we should thank God for indies.

XMark:
Where the heck are they dumping all the extra money?

Marketing, probably. Or hiring another expensive voice actor to deliver twelve lines, six of which you'll never hear.

I'd have a hard time giving Indies all the credit. You could equally give credit to mobile gaming, and free to play as price destruction. Those cheep Indie titles could be selling for a bit more money if people hadn't had a perspective change resulting in the view that games should be free or 1 dollar.

Graphics have never been a selling point for me. I don't care about being able to see a single bead of sweat going down a man's face for half a second in a cutscene where things are exploding, or the water dripping off of my gun as I come out of the water. I care about story, and triple A games seem to be drifting more and more away from that, and I'm hearing more and more about how indie games are capturing audiences with great stories. So yeah, I think this new generation is going to cause several houses of cards to collapse, and it will be interesting to see what hands we are dealt from the rubble.

I don't think it's so much that indies are killing AAA games so much as indies are filling up the vacuum left by disappointing titles and bloated budgets. Indies aren't destroying the AAA market, the AAA market is. In lieu of advancing graphics, they are advancing gameplay, and as has been preached over and over, gameplay is the more important aspect. Games like Papers Please, Minecraft, and Terraria are niche games to be sure, but those niches are bigger than people think. What's more, people would much rather buy the niche games they are really into, at a fraction of the cost, than buy "expanded audience", catch-all, mediocre messes that are trying to stand out on visuals alone and have four times the price tag.

I think the best thing for the big developers/publishers is to get as far away from the AAA development cycle as they can, and get back to producing "niche" games for targeted audiences instead of trying to pander to everyone by producing the blandest possible products. GIve us the same innovative gameplay but WITH amazing, jaw-dropping visuals and you'll catch some of that thunder that's sweeping the indies along. Learn to love the niches, or die.

Kickstarter, early access, and indie gaming are the three shakers right now in the industry that are going to change things one way or another. We just got done with nearly a decade of mediocrity or failure in AAA releases, with companies mistaking huge sales figures to a general audience for franchise success. Somehow I feel that many of the games are going to go the way of Metal Slug.

Yup, that's exactly the issue Capcom (and pretty much ANY AAA publisher) has, they're blinded by the notion they themselves have created that "graphics sell", the time I was working on retail, every single day I was asked at least 3 to 4 times if I had Minecraft for 360, even more so than your Maddens, Fifas or CODs combined.

I don't have anything against having so much horsepower behind a console, so long as it's used to deliver artistically impressive images (not to be confused by "photorealistic"), instead of rendering all the sweat from a soccer player after a hard match or "realistic blood" covering 2/3 of the screen.

Well, when you hire a team of lawyers, accountants, marketers, sales associates, a board of executives, and a few chief officers for certain branches, many of which expect a six-digit salary for their expertise (or "expertise"), of course you're going to eventually run into financial problems. The traditional corporate model these larger development houses tack themselves onto is the problem, as the mentality seems to be that it's necessary in order to appear legitimate. Yet the game industry, both as a business and as a medium, isn't necessarily a place of tradition - For instance, Valve's flat structure works because most of the people share titles and have equal power (in theory). Now we are seeing one-man and two-man teams that are creating games that are both financially and culturally notable, some of which took amazing cost-cutting decisions to still be able to work on them. For example, Robot Loves Kitty moved and lived in a treehouse in Vermont to reduce finances while creating Legend of Dungeon, and BetaDwarf secretly used a seemingly-forgotten classroom at a university as their place to develop FORCED until being discovered and moving to the cheapest place they could find in Denmark that could hold the entire team.

However, the saturation of indies may soon be a problem as well. Too many indie devs means not enough spotlight to showcase them, and when you look at the similar products these small teams are making, you could say that they might be better off meeting and merging into one bigger, better medium-sized team that's able to create better-refined products for the industry. And that's one greater need that I've seen little of - More medium-sized teams that rival some of the ones we've seen in the late 90s and early 2000s, right before it became "essential" to have a corporate setup in order to be taken seriously.

Hey Shamus, been a while since I last saw some of your stuff here. Good read.

I should think that indies are "ruining" everything. Generally speaking, they're cheaper, aren't screwing over their consumer base, and are making more interesting games. What will the AAA industry do? We'll have to wait and see.

I've always had this speculation theory when it came to the game industry in that you can kinda relate some elements of it to art history. Mainly the whole realism part of video games. It felt to me that artists for years were trying to be super realistic in their art. When they finally peaked at that level, they eventually went down and started to go in the opposite direction with art, resulting in Abstract art and its variations.

With AAA games having that backing of art-quality behind them for so long, I figured this would happen to them as well. In that, the artistic side of games will peak and you have to eventually move on to something new. Of course, with developers in the AAA industry putting so much money down for the graphics, I don't think they can move anywhere but forward. The train is already going so they just have to be hopeful they have enough money for the next train.

That said, being welcoming to indie groups could help the bigger developers say a float for a bit, maybe. Not every indie game would be as successful as Minecraft, Rogue Legacy or Papers, Please. I'd imagine if they manage a lot of them, like I assume Microsoft and Sony are doing, they should be getting some profit from them. That is, assuming Microsoft and Sony are doing everything in their power to make their service accessible to indie developers. And are not in some way going to make things difficult for indie developers by charging them a lot of money for their game.

And with that also being said, hopefully the indie developers will not abuse the system to make it harder for future developers as well, but I guess that's just the point of taking risks, isn't it?

Dr.Awkward:
snip

But once they hit medium they immediately start wondering if they shouldn't keep trending larger and before you know it they fall into the huge corporation model and the cycle repeats.

I'll agree that the medium sized teams from the 90s seemed to hammer out some of the best stuff that's ever made it to market. However I'm not sure if that was because of the team size or simply a product of the times.

Last time i checked the most expensive game that has been ever made is GTA V, with 115 million dollars. But here's the interesting thing; the second game is Halo 4 with 30 million dollars.
Now, these are of course DEVELOPMENT BUDGETS, this means that all the AAA games that you have ever played (with the exception of the above two), costed LESS than 30 million bucks to make.

And this is something you should all understand, MAKING GAMES IS NOT SUPER EXPENSIVE, as most big studios want you to believe, what really takes away the money is MARKETING. Halo 4 marketing was wort (see what i did there?) 70 million dollars and GTA V marketing was worth 150 million dollars.

Out of the top of my head Halo 3 was worth 60 million dollars in total, and it made 300 million dollars int he first week, that means 240 million dollars IN THE FIRST WEEK, Now, and this is quite interesting; according to MS itself Halo 4 also made 300 million dollars in its first week, and in case you dont know, GTA V made a billion dollars in the first week.

So my question is, why, or how is it that MS is in monetary problems when its games earn as much as 4 times their overall cost?, IN A WEEK, and this is not just for the biggest launch titles of MS, ODST earned 115 millions in its first two weeks (and it was a side project), and if we are going to believe MS approximations then 2.5 million copies is worth 115 million dollars and thus, each 60 bucks game sold by MS has a net income of 46 dollars (it a very rough estimation, but then im not counting different prices trough continents, as an example Xbox 360 games are worth 85 dollars in my country, either trough the digital store or in retail).

Considering the above Fable 2 made 161 million dollars in a year, Gears of War sold 270 million in a year, GoW 2 sold 230 million in its first 6 months, GoW 3 made 138 in its first week, and this is all MS info, and if we are to believe MS their most expensive game before Halo 4 was Halo 3 which amounted for 60 million dollars (including development and marketing), and as such all the above games costed less than 60 million dollars to make.

And were not considering DLC earnings here, so im quite perplexed, MS is the company that closed Ensemble in 2009 becuase it wasnt making enough money, NOT BECAUSE IT LOST MONEY, and yet were told that the Xbox division of MS loses a billion dollars a year. So please somebody tell me wtf is going on, how can MS lose money if all its exclusives earn that much money without counting DLC earnings, and none has flopped? Their console is cost effective, so what makes them lose a billion bucks a year? KINECKT?

Make a decent game for a decent price and don't pester the gamer with a bunch of bullshit. For whatever reason, this simple, fundamental principle has eluded the minds of the AAA publishers for decades. Don't ache over using every possible feature of the hardware; that's actually not necessary. Just focus on the game design, gameplay, and game mechanics. It's not necessary to make a ginormous game with eyeball annihilating hyper-graphics all the time. Sometimes, small, focused, and intense experience is better, rather than long, boring grinds and worlds of vast empty spaces, both engineered to just eat time without having to provide any actual content. You don't need to create a game that appeals to everyone in the market; that's impossible, anyway. Just select and understand the core audience to whom your game is targeted and focus on appealing to that audience. When you're ready to grow the audience, do so with a new game, not piling onto the same old one and over-extending it.

While marketing is a necessary evil, it's not necessary to spend massive amounts of money on it. Quit worrying over the whole piracy issue and take advantage of the rapid social nature of the Internet. Let your fans advertise the game for you, though personal blogs, videos, fan-art, etc. Take advantage of the highly connected culture of the Internet to do the advertising work for you; best of all, most of it is completely FREE of cost to you. It's possible to even use piracy to advantage to get the word out about the game and garner sales. This is the kind of thing demos are made for.

Tel_Windzan:
And with that also being said, hopefully the indie developers will not abuse the system to make it harder for future developers as well, but I guess that's just the point of taking risks, isn't it?

The one thing to remember is that power, *any* power, corrupts. It's not a question of if but rather of when. No, seriously, it is a know psychological effect, human beings are corruptible, and any of us in a position of power will eventually end up abusing it.

So yes, today's underdogs can and possibly will grow to be tomorrows EAs, Apples and Microsofts, just as those evolved back in the day.

But right now we're possibly witnessing passion, talent and innovation defeating the tried-and-true shady tactics of those in power. Lets enjoy it while it lasts, and try, as a community, to learn from it.

We can only hope so Shamus, I hope they are stupid enough to drive themselves into extinction.

Good riddance!! They will not be missed. Let the indies rise from the ashes of the old and deliver us good games and much joy.

reiniat:
Last time i checked the most expensive game that has been ever made is GTA V, with 115 million dollars. But here's the interesting thing; the second game is Halo 4 with 30 million dollars.
Now, these are of course DEVELOPMENT BUDGETS, this means that all the AAA games that you have ever played (with the exception of the above two), costed LESS than 30 million bucks to make.

And here I am wondering if Nintendo didn't make enough on games like Super Mario 3D World. (Yeah, remember them? Their console division is in roughly the same position as the others in terms of sales.) They're just resting on their laurels - making a hefty profit - as their fans (myself absolutely included) patting them on the back and whispering, "It's okay. You don't have to play with the others if you don't want to." Metaphorically, of course.

The problem I've had with most indie games is that about 90% are innovative, sure, but in the wrong way.

They're different, yeah - but that's where it stops getting interesting. The games' mechanics, controls, design, and variety are just plain boring most of the time. They're fun for maybe 20-30 minutes and make for a good blog post, seeing how they're pretty different from most genres, but I've never played an indie game that I play for more than a day or two.

If they put more effort into the design phase of things, I'd love them. But as I see it - only Braid and Minecraft are good in that aspect.

So, the AAA games I noticed get released in 2013 are a Devil May Cry game, Dead Space 3, Crysis 3, Aliens: Craptacular Marines, the Tomb Raider remake, BioShock Infinite, Dead Island: Riptide, Metro:LL, RE:Rev, Last of Us, Disney Infinity, Arkham Origins, ACIV:Another One, BF4, Injustice: what did they do to the justice league?, CoD:Ghost of it's former self, Forza 5-thousand, FIFA this year, Madden this year, NBA 2K-this year and Ryse. I'm pretty sure there was a GTA game released in the last two years but I'm not entirely sure when and I had no interest in it to begin with.

Of these titles, only Ryse and Last of Us were new IPs and they were both meh, at best. Disney Infinity is a blatant money grab. I presume the sports games and Forza are basically the same with different cars and tracks/team rosters and slightly updated graphics. Most of these games are mediocre at best and almost none of them showed us anything even the slightest bit novel.

I don't deny that indie games have come up really big compared to where they were five or six years ago, however, I would suggest that perhaps the biggest problem facing AAA titles is that they keep producing REALLY CRAPPY AAA titles. Of the above list, the only game I could bear to play all the way through was BioShock Infinite, which I really enjoyed. I either had absolutely no interest in playing the other games to begin with or I played for an hour or two before I decided I would rather boot up some other game instead.

However, let me put this another way. When I was in graduate school and had basically no money, I would likely buy seven or eight AAA games a year. Today, I have more money than ever before and I buy fewer AAA games. The impact of indie games on my spending is effectively negligible. I just buy whatever I want. Indies are not taking away sales or segmenting the AAA market. The AAA market just happens to suck right now.

grigjd3:
ACIV:Another One,

Have people on this forum actually played this game, or do they automatically hate it for no reason?

SKBPinkie:

grigjd3:
ACIV:Another One,

Have people on this forum actually played this game, or do they automatically hate it for no reason?

I played it for about thirty minutes and then decided that I couldn't stand it. It's not a terrible game in and of itself and from what I've seen, they correctly estimated that the ship-based parts from the previous one was the best part of the previous one, but I just could not bring myself to play through a sixth AC game. So, in short, I don't hate it, but neither do I have any interest in playing it.

Ever.

Even including any possible future release of an AC game.

Even if they paid me.

Even if they gave me beer and cake.

Maybe if they both paid me and gave me a couple cases of Bell's Hopslam, but they'd still have to pay me a lot.

It would have to be a whole lot. I'm really just very tired of Assassin's Creed.

Like, I'm more tired of Assassin's Creed than I am of How I Met Your Mother.

Man that show has been dull for at least the last three years and this season is just terrible. Still, I'm willing to watch How I Met Your Mother and I'm not willing to play another Assassin's Creed.

I am really tired of Assassin's Creed.

Not saying the game is necessarily bad though. Just that I'm tired of it.

I'd be devastated to see the AAA games fall. I basically don't care about indie games. I've tried several, journey, black swan, stanley parable, minecraft. And I simply wasn't impressed. Journey being the only one I liked but it was SO short I feel like I paid $15 for a demo. That feels WIDELY overpriced.

To say nothing of free to play and mobile. Mobile I dismiss out of hand now for anything besides like word games because the controls are terrible and I don't participate in IOS platform. So most of the stuff people claim is so good is unavailable to me.

Free to play though I LOATH. Its a scam unless the only monetization is skins or something. The gameplay in these things is basically crap repetitive nonsense made terrible or even criminal by adding pay walls and timers. Yeah sure if your an adult and its your money you should be able to spend it however you wish. But a lot of these games are targeting kids. They are the new 900 numbers. Parents are going to find there kids have blown hundreds of dollars on coins or whatever to play these "free" games that would be considered crap if you could just buy the whole game flat out for $60. But no, they are "free" so it doesn't matter that you could spend $500 and still not get everything in the game.

They can keep papers please, minecraft, my little pony, I for one want the next borderlands, bioshock, skyrim. I spend probably over $600 a year on AAA games, I doubt I've spent $60 all together ever on indie, ftp, or mobile. And I regret most of that $60.

Also how can it cost that much more for the new machines? Don'they only have the graphics of midrange gaming pcs?

grigjd3:

SKBPinkie:

grigjd3:
ACIV:Another One,

Have people on this forum actually played this game, or do they automatically hate it for no reason?

I played it for about thirty minutes and then decided that I couldn't stand it. It's not a terrible game in and of itself and from what I've seen, they correctly estimated that the ship-based parts from the previous one was the best part of the previous one, but I just could not bring myself to play through a sixth AC game. So, in short, I don't hate it, but neither do I have any interest in playing it.

Ever.

Even including any possible future release of an AC game.

Even if they paid me.

Even if they gave me beer and cake.

Maybe if they both paid me and gave me a couple cases of Bell's Hopslam, but they'd still have to pay me a lot.

It would have to be a whole lot. I'm really just very tired of Assassin's Creed.

Like, I'm more tired of Assassin's Creed than I am of How I Met Your Mother.

Man that show has been dull for at least the last three years and this season is just terrible. Still, I'm willing to watch How I Met Your Mother and I'm not willing to play another Assassin's Creed.

I am really tired of Assassin's Creed.

Not saying the game is necessarily bad though. Just that I'm tired of it.

Fair enough. I skipped Revelations and III, cause I got sick of AC after Brotherhood. So the gap between my last AC game and this one is almost 3 years. But I gave IV a chance after all the good reviews, and man - I've not had this much fun with a game for several months now.

The naval battles are a lot of fun, and beating the "legendary" ships was immensely satisfying.

SKBPinkie:

Fair enough. I skipped Revelations and III, cause I got sick of AC after Brotherhood. So the gap between my last AC game and this one is almost 3 years. But I gave IV a chance after all the good reviews, and man - I've not had this much fun with a game for several months now.

The naval battles are a lot of fun, and beating the "legendary" ships was immensely satisfying.

If UbiSoft had their AC team make a game that was simply about 18th century ship combat and nothing else, I think I would be extremely interested.

i'm doing my part, haven't bought or played a indie game yet. I've got plenty of games to play and honestly i don't see a appeal of many many indie games steam infested with.

Well, to be honest I will say that the indie scene has done a lot to quash some of my hopes and dreams, perhaps without realizing it. Largely because the types of games *I* like to play, RPGs on the deeper side of the spectrum with a lot of customization and party management and such, have been embraced by some indie developers. A lot of these games are good mind you, but it seems to actually work to reduce the chances of ever seeing games of this sort (and others) created at a AAA level, I've already caught wind of some devs pretty much sneering at such ideas as being "indie fodder" and a while ago was reading some opinions that indie creations in these generes might drive AAA development away simply because they do not want to compete, especially when the eye candy is going to be secondary to the game experience itself (though speaking for myself, I'd like that too). This help perpetuates a system where AAA games are increasingly aimed at a casual market (and yes most shooters ARE casual games, the equivalent of Farmville, but aimed at a different demographic), where more serious gaming is left to the fringes and indie development. Exceptions exist, they always exist, but apart from rare exceptions this leaves a lot of people like me with a choice of a game that looks like refried dog poop but has the kind of core gameplay I want, or one that looks really pretty but which I'm not likely to find entertaining for the long term.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have the games that do make it out, and the art direction of some things like the newly released "Banner Saga" shows that some pretty cool things can be done without pushing for state of the art graphics and technology. It's better than having nothing at all, but on some levels I think indie development might have very much pushed AAA developers away from certain game types, or at least helped them justify their profiteering in staying away from them and always shooting for the largest profits from the largest audience they can get at any given time.

-

That said, with the new generation it seems like the industry is rallying to try and coordinate for another industry wide price hike. The 8 to 10 times more expensive develop BS is pretty much just an attempt to convince us it will be justified. Probably so when they hike the price another $10 they hope gamers will be going "geez, I'm glad each game wasn't as expensive as my console".

As I've pointed out before, if the current technology was that clunky and inefficient to use, it would be being considered experimental, not something being picked up by mainstream entertainment companies. New tech is not just capable of doing more usually, but also generally comes with increased ease of use and performance. If it didn't, then it would not be "better" and thus there would be no new generation.

That said, the industry likes to think people are dumb, and we keep hearing things from companies like Square Enix saying they "couldn't make Final Fantasy VII today with the current tech due to the level of detail and the requirements of the current generation" that's almost laughable as an excuse when you consider that if that was even remotely true we'd still be using decades old hardware and graphic technology because the old stuff would arguably be vastly superior to what we're using now. Sure it would be butt ugly compared to what we have now, but the argument is that people were simply unable to make the new tech usable... which they quite obviously did.

Likewise when your dealing with professionals, they keep up in their field, it's not like we're having to send every graphics artist in the industry out to be retrained with a new 4 year degree. Like any professional they tend to keep up with the newest stuff and assimilate it in baby steps as it comes about.

To be frank the problem with the gaming industry to begin with has been bloat, and the sheer number of people they bring on board for specialized tasks so nobody has to work that hard, not to mention wasted man hours by the tens of thousands looking at some of the studio tours I've seen and the conditions which don't always strike me as exactly being professional (in fact when I was working for the casino if I walked through the IT department and saw people/work spaces like some of those there, I would be yelled at if I was found to have not reported them, even if that technically wasn't my job... and really I wouldn't have ratted on them anyway, but still the point is I know what's expected in a professional IT workplace).

At any rate, I'll probably take a lot of flak for saying this yet again, but watch, in a couple of years we'll see some of these companies downsizing yet again and trimming off more bloat, where if these claims were true they would be doubling or tripling their staff to keep up. The thing is though when they downsize it will be on their terms in order to maximize profits for the people at the top, not specifically to make things more efficient or lower costs, as none of that will come back to us gamers in terms of lowered product costs.

Double post....odd......

I'd like to point out that one of Shamus's indies on the list is Gone Home, which is selling for $20 on Steam right now. It took me slightly over an hour to complete the "game."

I'll take a $60 CoD any day of the week over a deep, meaningful but seriously overpriced "art game." And I love art games. Dear Esther is one of my favorite games of all time....but at least I paid a bit under $10 for it new and got about three of exploration out of it.

Is it too much to ask for great graphics AND good game play? My experience with AAA titles has been one of depth and enjoyment (for the good ones) while my experience with indies is usually a wide but shallow pool of great ideas barely realized. I'll be happy when something else emerges, a new angle in the industry which is smartly run and properly funded, and isn't afraid to take chances on cool new concepts for fear of financial ruin.

I really don't want indie games or AAA games to fail. Both give me experiences that the other does not. Once people can guarantee me that I will still get games like Far Cry 3, Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2, Gears of War 2, Saints Row 4, Dishonored, Bioshock: Infinite, and more from the indie scene, then maybe I might be okay with AAA dying completely. As it stands now, I agree that AAA really needs to rethink and restructure, but not die.

Besides, it isn't like indies don't have their own share of problems. See: early access, nearly as many terrible "me-too!" games as AAA, insane development cycles that just never end, games that get released completely broken, and more.

Xman490:

reiniat:
Last time i checked the most expensive game that has been ever made is GTA V, with 115 million dollars. But here's the interesting thing; the second game is Halo 4 with 30 million dollars.
Now, these are of course DEVELOPMENT BUDGETS, this means that all the AAA games that you have ever played (with the exception of the above two), costed LESS than 30 million bucks to make.

And here I am wondering if Nintendo didn't make enough on games like Super Mario 3D World. (Yeah, remember them? Their console division is in roughly the same position as the others in terms of sales.) They're just resting on their laurels - making a hefty profit - as their fans (myself absolutely included) patting them on the back and whispering, "It's okay. You don't have to play with the others if you don't want to." Metaphorically, of course.

And you must consider that people working on internal branches like Nintendo's development teams only get an average programmer salary. So their games must be even more cheap to make. Seriously even if the Wii U was an even more disastrous fiasco that what it already is, they would still remain functional using their money reserves for YEARS. Last time i checked Nintendo was worth 85 billion dollars...
So theres no way on earth they are going third party or something like that. They are as strong as Sony, and stronger than MS (because MS is obviously the weakest).

Hoplon:
I still have a real problem with this "8 to 10 time more expensive to develop for" this a close to off the self PC part and most of these people have been making game for the PC for years.

Are they really that different? There is a strong smell of bullshit about the whole thing.

It is bullshit, as you said their just porting the PC version and setting the graphical settings to work on the console, sure some optimization would be needed but not to the level of PS3's cell processor. That said, Capcom are literally idiots, so if they and other like them die off then as I said when THQ wen't under "Someone else who has adapted to the new industry will take their place". Funny thing is the scene in Babylon 5 where Mordan is speaking to Sheridan about the Shadows comes to mind:


skip to the 4min mark for the part I'm thinking about

I was amused by the opening analogy about DVDs being as welcome to the people that made DVD tape rewinders, and got depressed when I remember someone actually made that.

I think Indies will ruin things, and i can't wait for it. Games are proving you don't need a big budget to be great. Some indies even respect other peoples IPs, not a lot but it is happening. This is going to be great!

Hoplon:
I still have a real problem with this "8 to 10 time more expensive to develop for" this a close to off the self PC part and most of these people have been making game for the PC for years.

Are they really that different? There is a strong smell of bullshit about the whole thing.

Have to agree here, although the article did bring attention for Capcom's dubious spending habits in this regard.

As much as I rail against Nintendo, I think they are in a unique position here. If they were to market a "standard" controller, and reach out to third parties, they could have a real winner.

After all, the assumption (true or false) is that graphics don't matter as much on the Wii-U. As such, a lot of those game developers might flock, if properly wooed.

I just want to see a Renaissance of JRPGs make it's way onto a console, and I can see Ninty porting all the 3DS and DS titles (which remain the last stand bastion of JRPGs) to its big console. In fact, if they could somehow do this, I think they would crush the competition.

I've long since held the opinion that the largest volume of good games were for handhelds, even though I mildly dislike the medium (I just cannot justify playing on one while my large TV remains inert).

Case in point, I am more excited about the PSVita TV than I have been about either PS4 or XBONE.

Almost a page and only one person has mentioned kickstarters.

Brief summary:

Triple A:
Expensive to make, hard to succeed in a sufficient capacity.
Usually sold through preorders and have massive day one launch events, just to sell copies as fast as possible. Probably because most of these agames are merely average experiences and marketing knows that, since making games in the triple A industry isn't about making masterpieces, but whatever's "safe".

Indie:
Low budget, sold on word of mouth advertisement.
Lives off of a great story or great idea, delivers a compact experience that genuinely adds something to your life, be it a deep perspective like in Papers Please, a great story you're told in Thomas Was Alone or the ultimate sandbox experience you get in Minecraft. Add combinations of the previous mentioned points and a range of other mechanics and gameplays and you have a very diverse library, like we used to have with higher budget games.

Kickstarter:
Indie games with a budget. Shadowrun, Wasteland 2, upcoming Planescape and Star Citizen.
These are risky games that might change the future of gaming altogether.
The most important part is not to give up on these and keep supporting what you think would be a good and plausible idea.
(I honestly don't know where Wasteland 2 stands at the moment. The Steam early access suggests they need more money to finish.)

Kickstarters are dangerous, but also our best bet to get something truly worthwhile, without being an almost insignificantly small game like indies tend to turn out.
As much as I love Minecraft, the bulk of the potential lies in mods and the API that we're still waiting for is taking too long.
In other words; Indies is not where it's at. Kickstarters are. Indies are just games that face no real risk and can include any number of personality in the game and be forgiven, because it's so cheap. "Real" games have standards to live up to.

That's my perspective.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here