-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
[Kotaku] The Video Game Industry Can't Go On Like This
- Thread starter Deleted member 18944
- Start date
They keep adjusting for inflation but ignoring that salaries haven't risen nearly enough. I'm pro developer, but I also have to be pro reasonable expenditures. If a game costs $80, I'm buying max two or three a year. In a GREAT year.
Thanks!
I don't think either of these stores are trying to compete with / be Steam, while Epic clearly is aiming for that, and might have the clout to make it a reality and force more industry change.
Not really. The current scrutiny is on lootboxes, which isn't the only predatory mtxs. If legislation passes, we'll see publishers put a greater emphasis on direct purchases and make getting the in-game currency incredibly grindy.
you know that Steam itself also will take less than 30% depending on the game, right? 30% has never been set in stone, it's literally on a game by game basis.
Also, Epic has to literally use technologies valve pays for with that 30% like SDL2 and OpenVR because they don't create those types of technologies, and when they do (like UE4) they charge for their use. UE4 literally uses valve funded technologies in it. Valve's 30% take funds tools that the entire PC development community can use completely free, even if they don't release on steam at all. These are fundamental, very important tools for developers, the type of fundamental tools that developers who don't understand the low level workings of computer programming actually don't even know they're using.
Valve's technology has literally dramatically lowered the cost of game production. Before steam, if you wanted to get into game development at all, you had to eat an upfront cost of tens of thousands of dollars for the "privilege" of making a game for the only viable systems around. And that was before everybody started taking slices of the sales pie. The rise of indie gaming on steam is exactly why the console manufacturers started making concessions for smaller developers, so they could get in on the same action. Except, unlike Valve, those console manufacturers still charge tens of thousands of dollars in licensing fees to AAA studios that Valve, by nature of the PC platform, does not.
Last edited:
It doesn't necessarily matter if they are playing it, so much as paying money for it. If you look at the top NPD results the past few years, content dense titles almost exclusively populate the lists.
Unfortunately, we are inundated with the notion that more content equates to a better buy. We would need to collectively move towards paying for shorter experiences and vocalize that preference incessantly. I would gladly follow that wave, but good luck getting anyone else to.
Particularly internet pundits, producers or marketing folks.
I can say that Humble has definitely competed with Steam for my purchases.
You're right that Epic has the clout to realize that that other companies don't, and it's too bad that their crappy store and exclusivity deals are overshadowing what would otherwise be an admirable goal. I also don't think Epic's stated goals are made in good faith. But that's another topic.
more powerful hardware makes developing games easier and cheaper, not the other way around. Look at Shenmue, the systems working in that game once took $40 million to develop, because they had to operate on tiny amounts of RAM and super underpowered CPUs, can now be had in just a few clicks in any modern engine. The reason why is because there is enough wiggle room that you can create generalized instances of these systems that don't need to be deeply and fundamentally worked into every aspect of the game by a team, which frees them up to use their resources elsewhere. A major part of the rise of indie games is that people no longer have to write super low level code in order to wring performance out of these machines. That's basically the entire purpose behind things like Unity. I've done retro console programming for decades now, I would estimate that a good chunk of game developers on this forum would be lost thrown into that kind of development even if they are great with current technologies.
The reason games development costs more today than it did 20 years ago isn't because the technology is better, is because the scope of games has increased. Had technology remained stagnant, the cost of games today would be exponentially higher than they are currently.
And you think scope of games will not overly increase with new hardware like it has the last 2 generations? There won't be new pressures for bigger games requiring more work hours and more inflated budgets?
That argument works if they were doing the same thing generation to generation. With every generation these games are filled with more content bloat and fancier visuals to the point where we've already plateaued based on the technology readily available.
You think if hardware remains stagnant, the scope of games won't increase as well? They already are. Scope increase isn't tied to hardware. If new hardware doesn't come out, it'll just make that scope increase more expensive.
The entire thing is a sick capitalistic cycle.
A major company has to continually make money by creating a cutting-edge platform to generate consumer interest and developers have to leverage that technology to populate said platform with compelling experiences. It's generally better for everyone's bottom line to refresh things sooner rather than later. Otherwise, we end up repeating the last generation where it went on several years too long.
I feel like the issue is less that games shouldn't cost $60 and more that publishers shouldn't be putting out games that can't turn a solid profit with reasonable sales expectations and healthy work conditions.
Nintendo needed to sell only 2 million copies of BotW for the game to be profitable and that game was made across two consoles, pushed back, and, as far as we are aware in regards to their corporate culture, madr under healthy work conditions.
Part of it comes from the fact that they don't have to pay fees to the console manufacturer, since they make games for their own systems, but that's only part of the pie.
Everyone who can't manage this either needs to scale back the scope of the games they're making, honestly. You don't need to push the envelope to its absolute limit every time. And doing so is literally harming people. If games cost $100 each that wouldn't make the process better. They'd still be pushing their staff. Probably even harder since, now, consumers will be even more discerning with their purchases.
I would pay more than 60 but I'm in a position where that isn't a big deal. A lot of people aren't.
the way i see it, overexpansion and overinflated budgets has been a desperate fight to KEEP the 60 price point. in a sane world studios would have put in policies to reduce scope creep and unnecessary spending in order to lower the standard cost of entry for games.
they know its an unattractive price point, so their goal is to justify and milk it for all it's worth.
anyways, unions and MAJOR industry-wide intervention/self-policing about scummy business practices and project size/goals. not every game should be designed to take over someone's life and be the biggest hottest shit ever, and making games shouldn't be significantly worse than literally any other job in an industry that requires the same skills.
they know its an unattractive price point, so their goal is to justify and milk it for all it's worth.
anyways, unions and MAJOR industry-wide intervention/self-policing about scummy business practices and project size/goals. not every game should be designed to take over someone's life and be the biggest hottest shit ever, and making games shouldn't be significantly worse than literally any other job in an industry that requires the same skills.
In Finland, AAA-games cost 69.99€ (78.46$) and people still buy 'em. I think you could get used to it, or just find them cheaper online.
I think technology might help things out, and sooner rather than later.
Imagine a game engine that only uses ray tracing requiring less dev time during art asset and level design development.
Imagine ai collaborating with artists, helping create detail with less work. Optimizing output of an asset's lod automatically. Level design assited by ai as well that creates organic environments the level designer can tweak. Automatically generates path finding layers, finds performance lowering locations, etc.
Imagine a game engine that only uses ray tracing requiring less dev time during art asset and level design development.
Imagine ai collaborating with artists, helping create detail with less work. Optimizing output of an asset's lod automatically. Level design assited by ai as well that creates organic environments the level designer can tweak. Automatically generates path finding layers, finds performance lowering locations, etc.
Wait are they implying fewer games = better games? I don't think that's how this works. Kotaku can do better indeed.
Why does there have to be some magic bullet solution to every problem? If we JUST do X then everything will be better.
Do those working in development get paid by the hour or as a salary? If if they are salaried and crunch is removed then games will take longer to be made and cost more to make. Since they are salaried employees they cost more for the number of days they work on the project than the number of hours per day they spend on said project. Then every day the game doesn't go out is another X amount of dollars spent driving up the cost of development. Unions operating we'll make things better for the employees but don't reduce cost of games.
Cost of games is reduced by smaller scope, less polish, reduced complexity amid other price cutting options. The general public wants their giant polished games. They could just make smaller games but people don't want that either.
I guess all I'm trying to say is that devs and employees should be treated better but that doesn't decrease game prices.
It will continue to go on like this. It's the unfortunate reality.
While certain studious have failed, a lot of the entrenched companies have succeeded and are still pretty profitable. They will be no need for change or anything as long as they're in the forefront and buying up smaller studious.
While certain studious have failed, a lot of the entrenched companies have succeeded and are still pretty profitable. They will be no need for change or anything as long as they're in the forefront and buying up smaller studious.
I agree the employees should be protected through Union or some other means but that doesn't reduce the cost of games. I wouldn't mind paying more though.
Graphics increase each generation and with that comes cost. However, the increase in graphic quality over the generations has not made games better per say, especially in terms of immersion. I feel just as immersed with Assassins Creed Odyssey than I did with the OG Assassins Creed. Yet for Ubisoft the difference was probably hundreds of millions of dollars.
The video game industry in one gif.
Also since the thread has turned into a conversation about the price of games, how about answering that question with another question?
Do these companies really need billions of dollars in profit every fucking year?
I feel like this idea of "they gotta come up with a solution to this $60 problem somehow" is just an extension of the same nonsense I've seen in gaming for a decade at this point. It's an argument that claims that the video game industry is penniless while ignoring the millions upon millions of dollars they make with every successful release. "Well they gotta raise the price of their online service, it's the only way for them to be able to keep it running" what? No it's fucking not, how about they take some of those millions they make each year and provide that service for free? No? Too many people decided to pay for the service and now it's been normalized? Well fuck.
Also since the thread has turned into a conversation about the price of games, how about answering that question with another question?
Do these companies really need billions of dollars in profit every fucking year?
I feel like this idea of "they gotta come up with a solution to this $60 problem somehow" is just an extension of the same nonsense I've seen in gaming for a decade at this point. It's an argument that claims that the video game industry is penniless while ignoring the millions upon millions of dollars they make with every successful release. "Well they gotta raise the price of their online service, it's the only way for them to be able to keep it running" what? No it's fucking not, how about they take some of those millions they make each year and provide that service for free? No? Too many people decided to pay for the service and now it's been normalized? Well fuck.
The way workers are treated in the gaming industry, especially contractors, is complete bullshit, and definitely needs to improve, but catastrophic mismanagement on the part of EA seemed to be largely to blame for Anthem. I mean, they didn't even know wtf the game really was when they were showing it off at E3. The truly sad part is that that sort of thing doesn't seem to be rare in the industry.
And I know prices of games have held steady, but did I miss where incomes increased significantly during that time or something?
And I know prices of games have held steady, but did I miss where incomes increased significantly during that time or something?
Difficult to do with AAA games. Games don't have the same economic opportunity that other forms of media do, due to a lack of horizontal distribution models. All of the money needs to be recouped from the direct platforms they were developed for.
There's a lot here and they're absolutely right but one problem that I'm seeing with the video games price needs to go up argument is that people believe it's an either or issue with price of a game vs it becomeing a service or being destroyed by gambling mechanics if we moved the price up to $70 or $80 or $100 not only are paying more but less games will sell and we'll get fucked by services and micro transactions. Even if they sold the same copies at $60 and at $100 we'd still get them. We need to drive costs down we need to unionize we need companies like Microsoft Sony Nintendo to come out and speak against these issues in a huge public facing manor condemning issues like crunch. We never will, we live in a world where capitalism and making money has become more important than being decent human beings we deal in a system where you can have your fans pay for the development of your game then you can say fuck them and sellout to 3 other companies who will give you enough money to say fuck those fans. The system won't be fixed the bubble will only get bigger till it pops then it'll be blown again.
This strikes me as a AAA problem and not an Industry problem.
As long as dev tools are cheap & easy to use, anyone with a vision and basic coding skills can deliver incredible content.
Digital distribution and varying pricing models have completely disrupted the market. Once Big Publishers pulled all the strings and called all the shots, gate-keeping gaming experiences locked into $60 physical media in the form of carts and discs. It created expectations against dollar value while at the same time homogenizing game design to support those $60 game-experience expectations.
In the end AAA will have to figure its s**t out. But that won't stop tiny hobbyist & mid-tier indies from delivering mind-blowing, creative experiences at low overhead costs. They're not beholden to Big Publisher fiscal expectations nor the cost of physical distribution channels.
The market will adjust itself. Gaming isn't going anywhere. The medium is rooted deeply enough in our culture to rival books, music & cinema.
Relax.
Enjoy your games.
As long as dev tools are cheap & easy to use, anyone with a vision and basic coding skills can deliver incredible content.
Digital distribution and varying pricing models have completely disrupted the market. Once Big Publishers pulled all the strings and called all the shots, gate-keeping gaming experiences locked into $60 physical media in the form of carts and discs. It created expectations against dollar value while at the same time homogenizing game design to support those $60 game-experience expectations.
In the end AAA will have to figure its s**t out. But that won't stop tiny hobbyist & mid-tier indies from delivering mind-blowing, creative experiences at low overhead costs. They're not beholden to Big Publisher fiscal expectations nor the cost of physical distribution channels.
The market will adjust itself. Gaming isn't going anywhere. The medium is rooted deeply enough in our culture to rival books, music & cinema.
Relax.
Enjoy your games.
I'm curious as to what would actually work in terms of increasing game prices, or at the very least, maintaining launch MSRP for a longer time. There's just so much product out on the market that anything third party is invariably going to drop in price. My friend and I both just bought The Division 2 for $20 each, and that game only came out a few months ago. According to a thread on here, it is also something like the fourth best selling game of the year so far, so that isn't "flop pricing" like Anthem being down to $14.99. There's a limit to the amount of content the average person is going to juggle on a monthly basis, and maybe a bit higher limit on what someone on an enthusiast site like this will manage. But so many games being 100+ hour endeavors mean customers have to pick and choose, and a lot of titles will be excluded as a result.
TD2 is the best selling game so far this year according to Ubi's most recent press release.
How do they reconcile that point with the fact that publishers are now making more money than ever? Do they really think that increasing the price will lead to less crunch? Where in the history of capitalism as a company willingly threw money away ? Because they will definetly keep working on the current schedules while upping the price.
And that's without talking about the fact that awhile AAA games are getting more and more expensive to create, at the other side of the industry the barrier of entry is getting lower and lower, resulting in way more games coming out, competition being harder and prices having to be more competitive. There's a reason why the price of games hasn't increase, price sensivity is way too high nd it would be a surefire way to kill any success you can have with a bigger price.
A couple of other people have mentioned that wages (overall wages, not for game industry) haven't increased. That's true, but those are adjusted for inflation. So, nobody (except, maybe, wait staff) is making $1.75/hr like they were in 1970, but the inflation-adjusted wages have not kept up with the inflation-adjusted cost of living.
This article is saying games have been $60 for a long, long time. If I remember right, many Super Nintendo games were $70. In 1996, average American salary was around $25,000. In 2018, it was around $60k. Arguably, we should be able to afford more $60 games. And record profits would suggest that we can, especially considering ballooning budgets and development staffs haven't killed that margin.
All told, this is a capitalism problem and a culture problem. The supplier has to make what the consumer demands, and sales demand either a Fortnite model or a standard AAA multiplayer approach. Our tastes have created that imbalance, along with the console wars, more generally. Bigger, bolder, better sequel every year!
Prices will go up on the AAA games. To $70 or $75. But there will probably be more variance below that based on budget and scale. Plus, this industry makes too much money for employees not to unionize in some form. See the music and film industry for examples. It's a relatively young industry, and it's going to have growing pains.
And something will be done to attempt to rectify income inequality in this country, which should increase purchasing power. But I'm not going to get into predicting when that will happen. Probably right before or right after the riots.
This article is saying games have been $60 for a long, long time. If I remember right, many Super Nintendo games were $70. In 1996, average American salary was around $25,000. In 2018, it was around $60k. Arguably, we should be able to afford more $60 games. And record profits would suggest that we can, especially considering ballooning budgets and development staffs haven't killed that margin.
All told, this is a capitalism problem and a culture problem. The supplier has to make what the consumer demands, and sales demand either a Fortnite model or a standard AAA multiplayer approach. Our tastes have created that imbalance, along with the console wars, more generally. Bigger, bolder, better sequel every year!
Prices will go up on the AAA games. To $70 or $75. But there will probably be more variance below that based on budget and scale. Plus, this industry makes too much money for employees not to unionize in some form. See the music and film industry for examples. It's a relatively young industry, and it's going to have growing pains.
And something will be done to attempt to rectify income inequality in this country, which should increase purchasing power. But I'm not going to get into predicting when that will happen. Probably right before or right after the riots.
The whole price increase is just a red herring. Nothing would fundamentally change, except for companies making more money from consumers under the guise of worker rights/less crunch which to be fair is not something that we as consumers can control either way, outside of boycotting. The amount of shit gamers are asked to do to support their hobby is unparalleled with any other medium in the entertainment industry.
As an aside, have you ever met an executive who said "hey we made enough money last quarter, let's take it easier next quarter."
This, also developers getting smart and leave toxic companies. Looking at you Rockstar, Relic, EA, and Microsoft!!!!
This all ties into the Culture of Spectacle the gaming community lives in, always looking for the next big thing, after the last one was normalized and taken for granted. Every following game has to be the biggest one in the series, and if it doesn't work or they didn't go bigger, the developers are lazy. E3 and similar shows are great, but they are, in a way, affecting negatively at how gamers think the medium.
Wages are stagnant in the U.S., but people don't often point that out when they make the correct point about game prices and inflation.
Profit margins are perhaps more important than profits. As revenue rises, you would expect profits to rise at the same rate, and the only reason they have (and by "they" I mean the few major publishers who survived the carnage a decade ago which saw multiple publishers go bankrupt or leave the AAA space) decent profits is because of the MTX etc. Also unionizing would likely drive up costs higher, or result in fewer jobs due to more contracting and more outsourcing.
Everyone always saying the answers are unions but corporations that don't want unions are very good at keeping them out...and people will still work for said corporations. What needs to happen is a good studio needs to put out a very profitable game that has a moral work environment.
That or some very smart individuals need to figure out how to make games easier to make.
That or some very smart individuals need to figure out how to make games easier to make.
Yeah, games are getting bigger, but for comparisons sake, is it really that more horrible than it was in generations before with crunch and the like?
Someone mentioned unions? That seems like a band-aid if anything else.
I've always been of the opinion that the industry needs to crash and start over.
Someone mentioned unions? That seems like a band-aid if anything else.
I've always been of the opinion that the industry needs to crash and start over.
Unrelated to the thread but love your avatar. Great album and great band.
It feels like, for every senior developer bailing on the industry, two more junior game developers graduate.
That means you welcome a shrinking industry, honestly, which means more people out of jobs or not being able to get jobs in the game industry. It certainly doesn't mean less crunch or better working conditions for those that remain. The industry was a lot smaller 20 years ago, but I'm skeptical that it was any better work culture-wise.
