-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
[Kotaku] The Video Game Industry Can't Go On Like This
- Thread starter Deleted member 18944
- Start date
Basically my take as well, and I work at a gaming company in <gasp> Japan!
I am sure most people want to believe I am being worked to the point of death, but I go home on time basically every day so I can spend time with my kids.
Biggest problem in the U.S. are the terrible, terrible labor laws that are behind basically every civilized country on the planet, even including Japan.
And that's an issue that extends far beyond the narrow perspective of the gaming industry.
Last edited:
That's cool that you can do that, there probably other people in japan who can't do that who work on video games.
Also isn't japan home to other industries that run their workers ragged, like the Japanese animation industry.
Not trying to deny your experience but your statement comes across as " fuck you I got mine " kinda of trying to play this off as an american issue. Mean while rockstar north , a company not located in america ran their workers notoriously ragged for this last few games. It kind of seems like you are sticking your head in the ground and ignoring your contemplates because you got the job that's kind of ok, whistling to yourself trying to ignore your peers who are literally on fire. Or fired, because they are just expendable.
The "games shouldn't be $60" thing is bullshit. Wages are stagnant and people have less disposable income than ever before. Games are $60 because most consumers aren't willing to pay (or pretty much can't pay) more than that. If you raised the price $10-20, sales would dip significantly, possibly so much so that publishers would lose money. That's why they don't raise the price.
Digital Foundry (and sites/YT channels like it) have blown up over the past few years. There was a massive outcry about Spiderman maybe reducing some puddles.
I know it's the favored argument of people like Sterling that "gamers didn't actually ask for better graphics or larger worlds" but they absolutely did. Gamers are the ones who get mad if a game can be beaten in like 20 hours (a former common benchmark; now you'd get chewed out for it, or get spammed with "I'll wait for a sale" posts). Gamers get mad about shit like hair follicles and puddles and any glitch at all that might have been missed by QA in their 100 hour, open-world, multi-ended RPGs.
I don't see how budgets get reined in. People would rage.
This isn't super helpful though. It's a common fallacy; the success of Nintendo or Minecraft (etc...) is not enough to say that they were always going to succeed, and that someone else will succeed if they do what those studios do ("make fun games" in this case). Quite a lot of indie games and AAA games have failed but were really well-received by fans and reviewers. They just bombed anyway.
"A game simply has to be FUN to be successful" is the kind of quote that a lot of developers told themselves when making a game that eventually flopped. We just don't see the failures as often as we see the successes. For every Minecraft, there's dozens of dead games by the wayside.
This is something I think all these discussions are missing. Yes AAA games are cheaper than ever according to inflation, but many of the people the big publishers depend on aren't even willing to pay $60. A lot of these consumers simply have less purchasing power today than in the 80's and 90's.
I've read that a more extreme version of this is why Japan's gaming industry and other media industries have had to subsist on otaku money for a long time -- other people simply can't afford frivolous shit like video games anymore.
It's ultimately why subscriptions and free-to-play make so much sense, as much as some people hate to hear it. It lessens the price burden on most individuals.
But I also think AAA console games haven't expanded their audience enough to keep up with rising costs. They're still mostly centered on North America and Western Europe, and Japan's size in that market has shrunk considerably. Sony seems to be trying the most out of the console manufacturers to reach new regions, other Asian countries in particular, but in places like there, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, PC has already been the default for a long time. Indeed, Brazil, Russia, and especially China are the major growth areas for PC gaming now.
So... basically what Nintendo has always been doing.
It is actually the worst model. All a subscription will end up doing is creating a faux barrier to F2P model games as the only thing that will make money from Subs is the platform holder. In turn this creates more platforms making their own subscriptions.
As technology keeps advancing video games will become more accessible to make, even AAA titles.
There was a time when you had to tediously count and keep track of all the polygons of everything in the game, drawing character model skins and all that shit and now you can just scan actors and anything else. You can do that or just go in and start sculpting, which is more fun for the artists.
And games aren't just limited to blockbusters like Uncharted and Cyberpunk with ultra detailed graphics of course, but well-known titles like Undertale, Subanautica, Mario Maker, Yakuza, No Man's Sky, and Stardew Valley which can theoretically be made comfortably by smaller teams. Plus the games that ARE super detailed already pretty much look like CG movies so not sure how much more reasonably detailed and expansive they can be.
Next gen blockbusters will probably take longer to develop since rewarding impatience of gamers or abiding by poor management while making this magical luxuriant entertainment shouldn't take priority over the mental health of the team making it, but aside from that I'm not sure the ways in which video games are made and consumed will change much or need too. There will continue to be tons of stuff out there, ranging from 8-bit to AAA, 3D and 2D, portable, VR, and more, like what is available now (only more streamlined over time).
There was a time when you had to tediously count and keep track of all the polygons of everything in the game, drawing character model skins and all that shit and now you can just scan actors and anything else. You can do that or just go in and start sculpting, which is more fun for the artists.
And games aren't just limited to blockbusters like Uncharted and Cyberpunk with ultra detailed graphics of course, but well-known titles like Undertale, Subanautica, Mario Maker, Yakuza, No Man's Sky, and Stardew Valley which can theoretically be made comfortably by smaller teams. Plus the games that ARE super detailed already pretty much look like CG movies so not sure how much more reasonably detailed and expansive they can be.
Next gen blockbusters will probably take longer to develop since rewarding impatience of gamers or abiding by poor management while making this magical luxuriant entertainment shouldn't take priority over the mental health of the team making it, but aside from that I'm not sure the ways in which video games are made and consumed will change much or need too. There will continue to be tons of stuff out there, ranging from 8-bit to AAA, 3D and 2D, portable, VR, and more, like what is available now (only more streamlined over time).
Last edited:
But the best selling AAA SP-focused games are the biggest ones, the GTA's, Red Dead, AC's, etc. Smaller games means gamers complaining, and the gamers still want the 4K, HDR, optimized for Pro and X1X, etc.
Wages aren't stagnant. Household incomes are at an all-time high, and that's adjusted for inflation too. The median household income in the US back in 2006 when games were still $60 was $46K, now it's $61K.
I can only really comment on the U.S. and Japan thanks to personal experience.
I don't consider myself informed enough to speak to UK studios like Rockstar North, as even the reporting from Kotaku painted a varied picture.
It's very hard to actually paint a thorough picture of a company employing thousands of people from anonymous reporting.
I know people who have worked there (not R* North specifically) and hated it and people who have worked there and loved it.
A lot of the bigger studios (like EA where the person I quoted works) have great work-life balance nowadays and seem to be constantly improving, and I feel like most horror stories I hear nowadays are from indie start-ups and such to be honest.
Japan does have cultural issues with work/life balance, but the truth is that the labor laws are actually fairly robust as long as you know your rights.
Like mandated paternity leave which is something most of my U.S. colleagues in the gaming industry can barely even imagine (outside of companies like EA which have made real strides to improve that aspect of the industry). Those protections do fall apart when you are a temp worker, but that is not very common in most of the gaming companies I worked for.
We don't have the robust support that employees at a company like EA enjoy nowadays, but at the very least if we feel like we are being mistreated
it is possible to consult with a labor board and have your rights backed up, with very little risk of getting fired. Obviously, things aren't that cut and dry as
you could still be punished by getting moved into a shittier position (Konami style), but I will take that over being let known I am being fired in a 200 person bcc mail or however the hell they do those mass cullings in the US.
"Measured relative to GDP, total compensation and its component wages and salaries have been declining since 1970. This indicates a shift in income from labor (persons who derive income from hourly wages and salaries) to capital (persons who derive income via ownership of businesses, land and assets). This trend is common across the developed world, due in part to globalization.[16] Wages and salaries have fallen from approximately 51% GDP in 1970 to 43% GDP in 2013. Total compensation has fallen from approximately 58% GDP in 1970 to 53% GDP in 2013.[17]"
Also until 2016 median household income was below 1999 levels. There is severe wage stagnation.
Median household income is up almost 50% from 1999 (not adjusted for inflation). Any way you want to play this, wages have gone up faster than video game prices. Median household income is up about 20% from 2012, games up 0% (not adjusted for inflation).
What, the same game industry which has been the single most important driver of consumer computing advancements for 30 + years now?
No way.
Agreed, I kinda see where he was going with this, but the writer needs to do better to tie it all together.
Still, a huge departure from Kotaku's usual output.
AAA is going to collapse under its own weight but that's not the entirety of the gaming industry. I don't even think it's the plurality anymore.
Ive been talking about the price of games sticking at $60 since GAF. It really is an issue when the development of the games that gamers want continue to get larger and larger. It was once fine to release Daytona USA with 3 tracks as a full priced game. But these days, I saw a thread about one of the recent Battle Royale games not getting enough new content monthly.... MONTHLY. Standards have changed siginificantly, and the box price on the shelf is not indicative of that at all. I loathe post purchase nickel and diming, but damn can we suggest a realistic alternative to studios? Because if not, then what hope is there for change on that front.
You may as well be asking them to find a way to summon Ifrit IRL. Lowering the cost of development, as well as the time has direct effects that gamers are literally staunchly against at the moment. Gamers are asking for MORE content, MORE frequently, which HIGHER graphical detail and LESS linearity. I would be right there with you if the gamer were all perhaps huddling around the Switch and its cheaper hardware and lower graphical fidelity, but they aren't they want the Ps4Pro and the XboxOneX.
Getting harder and harder to hold 'Minecraft' up as proof that Gamers dont reeeeeaaaallllly care about the bleeding edge stuff when that type of success is so rare, and stuff like GTAV and other big budget games kill it consistently.
You may as well be asking them to find a way to summon Ifrit IRL. Lowering the cost of development, as well as the time has direct effects that gamers are literally staunchly against at the moment. Gamers are asking for MORE content, MORE frequently, which HIGHER graphical detail and LESS linearity. I would be right there with you if the gamer were all perhaps huddling around the Switch and its cheaper hardware and lower graphical fidelity, but they aren't they want the Ps4Pro and the XboxOneX.
Getting harder and harder to hold 'Minecraft' up as proof that Gamers dont reeeeeaaaallllly care about the bleeding edge stuff when that type of success is so rare, and stuff like GTAV and other big budget games kill it consistently.
The problem I think with the ballooning costs are that this was always going to be the case. Video games have always felt like they were on the cusp of new tech rather than using a sustainable tech. It was planned as a way to get into the living room and take control.
It's no different today. The streaming services are just a way to get into your living room. Streaming these games is going to make product placement and targeted ads even easier for Google and Microsoft. You won't even notice how many products are now available in GTA. It'll be so realistic to get a nice cold Coca Cola to drink in-game.
It's no different today. The streaming services are just a way to get into your living room. Streaming these games is going to make product placement and targeted ads even easier for Google and Microsoft. You won't even notice how many products are now available in GTA. It'll be so realistic to get a nice cold Coca Cola to drink in-game.
First of all, nobody sets out to make games that won't sell. Everyone has this grand idea, but how it pans out is a whole different ball game.
You think BioWare didn't have grand dreams for Anthem?
Secondly, Grand spectacle sells. People like their AAA games with rich visuals and expansive scope. Going the indie or AA route is also fraught with risks and many consumers won't buy.
Fuck yes workers need a voice and the power to bargain for their own well being.
Isn't the microtransactions / loot box model predicated on the fact that people can and do in fact pay more than $60 for a game? The costs are just somewhat obscured. It's a mental thing in other words.
Also all the data I'm seeing show disposable income has been rising since 2008 so not sure where you're getting this data?
Either way, the solution to all this is very obviously a subscription based model. There's a reason everyone is doing it. People will stomach a $20/month subscription far easier than 60-80 dollars at once for a new game.
the thing is, this will all be used as excuses for artists and devs to work even more because their work translates to exponentially more content. Tech can't solve culture issues and scope creep. We need actual protections in place to deal with that.
I'm sorry but aren't Activision making money hand over fist AND not paying their taxes to boot?
Raising prices? Why should a company like Activision get one penny more?
Raising prices? Why should a company like Activision get one penny more?
What does this have to do with anything I'm talking about?
And that's why we're in the situation we're in. Spectacle is whatever the publishers say is spectacle and we've gotten to this point because they decided to make every game a part of the arms race.
I have worked in the industry for over 15 years and I think that in the next 15 things will change a lot, in the near term all the scandals regarding working conditions and the consumer backlash will force some companies to push deadlines and make conditions better, not so much for wanting to do the right thing but from the financial impact of bad PR. I'm hoping there will be somewhat of a change due to this. Then I think there will be a large shift to streaming in the next 5-10 years so I would imagine revenue models will change due to this. Next in the slightly further out (maybe post 10 years) I think we will see the tools , ai and tech in creating video games get so much better a team of 20 people could do what 200 did. Procedural generation, photogrammetry, deep learning etc will probably remove much of the techie problems in making games and open up more time for creativity. It's relatively easy right now for someone to create something in unity or unreal, extrapolate that with exponential growth of tech and we may be in an interesting place. As these things converge making games may end up with many many content creators ( almost like YouTube) but the more interesting ones rising up above the noise. Who knows or maybe we will be in perpetual VR crunch world LOL
Aside from the obvious two, Activision and Electronic Arts, which company makes that based on games? Ubisoft claimed about $150 million, Take Two about $300 million, Square Enix about $200 million.
I'd be okay with $70-$80 (shit, it wouldn't even be the first time) games if it meant less microtransactions and no loot boxes, and hopefully better developer working conditions. But since this industry is this industry, they would inevitably raise the price and continue with microtransactions/loot boxes anyway because the market is used to it.
My wage sure as hell hasn't adjusted for inflation so if games suddenly start doing so then I'd never buy a game day 1 again. Hell, I already wait for most of them to go sub-$20 already.
I get that there's a lot of well-off people here judging from this thread and how in thread polls everyone would buy a $600 console, but that's not the case at all outside of the enthusiast market.
It's hard to raise the prices of games when wages haven't been increased to compensate for higher inflation. So, they're not really "cheaper than ever".
Most players aren't buying any of that stuff. A small number players are willing to spend more than $60 (much more than $60 in fact) but most players will not. That's the entire concept of whales.
Digital goods can be priced at whatever because they can reach a far larger market and have little to no production cost per unit. Margins continue to rise. Companies are doing great.
They're not passing on the profits to employees, and that has nothing to do with a pricepoint a game is sold at.
They're not passing on the profits to employees, and that has nothing to do with a pricepoint a game is sold at.
Ninja Theory seemed to find a great middle way when they made Hellblade. Short dev time, lower budget, smaller team, inhouse voice acting and face scans, etc. I'd gladly take more games like that. I had Hellblade on my GOTY list.
"publishers shouldn't be putting out games that can't turn a solid profit with reasonable sales expectations and healthy work conditions."
Can you at least keep track of your responses here?
No publisher sets out to make a game that will spiral over budget and require a near suicidal, manic dash to get out the gate.
4 million copies of Anthem across PC, Xbox and PS4 was a reasonable sales expectation when the game was greenlit . Look how that turned out.
The supposed "unsustainable" AAA market keeps posting record profits. Business wise the big guys are anything but unsustainable. Devs getting better working conditions won't change that nor the type of games they make.
I don't get why these types of article don't look at hard data when discussing what's actually sucessful in the industry. Look at a sales charts. Look at most played charts. Production values matter. Content matters. The idea that a publisher can just cut these things and still be sucessful is ridicioulous.
The game industry is hit driven 10% of the games make 75% of profits (at retail, the ratio is even more skewed to the top on mobile and digital). A big publisher needs to be part of those 10% or they can start to lay off their people.
I don't get why these types of article don't look at hard data when discussing what's actually sucessful in the industry. Look at a sales charts. Look at most played charts. Production values matter. Content matters. The idea that a publisher can just cut these things and still be sucessful is ridicioulous.
The game industry is hit driven 10% of the games make 75% of profits (at retail, the ratio is even more skewed to the top on mobile and digital). A big publisher needs to be part of those 10% or they can start to lay off their people.
And Their next AA game was going to be 'Bleeding Edge'. Ticks off all the points you raised. Small dev team, power budget etc.
That's a game that was met with derision from tons of folks here on Era when the first trailer leaked.
So no, going AA doesn't assure you success.
As far as I know, Youka-Laylee also barely scraped a profit.
Hasn't the idea that lootboxes are an answer of the cost of making games going up already been debunked plenty of times?
Also, they are either optional or Necessary to recoup the costs, you can't maintain both narratives with a straight face.
Personally I'm Ok with production values going down if it means no lootboxes
Also, they are either optional or Necessary to recoup the costs, you can't maintain both narratives with a straight face.
Personally I'm Ok with production values going down if it means no lootboxes
Gotta day, this is a very narrow view of the industry. It's always adapting to new business models including early access and making content well suited for streamers. The boxed product is an old paradigm
Yikes. Do you have a link?
I've remember games back in the Megadrive/SNES era costing more than games now, why are games so resistant to price hikes?
difference in price with that era is mainly on the shoulders of cartridges. They were several times more expensive than cd/dvd/blueray and the hardware producers had the monopoly on them.
Yep. Wages have been mostly stagnant, and "essential" expenditure has increased over the last 15 years. Essential expenditure meaning things like rent increasing in cost over the years, at the same time as renting has become more common than mortgages among younger generations (also more expensive), and also the smaller things like mobile phones and phone contracts becoming yet another essential monthly cost (many of us wouldn't be able to do our jobs without them - they aren't optional). It's worrying to me that car companies are now also trying to make people think buying a brand new car on finance is as normal as buying a phone on finance. Spending power is severely f***ed these days.
As an aside, I like that you specifically mention GTA and TES as your examples of one-per-generation AAA entries, given that both series skipped this gen in favour of reselling their last gen entries =P They have become one-every-other-gen AAA titles O.o And Todd Howard mentioned in an interview recently that when they talk about TES6 internally, they are designing it as a game to last a decade just like Skyrim has.
Would be nice to have new hardware for current gen graphics like Uncharted 4 and The Witcher 3 with 60fps, but the new power is going to be used for even more realism and more bombastic graphics. The gaming industry itself needs to draw the line somewhere and focus on ways to minimise the shitton of work that needs to be done for realism, like alternate art styles.
Bleeding Edge looks cool but I mean multiplayer and Xbox might affect the hype here. Hellblade was single player and initially a console exclusive on PS4. BE should eventually get a boost from Game Pass though, I highly doubt it'll bomb, but if it does the dev might not go under because of the smaller budget. It's a good strategy I think.
I thought that while the $60 had remained constant, games were actually selling more copies than in the past? Or is that not the case?
Well do you want to go with the Japanese model where the prices are set by the publishers? Do you want to pay for $99 regular edition Final Fantasies?
It's more that games need to sell more than in the past. Which is why so many game studios have closed over the past 15 years, especially those that tried producing mid-budget games instead of AAA budget games. The sales didn't increase in line with cost of development. So now we frequently see issues like Bioware saying Mass Effect 3 needs to sell 10 million units. Square Enix claiming Tomb Raider under-performing at only 3.4 million units sold. And Kingdoms of Amalur needing to sell 3 million copies just to break even.
A lot of that can be chalked up to "poor management", but that really means poorer management compared to the extreme cost management that successful AAA studios have had to adopt to stay alive. Anything less than AAA has struggled to survive due to the sales figures required. Juggernauts like GTA and Red Dead see other publishers scurrying for cover, dreading to lose out on sales if they launch alongside a big name. And because high sales figures are an absolute requirement, creativity is often considered too risky. Games that ape existing successful IP are far more likely to get the greenlight than a game that has a bold new creative vision its devs want to pursue.