My thinking is that, at some point, the cost of development must exceed the potential returns to a game. (I estimate that this could occur as early as the XBox 3/PS4, and some would argue that it is verging on true for the PS3 now.) At this point there are basically three possibilities.
(i) Games cease to be differentiated on the basis of things that are expensive to develop. It is possible that this will lead to differentiation based on script quality, however I think it is likely to be based on gameplay elements first. Nintendo, obviously, worked this out years ago.
(ii) Consolidation to fewer titles from fewer publishers. This happens all the time, of course, but it could become completely over-riding.
(iii) Splitting development costs between games. This can drive down the marginal cost of additional games. Currently we have engine licensing: design tools and generic content licensing could take the cost of game manufacture down to the cost of scripting and level/content design (I do not see that it can go down further). At this point everyone has the same graphics etc, with similar effects to (i).
To me this suggests a time frame of five-ten years, plus up to five years' delay caused by ordinary human stupidity while we wait for gamers to realise what's happening and adjust their spending, plus an additional five years caused by the superhuman levels of stupidity of non-Nintendo games publishers, who will completely fail to realise what the problem is.
Not sure gamers aren't realising it already, look at the huge successes of the DS, Wii, and xbox live arcade, all much cheaper to program for, not blockbuster graphics but all allowed for much more indie developers to succeed.
Gamers don't just need to make platforms like Live Arcade and the Nintendo stuff viable: they have to make the existing model non-viable by ceasing to spend money on it. We will continue to spend the bulk of our money on blockbuster titles for some time even after those cease to offer anything new at all, and may do so indefinitely. This will delay the inevitable. Think how long it takes the allegedly discerning PC gaming audience to adjust our frame of reference for how "good" an FPS or RTS is considered to be. I do not believe the publishers will change what they demand from devs until forced.
The DS does two things: it builds on the Gameboy, and it reaches out to non-gamers/casual gamers. The fact that the Gameboy co-existed for years with the rest of the games systems without really affecting them makes me think this is likely to continue. It's not a platform for games that mimic the virtues of other narrative forms, and I doubt it will become one.
The cost of a Live Arcade game is low precisely because they piggy-back on an infrastructure payed for by blockbusters. I doubt that mini arcade games alone could drive a console into many homes at the point.
(i) Games cease to be differentiated on the basis of things that are expensive to develop. It is possible that this will lead to differentiation based on script quality, however I think it is likely to be based on gameplay elements first. Nintendo, obviously, worked this out years ago.
(ii) Consolidation to fewer titles from fewer publishers. This happens all the time, of course, but it could become completely over-riding.
(iii) Splitting development costs between games. This can drive down the marginal cost of additional games. Currently we have engine licensing: design tools and generic content licensing could take the cost of game manufacture down to the cost of scripting and level/content design (I do not see that it can go down further). At this point everyone has the same graphics etc, with similar effects to (i).
To me this suggests a time frame of five-ten years, plus up to five years' delay caused by ordinary human stupidity while we wait for gamers to realise what's happening and adjust their spending, plus an additional five years caused by the superhuman levels of stupidity of non-Nintendo games publishers, who will completely fail to realise what the problem is.
Reply
Reply
The DS does two things: it builds on the Gameboy, and it reaches out to non-gamers/casual gamers. The fact that the Gameboy co-existed for years with the rest of the games systems without really affecting them makes me think this is likely to continue. It's not a platform for games that mimic the virtues of other narrative forms, and I doubt it will become one.
The cost of a Live Arcade game is low precisely because they piggy-back on an infrastructure payed for by blockbusters. I doubt that mini arcade games alone could drive a console into many homes at the point.
Reply
Leave a comment