Re: RPGs, audiences, publishers, mass markets and everything between earth and sky.

[Pshaw]

Ok I'm going to go ahead and drop in here real quick knowing full well I won't be agreed with.

 

Not everything in the golden days of RPGs was good. Some of the things that have mass appeal have mass appeal for a reason, quite simply they're an improvement over what came before.

 

Now I'll totally agree that quest/objective markers are a bit over the top in terms of hand holding, but is it really all that different from an 90's rpg where anybody who wasn't important was named citizen or commoner or some other generic name so searching out people of interest was as simple as mousing over and reading their names? Even though I prefer the latter method (it's less passive and makes me feel like I'm searching these people out rather than having them be jumping up and down waving their hands over their heads calling out to me) I can totally understand why that extra step feels rather pointless for some people. Functionally a named character is as good as telling you he has something of interest to you which is the same as a big golden ! over their heads. So while I understand the argument that quest markers are stupid because seeking out quests wasn't exactly hard in the good ol' days but that said they also don't take away much from the game while allowing a broader audience to enjoy/complete it. You can shout that it's not important to do that but you would, quite simply, be wrong. Profits do matter even in a business where artistic integrity is an issue.

 

Have things gone a bit too far in terms of being spoon fed content? Yes, and one only needs to look at World of Warcraft to see how much that game has changed (not always for the better) since its release to appeal to a broader customer base. Not all the changes are bad ones though. So for me as a long time RPG gamer who loves classic RPGs and can see the good, along with the bad, in modern RPGs it drives me crazy when RPG purists bemoan that everything was better in the old days.

 

To use WoW as a quick example much has changed to make it more casual friendly. Quest markers have been replaced with zone markers that highlight whole areas of the map where objectives can be completed, simply put its excessive. However the Raid finder, Dungeon finder, and the inclusion of both 10 and 25 raids have allowed more people to experience the end game dungeons than ever before with far less downtime spamming 'lfg need tank' in a city for hours. Yes, it is a tradeoff. I think the closeness of the WoW community has suffered since Wrath was introduced because of the Dungeon finder. Still I can't deny that I used it and loved being in an instance inside of 10minutes while still out in the world questing or farming rather than begging for players in a city while jumping up and down in place for an hour.

 

I played the hell out of Daggerfall when I was younger. I loved it to death even though I never finished the main story because I always got side tracked then made fresh characters. I also think Morrowind was the most fantastic setting in the elderscrolls series to date. That said Skyrim is hands down the best game overall in the series despite (or because of) it's dumbed down system. Yes this is somewhat a matter of taste, I do miss the old magic system as spell creation was extremely fun, but to be perfectly honest the elder scrolls leveling system was dated and in some ways it was completely counter intuitive and needed to be reworked. There's other things to talk about such as the annoyances of finding your way back out of a Daggerfall dungeon once you'd cleared it even with that awful map but I digress.

 

Using another example Diablo 2 had talent trees that could not be redone later on. As such this lead to many, many, maaaany builds saving their points until you had pretty much cleared the game on normal so you could dump all your points into level 24 skills and their synergies once you hit a high enough level. This made the game completely dull to play through early on every single time you wanted to make a new character. It also meant if you were a new player who wasn't checking up on the internet to see how to make a good build before making your character there was a fair chance that you wouldn't be able to finish nightmare or hell difficulty. So all that time you spent on that character is effectively wasted. People actually miss this. In what world is this considered a 'feature' that people would want? Why would these same people would get angry if the ability to redistribute skill points was added? Is it because the ability of others to not waste their time somehow detracts from their enjoyment of the game?

 

I could go on and list more examples of new innovations in RPGs that are in fact improvements over the old model but citing every good thing isn't strictly the point of my post. In the end I just want people to realize that they're letting nostalgia and in some cases elitism drive them in their demands. Wanting everything to be as it was, even when improvements have been made, is just stupidity. Also wanting a genre you love to stop innovating is just insanity. Yes not all changes that have been made in the last 10 or so years have been for the better but they sure as hell aren't all killing the genre as some would have you believe.

 

So I've said my piece. I don't expect to be agreed with this is simply how I feel about the topic. Take it for what you will.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Pshaw

[Nonek]

Play Ultima 7 then play a modern mainstream RPG, tell me that they've not been ripping out features and stripping away the content to its bare bones, either Bethesda with puddle deep plot in hiking simulators or Bioware with nothing but alternate combat and conversation in brown corridors. Yes they might be brainless fun, but they can't be defended as innovating or evolving in any way shape or form.

 

To defend that stripping away of content is worse than nostalgia, it's a mandate for only making content for the lowest common denominator. Project Eternity is a challenge to this notion, just as New vegas and Alpha Protocol were before it.

[Minttunator]

Good topic!

 

I agree with some of what you're saying, Pshaw - namely that older doesn't necessarily mean better and "old-school" by itself doesn't really mean much. I'm sure Tom and Brenda learned that recently with their Kickstarter, for instance.

 

I have to admit I disagree with most of your examples, though. I won't do a line by line, but I will say that the dungeon finder killed what little sense of community WoW had (because everyone can now act like a prick due to no accountability due to not meeting the people they're running with ever again) and D2 having no respec was, in my opinion, a good feature because it forced players to actually think about their choices. Choices in games are only meaningful if they have consequences. A lot of modern games seem to be afraid to punish the player for his mistakes, which also lessens the sense of achievement for the player when he succeeds.

[Darkpriest]

Ok here it is. Some points, which one should take into consideration.

 

1) The biggest flaw of the industry, is that they drive into the direction of interactive, immersive movies... That's why they spend a LOT on graphics and physics, a LOT on full voice overs with talented voice actors, a LOT on high quality music. Now, where the cost cutting can go without hurting the "immersive" First Person experience in a very detailed graphical environment? Story and plot length... The less dialog, the less lines of text and the less environments and places to visit -> the less costly the game be, in an already huge production budget

 

2) Designing games, that we want to hit the largest possible audience, because we need millions of copies sold at high price to even break even... That's why the marketing expenses are huge... They need to create a LOT of hype, so the game will sell in first week to break even, and in second and third week to reach the profit... After the first two-three weeks the sales decline. It is the same rule as with the film industry and cinemas... If we create a game with huge budget, we need to sell millions of copies in first two weeks, otherwise it is a flop...

 

3) Publishers are smart... they know the demographics, so they target the audience with the type of entertainment, which is easy, pleasing to eye, and not very mentally exercising. Same feature drives the film industry... Ambitious and artistic visions, with deep message, are niche... I personally do not like such movies, because I usually want to be a brain dead while watching some blockbuster with good action and cheap jokes. Games however I like to have more brain involving, because I get easily bored otherwise. Film is 1,5h long, game needs to keep me for far longer time.

 

4) Blockbusters (films) usually have famous names on the roster and that alone can sell a movie... games... they rely on a franchise in the same way. It is difficult to establish a good name for a franchise, but you can easily try to milk it, if you also own the IP... Actors have more independence than an IP, so they can eventually quit working on some silly projects if a previous one hurt their image too much. The one IP that is always strong among the gaming industry is the Star Wars, just because George Lucas is the only one who can tarnish the franchise

 

Expense type by categories:

 

Production:

 

Salaries and Social Security charges and taxes. - main bulk if the team consist of hundreds of people...

Outsourcing and external services (Cinematics, music) - if you want famous names involved, you gonna pay for that... a LOT...

Design tools associated solely to the project, which cannot contribute other projects.

Things associated with delivery of the product to the Point of Sales and usable condition.

 

Other expenses:

 

Marketing (not directly tied to production costs, but I assume it's measured against a total profitability of a project).

 

Licenses (depreciate over the life time of a license - for example Forgotten Realms license, Star Wars license, etc. or Engine license - if the engine license is over a life time, not per game title) - I would assume that licenses can be a tricky part, since with some right contract conditioning the expenses could be put below EBITDA lines, and EBITDA is basically one of the main factors that shareholders want to see as it usually builds value for transactions

 

Disclaimer: Please note that I do not have insiders knowledge on the industry's finance mechanics, but make some assumptions based on some general rules.

 

I would really want to see someone, who actually works on some more senior position in finance in the gaming industry to contact me, so I could get more knowledge on the rules here. I am all into tech industry, like mobile operators, marketing media and TV, but never touched gaming industry yet :D

[jarpie]

If you read my post you would know that film studios also makes films with average budgets which potentially won't sell that much alone but when you combine their profits they make as much as one huge film and that's where game publishers are doing wrong; They are only concentrating on huge AAA+++ titles and not doing what film studios do.

 

Games haven't gotten there yet. The movie industry went through a "crash" and adjusting to the burgeoning indie film movie, creating "indie studios" and funding such films to try and control that market as well. Largely because they want Oscar bait, but that's beside the point.

 

When the game industry creates an award show that doesn't pick best sellers but picks things that at least pretend to be avant garde and sell less but get huge critical acclaim, don't expect there to be too much impetus for the game industry to follow Hollywood in this just yet.

 

See, that's where you're wrong. Film industry has always been making films with small or average budgets, even when they did the huge epics in the late 50s and early 60s. Sure couple studios took huge risks with some films which flopped gloriously almost bringing them down but even then they were doing the smaller films but publishers aren't doing that almost at all.

 

The indie film movement basicly started to flower in the 80s and 90s with the rise of the vhs and couple film festivals such as Sundance but I'm not talking about indie films, I'm talking about studio films which are done with moderate budgets - which they have always done.

 

You are missing much about the history of film. The film industry is over a hundred years old, the video game industry is just about forty or so. Hollywood went through the studio system and all those problems, and then the rise of the big six, and the decline of movie sales in the 80's and 90's that, because of the growing focus on blockbusters and mainstream markets, caused the explosion of the indie film movement. Which went from truly indie to truly corporate by the mid 2000's... with the newest wave of innovation and breaking from the control of the big studios happening due to the internet and growth of platforms like YouTube and Kickstarter.

 

If you think the game industry is where complaints about formulas and sequels is bad, but the movie industry is a beacon of originality and diversity....

 

you must not spend a lot of time talking to groups about movies.

 

Actually no, and yes film indrustry went through a studio-phase but there still were such people as Samuel Fuller who made such a films like I Shot Jesse James, The Steel Helmet and Pickup on South Street in studio system, where are games like those made by the big studios on average budget? Or such a films like Gone With The Wind which is huge studio film but it is still masterpiece artistically?

 

If you look at the 40 first years of film industry there a lot of formulaic films which are obviously made for mass audiences, but then there are films like Sunset Boulevard by Billy Wilder or Night of the Hunter by Charles Laughton, or Sunrise by Murnau made in 1927, which has been said to be the most beautiful film of all time?

 

Studio System of Hollywood gets lots of flack and most of is well-earned such as horrible treatment of Orson Welles (who is my favourite director by the way) but they never stopped doing films with small or average budget which weren't meant for mass audiences.

 

Yes, in the 80s film industry did lot of formulaic crap and numerous sequels but they just didn't do those. They also made such a films like The Terminator, Blade Runner, Full Metal Jacket, The Dead Zone, Videodrome, Platoon, Blue Velvet and numerous others.

 

Blade Runner, Videodrome and Blue Velvet are not exactly mainstream films and they still found an audience.

 

My point still stands that nowdays game publishers do not publish games which would've been made with approximately equivalent budget.

 

Merin, would love to hear your counter-arguments to this.

[Hassat Hunter]

The popular form of RPGs after the 90s followed a path through Neverwinter Nights to KOTOR and I think much of what we look at today can be traced to KOTOR. Cinematics, smaller parties, voice acting. That is no more the natural endpoint of all change than the idea that all hominid forms eventually become human.

Not quite agreeing.

 

The difference isn't KOTOR. It's 2D vs. 3D.

3D becoming popular and "the standard" many RPGs came to try how to control a party using it. Keeping the same teammembers only worked when pretty much automatising the gameplay (think original Dungeon Siege), which wasn't liked by many. So they decided to do the best accepted approach... less NPC's. 3D RPG's went that way way before KOTOR.

Cinematics already made it in BG2 and PST far more than BG1. BioWare just took it further, made easier by a 3D engine. As for the voice-acting, also progression. See BG-BG2-IWD2. Became more and more, till it was at KOTOR.

 

So yeah, I think it was the shift from 2D to 3D that really did RPG no good. As it did RTS. As it did adventures. Looking at it, I really hate 3D

 

Pretty much the only good it did was FPS and 3rdPS.

[Gatt9]

Ok here it is. Some points, which one should take into consideration.

 

1) The biggest flaw of the industry, is that they drive into the direction of interactive, immersive movies... That's why they spend a LOT on graphics and physics, a LOT on full voice overs with talented voice actors, a LOT on high quality music. Now, where the cost cutting can go without hurting the "immersive" First Person experience in a very detailed graphical environment? Story and plot length... The less dialog, the less lines of text and the less environments and places to visit -> the less costly the game be, in an already huge production budget

 

That is an intentional flaw. Publishers desperately wanted control of the market a decade ago, so they successfully convinced Console gamers that Graphics > Gameplay. This was done so that they could insure that development houses could not develop and launch a competitive title without their help. Think Cold War Economics. This, combined with the expense of the 3D revolution, gave Publishers pretty much complete control over the entire market.

 

Remember, Activision got it's start by releasing Atari Games without Atari. It was an event Publishers did not want to see, they wanted to insure that anything sold on a Console Platform gave them a piece of the pie.

 

It's also a large part of the reason why the market shifted away from the PC to Consoles, if Publishers could successfully force the market to go in that direction, they could obtain complete control of the market. The PC is an open platform, nothing stops a developer from releasing a game on the PC without them. The Console OTOH is closed, and if they could position themselves as the Gatekeepers, they could dominate the market.

 

So, the campaign of massive budgets was born. The Publishers leveraged their bankrolls in Reganomics style warfare by successfully convincing the Gamers that if a game didn't have the very latest in graphics, physics, full orchestral music, and voice acting by celebrities it wasn't worth buying.

 

Now it'll bite them in the butt. It's a large part of the reason we're on the verge of collapse.

 

2) Designing games, that we want to hit the largest possible audience, because we need millions of copies sold at high price to even break even... That's why the marketing expenses are huge... They need to create a LOT of hype, so the game will sell in first week to break even, and in second and third week to reach the profit... After the first two-three weeks the sales decline. It is the same rule as with the film industry and cinemas... If we create a game with huge budget, we need to sell millions of copies in first two weeks, otherwise it is a flop...

 

This is a symptom of the above. They need millions of sales because they spend ridiculous amounts of money on things that don't improve gameplay, but they have no choice to do it because of their crusade for market dominance.

 

Marketing expenses are huge, because Quality and Gameplay are secondary. They don't care if the game is innovative, fun, or even bug free. They spend massive amounts of money on marketing, because for years Gamers would just buy into the PR and go preorder. If they can convince Gamers to do that, they don't need to make a good game, because by the time word of mouth spreads, they already have the first 3 weeks of sales.

 

It's also why they're going to fail in the next 18 months. They've created the situation where they have to spend tens of millions to make a game, and then a massive amount in marketing to convince ~3% of the installed base of 140 million to buy the game, just to break even.

 

So what happens when the next generation they think will save them has a first year installed base of only 10 to 20 million? When 3% is in the hudreds of thousands, and not millions?

 

Worse, how are they going to sell consoles when they're creatively bankrupt and the games will be the same things people are already so tired of that they won't buy them today?

 

It's going to be a really ugly 18 months.

 

3) Publishers are smart... they know the demographics, so they target the audience with the type of entertainment, which is easy, pleasing to eye, and not very mentally exercising. Same feature drives the film industry... Ambitious and artistic visions, with deep message, are niche... I personally do not like such movies, because I usually want to be a brain dead while watching some blockbuster with good action and cheap jokes. Games however I like to have more brain involving, because I get easily bored otherwise. Film is 1,5h long, game needs to keep me for far longer time.

 

Publishers are very, very, foolish.

 

They don't know the demographics. Kotaku has an article on Friday where an anonymous Publisher (Likely a suit who makes decisions) seems to indicate people in their 30's are old and not the target market. But if you reference the demographics breakdown from 2011, you'll find the average gamer is 37 and less than 15% of the market is in the under 18 demographic. (Using that breakdown because the 2012 one assumes that anyone who plays Angry Birds or Farmville is a gamer, which is pretty wrong.)

 

Publishers make decisions based upon what is "Safe", which really consists of "What game sold well last year?", and "What genre sold well last year?". Publishers do not make decisions based on anything even remotely resembling market reserach. In 30 years of gaming, no one has ever surveyed me, and I've never seen anyone say they've been surveyed. Then we're right back into the fact that the Publishers disregard the majority of the Industry and target the less than 15% part.

 

 

4) Blockbusters (films) usually have famous names on the roster and that alone can sell a movie... games... they rely on a franchise in the same way. It is difficult to establish a good name for a franchise, but you can easily try to milk it, if you also own the IP... Actors have more independence than an IP, so they can eventually quit working on some silly projects if a previous one hurt their image too much. The one IP that is always strong among the gaming industry is the Star Wars, just because George Lucas is the only one who can tarnish the franchise

 

The only name in film that can sell movie tickets today is Will Smith. Hollywood's been admitting that for years. Many years ago a name on the movie would sell tickets, but today movie goers aren't all that dedicated to any single name.

 

Publishers in gaming rely on franchises because it's safe. Publishers believe that if we bought Game X, we'll buy Game X+1, and for a long time they were right. Gamers have a core demographic that border on obsessive, whether it's the Japanophiles, or people dedicated to some specific IP (Star Wars, Star Trek are good examples), Gamers tended to include the same demographic as AD&D, Comic Book, and Sci-Fi. Demographics known for total dedication to an IP. So if an IP succeeded, there's a demographic in gaming that'll buy it sight unseen for many iterations.

 

New IP's aren't safe, because there's no installed fanbase. That means the game will have to succed on it's own quality, and that's something Publishers want to avoid, because they're not interested in quality. Quality costs alot of money, Quality means alot of tweaking and fine tuning. Publishers like nice safe existing IP's because they can just shove out the same game with a slightly different story and different maps and sell alot of units.

 

Problem is though, Publishers have forgotten the lesson of the Horror Genre of movies. Sure Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street sold alot of tickets, but over time, people became increasingly bored with it, and by the late 80's the entire genre tanked. You cannot release 10, 12, in one case 20, iterations of the same game and think it'll last forever, because at some point the bottom is going to drop out, and it'll likely happen *really* fast.

 

Expense type by categories:

 

Production:

 

Salaries and Social Security charges and taxes. - main bulk if the team consist of hundreds of people...

Outsourcing and external services (Cinematics, music) - if you want famous names involved, you gonna pay for that... a LOT...

Design tools associated solely to the project, which cannot contribute other projects.

Things associated with delivery of the product to the Point of Sales and usable condition.

 

Other expenses:

 

Marketing (not directly tied to production costs, but I assume it's measured against a total profitability of a project).

 

Licenses (depreciate over the life time of a license - for example Forgotten Realms license, Star Wars license, etc. or Engine license - if the engine license is over a life time, not per game title) - I would assume that licenses can be a tricky part, since with some right contract conditioning the expenses could be put below EBITDA lines, and EBITDA is basically one of the main factors that shareholders want to see as it usually builds value for transactions

 

Disclaimer: Please note that I do not have insiders knowledge on the industry's finance mechanics, but make some assumptions based on some general rules.

 

I would really want to see someone, who actually works on some more senior position in finance in the gaming industry to contact me, so I could get more knowledge on the rules here. I am all into tech industry, like mobile operators, marketing media and TV, but never touched gaming industry yet :D

 

The Publisher alone add 25%-30% to the cost of the game. Look through the credits of an AAA game and you'll find a large number of people listed who don't actually do anything towards making the game. They also introduce a high degree of inefficiency through over management. I'd be willing to bet that if you cut out the Publisher and the bloated marketing campaigns, you probably get a budget around 50% lower.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Gatt9

[Merin]

Merin, would love to hear your counter-arguments to this.

 

My simplest response would be:

 

First, that the game industry, again, is at a different phase than the movie industry, and it is growing through it's phases in a different era. The film industry started roughly 1900, the video game one roughly 1970 (I'm not giving exact years the first moving picture was made, nor when the first electronic device for gaming entertainment was made, so roll with it instead of getting pedantic about 1860 or 1950). Each industry grow in vastly different cultures.

 

Second, that the game industry has always and continues to make smaller games. The shelves are lined with them. Before consoles, birth of consoles, pre world-wide-web, pre-Steam, today. Companies like Activision and EA gobbling up smaller competitors is like the big six for the movie industry. They are not exact analogues, but they are similar enough to draw comparisons.

 

So in conclusion, I will just state, again, that it is my firm opinion based on my analysis of the two models that there isn't a significant, noticeable difference between indie vs. tent pole, middle sized game vs. large sized game from big companies, from the film or the game industry...

with the noticeable exception of video games not having high-brow awards nor be considered, by many, an art form. Without a video-game equivalent of the Oscars, or at least Golden Globes, to chase (let alone Cannes or Independent Spirit or such) of any weight, big publishers have no impetus to make smaller, different games with a lot of focus on uniqueness and quality over marketability. What video games have for awards is, at best, the People's Choice Awards, but actually is much closer to a mix of the MTV Movie Awards and Nickelodeon Kid's Choice.

 

----

 

A more lengthy and boring ramble ---

 

You CAN pick out box office flops like Blade Runner, that later became cult classics and critical darlings, as an attempt at saying "look, high art" - but Ridley Scott is the same man who made Gladiator and Prometheus (Gladiator won at least one Oscar, too...) so I'd refrain a bit from quoting it as an example of anything.

 

Your list is not good examples beyond Blade Runner. Videodrome was a Canadian film - not a Hollywood film. Blue Velvet was by a film company that lasted two years (formed in 83, but only released films from 86-88) before going bankrupt (even if it brought us Evil Dead II!) Terminator was done by an independent film company as well - Hemdale. Dead Zone was made by a television production company in partnership with another corporation and...

 

you know what, the point is, the films you are talking about were done by small studios for the most part, not considered to be anything "big" at the time, and even the success of Terminator (moderate, as it were, if not considering the subject matter) just further illustrates it wasn't considered to be "good fair" - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=LFs1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=lIUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1826,10181612&dq=the+terminator&hl=en

 

Tons of games are released that aren't big budget games, and there are many genres of games out there. Just looking at the big budget ones and saying "bleh" is what people do to the movie industry as well. There are other options out there, yes even distributed by the big companies....

 

Here - a list of last years's EA Games - http://www.ea.com/past-year#9 - 116 of them. Looks to be a wide range of games in there, not all the same budget or genre.

Here - a list of last year's Disney movies - http://www.disneymovieslist.com/year-disney-movies.asp?disyear=2011 - 15. Hrmmm. There is a little variety - but not as much range, or number.

and, in case you don't like Disney, here's Paramount - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Paramount_Pictures_films#2010s - 16. One more than Disney, a little more variety... but nowhere near the number, nor range, that EA games have.

 

And this isn't me defending EA. It's me saying that you can't do an EXACT comparison, or a close numerical comparison, but only a very, very broad generalized comparison.

 

Big game publisher release way more games than big movie studios release movies. But there are many factors that go into that.

 

....

 

long story short, I still say Hollywood is a better example of what the game industry is going through (as what the movie industry went through) but NOT a role-model for what the game industry should do. And that it's a very, very bad way to try and judge the game industry. Big companies making products for millions of consumers want big returns, especially if they are publicly traded companies.

[jarpie]

Merin, would love to hear your counter-arguments to this.

 

My simplest response would be:

 

First, that the game industry, again, is at a different phase than the movie industry, and it is growing through it's phases in a different era. The film industry started roughly 1900, the video game one roughly 1970 (I'm not giving exact years the first moving picture was made, nor when the first electronic device for gaming entertainment was made, so roll with it instead of getting pedantic about 1860 or 1950). Each industry grow in vastly different cultures.

 

Second, that the game industry has always and continues to make smaller games. The shelves are lined with them. Before consoles, birth of consoles, pre world-wide-web, pre-Steam, today. Companies like Activision and EA gobbling up smaller competitors is like the big six for the movie industry. They are not exact analogues, but they are similar enough to draw comparisons.

 

So in conclusion, I will just state, again, that it is my firm opinion based on my analysis of the two models that there isn't a significant, noticeable difference between indie vs. tent pole, middle sized game vs. large sized game from big companies, from the film or the game industry...

with the noticeable exception of video games not having high-brow awards nor be considered, by many, an art form. Without a video-game equivalent of the Oscars, or at least Golden Globes, to chase (let alone Cannes or Independent Spirit or such) of any weight, big publishers have no impetus to make smaller, different games with a lot of focus on uniqueness and quality over marketability. What video games have for awards is, at best, the People's Choice Awards, but actually is much closer to a mix of the MTV Movie Awards and Nickelodeon Kid's Choice.

 

----

A more lengthy and boring ramble ---

 

You CAN pick out box office flops like Blade Runner, that later became cult classics and critical darlings, as an attempt at saying "look, high art" - but Ridley Scott is the same man who made Gladiator and Prometheus (Gladiator won at least one Oscar, too...) so I'd refrain a bit from quoting it as an example of anything.

 

 

Your list is not good examples beyond Blade Runner. Videodrome was a Canadian film - not a Hollywood film. Blue Velvet was by a film company that lasted two years (formed in 83, but only released films from 86-88) before going bankrupt (even if it brought us Evil Dead II!) Terminator was done by an independent film company as well - Hemdale. Dead Zone was made by a television production company in partnership with another corporation and...

 

you know what, the point is, the films you are talking about were done by small studios for the most part, not considered to be anything "big" at the time, and even the success of Terminator (moderate, as it were, if not considering the subject matter) just further illustrates it wasn't considered to be "good fair" - http://news.google.c...erminator&hl=en

 

Tons of games are released that aren't big budget games, and there are many genres of games out there. Just looking at the big budget ones and saying "bleh" is what people do to the movie industry as well. There are other options out there, yes even distributed by the big companies....

 

Here - a list of last years's EA Games - http://www.ea.com/past-year#9 - 116 of them. Looks to be a wide range of games in there, not all the same budget or genre.

Here - a list of last year's Disney movies - http://www.disneymov...sp?disyear=2011 - 15. Hrmmm. There is a little variety - but not as much range, or number.

and, in case you don't like Disney, here's Paramount - http://en.wikipedia....res_films#2010s - 16. One more than Disney, a little more variety... but nowhere near the number, nor range, that EA games have.

 

And this isn't me defending EA. It's me saying that you can't do an EXACT comparison, or a close numerical comparison, but only a very, very broad generalized comparison.

 

Big game publisher release way more games than big movie studios release movies. But there are many factors that go into that.

 

....

 

long story short, I still say Hollywood is a better example of what the game industry is going through (as what the movie industry went through) but NOT a role-model for what the game industry should do. And that it's a very, very bad way to try and judge the game industry. Big companies making products for millions of consumers want big returns, especially if they are publicly traded companies.

 

Of course world is different now but the progress is similar in the games with the films for about 40 years in the both idustries as a storytelling medium, as I explain just below:

 

Films started to show up in the early 20th century; 1910s were mostly simple silent movies with pretty little sophistication on them with couple noticeable exceptions such as The Birth of a Nation but when 1910s turned into 1920s there started to be more and more ambitious films which were more sophisticated than the films in the late 1910s.

 

When 1920s became to the end, sound films appeared and after short phase of transition when the sound equipment was heavy and cumbersome, the visual storytelling of the film started to flourish again and with the combination of the sound the storytelling in films "grew up" quite considerably with the films of the late 30s and early 40s, the visual style really flourished with the film noir and colour films which both started to appear in the late 30s and early 40s.

 

Now let's compare to the games; very early games from the 1970s were very simple games, such as numerous Pong-clones or Atari 2600 games (compare to the 1910s of the films), but in the early 1980s computers such as Commodore 64 appeared and games started to get much more sophisticated, such as early Ultimas, Sierra's adventure games or LucasArts Maniac Mansion by mid 80s. Think of those games comparable to the early 1920s and the later games of the 80s to the early sound films.

 

When the PC got VGA-graphics and became much more powerful from the CPU, memory etc standpoint and harddisks became the norm, games started to really flourish - we got such a titles such as Ultima 7, Ultima Underworld, Monkey Island 1+2, Civilization, Wing Commander 1+2, Day of the Tentacle, Doom and later we got Fallout 1+2, The Dig, Mission Critical, Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 and so on - those times are comparable to the 1940s with such films as Lost Weekend, Sam Fuller's films, Film noir films and so on.

 

Edit: Widescreen films started to appear in the early-/mid 1950s, and so did bigger and bigger epics such as Ben-Hur or The Ten Commandments, but there were still smaller films like Samuel Fuller's Hell and High Water which was widescreen film - those can be somewhat compared to the 3D-games.

 

But just when when the century became to an end and turned into 21st century, multi-platform titles started to appear and more sophisticated games became fewer and fewer even if they got technologically grandeur. The Last of the Golden Age of RPGs was released in 2005 - Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines. That's when middle-class of the games basicly disappeared with the notable exceptions from Obsidian who has been one last Shining Beacon of Light in the Night, or odd Civilization or two.

 

Now tell me exactly how development of both industries are not compareable and even though they were in very different eras and cultures you can clearly draw lot of similarities on how both mediums grew more sophisticated? People haven't changed that much, they still go to see big blockbuster films as they were going before and some still go to see the smaller films.

 

Sure small games has been done always but like I said before; Middle-class games were done but those average budgeted (which would nowdays be from couple million to ten million) vanished, now there are only games which are made with very small budget for handheld devices/webbrowsers/MMOs or huge blockbusters made with 20-100 millions.

 

Edit: MMOs are not usually cheap to make but have very different business model than the single-player games.

 

None of the games in EA's page was other than either for handheld-devices/webbrowsers/MMOs/Sims-games or then sport games and big blockbusters - where are those averagely budgeted games?

 

Indies are publishes like Paradox Interactive and their grand strategy games, or Matrix Games and their strategy games which both makes very niche games - always have been and always will be.

 

Ridley Scott getting Oscars has nothing to do with the finances for films he made in the 70s and 80s - of course Oscars help somewhat but he hadn't won oscar when he made Blade Runner and even though it wasn't financial success it still made back its budget: 27 million vs. 33 million but there are always flops.

 

Look at the Paramount's films made in the 2010s - there are films like The Fighter (budget 25 million) and How to train your Dragon (budget 165 million), same with the 80s with such films like The Witness (budget 8 million), The 48 hours (1 million), April Fool's Day (5 million), etc. and now show me from the EA's webpage any games which are made with comparable budget (from 1-10 million) and not big blockbusters or small games either for webbrosers or handheld devices but games like Project Eternity which will have about 3,7 million budget.

 

What about profit? That's not impetus enough? Game with budget like Project Eternity has to sell 500 000 copies to make 15 million if they get 30 dollars profit per game, that's 11,7 million profit. If big publisher would make say...five games with budgets of about that and all would sell about 500 000 copies, they'd get about 50-55 million profits on them and most of them would probably sell between about 500 000 and 5 million copies, depending on if they are surprise hits or not.

 

But this is better example:

Now let's say they make eight games with budget of five million which all would most probably sell about on average 1 million copies (probably from about 500 000 to 5 million copies per game, depending on odd surprise hit) which all would make profit 30 dollars per game - so that's 30 million per game, now multiply that with eight, it's 240 million minus the production costs 40 million, now that's 200 million profit. Games like those would need much much smaller marketing costs too because they don't have to sell 8-10 million copies.

 

As I said game with smaller budgets also would need smaller marketing costs, Battlefield 3 probably cost something around 25-50 million (can't be sure because those aren't published) to make and marketing budget was according to google over the whopping 100 million, so EA spent at least 130 million on game, but probably more. Battlefield 3 sold 8 million copies according to Wiki and they probably make 30 dollars profit per game so that's 240 million so EA probably made 110 million profit tops.

 

Also if those games would be different genres (rpg, adventure, somekind of action with smaller budget etc.) then their overall target audience would be wider and not just either sport-fans or mass-audiences who buy Battlefield-games, also there most probably would be cross-movement between them since people tend to play different kind of games.

Edited October 22, 2012 by jarpie

[Darkpriest]

^^^ you forget about games like Sims in EA's portfolio

[Syraxis]

I don't want the 90s back. I want to take a different path off the 90s than was taken.

 

The popular form of RPGs after the 90s followed a path through Neverwinter Nights to KOTOR and I think much of what we look at today can be traced to KOTOR. Cinematics, smaller parties, voice acting. That is no more the natural endpoint of all change than the idea that all hominid forms eventually become human.

 

If we look at the legacy of advanture games, we see the birth of survival horror and the path to Resident Evil 6. But we also the birth of action adventure games in the vein of Devil May Cry. (I've never been clear on the earlier Soul Reaver/Tomb Raider branch and where that split off) But we also see cinematic narrative games like Walking Dead and Quantic Dream's works. We see alternate paths such as Telltale's 3D adventures, retro titles like the Wadjet series, and even alternate branchings of survival horror in the Penumbra and Amnesia series. The fact that Amnesia isn't a retread of Alone in the Dark 1 doesn't mean it's at risk of being Resident Evil 6. You even see the warning signs back in Penumbra where you can kill the dogs, but they steppedback in sequels because they weren't aiming for the same path Resident Evil took.

 

Games can still change without assuming the worst.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo sir.

[jarpie]

^^^ you forget about games like Sims in EA's portfolio

 

They are in the same category as rest of their cheaply made games with very little effort.

[jarpie]

Ok here it is. Some points, which one should take into consideration.

 

1) The biggest flaw of the industry, is that they drive into the direction of interactive, immersive movies... That's why they spend a LOT on graphics and physics, a LOT on full voice overs with talented voice actors, a LOT on high quality music. Now, where the cost cutting can go without hurting the "immersive" First Person experience in a very detailed graphical environment? Story and plot length... The less dialog, the less lines of text and the less environments and places to visit -> the less costly the game be, in an already huge production budget

 

That is an intentional flaw. Publishers desperately wanted control of the market a decade ago, so they successfully convinced Console gamers that Graphics > Gameplay. This was done so that they could insure that development houses could not develop and launch a competitive title without their help. Think Cold War Economics. This, combined with the expense of the 3D revolution, gave Publishers pretty much complete control over the entire market.

 

Remember, Activision got it's start by releasing Atari Games without Atari. It was an event Publishers did not want to see, they wanted to insure that anything sold on a Console Platform gave them a piece of the pie.

 

It's also a large part of the reason why the market shifted away from the PC to Consoles, if Publishers could successfully force the market to go in that direction, they could obtain complete control of the market. The PC is an open platform, nothing stops a developer from releasing a game on the PC without them. The Console OTOH is closed, and if they could position themselves as the Gatekeepers, they could dominate the market.

 

So, the campaign of massive budgets was born. The Publishers leveraged their bankrolls in Reganomics style warfare by successfully convincing the Gamers that if a game didn't have the very latest in graphics, physics, full orchestral music, and voice acting by celebrities it wasn't worth buying.

 

Now it'll bite them in the butt. It's a large part of the reason we're on the verge of collapse.

 

2) Designing games, that we want to hit the largest possible audience, because we need millions of copies sold at high price to even break even... That's why the marketing expenses are huge... They need to create a LOT of hype, so the game will sell in first week to break even, and in second and third week to reach the profit... After the first two-three weeks the sales decline. It is the same rule as with the film industry and cinemas... If we create a game with huge budget, we need to sell millions of copies in first two weeks, otherwise it is a flop...

 

This is a symptom of the above. They need millions of sales because they spend ridiculous amounts of money on things that don't improve gameplay, but they have no choice to do it because of their crusade for market dominance.

 

Marketing expenses are huge, because Quality and Gameplay are secondary. They don't care if the game is innovative, fun, or even bug free. They spend massive amounts of money on marketing, because for years Gamers would just buy into the PR and go preorder. If they can convince Gamers to do that, they don't need to make a good game, because by the time word of mouth spreads, they already have the first 3 weeks of sales.

 

It's also why they're going to fail in the next 18 months. They've created the situation where they have to spend tens of millions to make a game, and then a massive amount in marketing to convince ~3% of the installed base of 140 million to buy the game, just to break even.

 

So what happens when the next generation they think will save them has a first year installed base of only 10 to 20 million? When 3% is in the hudreds of thousands, and not millions?

 

Worse, how are they going to sell consoles when they're creatively bankrupt and the games will be the same things people are already so tired of that they won't buy them today?

 

It's going to be a really ugly 18 months.

 

3) Publishers are smart... they know the demographics, so they target the audience with the type of entertainment, which is easy, pleasing to eye, and not very mentally exercising. Same feature drives the film industry... Ambitious and artistic visions, with deep message, are niche... I personally do not like such movies, because I usually want to be a brain dead while watching some blockbuster with good action and cheap jokes. Games however I like to have more brain involving, because I get easily bored otherwise. Film is 1,5h long, game needs to keep me for far longer time.

 

Publishers are very, very, foolish.

 

They don't know the demographics. Kotaku has an article on Friday where an anonymous Publisher (Likely a suit who makes decisions) seems to indicate people in their 30's are old and not the target market. But if you reference the demographics breakdown from 2011, you'll find the average gamer is 37 and less than 15% of the market is in the under 18 demographic. (Using that breakdown because the 2012 one assumes that anyone who plays Angry Birds or Farmville is a gamer, which is pretty wrong.)

 

Publishers make decisions based upon what is "Safe", which really consists of "What game sold well last year?", and "What genre sold well last year?". Publishers do not make decisions based on anything even remotely resembling market reserach. In 30 years of gaming, no one has ever surveyed me, and I've never seen anyone say they've been surveyed. Then we're right back into the fact that the Publishers disregard the majority of the Industry and target the less than 15% part.

 

 

4) Blockbusters (films) usually have famous names on the roster and that alone can sell a movie... games... they rely on a franchise in the same way. It is difficult to establish a good name for a franchise, but you can easily try to milk it, if you also own the IP... Actors have more independence than an IP, so they can eventually quit working on some silly projects if a previous one hurt their image too much. The one IP that is always strong among the gaming industry is the Star Wars, just because George Lucas is the only one who can tarnish the franchise

 

The only name in film that can sell movie tickets today is Will Smith. Hollywood's been admitting that for years. Many years ago a name on the movie would sell tickets, but today movie goers aren't all that dedicated to any single name.

 

Publishers in gaming rely on franchises because it's safe. Publishers believe that if we bought Game X, we'll buy Game X+1, and for a long time they were right. Gamers have a core demographic that border on obsessive, whether it's the Japanophiles, or people dedicated to some specific IP (Star Wars, Star Trek are good examples), Gamers tended to include the same demographic as AD&D, Comic Book, and Sci-Fi. Demographics known for total dedication to an IP. So if an IP succeeded, there's a demographic in gaming that'll buy it sight unseen for many iterations.

 

New IP's aren't safe, because there's no installed fanbase. That means the game will have to succed on it's own quality, and that's something Publishers want to avoid, because they're not interested in quality. Quality costs alot of money, Quality means alot of tweaking and fine tuning. Publishers like nice safe existing IP's because they can just shove out the same game with a slightly different story and different maps and sell alot of units.

 

Problem is though, Publishers have forgotten the lesson of the Horror Genre of movies. Sure Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street sold alot of tickets, but over time, people became increasingly bored with it, and by the late 80's the entire genre tanked. You cannot release 10, 12, in one case 20, iterations of the same game and think it'll last forever, because at some point the bottom is going to drop out, and it'll likely happen *really* fast.

 

Expense type by categories:

 

Production:

 

Salaries and Social Security charges and taxes. - main bulk if the team consist of hundreds of people...

Outsourcing and external services (Cinematics, music) - if you want famous names involved, you gonna pay for that... a LOT...

Design tools associated solely to the project, which cannot contribute other projects.

Things associated with delivery of the product to the Point of Sales and usable condition.

 

Other expenses:

 

Marketing (not directly tied to production costs, but I assume it's measured against a total profitability of a project).

 

Licenses (depreciate over the life time of a license - for example Forgotten Realms license, Star Wars license, etc. or Engine license - if the engine license is over a life time, not per game title) - I would assume that licenses can be a tricky part, since with some right contract conditioning the expenses could be put below EBITDA lines, and EBITDA is basically one of the main factors that shareholders want to see as it usually builds value for transactions

 

Disclaimer: Please note that I do not have insiders knowledge on the industry's finance mechanics, but make some assumptions based on some general rules.

 

I would really want to see someone, who actually works on some more senior position in finance in the gaming industry to contact me, so I could get more knowledge on the rules here. I am all into tech industry, like mobile operators, marketing media and TV, but never touched gaming industry yet :D

 

The Publisher alone add 25%-30% to the cost of the game. Look through the credits of an AAA game and you'll find a large number of people listed who don't actually do anything towards making the game. They also introduce a high degree of inefficiency through over management. I'd be willing to bet that if you cut out the Publisher and the bloated marketing campaigns, you probably get a budget around 50% lower.

 

Bravo on the whole message but I have to disagree with one thing - the next console generation might be saved with one thing: 3D televisions and glasses. That might be gimmick they're gonna use to get people buying the next consoles.

[Darkpriest]

^^^ you forget about games like Sims in EA's portfolio

 

They are in the same category as rest of their cheaply made games with very little effort.

 

To be honest I am a bit amazed by the strategy that EA tries to follow. Their strongest points are within titles, which they created themselves...

 

All of EA sports... for me EA meant quality (got hooked up with NHL 93' and NFS (casual racing))

Sims - that was/is a phenomenon, which they should and are smartly expanding on.

FPS with Battlefield series being their flag ship

 

These three above are high budget genres, where they should stick to the formula.

 

On the other hand they are entering the world of application games for social media and handheld devices. It is also a good part, because they can sell tens of millions of copies of these, and their customer base is not consisting of gamers in a traditional sense of this word (i.e. PC / console)

 

What EA is doing wrong though is skipping the middle ground. They have great IPs in their possession and they are butchering them, while they could have made them small/medium budget games with high profitability return.

 

C&C - This IP was so well regarded that they could have been updating just graphics and they would be selling a lot of that... The biggest flaw in their design was not introduction of co-op, because that is actually a nice idea, but how they've tried to go into some sort of hybrid between Dawn of War and C&C with their last C&C... Keep the franchise true to what made it successful in the first place...

 

Syndicate - This... I will just put a veil of silence upon this IP...

 

Mass Effect - turning a great RPG into a space squad-shooter with more dialogs than CoD - no influence system, no non-combat skills, limited choices in dialog, etc.

 

Dragon Age - see above, it will be most likely action oriented hack&slash, but with more dialog than Diablo I guess. DA tries to become ME3 of fantasy setting - that's not what made the IP great in the first game..

 

Dead Space - They had a great title and with DS3 it seems that they are doing again a wrong step.

 

Ultima - no comment...

 

Now, apparently they also can get some titles right. I have some hope for the latest SimCity

 

Other publishers are more inclined to keep the franchise within its core... Blizzard got it right with SC2, but took something bad with Diablo 3 - if D2 is more playable and enjoyable now than D3 is, then something is wrong.

 

Look also at Beths' Fallout - it got criticized to no end, for being Oblivion with guns, and they turned to people who know how to make falloutish experience to scrap whatever they can from that formula, with Fallout:NV getting much better reception than Fallout 3.

 

It is true, that major publishers do not try to get into the middle ground, like RTS, TBS, core RPG, Simulators, Adventure games.

[jarpie]

^^^ you forget about games like Sims in EA's portfolio

 

They are in the same category as rest of their cheaply made games with very little effort.

 

To be honest I am a bit amazed by the strategy that EA tries to follow. Their strongest points are within titles, which they created themselves...

 

All of EA sports... for me EA meant quality (got hooked up with NHL 93' and NFS (casual racing))

Sims - that was/is a phenomenon, which they should and are smartly expanding on.

FPS with Battlefield series being their flag ship

 

These three above are high budget genres, where they should stick to the formula.

 

On the other hand they are entering the world of application games for social media and handheld devices. It is also a good part, because they can sell tens of millions of copies of these, and their customer base is not consisting of gamers in a traditional sense of this word (i.e. PC / console)

 

What EA is doing wrong though is skipping the middle ground. They have great IPs in their possession and they are butchering them, while they could have made them small/medium budget games with high profitability return.

 

C&C - This IP was so well regarded that they could have been updating just graphics and they would be selling a lot of that... The biggest flaw in their design was not introduction of co-op, because that is actually a nice idea, but how they've tried to go into some sort of hybrid between Dawn of War and C&C with their last C&C... Keep the franchise true to what made it successful in the first place...

 

Syndicate - This... I will just put a veil of silence upon this IP...

 

Mass Effect - turning a great RPG into a space squad-shooter with more dialogs than CoD - no influence system, no non-combat skills, limited choices in dialog, etc.

 

Dragon Age - see above, it will be most likely action oriented hack&slash, but with more dialog than Diablo I guess. DA tries to become ME3 of fantasy setting - that's not what made the IP great in the first game..

 

Dead Space - They had a great title and with DS3 it seems that they are doing again a wrong step.

 

Ultima - no comment...

 

Now, apparently they also can get some titles right. I have some hope for the latest SimCity

 

Other publishers are more inclined to keep the franchise within its core... Blizzard got it right with SC2, but took something bad with Diablo 3 - if D2 is more playable and enjoyable now than D3 is, then something is wrong.

 

Look also at Beths' Fallout - it got criticized to no end, for being Oblivion with guns, and they turned to people who know how to make falloutish experience to scrap whatever they can from that formula, with Fallout:NV getting much better reception than Fallout 3.

 

It is true, that major publishers do not try to get into the middle ground, like RTS, TBS, core RPG, Simulators, Adventure games.

 

This was exactly the point I was making but I'd disagree with Sims, they are probably made with pretty little money and effort but they keep making them because they found its core audience in the early 2000s who just keeps buying them, very similar to their sport-games.

[Darkpriest]

I doubt, because of the all the extra features they try to put in, to make it more connected with social media... add to that things with titles that involve H&M clothing, Kate Perry, and a lot of marketing expenses at the launch of the game. I'd say that it definitely is not a small to medium production cost game.

[jarpie]

I doubt, because of the all the extra features they try to put in, to make it more connected with social media... add to that things with titles that involve H&M clothing, Kate Perry, and a lot of marketing expenses at the launch of the game. I'd say that it definitely is not a small to medium production cost game.

 

Hmh, you might be right there. Kate Perry license probably costs a lot, wouldn't be surprised if it's not millions. The games itself are probably cheap to make but all other expenses are very high.

[Darkpriest]

@Gatt

 

I could argue about the demographics... The least I can say is that demographics can be vastly different for each genre and even within one broadly described genre. MMO people are different than MOBA people, which are different than TBS people, etc.

 

You do not have to be surveyed directly. With the new platforms, like Steam / Origin, etc. you are most likely already a part of a CRM system. It would be stupid on the publishers side if they would be creating these tools and not use them also as the Market Intelligence tool which could help them get the demographics right.

[limaxophobiacq]

I doubt, because of the all the extra features they try to put in, to make it more connected with social media... add to that things with titles that involve H&M clothing, Kate Perry, and a lot of marketing expenses at the launch of the game. I'd say that it definitely is not a small to medium production cost game.

 

Hmh, you might be right there. Kate Perry license probably costs a lot, wouldn't be surprised if it's not millions. The games itself are probably cheap to make but all other expenses are very high.

 

I have no idea about the cost of making the core Sims games but the 10+ expansions they release for every one are probably close to zero effort compared to what they make from them.

[Darkpriest]

I doubt, because of the all the extra features they try to put in, to make it more connected with social media... add to that things with titles that involve H&M clothing, Kate Perry, and a lot of marketing expenses at the launch of the game. I'd say that it definitely is not a small to medium production cost game.

 

Hmh, you might be right there. Kate Perry license probably costs a lot, wouldn't be surprised if it's not millions. The games itself are probably cheap to make but all other expenses are very high.

 

I have no idea about the cost of making the core Sims games but the 10+ expansions they release for every one are probably close to zero effort compared to what they make from them.

 

That's what's called a smart move by EA here... this type of game has almost a limitless potential for additional contents and customization options, and people buying this type of the game, love exactly that.

[Merin]

I'm sorry, jarpie, but if you want to consider this my concession, so be it.

 

I really don't have the desire to continue a lengthy argument about this. You can't make a one-for-once comparison of the game industry to the movie industries. You can make a general comparison, but that's about all I believe is possible.

 

Picking out individual films or such to try and prove a point is just cherry picking. For either of us.

 

I think EA doing 116 games and a big company like Paramount doing 16 films just shows how much of a difference there is in scale. What you don't consider as games, as apt because they are different platforms...

 

no, I can't generate the desire to really argue this. You post a lot, too much to read, on a topic of debate that is so ancillary and uninteresting (to me) outside of a very generalized point that can be made....

 

If others want to debate this, more power to them.

 

I bow out.

[jivex5k]

I really enjoyed Dragon Age.

I thoroughly hated Dragon Age 2.

The fact that you couldn't zoom out was a big warning sign I suppose....it still breaks my heart to think about it.

 

Not all publishers ruin games/IP over time though.

Rockstar has put out some great games.

I still think red dead redemption is amazing....

LA Noire, man that was a ballsy move and it was alright, but I respect them for breaking the mold.

 

Battlefield 3 would be awesome if consoles were stronger, I just can't play FPS with keyboard and mouse anymore. My glory days are passed me.

 

Not sure what I'm trying to say though, just posting at work killing the last 10 minutes of the day.