High end graphics are killing the games industry

[Bokishi]

http://www.gamespot.com/features/beauty-is-in-the-eye-of-the-destroyer-6406923/

 

interesting article, it might be time to go back to old skool 2D

[Cultist]

Bull****. It's not graphics that is killing game industry, it's developers, who think that graphics>gameplay. Graphics were secondary even in FPS - people are forgetting about CoD yet still playing Team Fortress 2 with their outdated graphics, and with RPG it bocemes even less of importance. ADoM, Dwarf Fortress and other rogues RPGs has ARCII graph and still popular. Planescape had horrible, horrbile grapics for their time, Fallout 2 and BG2 were released at the time of massive 3d acceleration implementation and managed to hold only due to high-quality 2D-drawing.

[samm]

Cultist, bull***, it's not devs, but in typical cases publishers who think that graphics > gameplay Who make devs calculate their peers down to their emotions. A horrible, expensive machinery. Production trumps content, calculaton trumps truth.

 

 

Interesting to have you post this Bokishi  But it does reflect a sentiment that I share: The need for increased budget due to one aspect of a game - graphics - results in an over-mainstreaming of games in general, and loss in terms of gameplay, story, and "true" game design. And if it's not mainstream enough, as is the case in the example of Tomb Raider selling "only" 3.5 million, it hurts game devs. Game development, when speaking of "the industry", seems to have become an affair of tailoring a product to a mass-market rather than creating an interesting, unique game. It is somewhat akin to pop music and the music industry. Fake, plastic, repetitive, dumbed down to the max and in need of a lot of money in order to keep the industry running, along with the massive touting of copyright issues and the enormous lobbying for it.

 

I'm glad that this model seems to be breaking down a bit. There will always be a place for big productions, but the less mainstream games are on a rise. I think this has to do with the bigger consumer base - even if the mass is stupid, there's bound to be more players in absolute terms who value games that give them something more than polished Hollywood feel around an empty shell of content.

Edited April 14, 2013 by samm

[Labadal]

Some studios can make good games with very good graphics from a technical perspective. Thanks to talented people at these studios, costs can be kept at an acceptable level. Some studios have to put more effort and money into their graphics department. Costs will rise and maybe hurt gameplay, but most importantly, it may hurt the studio itself if costs get to high.

 

So, going for the best graphics might hurt some studios, but I say that it is up to each and every studio to weigh the risks and rewards. Make a high budget game with awesome graphics that sells like hotcakes and gives you funds for your next project. Or make a great looking game that doesn't sell and then make you go bankrupt.

[Keyrock]

Rome is burning, I say let it burn.  The AAA studios will continue to commit suicide and I'll continue to support smaller independent devs who put out games focused on depth of content and narrative rather than bling.  I'll gladly drive the modest looking sedan with a solid, well built, fuel efficient engine, rather than the gaudy luxury car with gold trim, spinners, and underglow, that's leaking oil and stalls occasionally.

[Volourn]

It's not devs or pubs. It's gamers. gamers get the games they want to play. Period.

 

 

P.S. That being said, the game industry isn't being 'killed'. That's a flat out lie.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Volourn

[LadyCrimson]

All I know is budgeting 100million or even more to create/publish/market a video game seems like ... way too much. Course, I feel that way about movies, too. And yes, it's sad if 3.5million copies sold = perceived or actual financial failure.

 

While the film industry may be able to withstand/weather such things as a whole (cgi/action budget busts over quality/original stories etc), I'm not sure mass-market video gaming has that kind of flexibility....at least not, perhaps, without changing a lot of what video games are defined to be. Already happening, really (mobile gaming, etc).

 

At least there are indie vid games and crowd funding these days to keep gamers like me interested.

[Keyrock]

It's not devs or pubs. It's gamers. gamers get the games they want to play. Period.

That's true.  This will only end when people stop buying shiny, shallow games.  Vote with your wallet.

[LadyCrimson]

 

 

It's not devs or pubs. It's gamers. gamers get the games they want to play. Period.

That's true.  This will only end when people stop buying shiny, shallow games.  Vote with your wallet.

 

 

One problem with this is humans tend to be hopeful creatures. Sometimes it's hard to know/decide if something is going to be that shiny/shallow until you actually play it, since graphics don't always = shallow. And a few games I had no idea if I'd like ended up being my fave games ever when I impulse bought them. That is, it's easy if you already know it's a genre of game you wouldn't like anyway, but less easy when it's a sequel you've been looking forward to for a while or something. And at some point you have to buy one again, to find out if they've improved or not.

 

This would be helped (maybe) if games were refundable more often. Then people could also vote by returning/taking their money back, like you do with a TV or a leather jacket.

[Cultist]

That's true.  This will only end when people stop buying shiny, shallow games.  Vote with your wallet.

Why? I mean, let there be pop and let it be heavy metal and such. I'm fine with CoD-like games as long as CoD Crowd is not spreading into other genres I like and spoiling them as they did with DA franchise.

[Orogun01]

Gentlemen, you are all wrong.

Publishers are not at fault because they are only involved in the business side of things, they just invest their capital and expect a reasonable return.

Developers are not at fault because they are only doing the best they can with the available tools, the production cost for a AAA is high. It's not something that can be avoided if you want that level of quality.

Gamers are not at fault because they are only asking for better quality for their buck, you cannot hold them responsible for the state of the industry since they have no direct influence in it.

The problem is that game engines and 3D programs have become more complex in order to offset the increasing demand for better graphics, this has in turn increased development time, team sizes, and the amount of work to make a game release ready.

It is not just a issue limited to the game industry, VFX studios are also stuck on the same rut where publishers try to offset development costs by outsourcing jobs overseas. 3D graphics seem to have hit a ceiling where they have become cost prohibitive. There may pass some time until newer engines overtake and change the way that games are produced.
 

[LadyCrimson]

The problem is that game engines and 3D programs have become more complex in order to offset the increasing demand for better graphics, this has in turn increased development time, team sizes, and the amount of work to make a game release ready.

 

It is not just a issue limited to the game industry, VFX studios are also stuck on the same rut where publishers try to offset development costs by outsourcing jobs overseas. 3D graphics seem to have hit a ceiling where they have become cost prohibitive. There may pass some time until newer engines overtake and change the way that games are produced.

Lowly non-tech/business people like myself can barely comprehend why it costs so much for all that shiny. So many things factor into that, like cost to research/develop the tech itself as well as the time spent learning how to use/apply it. I do understand that a need for more development time/bigger teams = higher costs in anything, tho. And yeah....all that flak in Hollywood right now over the cost/outsourcing issue. It's sad.

[pmp10]

Gamers are not at fault because they are only asking for better quality for their buck, you cannot hold them responsible for the state of the industry since they have no direct influence in it.

 

Sure we can because they do.

In the end it's up to consumer to say that graphics are good enough and force development onto other areas.

It just so happen they never say that and given industry driven by release sales graphics have become absolutely vital.

 

 

Lowly non-tech/business people like myself can barely comprehend why it costs so much for all that shiny.

 

Staff and tech are not cheap.

A breakdown of costs associated with new characters for skullgirls (2D fighter) was published.

Turns out a single character was about 150-200k and most of that in animation costs and staff expenses.

You can imagine what a new top of the line graphic engine would require.

 

That's true.  This will only end when people stop buying shiny, shallow games.  Vote with your wallet.

Why? I mean, let there be pop and let it be heavy metal and such. I'm fine with CoD-like games as long as CoD Crowd is not spreading into other genres I like and spoiling them as they did with DA franchise.

 

Because in this analogy pop sets tech and sales standards that heavy metal can never meet.

That's how industry effectively got rid of niche genres that were quite prominent when development costs were smaller.

[Morgoth]

Pretty graphics does not cost more to create, it's mostly production values (animations, physics, fluids, celebtrity VO, and the interaction with each of these), relentless coding voodoo/trickery to get that stupid Skyrim run on 2x256MB PS3, and bloated teams with more academic and less pragmatic approaches that are driving costs up. Not to mention those ridiculous and ineffective TV ads.

[Elerond]

 

Gamers are not at fault because they are only asking for better quality for their buck, you cannot hold them responsible for the state of the industry since they have no direct influence in it.

 

Sure we can because they do.

In the end it's up to consumer to say that graphics are good enough and force development onto other areas.

It just so happen they never say that and given industry driven by release sales graphics have become absolutely vital.

 

How? Not buy games with better graphics? Buy games with weaker graphics?

 

Someone will always try to make games with better graphics, at least for that reason only that it easy to say when technology and aesthetics for game is such level that it is easy to market. But as we know good graphics don't equal good game (or movie or even piece of art), but there will always be some one who tries as it easy road to take if you have money. Because games, movies and art with out cool and easilly marketed graphics are much harder to sell, as it is difficult to show people gameplay, story, ability rise feelings, etc. things in marketing material that is easy to distribute and intresting enough people, that don't actively seek information about product, to look and interest them.

 

But there is those who try to stand out, like for example Nintendo success for sort time move marketing from how games look to how games are played, but was marked as 'casual' platform maker because of that and have now lost it's momentum and strugle to get it products sold.

[pmp10]

 

 

 

 

Gamers are not at fault because they are only asking for better quality for their buck, you cannot hold them responsible for the state of the industry since they have no direct influence in it.

 

Sure we can because they do.

In the end it's up to consumer to say that graphics are good enough and force development onto other areas.

It just so happen they never say that and given industry driven by release sales graphics have become absolutely vital.

 

 

 

How? Not buy games with better graphics? Buy games with weaker graphics?

 

 

How about just paying much less attention to it?

 

 

But there is those who try to stand out, like for example Nintendo success for sort time move marketing from how games look to how games are played, but was marked as 'casual' platform maker because of that and have now lost it's momentum and strugle to get it products sold.

Graphics are almost the whole reason why Nintendo has to go for casual players.

Hardcore gamers are still laughing about how weak GPUs Wii and WiiU have.

[Keyrock]

I'm not against buying games with good graphics, there are good games with good graphics, I just don't base my purchasing decision on graphics.

[Elerond]

 

 

 

Gamers are not at fault because they are only asking for better quality for their buck, you cannot hold them responsible for the state of the industry since they have no direct influence in it.

 

Sure we can because they do.

In the end it's up to consumer to say that graphics are good enough and force development onto other areas.

It just so happen they never say that and given industry driven by release sales graphics have become absolutely vital.

 

 

How? Not buy games with better graphics? Buy games with weaker graphics?

 

How about just paying much less attention to it?

 

 

>But there is those who try to stand out, like for example Nintendo success for sort time move marketing from how games look to how games are played, but was marked as 'casual' platform maker because of that and have now lost it's momentum and strugle to get it products sold.

Graphics are almost the whole reason why Nintendo has to go for casual players.

Hardcore gamers are still laughing about how weak GPUs Wii and WiiU have.

 

 

But how you show that you pay less attention to graphics? Leave games with good graphics in shelves? As otherwise companies try to sell you products that look like those that you previously bought or better, as it is easy to sell them.

 

'Hardcore' gamers laugh also how weak GPUs XO, PS3 and even PS4 have. But those aren't really hardcore gamers but gamers that like technically good graphics (that usually also need to look cool too). So just those players that buy graphic focused games and make noise about them in their social circles. So how you make these guys not to be intrested how good games look or even say that they look good enough, when some company make much better looking game (and there will probably always be someone who does so)?

[AwesomeOcelot]

It's not just the graphics, it's often the gameplay and the gimmicky control method that marks the Wii out as casual.

[Agiel]

All I know is that if the best looking games looked as good as Battlefield 3 does now for the next five years with relatively mild graphical improvements over the years, I would totally be okay with that. I'm still having a blast with Mount and Blade and Steel Beasts even though they look ugly as sin (and they are among the few in my library I can run on max settings), but they still play utterly fantastic. I'd rather see a sustainable games industry that isn't reliant upon selling at least 2 million copies to break even and developers who don't live in constant fear of being laid off once their part on the project is finished.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Agiel

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

 

Gamers are not at fault because they are only asking for better quality for their buck, you cannot hold them responsible for the state of the industry since they have no direct influence in it.

 

Sure we can because they do.

In the end it's up to consumer to say that graphics are good enough and force development onto other areas.

It just so happen they never say that and given industry driven by release sales graphics have become absolutely vital.

 

 

How? Not buy games with better graphics? Buy games with weaker graphics?

 

How about just paying much less attention to it?

 

 

>But there is those who try to stand out, like for example Nintendo success for sort time move marketing from how games look to how games are played, but was marked as 'casual' platform maker because of that and have now lost it's momentum and strugle to get it products

sold.

Graphics are almost the whole reason why Nintendo has to go for casual players.

Hardcore gamers are still laughing about how weak GPUs Wii and WiiU have.

 

But how you show that you pay less attention to graphics? Leave games with good graphics in shelves? As otherwise companies try to sell you products that look like those that you previously bought or better, as it is easy to sell them.

 

'Hardcore' gamers laugh also how weak GPUs XO, PS3 and even PS4 have. But those aren't really hardcore gamers but gamers that like technically good graphics (that usually also need to look cool too). So just those players that buy graphic focused games and make noise about them in their social circles. So how you make these guys not to be intrested how good games look or even say that they look good enough, when some company make much better looking game (and there will probably always be someone who does so)?

 

But the thing is, graphics sell better because you can't advertise gameplay, Demos do that but only after the game has grabbed attention. Also graphics are easier to develop than an engine that can simulate both high speed flight and zero gravity physics. Those things add to the development time and are used on a per project basis, graphics on the other hand are universal.

 

[AGX-17]

it's developers, who think that graphics>gameplay. Graphics were secondary even in FPS - people are forgetting about CoD yet still playing Team Fortress 2 with their outdated graphics, and with RPG it bocemes even less of importance. ADoM, Dwarf Fortress and other rogues RPGs has ARCII graph and still popular. Planescape had horrible, horrbile grapics for their time, Fallout 2 and BG2 were released at the time of massive 3d acceleration implementation and managed to hold only due to high-quality 2D-drawing.

Yeah, the heroes like Bobby Kotick at Activision have been pushing for gameplay and are clamoring for old school type games for years, but those damned developers have so much money and so much power that he can't stop them from focusing on graphics and rehashes over gameplay. It's because of those corporate fatcats that Call of Duty is what it is today. Poor Bobby, he's the hero of gaming industry. And what about the guys at EA? They're on OUR side, protecting us from the greed and malice of developers. Publishers are price takers, not price makers, dammit!

 

And now the greedy, stinking developers have resorted to cheating the Publishers by using that vile new Kickstarter conspiracy to cheat publishers out of their rightfully earned profits and to keep fresh new ideas out of the video game industry. Kickstarter is where new AAA-graphicswhore mindless shooters come from, innovative indie games have always come from the biggest publishers and their focus groups, not those lousy basement-dwelling developers.

 

I'm with you, Cultist, we have to boycott these criminals like inxile and obsidian for conspiring against creativity! After all, the true artists are the MBAs, not those lousy developers.

Edited April 15, 2013 by AGX-17

[Oerwinde]

But the thing is, graphics sell better because you can't advertise gameplay,

 

I don't know how many trailers for RPGs I've watched that show nothing but shots of pretty combat graphics and animation and I sit there yelling at the screen "why can't you show the dialogue system?! What does the inventory screen look like? Can't they just show the characters walking through town? Is this game all combat?!"

[babaganoosh13]

 

But the thing is, graphics sell better because you can't advertise gameplay,

I don't know how many trailers for RPGs I've watched that show nothing but shots of pretty combat graphics and animation and I sit there yelling at the screen "why can't you show the dialogue system?! What does the inventory screen look like? Can't they just show the characters walking through town? Is this game all combat?!"

I think I've usually ignored trailers for RPGs for that reason. Even then, the combat is usually over-sensationalized from the actual game in those things with quick cuts.

[Gorth]

 

 

 

 

Gamers are not at fault because they are only asking for better quality for their buck, you cannot hold them responsible for the state of the industry since they have no direct influence in it.

 

Sure we can because they do.

In the end it's up to consumer to say that graphics are good enough and force development onto other areas.

It just so happen they never say that and given industry driven by release sales graphics have become absolutely vital.

 

 

 

How? Not buy games with better graphics? Buy games with weaker graphics?

 

 

Buy games with better gameplay?

 

I wonder if Tomb Raider failed because it was expensive to make or because the previous 3 releases were really mediocre games (ok, 2 of them were, Anniversary was offensively bad)? Eidos had positioned the game for a mainstream audience, but that audience is already pampered by the competition, when it comes to graphics and it wasn't expected to offer anything significantly different gameplay wise.