High end graphics are killing the games industry

[pmp10]

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

Modern CGI trailers aren't so much advertising graphics as in-game cinematics.

And the reason we got here is because few people cared about the game itself.

Impulse buyers are best won with brand name, pretty graphics and occasional explosion montage.

[Zoraptor]

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)?

 

Tomb Raider sold 3 million+ copies though, didn't it? In that case it's rather difficult to characterise that as 'failure', there aren't many games ever that have sold better. The failure part has to be the expectations and cost control that mean that 3 million+ is not profitable, else 99% of all games ever made are failures and there are a handful of successes; Assassin's Creed/ BF/ CoD/ Diablocraft/ Skyrim/ GTA etc. That fundamentally cannot be a sustainable situation.

 

Either argument is a bit circular (we need to spend more to compete, and get more sales! We need to spend less, to budget against lower sales numbers!) though.

[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?

 

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.

 

If you have two games with similar gameplay in every way and same price but other has better graphics, which one you buy? Or do you buy both?

Edited April 15, 2013 by Elerond

[Keyrock]

The crazy thing is that Tomb Raider sold 3.4 million copies and that's considered a failure.  Or better yet, basically what Zoraptor wrote.

[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.

 

 

 

If you have two games with similar gameplay in every way and same price but other has better graphics, which one you buy? Or do you buy both?

 

 

If the gameplay sucks, I buy none, otherwise probably both. It's a simplified equation though, not a realistic one. Usually other factors play a role too, like DRM, time investment, post sales support (patches, not DLC), and so forth, but if put in some kind of isolation where only gameplay and visuals were a factor, I would go for gameplay I like.

[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?

 

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.

 

 

If you have two games with similar gameplay in every way and same price but other has better graphics, which one you buy? Or do you buy both?

 

If the gameplay sucks, I buy none, otherwise probably both. It's a simplified equation though, not a realistic one. Usually other factors play a role too, like DRM, time investment, post sales support (patches, not DLC), and so forth, but if put in some kind of isolation where only gameplay and visuals were a factor, I would go for gameplay I like.

 

I agree that buy both is only option if you want give message that you support gameplay thst you feel is good. And I agree also that other factor probably would make this gesture much harder to implement in real life.

[Gorth]

It's not about sending a message (I'm not a "crusader"). I just don't see a point in supporting something that is not important to me. I'm selfish like that

[Orogun01]

The crazy thing is that Tomb Raider sold 3.4 million copies and that's considered a failure.  Or better yet, basically what Zoraptor wrote.

It's actually pretty common for games to barely break even because of high production costs, Tomb Raiders is just one in a long line of games that are considered to be failures. Hell, Tomb Raider isn't even one of the most expensive games to develop, those are usually around 100 million and upwards.

 

IMO, gaming saw a drastic change in 2005 and grew exponentially right around the time when recession began to hit. Consumer habits changed and games were a better alternative for entertainment, which is why for a while games seemed recession proof. In turn this attracted investors and the industry had one of the greatest grow spur that we have seen so far. Unfortunately publishers didn't know how to adapt to this change and thought only of maximizing profit without creating a safety net for games, to the point that companies where cannibalizing themselves. 

 

 

[Oerwinde]

Games publishers need to look at what movie studios do. They put out the big 100+ million dollar movies hoping for success, but if they fail due to overspending (looking at you John Carter, probably the only movie to make nearly 300 million and be considered a failure) they are subsidized by the cheap comedies and such that don't gross as much but cost a lot less to make. So if they put out a bunch of 20 million dollar budget games that make 40 million, the 100 million dollar one that makes 85 million isn't such a huge problem.

[Orogun01]

Games publishers need to look at what movie studios do. They put out the big 100+ million dollar movies hoping for success, but if they fail due to overspending (looking at you John Carter, probably the only movie to make nearly 300 million and be considered a failure) they are subsidized by the cheap comedies and such that don't gross as much but cost a lot less to make. So if they put out a bunch of 20 million dollar budget games that make 40 million, the 100 million dollar one that makes 85 million isn't such a huge problem.

Exactly, but that safety net does exist and it the used game market which only profits the distributor. Instead of realizing a method to completely bypass these people who where undermining their profit, instead they try to dry customers from their bucks with DLCs.

Funnily enough, no one ever mentions distributors as part of the problem.

[AwesomeOcelot]

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.

I think you're right that they went chasing the largest market forgetting that there's a lot of competition. Eidos were looking for a game to match linear "cinematic" ****fests like Uncharted and open world wildlife slaughter simulators like Far Cry 3, and just leveraged Tomb Raider because it was spare. Maybe they were banking on keeping Tomb Raider fans, like they did when they slapped "Hitman" on a game that obviously wasn't Hitman. I'd like to know the respective budgets of Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Tomb Raider 2013, because DX:HR sold over a million less and that wasn't deemed a failure, it's getting a WiiU port, and was a fairly unique game and one of the best of that year.

 

Legend wasn't mediocre, it's one of the worst games I've ever played, Anniversary was great (being a remake of the best game in the series) apart from the QTE (unless you played it on PC, where it had many bugs), and Underworld was good (no QTE, a much better PC port). Looking at VGChartz Legend didn't sell well, Anniverary much better, and Underworld more again. In terms of brand only Mario beats Tomb Raider in 3rd person platforming, it's a name that can sell those games, and Crystal Dynamics were getting better and more profitable with each game. It could have been a profitable series, maybe the next game could have sold even more than Underworld.

[Gorth]

We'll probably have to disagree on "Anniversary"

 

It's the only TR game I've never completed. I dropped it, went back and completed the GoG version of the original instead. Much better gameplay and level design. Less stupid boss fights and no QTE. My problem with it, is they took a game that was about exploration and discovery and turned it into a corridor shooters and (not very good) action game.

 

To return a bit to the original topic, what exactly is "high end" graphics. Does it mean large numbers of assets created? Photorealistic images? Lots of soil erosion? What exactly are we talking about?

 

While graphics aren't all important to me, I can still appreciate a piece of art. Icewind Dale for example. Not sure it would qualify as "high end" though. For more contemporary games, I actually think the quality of animations and the "feel" of the movement (does it look and feel natural) is more important than the background stuff.

[NOK222]

Protip: If your company isn't doing too good. Don't take risks with graphics, save money and hired writers. If you're not struggling, do and your name is 2K games, do whatever the hell you want.

[pmp10]

Games publishers need to look at what movie studios do. They put out the big 100+ million dollar movies hoping for success, but if they fail due to overspending (looking at you John Carter, probably the only movie to make nearly 300 million and be considered a failure) they are subsidized by the cheap comedies and such that don't gross as much but cost a lot less to make. So if they put out a bunch of 20 million dollar budget games that make 40 million, the 100 million dollar one that makes 85 million isn't such a huge problem.

 

The problem is that everything between indie and AAA is pretty much dead.

All the attempts to find a stable and profitable middle-ground or appeal to existing niches have failed so far.

 

To return a bit to the original topic, what exactly is "high end" graphics. Does it mean large numbers of assets created? Photorealistic images? Lots of soil erosion? What exactly are we talking about?

 

Graphics are only one part of the universal chase for production values.

It's not like CGI trailers or famous voice actors come free.

[Keyrock]

Sometimes less is more, even in terms of graphics.  Look at a game like World of Goo or Machinarium.  I'm willing to bet it didn't cost a bajillion dollars to do those graphics, yet the games are very pleasing to the eye.  I'd go so far as to say, they look better than some of the mega budget polygon fests.  There's more to making a game look good than just how many triangles and post processing effects you can cram into it.  Finding a good simple aesthetic can do wonders.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Keyrock

[Mamoulian War]

I prefer simpler graphics which utilizes full potential of full HD TVs over topnotch graphics which consist only of gray and brown shades... Unfortunately most of the western companies fail at this... I do not play FPS games, but only game which I liked graphics wise last few years was FarCry 3... And I liked the usage of colors in Killzone for PS4... I will not buy this game, because this gameplay does not interest me, but I did kind of liked the art in the game...

[Blodhemn]

Everyone is part of the problem. From the fans who expect everything to be perfect, to the publishers who rush games to get a quicker return and the developers who promise and hype their games beyond belief and don't deliver. I could name just a handful of games that I was really blown away with over the past 10 years, while the rest fall into 3 categories: pretty good, ok time waster or f'n horrible. Obsidian, for example, has games that fit within all of those categories. One of the few games that I've been blown away with in recent years was Alpha Protocol and one of the worst games I've ever played was Neverwinter Nights 2. That's just the nature of it and I don't see any clear solution. We will get good games, some great ones on rare occasion, and an awful lot of mediocre/trash - just like in all sectors of the entertainment industry. If making a great game were easy, then everyone would be doing it..

[HoonDing]

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.

I'd say it's marketing and full voice-over (complete with Hollywood celebrities) that inflate AAAAA budgets rather than graphics.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Graphics is the largest part of the budget for development because for games with high fidelity by the standards of its time, that can be 70% of the team. In the past memory constraints meant that games were very procedural or relied on a small set of tiles. Voice acting and pre-rendered cutscenes can be very expensive as well, but there not more than graphics for the most expensive games out there, apart from maybe LA Noire if you include likeness and motion capture.

 

Marketing isn't really tied to development, and I don't think there are reliable figures on it.

[Humanoid]

Fakeedit: The topic has drifted away from the title a bit (not in a bad way, there's more insightful discussion in the digression), so this post is just a late two-bob, but eh.

 

The Witcher 2, regardless of how one feels about the gameplay, was just about universally praised for its graphics, dubbed the best ever at the time of its release in some circles. The bulk of its sales were on one platform, was relatively modestly priced on launch, may have lost a greater percentage of sales to piracy than the norm depending on your position on the effectiveness of DRM, and overall couldn't be said to be more than a "good" seller. Yet it did more than enough to be comfortably called a success.

 

Trite to say but really the generalised topic is that high expenses are killing the games industry. The reported 1000-strong team working on the Assassin's Creed franchise. The whole Amalur farce. All Points Bulletin. U Draw.

 

 

That said, 3D games probably reached the point where I would say I was happy with as the status quo about a decade ago. For 2D, in the late 90s.

[Hassat Hunter]

Don't even have to read the article to agree.

It's pretty well known the increased run on graphics made games more expensive to make. And then they couldn't take risks due to that, or well, down the drain.

And gamers are pretty much the biggest reason for this. How often have I not crinched when reading gamers complain about graphics. From Telltale's The Walking Dead (why does this adventure not have Crysis 3 graphics) to pretty much every RPG (the overall population are morons and don't understand that RPG's are a bit more complex 'behind the hood' than shooters). Every game that isn't "the prettiest one today" gets that. And of course developers and publishers are going to give masses what they want to buy.

 

So, they aren't really a part of the problem here, the the general mass of consumers are.

 

Of course there are other ways to blow your limit than graphics (Think The Old Republic) but it's really a lot rarer that that happens. Stupidly high publisher expectations (SEGA on Alpha Protocol for example, or Tombraider here) are also to blame for harming game development. Actual successses said failure, and genres that dissapear with it, it's a sad progression.

 

But fortunately for us there is GOG. I have been dissapointed with most recent games. From quicktime, camkill heavy DX:HR to The Witcher II, which was really shallow. I'll just let the modern games slip by and get older games from Steam or GOG, enough to play. And we'll eventually see CoD sales plummeting. It will be interesting to see what it will do with Activision. Probably not much good. And when the giants down, it's interesting again to look at the new gamer environment. Hopefully with less focus on a self-destructive path to new graphics.

Shame it's still going to take a while. Let's hope Kickstarter's good in the meanwhile for actually starting up a mid-sector (PE, Torment, Star Citizen).

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?!"

It's funny, that's the reaction many people had on the M4-78EP trailer. And I kind of have to agree.

But it's rather hard what to add else. Everyone knows how KOTOR2 works. And actual gameplay probably adds a ton of spoilers in. Although with a 'new game' like PE there should be plenty of trailers to be made showing off things like that I think. Or atleast I hope so.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Hassat Hunter

[Jarmo]

It's this and that and there's going to be hard time for the now struggling companies.

Movie studios have faced the same problem multiple times, failed megabudget films sinking or almost sinking the whole studio.

 

There's always calling for small budget productions with fine plots and acting and stuff.

But at the same time, the real big money comes from big (succesful) productions.

You just can't give the sense of wonder or push the boundaries with 5 or 10 yrs old visuals.

 

Woody Allen can maybe make a film with couple of millions and a profit double the size of the budget.

But you need something like James Cameron and Avatar to end up 500 millions in the black.

That's what the studios want and what the large audience wants. 

 

Now I'm fine with Mount & Blade, love it and play the heck out of it.

But I'd love it that much more if the graphics and animations were better. 

[Humanoid]

What the Mount and Blade team need is a UI usability expert....

[Jarmo]

I can live with the UI, but I'd love if horses knew not to run headfirst into a tree,

or if they didn't come to dead stop from full gallop when running into a friendly unit or a tiny twig of a tree.

Feels all too much like bumper cars sometimes.

 

Red Dead Redemption had pretty good horses,

but I'd guess RDR's horse budget was bigger than all of Mount & Blade franchise combined.

[Gorgon]

I love graphics but not at the expense of improving other areas of game design. It does seem like games have gotten prettier rather than better for as long as anyone can remember, and to the detriment of the industry as a whole.