The Impossible Possible

AinGeal

I just finished reading an interesting article.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/05/world-of-darkness-the-inside-story-mmo-ccp-white-wolf

WoD Online has been a game I've been looking forward to. This isn't the first I heard of the cancellation. I've known for a while and suspected for longer. This is also not what this post is about. There was one thing that was said about CCP that caught my attention.

That wasn’t how things turned out. Spurred by Eve’s status as a unique brand in the MMO space, CCP developed an odd internal corporate culture which insisted on what CCP refers to as a "War on the Impossible", an idea that the company should do more and expect more than its peers in the industry.

Sure their management skills blow hard but what can you really expect from someone who studied computer science as CEO instead of someone with an MBA

Regardless, shouldn't the above quote be true for all game companies? Shouldn't they all be trying to break the barriers and make the impossible possible? Rather than stagnating the industry by putting out game after game using the same standards in development.

ESO being a fine example where nothing they did hasn't been done before. There is really nothing about this game that broke any barriers.

ers101284b14_ESO

If people bought games that broke barriers instead of the same exact drivel they have always bought then maybe game developers would be allowed by their companies to break barriers. But no gamers would rather by COD 27 and WoW in sheeps cloning 213

AinGeal

ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »

If people bought games that broke barriers instead of the same exact drivel they have always bought then maybe game developers would be allowed by their companies to break barriers. But no gamers would rather by COD 27 and WoW in sheeps cloning 213

I don't know about you but if I had the choice between two games that look like they would be great to play but one actually did something that did things that were never done before while the other comprised of a collection of things that have been done in other games, I would certainly buy the one that did what hasn't been done before. Almost everyone I talk to is in the same boat.

This isn't a matter of "customers won't go for it so the companies won't develop it", but rather this is a case of "customers can't go for it because the companies won't develop it".

ers101284b14_ESO

No customers kept buying into the same game so when a company tried something new they got praised for it then no one bought it and the company went under. You can say you want something new all you want and for you it may be true but look at new shooters that try to be different then look at COD and see who has the bigger numbers. Game companies do a lot of research on what the most amount of people want and have found players want the same thing with a new skin.

Nazon_Katts

I think Mr. Kazemi's statement is rather insightful, regarding the state of the games industry and MMOs in particular.

“A layoff-heavy strategy means that people burn out of the business quickly. Last I heard the average time spent in games is seven years. You get tired of being treated that way and you realise that you can probably work somewhere else doing more boring work and get a lot more money and stability. Or you try your hand at going independent, where the odds are low but at least you control your own destiny.

When experienced people leave the industry entirely, we lose institutional memory. Our games stagnate. I think AAA is in extended death throes. I think it's going to look like the comics industry in a few years: a couple of huge corporations that dominate the mainstream attention, and then an enormous number of very small indies. Actually, it looks like that today.”

Noctisse

Damn!...Although I pretty much knew this game wasn't gonna happen, I remained blissfully ignorant of the fact that WoD had been officially cancelled...
Besides that, this article is pretty reflective of what's going on with the game industry...

AinGeal

ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »

No customers kept buying into the same game so when a company tried something new they got praised for it then no one bought it and the company went under. You can say you want something new all you want and for you it may be true but look at new shooters that try to be different then look at COD and see who has the bigger numbers. Game companies do a lot of research on what the most amount of people want and have found players want the same thing with a new skin.

No people will buy what they like out of what is available. If the new thing they try is bad, people won't like it. If the new thing they try is good, people will like it.

Just because something is new doesn't mean people will automatically hate it.
Stagnation is a bad thing. It's better to be creative and come out with new things.

Based on those two (true) principles we can then consider the following...




Set aside games that are sequels for starters since they will generate a bias within their player base. I'm talking strictly brand new games. Players will not be able to judge if they will actually like it based on previous titles.

Whether or not a person likes the game has nothing to do with whether or not the developers tried things that are new to the industry or not. It will come down to whether or not the game is enjoyable for that individual.

Since whether a game is liked or disliked is unrelated to wether or not developers try new, ground breaking, things in the industry. It is better for them to try and do so as seen in the logic grid above.

(New and Liked)
If they make a game using new and innovative ways and techniques and people like it then great. Not only have they sold a successful game but they also just showed that it's possible to do something previously thought otherwise.

(New and Not Liked)
If they make a game using new and innovative ways and techniques and people don't like the game. Then the question is why? Was it because of what they tried or was it unrelated to that? If it was because of it, then aside from showing that it's possible to do what was previous though otherwise (something to pride themselves for anyway), they also know it's not desirable and can learn from it. The whole industry can. However, if the game was not liked for unrelated reasons, then aside from doing the impossible they can use it in future games.

(Stagnant and Liked)
Sure they made a game that will earn them a profit but by simply doing everything that is done before, you stagnate the industry and this is bad in the long run. People may not want something new now but they will get sick of the same thing over and over. Eventually putting a new face on it will lose its affect. Which brings me to the last combination.

(Stagnant and Not Liked)
This is the worst possible outcome. Not only do you make a game that doesn't earn you any money but you did nothing to better the industry at all. If you keep making the same thing over and over with just a new face on it, people will eventually get sick of it. Games will lose lasting power and this will force developers to hype up their game before release. This is a trend that has already started. Where it's becoming more and more common for people to be all "oh man this game looks awesome, I can't wait to try it" just to play it for a bit and as soon as the 'new car effect' wears off, you end up with the same people saying things like "just another wow clone". In the long run, when 'playing it safe' and simply doing what's been done, you will eventually end up in this worst case scenario.


Conclusion: You can't really predict with perfect accuracy if the game you develop will be a success or not. You'll have to wait for the players to actually buy and play it. However, benefiting the industry with what you do is something you have full control over. Which means the only thing you can do to prevent the worst possible outcome is to always strive to break the boundaries.

ers101284b14_ESO

AinGeal wrote: »

ers101284b14_ESO wrote: »

No customers kept buying into the same game so when a company tried something new they got praised for it then no one bought it and the company went under. You can say you want something new all you want and for you it may be true but look at new shooters that try to be different then look at COD and see who has the bigger numbers. Game companies do a lot of research on what the most amount of people want and have found players want the same thing with a new skin.

No people will buy what they like out of what is available. If the new thing they try is bad, people won't like it. If the new thing they try is good, people will like it.

Just because something is new doesn't mean people will automatically hate it.
Stagnation is a bad thing. It's better to be creative and come out with new things.

Based on those two (true) principles we can then consider the following...




Set aside games that are sequels for starters since they will generate a bias within their player base. I'm talking strictly brand new games. Players will not be able to judge if they will actually like it based on previous titles.

Whether or not a person likes the game has nothing to do with whether or not the developers tried things that are new to the industry or not. It will come down to whether or not the game is enjoyable for that individual.

Since whether a game is liked or disliked is unrelated to wether or not developers try new, ground breaking, things in the industry. It is better for them to try and do so as seen in the logic grid above.

(New and Liked)
If they make a game using new and innovative ways and techniques and people like it then great. Not only have they sold a successful game but they also just showed that it's possible to do something previously thought otherwise.

(New and Not Liked)
If they make a game using new and innovative ways and techniques and people don't like the game. Then the question is why? Was it because of what they tried or was it unrelated to that? If it was because of it, then aside from showing that it's possible to do what was previous though otherwise (something to pride themselves for anyway), they also know it's not desirable and can learn from it. The whole industry can. However, if the game was not liked for unrelated reasons, then aside from doing the impossible they can use it in future games.

(Stagnant and Liked)
Sure they made a game that will earn them a profit but by simply doing everything that is done before, you stagnate the industry and this is bad in the long run. People may not want something new now but they will get sick of the same thing over and over. Eventually putting a new face on it will lose its affect. Which brings me to the last combination.

(Stagnant and Not Liked)
This is the worst possible outcome. Not only do you make a game that doesn't earn you any money but you did nothing to better the industry at all. If you keep making the same thing over and over with just a new face on it, people will eventually get sick of it. Games will lose lasting power and this will force developers to hype up their game before release. This is a trend that has already started. Where it's becoming more and more common for people to be all "oh man this game looks awesome, I can't wait to try it" just to play it for a bit and as soon as the 'new car effect' wears off, you end up with the same people saying things like "just another wow clone". In the long run, when 'playing it safe' and simply doing what's been done, you will eventually end up in this worst case scenario.


Conclusion: You can't really predict with perfect accuracy if the game you develop will be a success or not. You'll have to wait for the players to actually buy and play it. However, benefiting the industry with what you do is something you have full control over. Which means the only thing you can do to prevent the worst possible outcome is to always strive to break the boundaries.

Beyond two souls didn't sell we'll, LA Noire released company shut down, Kingdoms of Amalur high rating company goes bankrupt, Heavy Rain ridiculed among gamers and in the gaming community, Battlefield 4 barely playable at launch sells 1.6 million copies. I rest my case.

AinGeal

LOL not even close. First off, Battlefield 4. Key point, the "4". Again, sequel. Already established.

VS..

I haven't even heard of those games. It's amazing what advertising and publicity can do. Then there is comparing developers who are well known versus those who are practically unknown. Take Beyond Two Souls for example. Developer Quantic Dream. Never heard of them. Compared to EA's battlefield series? Comparing apples and oranges.

Then there is the fact that you are crossing genres including crossing between single player games and multiplayer games.

"LA Noire developed by a "third party independent game developer based out of Australia and had this game published by Rockstar. Let's see the real story...

L.A. Noire was both a critical and commercial success, but allegations of poor working conditions by several former staff members caused controversy for the developer. After failing to secure another game project, Team Bondi was placed into administration and liquidated. Kennedy Miller Mitchell bought the studio in August 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Bondi

I'm gonna stop there because if I dig any deeper, all I'll find are more things that prove my point. That new and innovative vs been done before is unrelated to whether or not a game will be a success or flop.

Like Heavy Rain "ridiculed among gamers". Please link to sources.

Since the game ranked 10th best for NA in Feb of 2010.

Also, you didn't even specify what the ground breaking and innovative aspects are for each of these games. Please do tell.