Dangerous Ideas to Improve the Video Game Industry

by Andrew Hiscock , BITMOB STAFF

Monday, January 04, 2010

ARTICLE TOOLS

(22)

Editor's note: Hey, how'd you like more in-game advertising? Publishers, how about you up the margins on your games for retailers? Make it past the raised-eyebrows stage and Andrew's list of improvements for the game industry might be crazy enough to work. -Demian

The October 2009 issue of Wired featured the magazine's annual Smart List, highlighting a group of leaders in their respective disciplines and their completely bonkers ideas. This year's version looked at "dangerous ideas" in particular. Frankly, the ideas weren't dangerous at all and made a lot of sense, but implementing them would make a lot of people angry.

I took at crack at a video game industry version, and while I don't venture to say that my ideas here are particularly innovative or world-changing, maybe they're at least a tiny bit dangerous. While our industry is just about video games for now, it's on the brink of dominating consumer media. So if our television shows, movies, and music are going to become more video-gamey, I'd like to see the industry start getting it right before taking over the world. Baby steps, you know. Like these....

Kill the Preview Cycle

While I don't want to support many of Denis Dyack's ideas, a broken clock is right twice a day. I am sick of preview coverage, and just not reading it won't solve the problem. Preview coverage is ruining the industry. How? By focusing the attention of the audience exclusively on new games.

With such anticipation for new products, simply playing them makes up the talking points. How many guns, how many levels, how many spacebucks does the day one DLC cost -- any meaningful conversation drowns in a sea of first hands-ons and exclusive screens of the all-new chainsaw melee weapon. The industry acts like a horny man in bed: Work it until you blow it, then roll over and go to sleep. Stop the previews churn and game sales could enjoy a longer tail, as people start the conversation when a product hits retail rather than focusing on what's three or six months away.

Much Cheaper (and Shorter) Games

This $60-70 price point has to come to an end. I can't afford it. I feel like I'm six, where I get two or three new games a year. In fact, I get no new games a year. I get loads of cheap old games, that have fallen out of the "maximum revenue" slot. I propose you slash prices across the board going forward, and design games for the new price point by making them shorter.

No Really, Shorter Games

No one has time to play dozens of 20 hour games. And, indeed, games are already getting shorter. But if you cap a game's length at four to five hours, you will make the experience better. Why? How many games have you played that you could boil down to four to five awesome hours, with the other 75% of the game feeling superfluous? Exactly. By optimizing awesome experiences, you are only strengthing your brand. Speaking of which....

Develop Platforms, Not Brands

We're looking at what, something like 68 Guitar Hero games? The average consumer needs, maybe, one? The worst of it is, the music game publishers have a great download service, but they still make an unbelievable amount of new retail products. Get it right once, and you'll do yourself a favor, publishers. Overhead costs go down, and you can keep selling selling songs without exhausting the market.

Plastic instrument sales are already starting to crater, but that doesn't mean people don't still want to play music games. Instead, publishers could sustain a vibrant community through online distribution, much more than they do now, with ridiculous profit margins. Rockstar is getting it right, though: Grand Theft Auto 4 has become a platform unto itself, exclusively through DLC.

In-Game Advertising

I want it everywhere. Well, not everywhere, but in a lot more places. Yes, it makes sense in sports games and in your online lobbies. But I want to see "Brought to you by Mountain Dew" when I boot up Assassin's Creed 2. As long as it doesn't ruin the in-game experience, stick those ads everywhere. Why? Because, despite my previous points in this article, I do want video game companies to make money. Jesus Christ, they can make billions for all I care. I just want to stop paying for it. Will they pass the savings on to me? Probably not, not at first. But in time, this revenue stream can have major consequences for gamers' wallet, all of them good.

Iterative Consoles

Consoles now have downloadable content, patches, and extensive online communities. Now, let's make the hardware mimick the PC market. While I don't suggest creating a device that you crack open and insert new components, I don't want to see new generational shifts. In fact, let's make this the last generation of consoles.

The industry is already moving in this direction by inserting slightly better hardware (storage, mainly) at roughly the same price point. Let's continue this trend and improving consoles incrementally. Of course, at some point you're splitting your market, but that never sank the PC. Every three to five years, newer Xboxes and PlayStations will eclipse previous iterations, and instead of "system sellers," we'll have "system upgraders" -- titles so good that gamers upgrade their equipment accordingly. This should reduce development costs, improve brand strength, protect smaller developers and publishers, reduce marketing costs, and maximize revenues for any specific set of hardware adjustments.

Embrace the Used Games Market

You always hear publishers and developers complain about the used games market. Publishers try all kinds of things to minimize it: pre-order bonuses, exclusive downloadable content, and content protected by codes. But why a company would spite their audience is beyond me. People who buy used games are villainized, even though they want to play the game! How can you blame them for not wanting to pay the ridiculous cost for a new release?

Retail is just as guilty as the publishers, maybe more. They charge simply silly prices for used products, at incredible profit margins, without cutting the publishers in. The two sides need to work together. First, profit margins on new games for the brick and mortars need to increase. In turn, the publishers get a generous cut on every used game sale. Finally, the publisher keeps a close eye on production and doesn't flood the market. Everyone gets in on the action, and used sales will actually increase. Retail gets slightly higher margins on new product and more volume overall, and publishers balance reduced profit margins on the initial sale by grabbing a piece of every sale.

Pages: 1/1
1

(22)

Comments (22)

Greg Sewart

January 04, 2010 04:17

Nice article. I will say, though, that I don't think publishers and developers ever want to villify the people who buy used games. I think the problem has always been your second point - middlemen making ridiculous profits off of used games while the publishers/developers see absolutely nothing after the first sale. In that scenario, everyone but the retailer is losing.

Chas Guidry

January 04, 2010 06:22

Great suggestions! I can't remember what I was playing the other day that made me think games need to be shorter, but I totally agree. A lot of times, I hear people complain that game is only ten hours long or so, but I actually dread games with appealing concepts coupled with loads of play time. I just don't have the time for that. The only suggestion I don't totally agree with is your ideas on in-game advertising. I would be fine with it everywhere in games with modern settings, but I think it would only sour the experience in games with fantasy or more classical settings.

Bryan Glynn

January 04, 2010 10:36

I wouldn't say I feel that strongly about any of those ideas, save for the abolition of the myriad methods of game previews. Your graphic simile is spot-on. More excitement, joy, and meaningful discussion seem to stem from the one to two years between the game's announcement and its release than the theoretically infinite number of years that the game is officially available there after. As I write this, I am also now realizing that my top five, maybe even ten games of all time are ones that I had little to no anticipation for and went in mostly blind playing them. Perhaps we are so inundated by screenshots, trailers, developer interviews and hands-on previews of our highly-anticipated games that we are already a little burnt out of the game before it's even released, and our perception of the game is soured as such. I know I've felt that way with a few games over the last two years.

Rob Savillo

January 04, 2010 17:02

I can agree with everything you wrote except for more in-game advertising. Video games are one of the last remaining mediums which are relatively commercial-free, and I'd like to keep it that way. Ads irritate me to no end. And iterative consoles are fine, but I'd still prefer a fully upgradable system. Why can't we swap out the video card or insert additional RAM as easy as it is to upgrade the PS3's hard drive? But your final point needs to be repeated more often. If anything, used games are a gateway drug for cash-strapped youth who will likely buy new games once they have a steady income. Why raise the barrier to entry by mitigating the second-hand market?

Joshua Henderson

January 04, 2010 17:55

I'm coming to terms with the shorter game idea. I used to love getting more bang for my buck but nowadays I just want to be able to play a game, finish it and enjoy the experience. There's a reason I have yet to play Oblivion even though I've owned it for over two years now. I'm scared of how much time I'll put into it while I could be playing countless other titles.

Jay Henningsen

January 04, 2010 18:13

And iterative consoles are fine, but I'd still prefer a fully upgradable system. Why can't we swap out the video card or insert additional RAM as easy as it is to upgrade the PS3's hard drive?

Then you run the risk of the consoles losing the advantage they have over the PC: you buy a game, and it just works. If you're just increasing the storage capacity, that's one thing. When you start changing out components that affect how the unit processes instructions or renders a scene, you introduce another layer of complexity that programmers have to contend with. When consoles cease being uniform, they become just another computer. Then you have to worry about drivers, different revisions of various pieces of software, how well the game runs at different levels of RAM, and you force software and hardware developers to have larger support infrastructures. Also, the average person is deathly afraid of changing electronic components, and it also makes the warranty process that much more complicated for the console makers. It's just a huge can of worms to open up.

Rob Savillo

January 04, 2010 19:00

Jay, not necessarily. Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft could vet and release approved hardware in the same way that they vet and approve game titles. Doing so would leave the consumer in the same position -- knowing that the hardware will "just work" -- and developers shouldn't have too much more to worry about. Additionally, this doesn't remove competition because both ATI and Nvidia could send hardware through the approval process. Now a consumer could also have the option of upgrading a component rather than a whole new system, which could be a lot cheaper.

Jay Henningsen

January 04, 2010 19:25

Rob - You'd still be increasing software development costs across the board, even with pre-approved hardware. Although ATI and Nvidia cards do essentially the same thing and process the same data, the software and drivers they use to do so require different customizations and instruction sets. The current set of games is optimized for one set of hardware, and is not really designed to scale with any changes. What worries me most, though, is removing the uniform experience of playing games on a console. Consoles have previously been a more affordable way for a lot of people to play the current generation of video games. When console games start having additional requirements, you're back to the PC trap of only being able to play certain games on certain sets of hardware. I don't think any console gamer wants to be told that he can't play a certain Xbox 360 game on his current hardware configuration. This is why you see consoles appear in generations. Also, have you seen the ridiculous amount of money that Microsoft charges for their peripherals? If the wireless adapter is any indication, I'd rather just buy a new console in a few years than keep adding $100+ components to it.

Rob Savillo

January 04, 2010 19:40

Jay, I don't think we'd see the same pricing as Microsoft's peripherals precisely because the door would be left open to third-party competition. Microsoft's Xbox is a closed system which (usually) doesn't allow third-party hardware by design. I don't know all the different aspects of programming that would be affected by hardware upgrades -- I'm leaving that up to the Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft to figure out, as well as a way to minimize those costs. Otherwise, this upgrade system doesn't necessarily work. But I beg to differ on one argument of yours -- that we have a uniform console experience. Iterations also split the player base -- like planned DSi-specific games, which won't be playable on previous DS models because of the use of the DSi's cameras. If we're already moving in that direction, I'd like to have the option to buy a few upgradable components, which would be a lot cheaper than purchasing a whole new system. I remember when Nintendo released the Expansion Pak, and it didn't make playing on a console any more difficult. I had the option to increase the system's RAM, making games play better. Maybe a video card upgrade slot is asking too much, but I don't see why game consoles can't be more modifiable without running into the concerns you have.

Jay Henningsen

January 04, 2010 20:56

Based on Microsoft's track record, I don't ever really see that door opening. Even if they do allow third-party upgrades, you're still going to see licensing fees for the authorized devices, or system updates that disable unlicensed devices. Even now, games are more expensive on a console than on a PC because of these licensing and other assorted fees. Sure, RAM is cheap, but first-party or officially licensed RAM isn't going to be. Memory (either RAM, Flash Memory, or a Hard Drive) is really the only thing you can add to a system without requiring significant programming changes to the software. This is presupposing that the console has the slots built-in to accept these upgrades. When you look at the business model of game consoles, most console manufacturers don't typically make profit on the hardware sales in the first few years of release. When you start adding expansion slots to what was previously a closed, hard-wired solution, you do increase the cost-per-unit significantly. Not only do you have to factor in the raw materials, but you also have to consider the design and infrastructure changes that need to be worked in to the back-end. My biggest concern, however, is fragmentation of the market within each respective manufacturer. I don't think the two Nintendo examples were good ideas on Nintendo's part, nor do I really care for the Xbox 360 Arcade. There are a lot of uninformed consumers out there, and when they buy a game, take it home, and discover they can't play it without spending more money, they tend to get upset. You also can't discount the competitive online gaming aspect. Aside from differences in connectivity, all console players are on mostly equal footing. In the PC community, this is not the case. PC owners are constantly adding memory, video cards and other components in order to eke out a few more frames-per-second that will give them an actual edge over the competition. You'd be taking a mostly level playing field and turning it in to another competition where the person with the most money is going to have the advantage. The alternative would be to disable add-ons or artificially limit the game, and people generally don't like being told they can't use something that they paid good money for. You've probably experienced online console gaming. Do we really need to add the whole "My console is better than yours. Buy an expansion pack, noob." mechanic to the already socially unstable network that currently exists?

Craig Ostrin

January 05, 2010 00:18

Nice to see some like-minded people here. Although, I don't see what you have against Denis Dyack. You might not like the way he presents his ideas, but the ideas themselves are solid. Then again, who knows what he's thinking these days. He went silent after that 1UP Yours disaster (AFAIK), and he was pretty tame at PAX 09. In terms of the preview cycle, I've never understood why publishers begin their PR campaigns years before their games comes out. It's a waste of money, especially in this industry, where unexpected delays in development can destroy marketing plans in an instant (e.g., Alan Wake).

Spencer Gregory

January 05, 2010 04:46

You put forth a bunch of great ideas, although I must say I'm on the complete other side of the argument when it comes to previews. Previews should be purely objective, informational pieces of writing. They should only deliver "facts" about the game, things that don't need opinion to suss out. I think this is necessary because it's very unfair to criticize a game when it is not finished. Making a game is a hellishly iterative process. It's never really finished until it goes gold, and even then it's not perfect. To take a critical eye to a preview build gives a false representation of the release, especially if the audience doesn't understand the difference between alpha code and final product. Still, I understand the complaint that previews usually squeeze attention away from the after-launch analysis of a game. I rarely see writing about games that are over a year or two old, unless it's written by a fan and not a professional. The professional industry deserves it to themselves to think more about old games, but they owe it to themselves to not abolish one of the few objective sides of the industry--the preview scene.

Andrew Hiscock

January 05, 2010 12:22

Editor fight, editor fight editor fight! @Spencer: I think pushing objective reviews only exasperates the problem. First, no one is going to do objective reviews, unless you are publishing a series of numbers and data. Every writer is going to come to the table with a lifetime of experience, prejudice, likes, and dislikes.

Jim Warrenfeltz

January 05, 2010 18:44

The problem with most of your ideas is that they offer no monetary benefit to the game producers. As Deep Throat said, "Follow the money." Kill the Preview Cycle- Why should publishers stop hyping up gamers for their game? So they can hypothetically earn more by allowing a conversation about the game to develop? If a game is good, conversation develops now, with the preview cycle. If a game is not so good- then by all means the publishers want the hype-train previews to continue, and get suckers buying their game day one. Much Cheaper (and Shorter) Games Just because a game is 5 hours versus 10 hours doesn't mean it took half the money and time to make and promote. There are fixed costs in marketing, asset building, game mechanic design that aren't halved by having half the levels. No Really, Shorter Games Sounds like you're growing up and getting some adult responsibilities. Step off the hype train for a while, and it doesn't matter if you're playing only one game for a month or two. You don't have to play everything that comes out. Develop Platforms, Not Brands This makes sense for a certain type of game, but not for everything. What kind of platform is Halo 3? Multiplayer maps? Additionally, not every household is online. Many are, but don't buy add-ons online. Why shouldn't publishers slap a sequel number on a box and ship it to Walmart? It'll make them more money. In-Game Advertising This is the only thing that will make publishers more money, and not coincidentally it's the only thing I see being adopted widely. Iterative Consoles This has been discussed thoroughly above. I don't see it happening, for the above reasons, and for one more; Xbox 360 won this generation by being the first out the door with a new console. Gamers crave the new experiences that can only be done with more powerful machines. Of course, I don't say there can't be an open, iterative console available. It's called the PC. Embrace the Used Games Market Publishers would love a cut of the used games market. Retailers would love a larger margin on the new games market. So why can't they come to a new deal, as you suggest? Because the new games and used games retailers are different organizations. Gamestop isn't going to knuckle under so that Walmart can have higher profit margins. And how would you control the grew market that is eBay and Craigslist? Interesting suggestions. But they're from the consumer POV, not the business POV, and the consumer isn't calling the shots.

Brett Bates

January 05, 2010 20:17

@Rob, @Jay: Alright, I'm settling this squabble: Rob, you're crazy. :)

Jay Henningsen

January 05, 2010 20:54

Just for the record, Rob and I were not fighting, and we decided to take our conversation out of the comments so as to not detract from the original story. :) In the end, I think we both agreed that Microsoft sucks for selling proprietary, over-priced hardware upgrades, and he gave me a cool link on how Naughty Dog said that Uncharted 2 would not run on an Xbox 360: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/08/uncharted-2-makes-ps3-shine-couldnt-happen-on-360.ars

Jason Wilson

January 05, 2010 21:51

In terms of the preview cycle, I've never understood why publishers begin their PR campaigns years before their games comes out. It's a waste of money, especially in this industry, where unexpected delays in development can destroy marketing plans in an instant (e.g., Alan Wake).

Because you, the gamer, demands it.

36752_1519184584690_1386800604_1423744_1678461_n

Suriel Vazquez

January 05, 2010 23:55

I'm interested in your take on digital distribution, Andrew. Considering that this is becoming the norm rather than the niche, buying games and cutting out the retailer middle man could lead to cheaper games, but will ultimately doom the used market. However, publishers are likely to enjoy increased profits rather than pass the savings on to the consumer.

Ian Culver

January 06, 2010 08:31

No ads in games. Once that starts to become more prevalent, its a downward spiral. Games are one of the last places (with exceptions) that we are not being sold things that we do not want.

Ian Culver

January 06, 2010 10:05

Another thing about digital distribution that a lot of people tend to ignore, I think mostly because they live in more rural areas, is that there are tons of people like me, who simply can't get any sort of broadband besides satellite which is a terrible option. Sure you can download games, but playing online is a complete no go. I personally take my Xbox to a friend of mines house the next town over just to download games, but everyone does not have this pain in the ass option.

Suriel Vazquez

January 06, 2010 16:29

@Ian and I wonder what sort of pricing trends will emerge once download and retail share the same space, because that's likely what's going to happen before things go digital-only. Getting something like Heavy Rain off of the PSN would be great, except that I'll be charged full retail price for a copy that cost less money to actually make.

Andrew Hiscock

January 06, 2010 19:04

I wanted to put digital distribution in this list, but as the infrastructure currently exists, there would be any sense in going exclusively download only. BUT ONCE THAT DAY COMES: Kill the retail store, by all means!

You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.