Gamers don't want innovation

[poofyhairguy]

I think it'll really depend on how well they can create a diverse game and use a lot of the universe. For example, the Dynasty Warriors: Gundam games are pretty good because there's a wealth of characters, stories and most importantly, gundams to play as! If it's just going to be Link, that may not be so interesting.

Agreed. Luckily the Zelda universe has many characters to use.

But I will be pretty forgiving as Dynasty Warriors games are among the few I can play with my wife ("just keep hitting the button baby, I'll do the quest thingy."). I hope it is not as hard as the DW: Gundam series as that is her least favorite because she would die every five minutes.

 

[KentState]

Gimmicky != Innovative

Those two seem to get mixed up often.

I was typing this below, but didn't get to push post before heading out this morning

Innovation has been few and far between, what I really see is gamers rejecting gimmicks or quickly losing interest in them.

 

[Lil Frier]

IDK, I think that it's just the same as everything else. People like different genres of music, different genres of movies and TV shows, and different genres of games. But then we have the typical hipster crowd, the group that wants to rag on everything popular and everyone who likes things that are popular. This goes for people who call things like Call of Duty "dude bro" games. I mean, what the hell does that really mean?

What the real problem usually is nowadays is that people want to cry and throw a fit because their favorite games aren't everyone's favorite games. Calling people mindless and dumb for liking Call of Duty helps nothing, just like my saying that all these "charming" indie games look like half-assed garbage helps nothing.

Yeah, this is coming from someone who likes (some of) the Call of Duty series, but it's more just a general statement of how stupid this thread and these ideas are. OF course innovation is wanted, but to a degree. Just like I don't want to hear every band sound the same, it doesn't mean I want different for the sake of different. Oddly enough, it seems like music and gaming are running parallel right now, with "indie" being the cool thing for both.

 

[Skel]

I think that applies for most forms of mass media these days. Take a look at Film. It's why Disney can keep pumping out Marvel movies year after year. A lot of critically acclaimed and truly innovative films were box office flops. The Wizard of Oz, Fight Club, Citizen Kane, Brazil, It's a Wonderful Life, Blade Runner.

The problem today is that movies, TV shows, and video games are costing more money then ever to produce. Which means they have to sell more. The price you pay for packing them to the brim with eye candy.

Tomb Raider (2013) is estimated to have cost Square-Enix $100 million to develop. For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume that covers all expenses to make the game, market it, and ship it to the consumer. Best info I found is that GameStop pays between $48-$52 wholesale per game with a MSRP of $60. We'll assume the higher price for the sake of argument.

So in order to break even, Square would need to sell 1.9 million copies of Tomb Raider. At 3.4 million sold at the time they were moaning about it being a bomb, they would have made about $76,800,000. Which seems like a lot except some of that money gets reinvested into new projects. So if you want to keep making $100 million games, you need to be turning profits of at least $200 million.

That's why they stick to safe projects. The entire business model of big budget games revolves around it.

While you did forget the profits for shareholders (which for some reason is a taboo subject around these parts), this was well put. Why risk losing tons of money when you know the market will gobble up known properties?
I honestly don't know if it's a good thing or bad.

Big companies bleed money. Those products cost that much because they allow them to cost that much. Much can be done with much smaller budgets, they just think throwing more money at something makes them inherently better.

I wouldn't go that far. In many cases the cost is high because of the bleed edge tech we demand in games. You can't get away using an old dev kit, it'll look like crap.

This. Gamers don't want innovative. Gamers simply want games they enjoy to play. People bitching about CoD and Madden seem to miss this point. Quite a lot of people have fun being a "dude bro" shooting terrorists or handing the ball off to their favorite running back on their favorite team.

The only people worried about innovation are the people who are living in the past. No game stands the test of time because it is innovative. It stands the test of time because it was good (or incredibly awful). Innovation is hardly ever done first in a good game. Look at the iPhone. They took all existing technology, in an existing market and made it work (unlike pretty much every other touch phone and every other smart phone before it).

I'll never understand the elite gamer mentality that thinks because a game style or franchise is popular means somehow it's less enjoyable for people. Those same "dude bro" games are the backbone of a lot of companies allowing them to put funds in other niche games.

I honestly believe it's not that gamers don't want innovation, it's we're spoiled by demanding the latest and greatest graphics and productions. When you look back at the days gone by where dev houses were small and games more diverse, they happened because the demands on look and feel were less important than game play. There were some crappy looking games that were fun and interesting. Now if it doesn't have a certain FPS refresh rate it's crucified and called garbage.

 

[Lil Frier]

I'm in agreement with the above post. I'm not one to die over graphics. I loved the MLB 2K games because they had a great control scheme. I recognized their faults and the poor graphics, but that meant almost nothing when you were looking at players from a distance and mostly focusing on a strike zone or a meter. I use a 720p TV and am just fine with it, even though it's 6+ years old now. Sure, amazgin graphics can make a game look good, but they'll never make up for crap gameplay (something that got pointed out in Ryse, for example).

It's a big issue with the Xbox One, I think. People are crying because Microsoft underpowered the console (I'm even guilty of it), but they aren't even the least bit concerned with if the games can still be good anyway. It's confusing to see, yet I understand it pretty well, since I've had those same reactions to games. I keep saying I won't touch Forza 5 if I get a One because of their graphical cutbacks, yet every time I see those downgraded graphics, I want the game because it looks fun to play...

 

[mmntech]

While you did forget the profits for shareholders (which for some reason is a taboo subject around these parts), this was well put. Why risk losing tons of money when you know the market will gobble up known properties?
I honestly don't know if it's a good thing or bad.

When you want to raise capital, you sell shares. Those shareholders then expect a return on their investment, which means the company has to grow year over year. One of the pitfalls of being publicly traded is a lower incentive to innovate. You're more likely to invest in lower risk projects. Ones that will produce a guaranteed and predictable income. You see this in a lot of businesses run by professional CEOs. Of course, you can get to the point where lack of innovation turns to stagnation, which will eventually start hurting you. Think Apple in the 90, Disney in the 70s, AMD today.

I think this is why a lot of smaller devs are looking into alternative ways to raise capital, like Kickstarter. Raising capital privately means you don't have to appease faceless investors, and therefore can take greater risks on a project. It's why Gabe Newell can wave his dick around at Microsoft and launch his own OS.

It's rare to see a business person that can take big risks and appease investors. At least nowadays. Steve Jobs was a master of it.

 

[IGemini]

The major problem I see with the Wii U is the gaming market has really gotten segmented in the past few years. Handheld consoles are now competing for time and money against the tablet/smartphone market share. Mobile devices have more versatile utility and while the games aren't as developed, a few do come out that are far cheaper (or free) than handheld titles. These appeal a lot to the casual gamer without crunching the few extra hundred for a dedicated handheld. Those who are more serious about gaming tend to go with either a console and/or a PC.

Here's an example of selling innovation (probably the best one IMO): Minecraft. It broke 4 million copies before getting out of beta and is approaching 15 million...and those are just PC sales. It's not even graphically impressive even with the best texture packs but the possibilities of the gameplay are really expansive.

 

[sxr7171]

The major problem I see with the Wii U is the gaming market has really gotten segmented in the past few years. Handheld consoles are now competing for time and money against the tablet/smartphone market share. Mobile devices have more versatile utility and while the games aren't as developed, a few do come out that are far cheaper (or free) than handheld titles. These appeal a lot to the casual gamer without crunching the few extra hundred for a dedicated handheld. Those who are more serious about gaming tend to go with either a console and/or a PC.

Here's an example of selling innovation (probably the best one IMO): Minecraft. It broke 4 million copies before getting out of beta and is approaching 15 million...and those are just PC sales. It's not even graphically impressive even with the best texture packs but the possibilities of the gameplay are really expansive.

But that's also the WiiU's greatest advantage. Handheld games are not social - I mean actual social not network social. The WiiU + 2-6 people + a TV provides a different experience.

 

[cmdrdredd]

But that's also the WiiU's greatest advantage. Handheld games are not social - I mean actual social not network social. The WiiU + 2-6 people + a TV provides a different experience.

If everyone had the gamepad. Supposedly it can support 2 but no games do and you can't buy a second one.

 

[smackababy]

Here's an example of selling innovation (probably the best one IMO): Minecraft. It broke 4 million copies before getting out of beta and is approaching 15 million...and those are just PC sales. It's not even graphically impressive even with the best texture packs but the possibilities of the gameplay are really expansive.

What did Minecraft innovate though? A delivery model? A level editor and a rudimentary crafting system aren't innovation. Minecraft might have done those things phenomenally, but they weren't new and untried ideas.

The iPhone is a great example of why innovation doesn't sell, good products do. It didn't do anything new, it just did it so much better than everything else at the time.

Innovation helps, but rarely are they the best games. Wolfenstein 3D was the first real FPS. id innovated, but it wasn't a great title. Nobody remembers it as being some amazing game, and few even remember it as being what set the archetype for every other FPS that follows.

 

[Dumac]

If everyone had the gamepad. Supposedly it can support 2 but no games do and you can't buy a second one.

Everyone doesn't need a gamepad.

Asymmetrical multiplayer is fun and I'm glad to see it brought to a console.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Gamers are consumers.

Lets not elevate them into something more than just a mob that buys shit.

And, considering what sells, what has sold and what may sell, they are just that.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I put the blame on the game companies, who refuse to take risks. I cannot blame the consumers for the quality of the product created. The responsibility for this lies solely on the game companies and the people who work in that industry. The people will buy what their TV tells them to, it is up to the talent to create new and innovative material.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Everyone doesn't need a gamepad.

Asymmetrical multiplayer is fun and I'm glad to see it brought to a console.

Heh...no. Everyone should be able to use a gamepad and have the additional offscreen functionality.

There's more potential there than there is for someone to build blocks for you to jump on in Mario.

 

[Lil Frier]

Gamers are consumers.

Lets not elevate them into something more than just a mob that buys shit.

And, considering what sells, what has sold and what may sell, they are just that.

Super-edgy comment, you're so cool.

 

[Tom]

Rehashing the same game over and over. Now don't get me wrong, I love Zelda and Mario games because they are so fun but we've played them many times before. People complain about games like Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty being the same every year but those were innovative when they came out. We do get innovation, we get great innovative games frequently.

LOL at calling COD innovative.

 

[blastingcap]

That's the thing 10 years ago $100M would have been a world record holder by a factor of a few times. I remember when Shenmue was the world's most expensive game and it was by 4-5 times over the next most expensive game. Now $100M is like nothing.

Somehow development needs to get cheaper. The tools need to get better.

Actually, there are distro, shipping and other costs as well. There is no need to guess breakeven point when TR2013 was already declared profitable by end of 2013. I also don't believe the 48-52 number, that might apply for some games on some consoles or whatever but for PC I hear it's significantly lower. Stardock's CEO had a discussion about PC distro costs a while back.

Furthermore, TR2013 was in the AMD Never Settle bundle and a number of people who would have bought TR2013 did not. AMD pays only a fraction of the retail price for the game keys they distribute with their video cards. However AMD typically compensate the developer/publisher with in-kind assistance (in this case TressFX and who knows what else) along with the cash payment for game keys.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/poor-tomb-raider-has-finally-turned-a-profit/1100-6417200/

DLC also may have moved the needle a little bit. Not sure if that was being counted in the profitability numbers or if it was separate with separate dev cost.

TR2013 cost too much to develop in part because a chunk of dev went to a multiplayer mode that nobody plays.

 

[HeXen]

Heck with innovation, just put out some damn games. Their 3DS lineup for 2014 is pretty pathetic. The Megaman's and SMB3 are certainly welcome additions but damn. There's nothing at all that raises my hair.

 

[Tom]

Heh...no. Everyone should be able to use a gamepad and have the additional offscreen functionality.

There's more potential there than there is for someone to build blocks for you to jump on in Mario.

I had the same thought..before I actually got a Wii U. As it works in a number of games and minigames the person with the tablet plays a different role in multiplayer games which can be the basis for lots of game innovation.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I had the same thought..before I actually got a Wii U. As it works in a number of games and minigames the person with the tablet plays a different role in multiplayer games which can be the basis for lots of game innovation.

I had one and sold it in favor of an Xbox One. I found out that Nintendo doesn't know how to use their own gimmicks since the best usage of the gamepad came from 3rd party titles. I also found out that Nintendo thinks everyone is 5 years old and doesn't mind using a wiimote for playing multiplayer games and they still have no clue how to do an online network.

All of these things piss me off.

 

[HeXen]

Yeah even the UI is a bit too whimsical in a childish way. It's a bit too late to do much about everything now other than continue supporting the system and listen to their fans.

 

[waggy]

So why are they two COMPLETELY differing experiences?

That's how it should be done.

Problem today is "it IS broken so we WILL fix it" is driven by Call of Duty sales numbers envy and it's ruining a lot of other games with the stale, safe, any idiot can pick it up and play for 5 minutes "fix" they apply

/and this

game companies are chasing Call of Duty. they scrap things if they don't think it will get it. They keep going in ways that think is it and don't understand why its not working.

Square is a good example of being out of it. Each FF game had more and more cutscenes and less and less game. The games got more and more on rails.

They then come out with a FF clone in bravely default. what hapens? a huge success!

Gimmicky != Innovative

Those two seem to get mixed up often.

THIS! so much this.

WII was innovative. it was great and something new!

WiU? shit. it was nothing new and far to expensive for what it is.

 

[zerocool84]

LOL at calling COD innovative.

Umm Call of Duty 4 was extremely innovative. That's why all the modern combat stuff got big. They made a lot of innovations in multiplayer FPS's. I don't play it because it's the same thing over and over but CoD4 was innovative when it came out, there's a reason why so many people copied it.