Hollywood, here comes gaming! Report says only 80 games/year will be profitable. Why?

I don't think sequels are the problem. Hollywood ran out of ideas in 1932 and they still make money.

I've got a friend that always talks about wanting a new gaming experience. Something he has never done before. Yet when I suggest something new, he blows it off.

I think the problem is partly piracy, but mostly suckage. I can't bring myself to pay 60 dollars for a game that probably sucks. Or pay 60 dollars for a 30 dollar game. Or won't work because of bugs or incompatibility.
 
The problem is that compaines think huge budget = good game. Throwing money at a shitty game doesn't make it good. If you have a solid idea, with great gameplay, and decent graphics (doesn't have to be 'totally radical' it just needs to be clean and not buggy) then your game will get good reviews from the public. Add a little marketing to this and you have a profitable game.

If you have a stinking pile of shit, then you hype the living crap out of it, and you wonder why you lost money on the deal...then you need to kill yourself.
 
The author of the report, Marc de Gentile-Williams, said, "At 30 years of age, the games industry still suffers from an endemic lack of professional management compared to less mature industries such as the mobile telephony and the internet industries. The high number of bankruptcies - despite favorable market conditions - is testament to this fact. Games companies must complement their formidable creative and technological achievements with strong business planning and analysis in order to reap the benefits of the next phase of console market growth".
Click to expand...

I believe this is a bit of mischaracterization. The low entry level contributes heavily towards the amount of bankruptcies which are on par with national standards for start-ups.

Attempting to define the industry now is very much like comparing pork bellies to silent films in 1902. (IMO, everything before 95 is pre-alpha and we won't see a Gold release until the mid to late teens of the 21st century which may be when it all *REALLY* begins).

Also, what comes to mind when I hear professional management is incomplete and buggy products, most innovation will never seeing the light of day because of financial concerns and over saturation of the same game type will leave the industry cluelessly looking for the next magical formula.


With myself being one of a dozen people who spends money on games, it's reasonable to assume piracy is the biggest factor in lost revenues because I'm certain these people would buying must-have titles if they had no alternative.

I'd very much like to see the games that people play derive an income for the developers. Current protections are an utter failure, adversely hurting the paying customer whose experience is the most valuable. There should never be *sneak* installs or require the cd to play. IMO, without an umbrella organization like ESRB or an equivalent MPAA/RIAA, no amount of protection will be enough.

(heh, if such an organization existed perhaps a modest twist on an anti-virus program, hold potential in real time scanning and local updateable database. Being able to validate licenses, look for dx and ogl calls, etc... and while your at it, give the us a one stop place to try demos, purchase games, download patches, etc...).
 
The real problem is not that games suck, or piracy or any of that.

The problem is that there is no indie aesthetic in gaming.

Relatively nobody wants original, creative titles. This aesthetic exists in every other medium: all forms of art have "mainstream" work and "indie" work. In games there is really only mainstream. Until a true indie movement for gaming gets moving, the industry is not going to improve.

To that end I say, if you wish to help, scour the net for the indie games that do exist, and if you like them, actually buy them. Show the big publishers that there are other types of games and that they do in fact make some money. This is how it used to be, only before the advent of the net it was called shareware. Id made millions of dollars on the shareware model using NO COPY PROTECTION WHATSOEVER. Anybody could buy the full game, copy the disks and pass it on to their friends. But people still paid for it. And paid and paid and paid. Now id has enough cash to self-publish, so they have a lot more freedom that most developers, but that type of start-up is unheard of nowadays. But as consumers we can still help, by finding those games and paying the developers if you like their work. Vote with your wallets, people. And above all, DAMN THE MAN.
 
Its a little of everything.

I agree most with the lack of an "indie" sceen for games. It would be a good way to express creativity and avoid the pressure of needing a huge hit. Ideally these would be smaller projects used to showcase a couple of ideas and not dedicated to showcase absolutely everything that is possible for a given company.
 
There's certainly room for an indie parody title. Poking fun at the best and worst of the most common from the last decade. From 8-bit sprites complaining about drafts, cracks and their pants staying up to a rather large group of very angry crowbar wielding scientist seeking revenge for a nearly a decade of abuse.

Underlying premise would have to be promotional and while avoiding civil suits. Improvements could be made on some of the older stuff. Transitions would have to be natural and well thought out. Some cadence should be given to the newer players Maybe aim for a play time at 2 or 3 hours.

A recently GPL'ed engine could provide a decent platform to start off with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top