Modern Games Industry: How'd We Get Here?

[LensOfTruth]

I'm a retro guy, so I've just been casually watching the modern games industry.

From my perspective, we went from companies having lots of projects in the original Xbox days to one or two in the 360 ones. You know, Single-A, Triple-B, whatever Maximo was, games used to be plentiful and varied. Every genre had representation back then.

My question is: For the "HD era," why did absolutely every game developer decide to switch to giant projects? What were the motivating factors?

[ElkinFencer10]

Pretty, expansive, HD games are expensive to make. Companies either can't afford to take risks or are too scared of shareholder backlash to take risks, so the games that they make are a few safe bets in established franchises. That's why Activision pumps out a Call of Doody every year instead of making another MASTERPIECE like Star Trek: Bridge Commander. Shooting brown people because 'Murica sells. Star Trek doesn't. It doesn't matter that Bridge Commander is an infinitely better quality game than any CoD game in the past ten years.

That's why I liked that the Wii wasn't HD, as counter-intuitive as that may sound; it's cheaper to make a standard definition game, so you had more games that tried something new.

[Gunstar Green]

I love Bridge Commander but honestly it's kind of janky and it was fan mods that made it really shine.

Star Trek is maybe a bad example because of licensing issues. You've got CBS who have the TV rights, movie rights that are still shared with Paramount and additional royalties go to Bad Robot if you do anything involving the reboot universe. Star Trek is in a really messed up position right now in regards to licensed products since ownership is split between companies that don't see eye to eye.

That's the main reason we haven't seen much in the way of non-mobile Star Trek games recently, that and because Bethesda used the license to make absolute garbage.

[ElkinFencer10]

I love Bridge Commander but honestly it's kind of janky and it was fan mods that made it really shine.

Star Trek is maybe a bad example because of licensing issues. You've got CBS who have the TV rights, movie rights that are still shared with Paramount and additional royalties go to Bad Robot if you do anything involving the reboot universe. Star Trek is in a really messed up position right now in regards to licensed products since ownership is split between companies that don't see eye to eye.

I will force them all to agree to a new slew of games. Resistance is futile.

[Gunstar Green]

On the bright side it means that the new Star Trek series by CBS is very likely to not be part of the reboot universe.

[Erik_Twice]

My question is: For the "HD era," why did absolutely every game developer decide to switch to giant projects? What were the motivating factors?

Newer games require a vast higher investment, a far longer development time and a bigger staff than older ones. Consider that games like Gradius were made by 5-6 people in a couple months while the latest Assassin's Creed took several years and hundreds of people to be made.

[Exhuminator]

My question is: For the "HD era," why did absolutely every game developer decide to switch to giant projects? What were the motivating factors?

It boils down to risk aversion. Appeasing the lowest common denominator with bog standard genre pieces, while focusing on pretty pixels over unproven innovation.

[Snatch1414]

Yeah it's just a bigger risk these days. To me though another point is this:

I can't remember who said it for the life of me, but a great point was made when I heard someone say something to the effect of "Can Sony and Microsoft be compared to Nintendo and Sega? I dunno. Sony and Microsoft got into gaming because they thought it could make them money. I'm not sure that's exactly the same as why Sega and Nintendo did." Obviously Sega and Nintendo wanted to make money, but you get the point.

Without question you have developers big and small that make what they want, but I still feel like Sony and MS seeing games as a slice on a pie chart having a trickle down effect. It could be that I'm just getting older, but the games you hear about most don't feel like the games of old. Doesn't mean they're bad, but I think the focus nowadays is more on making technological advances regardless of whether the damn game is actually more FUN than the last one.

Honestly though, the biggest problem might be gamers themselves. They'll buy anything, and these companies know that.

[ElkinFencer10]

On the bright side it means that the new Star Trek series by CBS is very likely to not be part of the reboot universe.

Thank god. Jar Jar Abrams's movies were entertaining in a "pew pew lazers" kind of way, but they just didn't feel like Star Trek. There was no social philosophy. There was no commentary on cultural and social evils. Just explosions and pew pews.

It also did everything I hate. I HATE prequels. I HATE alternate timelines. That sub-series is a fucking alternate timeline prequel. No. Just...no.

[Sarge]

The industry is huge now. There is a lot of data on what sells compared to what doesn't, not to mention tastes have shifted over the years. If you're going to sink a huge amount of money into a game, you want at least some guarantee that it won't be a total flop. And as bad as this sounds for gamers like us, I don't blame publishers and developers for it. If people buy their product, that's an affirmation that they should keep making that product.

Given the expense (and gamers' expectations graphically in particular), games are insanely expensive to produce, primarily because of the art assets necessary (although I'm sure audio comprises a decent chunk, too). Consequently, it's harder to maintain a A- or AA-tier presence when gamers can choose a AAA product. I think what we've seen is the mid-tier games slide to portables to start, but now that the smartphone/tablet market is starting to crowd that space, there's really no other place for those games to go than PC, just from a potential audience/cost-control/expectations point of view. I think many PC gamers are more amenable to niche games anyway, since they've kept lots of niche genres afloat for years.

There is also the Hollywood-style bent of the modern industry, but in some ways, I would argue it was somewhere the industry always wanted to go, they just didn't have the tech in the olden days to get there. There are so many designers that have been influenced and inspired by Hollywood, so that things went that way should be no surprise.

That being said, I don't know that things are really that dire. As the technology has gotten better, it's also allowed for tools that let some of us average joes give a go at making a game. Sure, they may not all turn out great, but there are some fantastic games in the indie space, and they seem to be keeping the retro-ish scene alive. My only big concern is the push towards all-digital. I can see this being a huge problem for me and others in the (relative) boonies in the future.