Creating Games for Legacy systems and late adopters

[Laggard]

Marketing 101 teaches to find and serve segments of the population that are currently not being met. With 1 in 3 households in America owning a PS2 it seems like there would be quite a market for creating high quality triple A games on older systems. If the success of the Wii Virtual Console and Xbox Live arcade have tought us anything, you do not need the latest technology to sell your wares. The lifespan of the PC is getting longer and people are no longer willing to accept purchasing a new one every two years.

I work for a company (nongaming)that has carved out a profitable niche serving legacy operating system users. I see a market here. Are there barriers to serving this segment? Why hasn't this already happened?

 

[LordLocke]

It hasn't happened because they don't want it to happen. Sony wants to put as many PS3 systems in homes as possible- if this brand new game gets the bells and whistles and ported over to the PS3 instead of the PS2, so much the better.

While that's not the entirety of it, you can be sure that Nintendo, MS, and Sony are doing everything they can to push the A and B-list titles to their newest systems- the Gamecube and X-Box are pretty much dead, and the PS2's dying a slow death as everyone pushes their focus on the latest and greatest. Outside a small smattering of titles, it looks like the PS2's about to become the domain of extremely small publishers and budget titles only. And that's exactly the way the big three want it.

 

[the_carrot]

Microsoft should allow for other companies to continue to update and add features to older operating systems. Though I'm not sure how the money would work, I know at least some people would do it for free.

 

[Lockback]

I think that as long as the game cycle is for AAA titles, most software houses don't want to spend a year working on a game that won't get the acclaim that "next gen" titles get.

I agree there is a market. I think the market would be best met by smaller software houses making more progressive and experimental games.

 

[stevesan]

Good to see some intelligent business talk here. I'm no expert, but I've read a few books..

As LordLocke has mentioned, the console makers don't want this, and that's why it doesn't happen much. If you want to make a PS2 game, you need Sony's blessings. You need dev kits, licensing, certification, etc. And of course, it is completely in Sony's interest to discourage that so people have a reason to buy the new PS3. Same for MS and Nintendo's consoles.

However, the PC is another story. I completely agree that "casual PC gamers" (ie. people who are interested in gaming but don't want to spend hundreds upgrading their PCs) are quite a sizable market that is being ignored by the likes of Crysis, BioShock, etc. (ie. games that require the latest hardware). Blizzard has always recognized this. They have always been about a generation behind technology-wise. I'm willing to bet that WoW would not have nearly as many subscribers if it required the latest 3D accelerators to run well.

I often wonder if the advertising value of cutting edge graphics somehow out-weighs the detriment to your customer-base. Cutting edge graphics means people talk about it more, but it also means that less people will actually buy it cuz their computers can't run it. I mean, if Blizzard is any indication, you're better off focusing on game-play (what a thought?) instead of technology - not only is it easier to develop previous-gen games (and thus, you get more time to refine gameplay), your potential customer base is a lot bigger.

This is all for PC's only, of course. Which may be why Blizzard hates consoles..I can imagine Blizzard submitting WoW to Sony for certification, and then Sony rejecting it cuz it doesn't showcase the PS3's power.

Conclusion being..if I ever started a game company, I'd go for the PC and use "previous generation" tech.

 

[Girlysprite]

Also a point is...many people have a PS2, but how many still play on it? There are more Xbox 360 games sales (twice as much or more) then PS2 sales now. So appeantly the market isn't *that* big.

By the way, on the pc, there are a bunch of games that require last gen pc stuff to play it, but don't forget a good lot of those games tend to be console ports.

 

[the_carrot]

However, the PC is another story. I completely agree that "casual PC gamers" (ie. people who are interested in gaming but don't want to spend hundreds upgrading their PCs) are quite a sizable market that is being ignored by the likes of Crysis, BioShock, etc. (ie. games that require the latest hardware). Blizzard has always recognized this. They have always been about a generation behind technology-wise. I'm willing to bet that WoW would not have nearly as many subscribers if it required the latest 3D accelerators to run well.

I often wonder if the advertising value of cutting edge graphics somehow out-weighs the detriment to your customer-base. Cutting edge graphics means people talk about it more, but it also means that less people will actually buy it cuz their computers can't run it. I mean, if Blizzard is any indication, you're better off focusing on game-play (what a thought?) instead of technology - not only is it easier to develop previous-gen games (and thus, you get more time to refine gameplay), your potential customer base is a lot bigger.

The Orange Box games are direct x 8 compatible. I really don't see the need for much more than that at this point. Games made to Older standards run well on today's hardware, and I think would invigorate PC gaming, though somehow I think companies want to be, or appear to be, pushing the bounds of PC gaming. Remember being "leet" and all the other crap. Getting called a hardcore gamer is important to one's status in this community, and if you're not, you "phail".

The industry's advancement and the advancement of technology in the home is too often an effort to simply sell nouveau crap to the consumer. In some areas, the need for advancement is of real value, and enthusiasts help keep the hardware market intact, but seriously, There are many people who would play games if their computer could handle a good game. But a serious developer can't seem to be behind the times, or no one will take them seriously. Valve's catering to those with older hardware detracts seriously from people's impressions. People are still really hung up on graphics...And directX 8 looks great. Go play bloodrayne 2, it looks great, it isn't a good game, but it looks great, if people made good games that looked like that, I wouldn't be unhappy at all. Besides, the CPU is under-represented part of the hardware...I ramble, it is late...goodnight. sorry.

 

[LordLocke]

(Insert comment about Blizzard being a generation behind because it takes them a generation to put a game out here)

But the point is still valid- games keep wanting to push the envelope but the fact is that, PC wise, a lot of their potential audience isn't willing to spend the estimated $500-1000 a year to keep their PC on the cutting edge. One of the reasons I love my 360 is because not only am I getting cool exclusive content like Dead Rising and Mass Effect, but I'm also getting games like the Orange Box and Bioshock at a level beyond what my PC is capable of. As a gaming platform, the PC's been mostly reserved anymore for MMO playing (And if City of Heroes keeps pushing it's required technical specs forward with every new issue, I'll be dropping it due to unplayability too- it ran splendidly for a LONG time and has slowly began to sink below the sub-30 frames mark to it's current average of 18-28) and retro gaming (both PC and emulation)

The fact that when Blizzard games hit, my older hardware's always been capable of running it has been work big points for me- when Diablo 2 hit, the family computer was hopelessly out of date, and of all the big new titles that were hitting at the time, Diablo 2 was the ONLY one my PC would run. (Let's skip the fact that, three months later, we got a new PC and I was introduced to the glory of Half Life and Unreal Tournament and would gleefully leave console gaming behind for most of the dismal 32/64-bit generation, but that's besides the point) I'm happy WoW runs splendidly on my PC (although my opinion of the game itself falls well on the side of negative) and I'm crossing my fingers that Starcraft 2 continues the trend- it'd suck that SC2 would be the game that'll finally push me forward.

 

[MacCarth]

So...from what source did you get "people are no longer willing to pay for a console every two years?"

Let's consider the difference in time between the PS2 launch and the PS3 launch.
Now the Gamecube launch and the Wii launch
Now the Xbox launch and the 360 launch.

Now, if you look at the total 360, Ps3, and Wii sales (coupled with the fact that you just can't get a damn wii nowadays)you'll see that you're absolutely wrong. Yeah, making new games for the Ps2 might be profitable, but the reason companies stop making new games for their old systems is so you will buy their product.

 

[stevesan]

(Insert comment about Blizzard being a generation behind because it takes them a generation to put a game out here)

But the point is still valid- games keep wanting to push the envelope but the fact is that, PC wise, a lot of their potential audience isn't willing to spend the estimated $500-1000 a year to keep their PC on the cutting edge. One of the reasons I love my 360 is because not only am I getting cool exclusive content like Dead Rising and Mass Effect, but I'm also getting games like the Orange Box and Bioshock at a level beyond what my PC is capable of. As a gaming platform, the PC's been mostly reserved anymore for MMO playing (And if City of Heroes keeps pushing it's required technical specs forward with every new issue, I'll be dropping it due to unplayability too- it ran splendidly for a LONG time and has slowly began to sink below the sub-30 frames mark to it's current average of 18-28) and retro gaming (both PC and emulation)

The fact that when Blizzard games hit, my older hardware's always been capable of running it has been work big points for me- when Diablo 2 hit, the family computer was hopelessly out of date, and of all the big new titles that were hitting at the time, Diablo 2 was the ONLY one my PC would run. (Let's skip the fact that, three months later, we got a new PC and I was introduced to the glory of Half Life and Unreal Tournament and would gleefully leave console gaming behind for most of the dismal 32/64-bit generation, but that's besides the point) I'm happy WoW runs splendidly on my PC (although my opinion of the game itself falls well on the side of negative) and I'm crossing my fingers that Starcraft 2 continues the trend- it'd suck that SC2 would be the game that'll finally push me forward.

Yep. Most developers, when put in that position, would freak out: "crap, we're a generation behind already! we need to update the graphics so it still looks good!" and proceed to delay the game further, or try to update it and release a buggy product. But Blizzard, by some genius or just smart business sense, recognizes the advantages of lagging technology and releases their well-polished game anyway (again, what a thought, eh?).

 

[stevesan]

However, the PC is another story. I completely agree that "casual PC gamers" (ie. people who are interested in gaming but don't want to spend hundreds upgrading their PCs) are quite a sizable market that is being ignored by the likes of Crysis, BioShock, etc. (ie. games that require the latest hardware). Blizzard has always recognized this. They have always been about a generation behind technology-wise. I'm willing to bet that WoW would not have nearly as many subscribers if it required the latest 3D accelerators to run well.

I often wonder if the advertising value of cutting edge graphics somehow out-weighs the detriment to your customer-base. Cutting edge graphics means people talk about it more, but it also means that less people will actually buy it cuz their computers can't run it. I mean, if Blizzard is any indication, you're better off focusing on game-play (what a thought?) instead of technology - not only is it easier to develop previous-gen games (and thus, you get more time to refine gameplay), your potential customer base is a lot bigger.

The Orange Box games are direct x 8 compatible. I really don't see the need for much more than that at this point. Games made to Older standards run well on today's hardware, and I think would invigorate PC gaming, though somehow I think companies want to be, or appear to be, pushing the bounds of PC gaming. Remember being "leet" and all the other crap. Getting called a hardcore gamer is important to one's status in this community, and if you're not, you "phail".

The industry's advancement and the advancement of technology in the home is too often an effort to simply sell nouveau crap to the consumer. In some areas, the need for advancement is of real value, and enthusiasts help keep the hardware market intact, but seriously, There are many people who would play games if their computer could handle a good game. But a serious developer can't seem to be behind the times, or no one will take them seriously. Valve's catering to those with older hardware detracts seriously from people's impressions. People are still really hung up on graphics...And directX 8 looks great. Go play bloodrayne 2, it looks great, it isn't a good game, but it looks great, if people made good games that looked like that, I wouldn't be unhappy at all. Besides, the CPU is under-represented part of the hardware...I ramble, it is late...goodnight. sorry.

I believe there is certainly a market that cares that much about graphics. The "hardcore l33t" kids that love to brag about how high res they can run Crysis. There is that market. And I think all too often, developers feel obliged to suck up to this market too much. As you say, they don't want to make a bad impression on this group of people.

But I would argue that the general gaming market, ie. people willing to pay for games, is far larger than that l33t market. I'm not even talking about the "casual" market - I'm talking about people like me, who are really into "hardcore" games but can't justify spending that much money to upgrade. I can't justify upgrading because Fallout still runs on my system, and Fallout's gameplay is far better than most modern RPG's. Make me Fallout 3, using Fallout 2's technology and with the same quality of game-play, and I will pay you $60 for a copy. I believe there's a lot of people like me, and we're being ignored by developers - to their detriment.

 

[Lockback]

But I would argue that the general gaming market, ie. people willing to pay for games, is far larger than that l33t market. I'm not even talking about the "casual" market - I'm talking about people like me, who are really into "hardcore" games but can't justify spending that much money to upgrade. I can't justify upgrading because Fallout still runs on my system, and Fallout's gameplay is far better than most modern RPG's. Make me Fallout 3, using Fallout 2's technology and with the same quality of game-play, and I will pay you $60 for a copy. I believe there's a lot of people like me, and we're being ignored by developers - to their detriment.

Well, I don't know too many game publishers who would be able to get venture capital for that. The truth is a lot of people SAY they would spend $60 on good gameplay with poor graphics, but then the independent publishers who are delivering that never have customers. I don't know if you pay for independent games (if you do, good for you) but most people do not.

 

[stevesan]

But I would argue that the general gaming market, ie. people willing to pay for games, is far larger than that l33t market. I'm not even talking about the "casual" market - I'm talking about people like me, who are really into "hardcore" games but can't justify spending that much money to upgrade. I can't justify upgrading because Fallout still runs on my system, and Fallout's gameplay is far better than most modern RPG's. Make me Fallout 3, using Fallout 2's technology and with the same quality of game-play, and I will pay you $60 for a copy. I believe there's a lot of people like me, and we're being ignored by developers - to their detriment.

Well, I don't know too many game publishers who would be able to get venture capital for that. The truth is a lot of people SAY they would spend $60 on good gameplay with poor graphics, but then the independent publishers who are delivering that never have customers. I don't know if you pay for independent games (if you do, good for you) but most people do not.

You're absolutely right. It's not a "if you build it, they will come" deal. There's a huge difference between a) the Black Isle team getting back together and making Fallout 3 on Fallout 2 tech, vs. b) some random no-name indie team making a game on Fallout 2 tech claiming to be as good as Fallout 2. If (a) happened, I'd pre-order immediately. If (b) happened, I'd wait til people started playing it and for it to get some good reviews. But chances are, because it's an indie developer with very little marketing funds available, not many people will play it and no one I trust will review it, and I'm not gonna waste my time playing an RPG that's probably crap anyway (cuz 80% of everything is crap).

Yeah, it's tough being indie - if it was easy, we'd all be doing it. Even if you came out with a technically impressive and fun game, you'd still have a hard time getting sales. And that's a whole other discussion (what can indie devs do to reach their markets more effectively?).

I'm mainly talking about established developers focusing on the "late adopters" more. Blizzard does it - why don't more do it?

 

[swift tongued]

for every one sonyphite that won't spend the money on a PS3, there's three who'll find a way, it's financially worth it to the sompanies and prices are slowly becoming manageable levels for consumers, i haven't done economics, but people play old games for nostalgia, yes they are often better designed, yes there are hundreds of games with good graphics and bad gameplay, but megaman shows that doing the same thing over and over gets rlly frikken annoying after a while and if game developers aren't willing to push their limits and try new things with the newest stuff then gaming society as a wole is boned, this is not to say that i am against simple, clever and original games, but this should be a starting point for a company, not something they mass produce, as for games for old consoles, it just can't work, if Microsoft stops making X-boxes and nintendo stops making gamecubes, then they can't let good dames be released, and not be able to profit off hardware sales, btw best consol ever is the Dreamcast

 

[Lockback]

Stevesan-

I think the other side of this coin is good art direction vs good graphics. Good graphics is actually not very hard. You can "brute force" your way into some great looking graphics by hiring the right people and setting the right expectations.

Good Art direction, on the other hand, can't just be bought off the shelf. You need a team, you need creative managers, you need to be able to attract and retain creative people (Which is VERY difficult in a corporate atmosphere). Blizzard is able to save time, money, and people's hardware by relying more on good art direction rather than trying to wow them with polygon counts, lighting effects and shading.

Good Graphics and Good Art Direction = A game like HL2, success
Average Graphics with Good Art Direction = WoW, Success
Good Graphics with Bad Art Direction = Crysis, Success
Average Graphics with Bad Art Direction = Can't really come up with a success here.

So you have to be very confident in your art direction to not try and max out in eye candy. EA is never going to be able to retain those kind of creative minds, so you get them preferring to keep with formulas that give them the best shot at commercial success (which is the real motivator in this industry).