Is the next generation looking to be a return to form?

[Gennadios]

KS shouldn't be used as a metric until the first batch of commercially "non-viable" games is released. Yes, there's a large contingent of oldschool gamers, and Linux/OSX users who want games on their platform of choice.

The thing is, we don't know how much these games will sell after they're published. Everyone whose really into the stuff they're funding is the "hardcore" fanbase, any additional sales will have to come from the more casual players, so only after we see those people's buying habits will we know if these games are truly viable.

Oh, semi shameless but somewhat related plug: The Hero-U kickstarter, by the wonderful people that brought us Quest For Glory went live today to absolutely no media coverage. For the love of all that is good, start funding!

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1878147873/hero-u-rogue-to-redemption

 

[Jandau]

Nope.

The AAA industry will keep doing what it's doing. You see, even though Dishonored and XCOM have been critically well received and the "hardcore" audience loves them for the most part, their sales are still nowhere near those of major franchises. The big bucks are still in generic gray-brown shooters and overpriced mappacks (and other such "mainstream" formats).

However, what we're seeing thanks to Kickstarter, Steam and such is a growing segment of mid-range developers. Too big to be indie, too poor to be AAA. They have ideas on the scale of major titles but are limited in how they can create them. Over the past few years thanks to digital distribution and new funding models, as well as several smaller publishers, such developers are getting more spotlight. Their projects outstrip the usually limited Indie titles, but are still cheaper and often behind on polish and tech compared to AAA titles.

This mid-range is where niche genres will nest. Games that will never have major popular appeal, but do have a dedicated core demographic. This is a good thing, though. If niche games were to be grabbed up by AAA publishers (for whatever reason), they'd be dumbed down, stripped bare and made "accessible" to a "wider audience". Only by staying out of the main spotlight can such games retain elements that people like about them. And the ease of funding through Kickstarter and distribution through digital distribution platforms allow such games to do more than would be possible on an indie budget.

KS shouldn't be used as a metric until the first batch of commercially "non-viable" games is released. Yes, there's a large contingent of oldschool gamers, and Linux/OSX users who want games on their platform of choice.

The thing is, we don't know how much these games will sell after they're published. Everyone whose really into the stuff they're funding is the "hardcore" fanbase, any additional sales will have to come from the more casual players, so only after we see those people's buying habits will we know if these games are truly viable.

Well, it's still too soon to have a solid sample to work with, but FTL has shown that a KS game can have good sales despite being KSed. It was esentially the game that started the Kickstarter craze, being an interesting project that drew the attention of the gaming press. It was Kickstarted and recently came out to major critical and public praise, with fairly high sales on Steam for what is basically an Indie game that's not everyone's cup of team.

Also, a KSed game doesn't need massive sales. Normally, the sales of a game are then used to fund the next project, so poor sales of a title would hamstring whatever you wanted to make next. But if you're funding through KS, each game funds itself. Even if 100% of the people who buy it were to get it through KS, it still wouldn't be a problem - you'd have the money to finish that game and then just KS the next one.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I don't think we're returning to anything. Games are becoming more and more innovative, engaging, creative and whatnot, not necessarily because they have to, but because developers know what gamers want, and it isn't the bland cover-based shooter with no story we've come to expect from AAA games. I won't go so far as to say that indie games will overtake AAA games, but more middle-range games will spring up that aren't massive franchises playing it safe, but are individual, perceptive experiences, free of the baggage that comes with costing millions of dollars to make. Something I'm particularly happy about (although it will be a slow spread to consoles) is Kickstarter potentially cutting publishers out of the whole process (which is like curing cancer for gaming). Crowd-sourced funding means that a game can be made safely, with a target market that is already defined and have already shown interest, without worrying about needing to pander to every other potential customer. In fact, it's safer than making your game an action shooter and expecting everyone and their dog to buy it.

In short, I think we're going in a good direction for everyone involved, and as the years go on we will see less and less of a studio being put out of business because the publisher ruined their game and thought they were somehow to blame when it didn't turn a profit.

 

[wooty]

I guess that depends on what your definition of "form" is, due to all the different tastes and options available. I agree that mid-range games are getting a lot better, due to the fact that they have a fair amount of freedom in the creativity department and dont have a huge corporation breathing down their neck every 5 minutes saying "well, Call of Duty made money from this".

But, as I said, it depends on your defintion of "form". One mans Modern Warfare 3 is another mans Shadow of the collosus. One mans Kinect is another mans 2 button NES controller.

 

[Snowblindblitz]

aahhh Op I love your name and avatar. I should get a Dark Souls avatar, currently playing a sorcery focused high INT character who uses the enchanted falchion, and magic varieties of all 3 rapiers (plus lightning spear for magic resistant enemies)

Anyways, on topic, it would seem that the graphics explosion is calming down, and games are finally focusing on being games again. And I like that. Like that a lot.

X-com, Dishonored, and the indie game scene are showing, in ways, that gameplay matters. And that is good for everyone.

 

[Gamer_152]

Wait, surely if more companies are turning to Kickstarter to get their stuff funded that's a sign that the publishers aren't picking up these risky projects. I certainly don't think we're seeing publishers taking a big interest in point-and-click adventure games or niche genres to any great degree. The big name publishers are showing an ever-increasing interest in iterative franchises and blockbuster titles as AAA games are requiring more and more money to be developed, while the more niche stuff is being catered to by Kickstarter, indie companies, and a small number of unconventional situations.

What's more this thing with Nintendo wanting to get the support of the "core" market or saying they want to win them over isn't anything new, this has been the case all along, whether they can actually deliver on it is another prospect, and I don't believe they can, the reason they had to turn to the casual market in the first place is that they could just not get the support from their more traditional market that they needed.

More obscure games are less risky now, but they're still too risky for the AAA publishers and it's not like we're about to see the industry just jump back in time about a decade.

 

[dimensional]

Things will remain as they are i.e in a constant state of flow sometimes you see a return of old stuff in a new shine because thats what people want things tend to go in circles just circles moving forward, something that looks generic and worn out can be bought back later and seem new and fresh because time has passed and things have changed. Some things last longer than others but everything changes eventually and companies have to adapt to this or die.

 

[TrevHead]

We aren't seeing a total return to the good old days, but there are certainly alot more mid tier games recently, which is often where much of the best gaming experiences come from imo. (IE Hawken and Strike Suit Zero)

However two things do worry me, Microsoft's plans for Windows 8 and beyond. Also the EU's ruling on digital used games sales which allows the likes of Gamestop to wriggle their way into PC gaming

 

[Bad Jim]

What I wonder though is how a game like Witcher 2, which pushed computers to their limit and still can't really run right with ubersampling, could be made for around 10 million bucks with its size and scope? I guess being your own publisher (right?) and the exclusively PC platform of the time. Dunno.

While it's more expensive to make better looking worlds, it's also more expensive to stretch increasingly dated systems to their limit. An AAA dev team might make a model, only to scrap it and tell the modeller to make one with less/more polygons. They rearrange scenery to make it look as good as possible within their limitations. They chop up large levels into small ones to save RAM. CD Projekt can make the assets to a better-than-console standard and not worry about it, because a decent PC is much better than current consoles and doesn't need obsessive optimisation to beat the consoles on graphics.

More obscure games are less risky now, but they're still too risky for the AAA publishers and it's not like we're about to see the industry just jump back in time about a decade.

Niche genres are not too risky. If you have $100 million, investing it $2 million at a time will average out all the risk.

I think they've pushed for big budgets because that's how to get on the shelves in retail stores. Retail stores want to carry games that will sell to a decent number of people, that is, mass market games. Competition will force publishers to spend a lot of money on such games.

Digital stores on the other hand will accept any game that's not a ripoff. If a game only sells a thousand copies, the digital stores that carry it are still better off than if they hadn't. Mass market games are still viable, but niche genres are also viable.

I'd say the big publishers have no reason to shy away from niche genres any more.

 

[veloper]

I share the OP's optimism.

Things are looking promising for lovers of niche and old genres. Not just SRPGs and other tactical games, but p&c adventure games aswell.
As for XCOM, those type of games never were common. It was still mostly action games on the market even in the good old days.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

My responses to several posters are in the spoiler to avoid massive post size.

Spoiler

KS shouldn't be used as a metric until the first batch of commercially "non-viable" games is released. Yes, there's a large contingent of oldschool gamers, and Linux/OSX users who want games on their platform of choice.

The thing is, we don't know how much these games will sell after they're published. Everyone whose really into the stuff they're funding is the "hardcore" fanbase, any additional sales will have to come from the more casual players, so only after we see those people's buying habits will we know if these games are truly viable.

Oh, semi shameless but somewhat related plug: The Hero-U kickstarter, by the wonderful people that brought us Quest For Glory went live today to absolutely no media coverage. For the love of all that is good, start funding!

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1878147873/hero-u-rogue-to-redemption

What made me bring up the games being kickstarted was the whole deal when Obsidian mentioned that bunk deal where a publisher wanted to publish their game but still continue to get crowd funding all the same. This implied to me that publishers have noticed kickstarter, feel they need to get in on it or are threatened by it. If that's the case they must be watching what types of games are continuing to break records.

I guess that depends on what your definition of "form" is, due to all the different tastes and options available. I agree that mid-range games are getting a lot better, due to the fact that they have a fair amount of freedom in the creativity department and dont have a huge corporation breathing down their neck every 5 minutes saying "well, Call of Duty made money from this".

But, as I said, it depends on your defintion of "form". One mans Modern Warfare 3 is another mans Shadow of the collosus. One mans Kinect is another mans 2 button NES controller.

The "form" I was referring to, now that I've read across everyone's replies, is that middle ground. Something more "substantial" than the short and sweet indie game and not quite the quarter million dollar uber-game that must homogenize some in order to avoid bankruptcy. The PS2 era had such a vast collection, with so many games resting in that sweet spot that became classics. The rising budgets has something to do with this, I'm sure. It's not just graphics, but the expectation of more realistic AI, 5.1-7.1 surround sound, and the other "minimums" that are a point of entry.

aahhh Op I love your name and avatar. I should get a Dark Souls avatar, currently playing a sorcery focused high INT character who uses the enchanted falchion, and magic varieties of all 3 rapiers (plus lightning spear for magic resistant enemies)

Anyways, on topic, it would seem that the graphics explosion is calming down, and games are finally focusing on being games again. And I like that. Like that a lot.

X-com, Dishonored, and the indie game scene are showing, in ways, that gameplay matters. And that is good for everyone.

Why thank you! That is much appreciated. Trying to Upgrade all the weapons for the trophies was a major addiction for awhile, back during Demon's as well : )

On topic, that was precisely my point. Dishonored was a major statement about this very idea. I'm hoping Nintendo has the right idea about the 360+ level of processing, is it won't cause developers to overhaul their tried and true systems of 7 years now. The fear is that it could get "dreamcasted", when interest wanes after a pair of systems with much more powerful architectures arrive. But if systems really live or die on their library, I don't foresee a really strong launch lineup ready for the PS4 or Nextbox, though the PS3 did recover somewhat from a similar situation.

I share the OP's optimism.

Things are looking promising for lovers of niche and old genres. Not just SRPGs and other tactical games, but p&c adventure games aswell.
As for XCOM, those type of games never were common. It was still mostly action games on the market even in the good old days.

I don't know, I didn't play Xcom back in the day, but I did play Jagged Alliance, which I imagine is in the same vein? Fallout 1&2 kind of applied the formula to the RPG genre with AP for movement and such. I admit it wasn't a huge thing but it seems it was inspiring.

 

[Lugbzurg]

First, a correction. Nintendo didn't lose the "hardcore" market with the Wii; they lost it with the Gamecube.

Eternal Darkness. StarFox Adventures. StarFox Assault. Metroid Prime. Metroid Prime 2. Super Smash Bros. Melee. Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. F-Zero GX.

What the heck are you talking about!? They were even more hardcore then than when they were in the Nintendo 64 era with Conker's Bad Fur Day and Majora's Mask!

Also, the mature 3rd-party multiplatform games were on the GameCube as well as the PlayStation 2 and X-Box.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No, just no. In fact I've never been so disillusioned with gaming, or indeed anything, in all my life.

 

[SeaCalMaster]

First, a correction. Nintendo didn't lose the "hardcore" market with the Wii; they lost it with the Gamecube.

Eternal Darkness. StarFox Adventures. StarFox Assault. Metroid Prime. Metroid Prime 2. Super Smash Bros. Melee. Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. The Legend of Zelda: Wind Waker. F-Zero GX.

What the heck are you talking about!? They were even more hardcore then than when they were in the Nintendo 64 era with Conker's Bad Fur Day and Majora's Mask!

Also, the mature 3rd-party multiplatform games were on the GameCube as well as the PlayStation 2 and X-Box.

Here are the sales figures.

GCN: 22 million.
PS2: 154 million.

Whether Nintendo made sufficiently "hardcore" games during the 6th generation is irrelevant. It's clear that the vast majority of "hardcore" gamers didn't buy a Gamecube.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

If you only want PC games then why the hell do you care about the next generation of consoles? If PC is having a bit of resurgence in terms of getting games like the Obsidian kickstarter it's because the current consoles are played out and don't seem so spangly and exciting.

Introduction of new console hardware always comes with a huge marketing campaign and money hats so that all the gamers and developers spend time and money on dumb but flashy stuff that they couldn't have cared less about a year ago. Tie that in with the inevitable increase in game budgets and production values that are needed to get the most out of the more powerful hardware making publishers play even more in terms of not having any challenging gameplay and content.

I don't see how anyone could possibly think that a new console generation could mean a boost in smart thoughtful games. Already the new spangly excitement beam of mental retardation is having it's effect if you believe this.

Here are the sales figures.

GCN: 22 million.
PS2: 154 million.

Whether Nintendo made sufficiently "hardcore" games during the 6th generation is irrelevant. It's clear that the vast majority of "hardcore" gamers didn't buy a Gamecube.

What is this supposed to mean? Everyone had a PS2 even if they only used it to play DVDs and Karaoke games.

 

[veloper]

I share the OP's optimism.

Things are looking promising for lovers of niche and old genres. Not just SRPGs and other tactical games, but p&c adventure games aswell.
As for XCOM, those type of games never were common. It was still mostly action games on the market even in the good old days.

I don't know, I didn't play Xcom back in the day, but I did play Jagged Alliance, which I imagine is in the same vein? Fallout 1&2 kind of applied the formula to the RPG genre with AP for movement and such. I admit it wasn't a huge thing but it seems it was inspiring. [/spoiler]

Fallout Tactics counts as a similar squad-based tactical game (though not as good). Fallout 1 & 2 not really I think, as your tactical control there is limited to a single character only.

Basicly it's:

1. Jagged Alliance 2 (and to a lesser extent the original).
2. UFO:EU = XCOM (it's sequels / spinoffs didn't succeed as well).

a really big gap

3. Fallout Tactics (it's a mediocre game really)
4. SRPGs that are good enough but aren't the same thing(genre) anymore, games like Tactics Ogre and Knights of the Chalice.

 

[Angie7F]

I dont think we are returning. if anything the resident evil keeps going further and further away from the roots... Such a pity.

 

[soes757]

XCOM has been a top seller on steam for weeks now.

Its mainstream now. In fact, it etched out dishonored on sales. The only thing that beat it was borderlands.

Keep in mind XCOM had no advertisements what so ever. It was still a top seller.

There's an XCOM advertisement on this page and it still even says pre-order so its been there for a while.

Back on topic, I don't think we're going to go back, it doesn't work that way. We might get some of the old mechanics back, and some remakes of old games, but as long as people have new ideas the industry will move forward.