Massively Multiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) are the cause of alot of stagnation in Games, Discuss
- Thread starter Archaeology Hat
- Start date
Recommended Videos
the problem is for gamestop/ebgames, console games give them 2x the profit that a pc game has, because they can resell a used console game, they cant resell a used pc game.
there real profits come from selling a used game, not selling a new game. thats why they never have pc games. because they cant make double the profits.
there real profits come from selling a used game, not selling a new game. thats why they never have pc games. because they cant make double the profits.
*Blinks* It's quite obvious actually.
Gaming is no longer about a bunch of game geeks with computer skills getting together to make a good game. Rather it's all about money. In general games have become expensive to make and the guys producing the game run the show and want a return on their money, setting out to make more money than they put into the game to begin with, and oftentimes not really caring about the game itself.
Nowadays things are repetitive because you only see a couple of groups developing actual game engines, and then selling these engines to others who just change them around a bit with graphics and such and otherwise sell the same product. This is what it's all about when you hear that the new game is running the GRAW 2, or Unreal, or whatever engine. It means that it's basically the game the engine is named after, but tweaked and re-skinned. The bulk of the programming was already done before they even developed the new game.
In general, game producers would LOVE to simply be able to sit around and sell people tons of FPS games and such. After all it's simple to continuously tweak and re-skin an existing engine for sports, FPS, etc... and sell it to the masses. As time goes on people are beginning to catch on and become a bit annoyed, though it's a slow process for any kind of backlash to hit the producers and companies. Not to mention the fact that the equasion is slowed by the sheep who would rather keep buying the same game than go with no games (ie no real boycotts). Not to mention gaming propaganda (which is linked in with advertising, but they can be a bit differant as will be explained a bit further down in this long post).
When it comes to RPGs the game industry has a love/hate relationship with them. Mostly hate. Basically RPG fans are loyal and substantial in number, but even if they re-use an existing engine (like latter Might and Magic games) there is still a demand for high qualities of writing, game systems, and player control. Thus they take a lot of time, effort, and money to develop. Costing far more than a reskinned "UNREAL 201.3" engine game to develop and as a result can be catastrophic when they fail, and even if they succeed more money invested means less overall profits.
Not to mention the fact that a good RPG requires good writers, and those guys can carry pretty big egos, which producers don't like to have to pander to. Producers have tried to basically comission generic RPG games with a stereotypical plot, and a bunch of dwarves, elves, swords, and magic thrown around randomly, only to have them fail epically. RPGs are tricky because it's not so much a matter of what your doing, but how your doing it. The differance between laughable, and campy/cool.
MMOs are a way around this to an extent. Generally speaking to make an RPG you need to build an extensive chaarcter custimization system with lots of options, a large world that can be roamed freely in, and a decent storyline/lore behind it. While it's possible to reuse some things between games, it's harder to do than with FPS games, and you still always have to create more than you re-use.
Basically for a similar amount of work, you can have all the monsters respawn, and rare drop rates in the endgame, and put the whole thing online so people play together. Basically monster cash can be made by charging a $15/month fee to run a treadmill that keeps going. Instead of a cool cinematic at the end (like in a single player RPG) and a sense of satistfaction, they set it up so you keep killing the endboss to get his best loot. Then periodically they bleed in more dungeons to get people to move from one treadmill to another.
Given the money to be made, you have a lot of the guys who normally would be making single player RPGs, doing MMOs (like Richard Garriot). Even a third rate MMO makes more money than a single player game would, because they get the software sales money, and whatever people pay for monthy fees.
Thus by and large your looking at a market transition. Look at what the "names" of single player RPGs are associated with nowadays. Richard Garriot, Joe Ybarra, etc... and what they have been doing for years.
*THAT* Said understand there is a huge market for good single player RPGs. As exhibited by the success of games like KoTR, Mass Effect, The Witcher, Oblivion, etc... even if they are fewer in number today. However at the same time you'll notice that a lot of reviewers knock turn based, stat driven games (though not always).
This is largely a propaganda device it seems because in general by pushing real time "twitch" games, they are convincing people that this is what they really want. Those kinds of games where you run around in first or third person and fire the weapon of the week at the thug/monster of the week are painfully simple to make, excepting the first one of a generation.
For example if you buy a game that uses the GRAW 2 engine, your basically playing Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2, with a few tweaks to attack behavior on both sides and a reskin. The dev time mostly having come from the artists. Thus it's relatively cheap to make (liscensing the engine) and has a higher potential profit margin.
Trust me, game companies own the reviewers. This was made painfully obvious with a certain famous reviewer getting the boot over Kane and Lynch. Everything you hear and read about the industry is slanted towards getting people to want the kinds of games they want to make.
Today business is not just about giving people the product they want and would be happiest with, but also about creating the kinds of consumers the company wants.
Gaming is no longer about a bunch of game geeks with computer skills getting together to make a good game. Rather it's all about money. In general games have become expensive to make and the guys producing the game run the show and want a return on their money, setting out to make more money than they put into the game to begin with, and oftentimes not really caring about the game itself.
Nowadays things are repetitive because you only see a couple of groups developing actual game engines, and then selling these engines to others who just change them around a bit with graphics and such and otherwise sell the same product. This is what it's all about when you hear that the new game is running the GRAW 2, or Unreal, or whatever engine. It means that it's basically the game the engine is named after, but tweaked and re-skinned. The bulk of the programming was already done before they even developed the new game.
In general, game producers would LOVE to simply be able to sit around and sell people tons of FPS games and such. After all it's simple to continuously tweak and re-skin an existing engine for sports, FPS, etc... and sell it to the masses. As time goes on people are beginning to catch on and become a bit annoyed, though it's a slow process for any kind of backlash to hit the producers and companies. Not to mention the fact that the equasion is slowed by the sheep who would rather keep buying the same game than go with no games (ie no real boycotts). Not to mention gaming propaganda (which is linked in with advertising, but they can be a bit differant as will be explained a bit further down in this long post).
When it comes to RPGs the game industry has a love/hate relationship with them. Mostly hate. Basically RPG fans are loyal and substantial in number, but even if they re-use an existing engine (like latter Might and Magic games) there is still a demand for high qualities of writing, game systems, and player control. Thus they take a lot of time, effort, and money to develop. Costing far more than a reskinned "UNREAL 201.3" engine game to develop and as a result can be catastrophic when they fail, and even if they succeed more money invested means less overall profits.
Not to mention the fact that a good RPG requires good writers, and those guys can carry pretty big egos, which producers don't like to have to pander to. Producers have tried to basically comission generic RPG games with a stereotypical plot, and a bunch of dwarves, elves, swords, and magic thrown around randomly, only to have them fail epically. RPGs are tricky because it's not so much a matter of what your doing, but how your doing it. The differance between laughable, and campy/cool.
MMOs are a way around this to an extent. Generally speaking to make an RPG you need to build an extensive chaarcter custimization system with lots of options, a large world that can be roamed freely in, and a decent storyline/lore behind it. While it's possible to reuse some things between games, it's harder to do than with FPS games, and you still always have to create more than you re-use.
Basically for a similar amount of work, you can have all the monsters respawn, and rare drop rates in the endgame, and put the whole thing online so people play together. Basically monster cash can be made by charging a $15/month fee to run a treadmill that keeps going. Instead of a cool cinematic at the end (like in a single player RPG) and a sense of satistfaction, they set it up so you keep killing the endboss to get his best loot. Then periodically they bleed in more dungeons to get people to move from one treadmill to another.
Given the money to be made, you have a lot of the guys who normally would be making single player RPGs, doing MMOs (like Richard Garriot). Even a third rate MMO makes more money than a single player game would, because they get the software sales money, and whatever people pay for monthy fees.
Thus by and large your looking at a market transition. Look at what the "names" of single player RPGs are associated with nowadays. Richard Garriot, Joe Ybarra, etc... and what they have been doing for years.
*THAT* Said understand there is a huge market for good single player RPGs. As exhibited by the success of games like KoTR, Mass Effect, The Witcher, Oblivion, etc... even if they are fewer in number today. However at the same time you'll notice that a lot of reviewers knock turn based, stat driven games (though not always).
This is largely a propaganda device it seems because in general by pushing real time "twitch" games, they are convincing people that this is what they really want. Those kinds of games where you run around in first or third person and fire the weapon of the week at the thug/monster of the week are painfully simple to make, excepting the first one of a generation.
For example if you buy a game that uses the GRAW 2 engine, your basically playing Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2, with a few tweaks to attack behavior on both sides and a reskin. The dev time mostly having come from the artists. Thus it's relatively cheap to make (liscensing the engine) and has a higher potential profit margin.
Trust me, game companies own the reviewers. This was made painfully obvious with a certain famous reviewer getting the boot over Kane and Lynch. Everything you hear and read about the industry is slanted towards getting people to want the kinds of games they want to make.
Today business is not just about giving people the product they want and would be happiest with, but also about creating the kinds of consumers the company wants.