|
|
Post by MikuMatt on Feb 2, 2018 10:58:52 GMT
www.digitallydownloaded.net/2018/02/games-as-service-are-problem-for-both.htmlI wrote some really in-depth thoughts there ^, but I would be very keen to see what people think of this. Everyone loves games that go on and on and never finish, but is it actually good for the industry, and does the pressure to have excessive content in games pressure developers to compromise their artistic vision?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurd on Feb 11, 2018 3:33:21 GMT
I see where you're coming from and agree, especially re: the points on developer creativity and the damage to consumers. I play games not just for fun but to pursue unique experiences only possible through this medium, even if those only amount to an hour or two sometimes. Who says you can't have quality and quantity? Short games are great in my book and they mean smaller developers get more love. That said, I'd be interested in reading a comprehensive, numbers-laden report with statistical correlations regarding consumer buying habits and how they've changed in the face of this trend.
In the absence of such a thorough breakdown, though, I'll play devil's advocate for fun using...a completely unsubstantiated anecdote, heh.
The types of people I know who are interested in these "infinitely playable" games are also the kinds who wouldn't buy many games otherwise. They'd grab maybe 2 other titles a year besides their "core". I've observed this since the late 90s and early 00s when the internet was still in its relative infancy. How many people who primarily buy, let's say, 15 games a year on average have actually sacrificed some of those 15 in order to pursue games as a service instead? If the spending habits of consumers prone to diversifying their game portfolio are largely the same, isn't it possible that the proliferation of DLC, free-to-play, etc. is expanding the industry on some level? People who invested thousands of hours in Counter Strike for only $30 in the year 2002 are now spending thousands trading skins for their knives in 2018. An audience that was never, ever going to buy small indie games anyway has been successfully monetized. Maybe all that extra dough can get siphoned into funding creative experiences too.
Maybe the reason iOS is a tossup for indies has more to do with the platform's age and market saturation than buying habits.
Furthermore, doesn't the reception to this model indicate success? It's not just the big dogs - we've seen smaller developers rise to fortune by manipulating the model just right. There's plenty of room at the top, you just need to placate to the masses.
My theoretical "argument" above says little about the philosophical value of games driven by creativity or the long-term consequences of smaller developers losing traction, for instance, but I'd like to see how you'd you'd dismantle this mentality and whether any segment of it rings true.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikuMatt on Feb 12, 2018 21:23:50 GMT
Oh, I agree with what you've written. I'm not so much concerned with the players, though. If someone wants to spend their limited gaming time playing one particular game for ten years, then power to them. If they get that much out of Counter Strike, or World of Warcraft, or anything else, then it's great for them that these games continue to provide the content.
The concern I have is that other developers and publishers see that, and then decide that their games have to do the same thing. And suddenly they start adjusting how their games are made in order to chase the same success. It's reductive - pulling creativity out of the industry in the pursuit of money - than it is constructive. A lot of the stuff in the industry that people don't like - microtransactions and loot boxes - are a result of developers and publishers compromising on the artistic credibility of a game because the definition of "success" in this industry increasingly means "what Counter Strike/ League of Legends/ Clash of Clans did"
|
|
