Economics of Modern Game Development

Recently I have no games to play. I'm 34 and I played PC games since about 1990. In the 90 there ware so many good games. Whole new genres developed: FPS, RTS among others. In the years 2000-2005 several amazing PC games were made. Each of those games could be played for a decade. I mean: Diablo 2, HoMM 3, Warcraft 3 and WoW. What truly great PC game has been made in the last 10 years? I guess only Minecraft stands out.

I noticed certain problems with game development economics recently. Nowadays its MUCH easier to make a low-end/indie game than in the past. At the same time its MUCH harder, more complex and more costly to make a high-end game. The result of that is that the market is saturated with cheap and crappy games. There is now much more games available but most of them are complete crap. At the same time there is LESS great games! Yes! If you prefer high-end quality then you now have LESS TO CHOOSE FROM than 10 years ago.

It's a bizarre situation. There are thousands of game on Steam but I have nothing to play. Between 2000-2005 there was at least one cult classic release per year. Now there is nothing. I watch YT announcements of new games and everything is boring and shallow. It's just sad to me. I always loved gaming so much and now I have nothing good to play. At the same time there are theoretically almost no hardware constraints. The problem are economic constraints, unfortunately. Cyberpunk 2077 has nearly 250 full-time developers. Compare that to System Shock team or Syndicate teams. They were both 10x smaller.

 

What makes a great game is a bit subjective -- Limbo and Braid are PC games that came out in the last 10 years that I found great. If AAA is a prerequisite for greatness, I've been enjoying Fallout 4 pretty well and GTA V seems to be well-liked by a lot of people. Red Dead Redemption 2, Battlefront, etc.

I do find it interesting that you're experiencing this distaste for modern gaming though -- have you explored any VR titles? I wonder if some of the better VR experiences could reignite that spark for you.

 

One of the problems is that EVERYBODY nowadays makes AAA games first for the consoles. Only later they release PC ports. Console gaming is a different culture than PC gaming. I'm a PC guy. I don't want to play only console ports. Since consoles are so dominant whole AAA PC genres disappeared, namely RTS. Since RTS can't be played with a controller they are not viable as console games and... there are also no AAA RTS PC games since Starcraft 2.

VR is not a solution. Again, economics are the culprit. Extremely few people own VR devices and as a result only little indie studios will make exclusive content for them. Again, VR will be dominated by cheap, low-end indie titles for a long time.

 

I think my biggest personal problem is that a lot of the genres today are just burnt out...

Back 10-20 years ago, nearly every other game was a revolutionized style of play that we'd never seen before.
But now, it's all the same thing over and over again. Yeah you might have the occasional different mechanic that sets it different by a little bit.

But in general, there's not many if any defining games that have changed anything (E.G. FPS, RTS, RPG, etc).

Like I still prefer Duke Nukem 3D over any AAA game today, might be a childhood thing, no idea. But no game today, not even mine, feel like they are better than any game 10-20 years ago when it was defining my life with fun. If this makes any sense.

 

The real underlying problem is that everybody shuns complexity and innovation. Everyone chases casual players. Basically nobody makes games for seasoned hardcore gamers. At best we can get a rehash with modern graphics like Doom (4).

Nobody is pushing the industry forward with bold innovations. Everybody is playing it safe, making highly polished turds like CoD games. This is also caused by economics: costs are escalating and with costs risk of loss.

 

You don't have to enjoy the latest and greatest. It's perfectly acceptable to return to older titles or seek them out. Just like films or books or art or music.

 

Maybe you're just burned out on Blizzard games.

 

I feel the same way as @Quingu. I've been looking for weeks to find a decent side-scrolling RPG that I haven't already played. I'm not looking for innovations or complexity, but I would like to play something set in a new world with a new story. You can only replay the old games you love so many times before you need something new

The only thing we can do is make the games we want and hope there are more people like us!

 

Both ideas here are my problem as well. It's like, I'd rather play the remastered games, like Grim Fandango, and Brutal Doom than touch some of the newer offerings. But it feels like I wouldn't be giving myself the opportunity to broaden my experiences with other games.

I am completely grateful for Firaxis having released XCOM back in 2012, because it turned me back into a kid. I looked forward to it, and I pre-ordered both the PC and console versions (and I never pre-order, let alone buy games within less than 1 year of release), and wasn't disappointed, like those who bought No Man's Sky. I hadn't played the original X-COM to that point, as it wasn't my type of game back then. That's why I think games like XCOM are important, that revitalize a genre by utilizing modern day technology while staying somewhat true to its roots.

I think a part of it too, is that I'm of course getting older. I used to be all about the FPSs and RTSs, and while I did enjoy the latest Bioshock offerings, I've taken more interest in turn-based tactical, strategy, 4x, simultaneous turn-based, etc.

Anyway, I have a couple of game ideas that I "think" aren't formulaic, but won't get a chance to start developing them for at least another year or two, as my current project is kind of one of those formulaic games that I'm hoping to add a few twists to. Game development seems to maintain my interest, and I'm completely fine with that.

 

I think the scientific explanation for this phenomenon is that we're all getting jaded as fvck!

I'd like to recommend an RTS game to you that is still fairly new and as complex as it gets, imho:
https://www.humblebundle.com/store/men-of-war-assault-squad-2-complete-edition?hmb_source=search_bar
or if you don't like WW2 settings you could try this:
https://www.humblebundle.com/store/call-to-arms?hmb_source=search_bar

p.s.: no base-building though.

 

This. The complaint seems to be quite common from 30 something year olds. It's really the beginning of the 'when I was a lad' stage.

I believe it's more to do with Human development then with games.

 

I'm particularly fond of old anime fans' arguments that are all about how modern anime is nothing but saccharine, cute girls crap or dime store light novel adaptations. It's basically that anime was only real anime when it was dubbed terribly on VHS.

The worst thing about modern times is it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. So much comes out that finding the good S*** takes actual work, so instead people get sucked into hype for garbage and brutally disappointed by their preorder.

 

That was my first thought. "But things don't seem as fresh as when I was eight." No S***.

 

I just bought the new humble bundle to get Technobabylon:
https://www.humblebundle.com/humble-gems-bundle

So far the story seems interesting, but it's too early to say if I'd recommend it. I guess I only bought it because I used to love the old Lucas Arts adventure games.

Right, because MD Geist was sooo great... x]

 

To think that it's only the first third of your life ... I think people need a different perspective.

 

Someone was showing me a study somewhere that said life satisfaction hits a low in the 30s. The researchers put it down to finally realising that life wasn't all wonderful. As a kid and teenager its all about growing up. 20s are all about putting in the hard yards and time to get life set up. And the 30s was where the realisation hit that things weren't that great after all. Fortunately the study indicated that satisfaction gets better as people age. Mostly because their expectation become more aligned to reality.

I have no idea how legit the study was, and I don't have the inclination to look it up. But anecdotally it sounds about right.

 

Yeah I also read one that said that people rated their happiness higher after retirement, although I'm ot really sure what it means for someone to rate themselves happy. I don't particularly like to feel happy, although I definitely need it every now and then.

I think that's right, that up to your 20s life is pretty much an illusion for a lot of people. But you have to look back and wonder how much value that really has. Sure, you felt good, but what were you really doing of any significance?

What seems so strange to me is that, if you throw out stereotypes for a second and just imagine yourself as an evolving organism, shouldn't life get better as you develop your abilities, your habits, your emotions, your tastes? It doesn't make sense for the most confusing and disorganised time of life to be seen as the best. And it makes me think that for most people, development isn't really a drive, only pleasure, or they wouldn't see things as they do. Which isn't very inspiring.

 

About the only people who seem to consistently have had more than just an illusion pre-20s are programmers. At least that appears to be the case from the discussions we've had on these forums. Artists and other game development fields may be similar but we haven't had any discussions for them.

 

I blame

a) the lacking creativity and shareholder/cash orientation of the big AAA shops resulting in mostly poor sequels and copy-pasta titles

b) the sheer amount of smaller games, making it REALLY hard to find the good among the see of painfully bad ones.


There are still tons of good games coming out, but you will only ever notice them thanks to Youtubers that do feature Indie games. there is a 90% chance its not an AAA game, which hog all the traditional media coverage for mediocre games mostly. And you would have to dig through a sea of crappy games to find the good ones without direction from said Youtubers.


If you are looking for bigger games of a certain quality, I wouldn't wait for an AAA shop to realease it. Its up to the "rising stars" in the AAA world, the shops that are still trying hard to get to the top, and thus not only want to take risks, but have to take them to release fresh and exciting new games. See how Gearbox, which I haven't heard of before, released Borderlands, a refreshing new mix of RPG and Shooter when it cam out.

See how trodden out and flat out BORING that mix has become now that we had a Gazillion of Borderlands and just as many DLC expansions. I am pretty sure Gearbox will milk this cashcow until it is dry, the Borderlands Online MMO is sure to be released, or was if the MMO market wouldn't have kinda deflated in the meantime.
Not much interesting or innovative has come out of Gearbox since their surprise hit, and it has become one of the hated bad boys of the industry thanks to some missteps (*cough* Colonial Marines *cough*) and unfullfilled promises.


But there are other studios trying to get to the top, that are NOT releasing yet-another-CoD-clone, or another-moba-because-everyone-is-doing-that-right-now.
See ashes of the singularity, which is kind of an anachronism today, and might in the end be surprisingly successfull because of that (not because of the tech-one-upping with the DX12 showcase and all, though that certainly was free advertising). Not EA, not Ubisoft, none of the current topdogs would have touched an RTS with a Ten foot pole.
They are too busy following the herd and releasing their own take on the Moba genre to do that.

 

And that's a good opportunity to get a head start in the rest of your life, which is the only part of any lasting value. The way I see it, before 20-25 you're still sorting yourself out and getting rid of bad habits, and up to 50-60 (or more) is when you get stuff done and really make the most of yourself. Beyond that you just hang around enjoying what you've done and making sure the ship's ready for the next captain.

I just don't understand this notion that many people have of 5-10 years of teenage joy followed by 60-80 years of semi-boring existence. I guess when you can't see yourself doing anything of any lasting value, some kind of unsubstantial teenage bliss sounds as good a reference point as any, but it's not anything anyone could hold onto and be satisfied with in the long run.

Lately when I look at facebook I feel like the bells are already starting to ring for a lot of people I know, which seems crazy because they don't seem to know how long they'll have to wait for it. At least in popular nerd culture (silicon valley types etc) there seems to be more of a longevity of ambition relative to the lifespan, which is good to see.

 

For me it was kind of the opposite. Of course I'm only 30, so I don't have the same perspective as you.

For me life as a teenager, early 20s had a lot of meaning. There was a clear set of goals. I was learning a lot. I accomplished some pretty incredible things. There were a lot of firsts.

On the other hand today I have a job. I don't see it changing dramatically over the next decade. I'm not really doing anything super new or exciting. I have no real long term goals.

I'm not saying I'm unhappy. I do enjoy my life. But it seems a lot less significant today then it was ten years ago.

 

Well I'm 27, so I certainly feel like life is just beginning, but a lot of people I know who are around this age seem to have an attitude like "Well that was a good time we had" and get all jaded and it just seems irrational. They have probably two thirds of their lives ahead of them and who knows, probably by the time they get there could go even longer.

I also see a lot of ridiculous posts on Quora like "Is it too late for XYZ, I'm (28-35)" I mean, they aren't auditioning to be the next Justin Bieber. Get a grip.

I dunno, if I was 30 I would certainly hope that most of my accomplishments were ahead of me. I thought it was pretty funny how they awarded Carmack the lifetime achievement award and he kept saying "well, this doesn't mean I don't have a lot of programming left in me". It's like, at 45 you might as well seal up the coffin.

I remembered something I saw a year or two ago that I thought was pretty inspiring, I wish more people took their opportunities like this.

 

I've found it's not a matter of preference, it's more a matter of observation.. If you check the amount of diverse AAA, AA and A titles from the PS1 / PS2 era compared to the amount of games being released in the upper echelons now they are nearly none existent.

Mid-tier has pretty much disappeared as well, although once in a blue moon some indies have picked up the slack (with games like (POE (Pillars of Eternity) / Witcher 2) Yes CD Projekt are AAA now, but they wasn't always)..

The odd thing is the reasoning behind it all, I've read articles before from upper tier games developers saying that the indie flood has affected their games revenue and to paraphrase it's not a lucrative market to compete in.

Whilst there's a certain amount of truth to that as mobile is a matter of marketing power and very few can compete with multi-million dollar blockbusters, statistics generally seem contradictory. For e.g. Torchlight sold over 2 Million copies, Pillars of Eternity sold over 1 Million copies, Diablo 3 which let's face it is less complex than POE sold ??? Ridiculous amounts..

It might be that 2 - 3 million copies just ain't enough for them?? Who knows. Although logic dictates that the development cost is a fraction of their blockbusters, with the huge gaps at the moment they wouldn't loose out.

Also it seems a matter of trying to outdo each other, therefore ramping up time and costs. Therefore releases from existing AAA outfits become few and far between.. Take good ol' batman, small(ish) enclosed area, to city, to hyper detailed mega city.. Dragon age, small(ish) enclosed area to big boring openworld game etc. etc.

Again the ironic thing is, the smaller games recieved better critical reception.. Yes games like Witcher 3 are technically outstanding, fun, long and a real money maker.. But linear games like TLOU also sell well, hell at one point it was the third best selling playstation game of all time..

 

I'm at the upper end of the 30's, and I think games are better than ever before. The main reasons that I don't play 1 of them longer is that there are so many good ones and I get enticed into the next one before I'm really done with the last.

For instance, I was having a great time with Dragon Quest Builders, but then World of Final Fantasy and now I'm playing it. I really should keep playing DQB until I'm done, but I just couldn't help trying out WFF and it's fantastic.

And there are many more good games coming out in the next few months, too.

Games are definitely better than ever before, IMO. We're just less patient with them.

 

Skyrim
Fallout 4
Dark Souls
The Witcher 2-3
Bioshock
But since you only have a pretty tight niche - non console released, PC RTS games your choices are limited.
There is also a long list (more than AAA) of indie titles that I consider great - but would not fall into the category you label as great.

Have you tried WarShift? Recently out and it's a Unity title. Not straight up RTS but has strong RTS elements and has been received pretty well from what I've seen. Note: Created by one guy - so depth may not hold up to your standard.
Or you can always just wait on the eventual release of World of Starcraft.

 

I think there are a lot of fantastic games released recently. I do think one important step is just to not chase hyped games pre-release. Wait until thousands of players have played and rated games. But really like the list above, games like Skyrim and The Witcher are really enough.

As a developer, I do think it is harder on us to develop something new. One of the biggest issues I have is that when I describe the game, people want me to say what it is a clone of, when really it is halfway between two very different games. Players nowadays are so used to clones, that they went to place games firmly in a genre box.

 

As a gamer for decades, I can tell you that it's always been this way. I've never heard anybody describe a new game without some reference to older games unless it was creating a genre, and that was always a very confusing conversation.

 

I want to stay on the topic of games, so please only look at this as a side reference in relation. I don't think all is lost with the feeling of something "new" being great and fresh, but also being something we remember well. Games, Films, TV shows, all of these forms of entertainment are so very similar. Take for example the Netflix show "Stranger Things". It was just universally loved by everyone. It was something new and fresh and cool, but it also nailed the feeling of growing up in the 80's to a huge part of the adult population today. Long story short, this can be done in games too. Just needs the right story, the right time, and the right person/people to do it!

Another side bar - I think the PC gamer is getting a lot more validation today. Walk into any local Best Buy right now and you'll find a PC gaming section that's decently sized...gaming mice, keyboards, PCs, PC demos running, even all of the components you'd need to build a gaming PC. Go back only 5 years ago and this was not a thing you'd see in Best Buy.

 

I'm not trying to hate on PC games but the big studios came out years ago and said they lose money on PC games. The pirates crack the game and give it away for free and then all the top notch games require constant, expensive, PC upgrades to remain competitive. Also, PC sales are way down in recent years so the market is shrinking. I know WoW is big money and there few others but the RPG games are also hard to break into for new titles.

Steam has been pretty good for the industry, but the developers barely make any money per unit going that route.It's hard to get developers excited to make a PC game for all the above reasons.

 

Although the rest of your comment is valid - this part isn't. 70% of $60/unit > barely makes any money.

 

The great games I mentioned are special to me because each of them can be played for hundreds, or even THOUSANDS or hours.

I'm looking for a game which could become a hobby at least for a few years. In the past such games were made every year or so. It's not the case anymore. I played Wacraft 3 on ladder for over a decade. The same is true for Diablo 2:LoD.

Bioshock is a great game. I played System Shock in 1993 and I know where it comes from. However you can't play Bioshock for hundreds of hours. I don't like Elder's Scrolls series since these games have poor/sandbox progression.

When you are looking for a game as a hobby then there is nothing to choose from. The last game which attempted to be something like that was Starcraft 2. It had single-player campaign with over 70 missions. It had extremely robust competitive play support. It had a great achievement system. It had very good custom map support. Nobody is making games like that anymore. Even Blizzard is selling itself short by making Hearthstone and Overwatch. These two games have VASTLY smaller scope than older Blizzard titles.

 

There's a lot of crap out there, but there's also some really amazing titles out each year from both AAA studios and Indie devs. If you're looking for RTS type games, XCom 2 was utterly fantastic for me. It came out on PC over a half a year before it made it to consoles.

Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance was the pinnacle of the RTS genre for me over the last ten years, but Ashes of the Singularity also looked kind of promising.

I've heard great things about Stellaris and of course there's PC exclusive Civ 6. The Total War franchise is still going pretty strong.

If you want something with AAA polish, but without the AAA baggage, try Rainbow Six: Siege. I've been playing this nightly for almost a year and it hasn't even begun to get stale yet.

 

Have you thought that you don't have that much time anymore to dedicate to a single game like that, or that maybe there are so many good games that you just don't even have the time to play most of them to any serious extent?

If nothing else, the fact that you associate playtime in any way with quality shows your views might be skewed.

 

I like my games the way I like my coffee - short, intense and memorable. And I'm not afraid to pay for it. For the few games that interest me, I value them at about $5-10 per hour of playtime.

 

I think the OP's problem isn't that games aren't "good" or "great" now but that he has been gaming since 1990. You are correct Quingu, some of the most popular genre's were invented in the time you were just becoming a gamer. I think you're lucky because you got to experience all those genre's when they were in their prime, and weren't tarnished by newer game ideas. It may just be me but I try to play games I once enjoyed and found them boring and repetitive.

You experienced those "prime" games when everyone was still playing them. You also have a breadth of game genre's played. I'd venture to say that most gamers today play only one or two specific genre's. I only play shooters. I've fallen in love with fresh takes on the idea though, most notably NS2 and Arma 2. That proves to me that other genre's can still offer lots of fun.

My point is @Quingu you are experiencing game burn out. You have a breadth and depth of experience with all the great games and genre's which have come to exist. Its hard to have fun with new ideas when those new ideas are the same ones you have played in one form or another over the 20 years or so.

My question is why don't you create a game you think would be great? Chances are other people will enjoy it too!

 

Dwarf Fortress.

 

Is there a pay per use store. Kind of like, 50c per hour for the first 20 hours, then 20c after? For a few dollars we could all try a game, and if it's a mini game and has no lasting appeal, that's all they get. If it's a AAA but has no lasting appeal, that's all they get. If it's any type of game, but we spend 100+ hours playing it, they get our money, which seems fair.

 

Be careful what you wish for. You just described the free to play model with content behind pay walls.

 

Dungeons and Dragons Online has a system where you buy permanent access to the content of the game (which is almost entirely instanced dungeons) in the form of "adventure packs". That said the game is technically free-to-play because you can earn the same points used in the store through actual game play (favor, monster manual entries, etc).