Hey,
I am required due to my new situation to write this post. I technically should have written this before my $40 game post but I didn't.
Some things have changed since I last was writing in my blog regularly. First off I graduated college with an Entrepreneurship Major and a field specialization in Telecommunications from Indiana University. The biggest change, and the only one anyone reading this probably cares about, is that I got a job in the video game industry working as a production coordinator at Electronic Arts. Because of this I have to say, everything I write in my blog is MY opinion and is in no way supported by Electronic Arts. There now that's done.
It true when people say "it is not what you know but who you know". A friend of mine who I had only met a couple of time got me my interview and put my resume in front of the right people. I'll talk more about my entrance into the video game industry in a later post if I get bored or someone actually reads my blog and asks.
I am part of the new group called EA 2D. We just released our first game Dragon Age: Journeys a little over a month ago. It is a classic RPG adventure with a tactical combat system similar to Heroes of Might and Magic (so I have been told but I have never played that series). I was only part of the project for the last couple of months of production but I got to help a lot with the game and learn a lot about game production in a very short amount of time.
I will talk more about the production and the team of DAJ more in later posts. First, I need to learn what I am allowed to talk about and what not to. Not that anyone reads my blog anyways.
I also am working on another game that I'm not sure if I'm allowed to announce. It is a very small team at the moment and I am the only producer on the project which is very exciting and terrifying all at once. Hopefully I'll be able to talk more about it later.
That's all for now.
Cyaz
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The $40 Game
The recession proof game industry has finally had to admit that it is not recession proof. The industry has become fragmented into 10 megahits which account for 60% of the sales and a multitude of minor hits to complete failures that account for the remaining 40%. This is happening due to gamers only buying the staples (Halo, COD, Madden) and then only 1 or 2 more games due to our current economy. For major publishers and development houses this model still works for them. Publishers are secure in the fact that out of the many titles they publish each year, at least one will be a hit and part of gamers’ purchases for the year. Large development houses are secure in the fact that they have a great development team and are going to release a quality game and also be a staple purchase for gamers.
Who this doesn’t work for is everybody else.
Everyone not EA, Activision, Blizzard, Bethesda, Ubisoft, Bungie, etc. has to somehow break their way into this elite group of games to even survive or give up on producing a triple AAA title. A triple AAA title is generally targeted at the core/hardcore game market, costs $60 to purchase, costs tens of millions of dollars to produce, and has a 2-3 year production cycle. After working for 2-3 years on a single game developers are banking on the game selling well. And they don’t always sell well.
This high risk and cost trend has caused a new shift in video game development. It has created the indie game movement, a collection of individual developers who make smaller games, with smaller teams, and much less cost. These games have been extremely successful in the past couple of years with titles such as Braid and World of Goo leading the pack. They normally start off with a cost to players of $10-$20 and often go on sale within a year for half the cost.
So now we have an upper echelon of top tier AAA titles that cost $60 and a lower tier of titles that cost around $20. The questions why hasn’t the game industry started making games for the middle?
These games already exist, just in the wrong category. They are games that are trying to break into the top tier triple AAA titles but don’t make it. They have the same 2-3 year production time and tens of millions of dollars budgets as the top tier triple AAAs but still don’t make it. This is not to say they are bad games but that they aren’t part of the gamers staple purchases and that they didn’t make the cut of the 1 or 2 other gamers also bought for any given year.
Games like Mirror’s Edge, Brutal Legend, Wet, and Wolfenstein are prime examples. They all had large production budgets and development time. They were marketed as big triple AAA titles and were produced by proven developers. But they did not meet sales expectations and were considered unsuccessful by their publishers.
The video game industry needs to stop always going for the huge AAA blockbusters. They should take a hard look at their game and determine where it actually fits compared to the rest of the games being released that year. The video game industry is no longer in its infancy and marketing bad games doesn’t work anymore because players have other choices. Valve has taken the first step in the right direction with their Left 4 Dead franchise.
The first title in the series arrived with a lot of fanfare, a low production budget, a high marketing budget, and a $50 price tag on PC and a $60 price tag on consoles. The title’s sales were going well and then Valve took a risk and cut the price in half for a weekend on PC. It was the right choice. Their sales went up 3000% for the weekend, making more money that weekend than they did the opening weekend on Steam.
Valve found itself in the middle of the market and then capitalized on it. They realized they weren’t going to be a number 1 seller but they also realized they had something great on their hands. So they went to consumers and said here is this great game for cheaper than most AAA titles, come buy it. And it worked. Left 4 Dead went on to be a nomination for game of the year and just released a sequel.
What would happen if the rest of the video game industry started following this model? Creating these great games, selling them to gamers for cheaper (lowering the effect of the gamer staple purchases), and then letting the games prove themselves.
Just a thought…
Cyaz
Who this doesn’t work for is everybody else.
Everyone not EA, Activision, Blizzard, Bethesda, Ubisoft, Bungie, etc. has to somehow break their way into this elite group of games to even survive or give up on producing a triple AAA title. A triple AAA title is generally targeted at the core/hardcore game market, costs $60 to purchase, costs tens of millions of dollars to produce, and has a 2-3 year production cycle. After working for 2-3 years on a single game developers are banking on the game selling well. And they don’t always sell well.
This high risk and cost trend has caused a new shift in video game development. It has created the indie game movement, a collection of individual developers who make smaller games, with smaller teams, and much less cost. These games have been extremely successful in the past couple of years with titles such as Braid and World of Goo leading the pack. They normally start off with a cost to players of $10-$20 and often go on sale within a year for half the cost.
So now we have an upper echelon of top tier AAA titles that cost $60 and a lower tier of titles that cost around $20. The questions why hasn’t the game industry started making games for the middle?
These games already exist, just in the wrong category. They are games that are trying to break into the top tier triple AAA titles but don’t make it. They have the same 2-3 year production time and tens of millions of dollars budgets as the top tier triple AAAs but still don’t make it. This is not to say they are bad games but that they aren’t part of the gamers staple purchases and that they didn’t make the cut of the 1 or 2 other gamers also bought for any given year.
Games like Mirror’s Edge, Brutal Legend, Wet, and Wolfenstein are prime examples. They all had large production budgets and development time. They were marketed as big triple AAA titles and were produced by proven developers. But they did not meet sales expectations and were considered unsuccessful by their publishers.
The video game industry needs to stop always going for the huge AAA blockbusters. They should take a hard look at their game and determine where it actually fits compared to the rest of the games being released that year. The video game industry is no longer in its infancy and marketing bad games doesn’t work anymore because players have other choices. Valve has taken the first step in the right direction with their Left 4 Dead franchise.
The first title in the series arrived with a lot of fanfare, a low production budget, a high marketing budget, and a $50 price tag on PC and a $60 price tag on consoles. The title’s sales were going well and then Valve took a risk and cut the price in half for a weekend on PC. It was the right choice. Their sales went up 3000% for the weekend, making more money that weekend than they did the opening weekend on Steam.
Valve found itself in the middle of the market and then capitalized on it. They realized they weren’t going to be a number 1 seller but they also realized they had something great on their hands. So they went to consumers and said here is this great game for cheaper than most AAA titles, come buy it. And it worked. Left 4 Dead went on to be a nomination for game of the year and just released a sequel.
What would happen if the rest of the video game industry started following this model? Creating these great games, selling them to gamers for cheaper (lowering the effect of the gamer staple purchases), and then letting the games prove themselves.
Just a thought…
Cyaz
Friday, March 27, 2009
GDC: Day 3
Hey,
Today was the day where I could actually go to sessions with my expo pass. Gamecareerguide had set up a game career seminar with sessions that covered several different aspects of getting into the industry. The keynote was done by Fallout 3's Lead designer who talked about his path into the game industry. The session was interesting but as always telling how they borke in never perfectly fits what your skillset or situation. I would have rather heard 10 panelists quickly state how they broke into he industry than one famous person but the information was good and it was interesting.
The next session was my favorite session that I went to. It was given by a woman who has been teaching/working in the industry for a long time and was basically her giving you her insights from what she has learned so far. At the end of the session she had gone through 300 slides answering 100 questions. It was extremely informative and kept you paying attention the entire time.
The next session was canceled that day and so I was left with several hours to burn again. I went back to the career pavillion but basically just wandered around. The only interesting moment was when several blizzard members went and played guitar hero at the Activision booth. They kind of made a spectacle of themselves and several other Blizzard employees came to watch. As the song went on everyone, audience included, was bobbing their heads in tune and having a good time. To me it encompassed why I want to make video games, to have fun with friends and get a little escape into a different universe.
The last session I attended was a panel that talked about interviews. The session was also highly informative but never really covered how a production interview would go. I went up and asked one of the panelists and ended up talking to someone else at his studio. He gave me a general overview which was really useful.
Thus ended my first GDC experience....
Cyaz
Today was the day where I could actually go to sessions with my expo pass. Gamecareerguide had set up a game career seminar with sessions that covered several different aspects of getting into the industry. The keynote was done by Fallout 3's Lead designer who talked about his path into the game industry. The session was interesting but as always telling how they borke in never perfectly fits what your skillset or situation. I would have rather heard 10 panelists quickly state how they broke into he industry than one famous person but the information was good and it was interesting.
The next session was my favorite session that I went to. It was given by a woman who has been teaching/working in the industry for a long time and was basically her giving you her insights from what she has learned so far. At the end of the session she had gone through 300 slides answering 100 questions. It was extremely informative and kept you paying attention the entire time.
The next session was canceled that day and so I was left with several hours to burn again. I went back to the career pavillion but basically just wandered around. The only interesting moment was when several blizzard members went and played guitar hero at the Activision booth. They kind of made a spectacle of themselves and several other Blizzard employees came to watch. As the song went on everyone, audience included, was bobbing their heads in tune and having a good time. To me it encompassed why I want to make video games, to have fun with friends and get a little escape into a different universe.
The last session I attended was a panel that talked about interviews. The session was also highly informative but never really covered how a production interview would go. I went up and asked one of the panelists and ended up talking to someone else at his studio. He gave me a general overview which was really useful.
Thus ended my first GDC experience....
Cyaz
GDC: Day 2
Hey,
Today I spent the day in the career pavilion. I brought my resumes today and went to all the booths that would collect them and others that were just giving advice. I did my only real fanboy move and started at the Blizzard booth even though I knew they didn't have a position open for me. After that I went to several more booths and either gave my resume or got feedback. All of the feedback was positive and usually mentioning that it was good that I'd gotten an internship last summer. The one thing I can really appreciate from being a business student is that I know how to make a good resume.
A lot of the companies didn't have a position open for me but still seemed enthusiastic about taking my resume or meeting me. I'm not sure I made much of an impression on anyone but I think I tried my best. I never went up and said here's my resume, please hire me but I also never managed to start a long conversation with anyone. I would generally go up and ask about open positions then ask if they'd give me advice on my resume. This seemed to work but there are probably other ways to go about it.
For lunch I went to the annual IGDA meeting where they supplied free lunch (I knew my IGDA membership was worth more than a ribbon!). The meeting was really intereseting for someone not currently in the industry. I am up to date on all the public news released by developers but a lot of the more private/industry insider was what was discussed. The IGDA seems to be in a state of change and is working on becoming more effective at protecting people already in the industry, providing more information to everyone, and helping people break into the industry. In the next few years I see IGDA becoming even more powerful or losing a significant member base.
Afterwards I went back to the career pavillion where I basically ended up wandering around since I'd been to almost every booth. While wandering I ran into my old internship boss who I got to talk to for a while. I finally learned when the game I worked on is being released and what parts I worked on are actually going into the game. It will definitely be an exciting moment when I get to see my name in the credits.
At the end of the day I went to a session with several former video game writers who now have jobs in the industry. The session was not really informative in a specific way but I did find it interesting. The panelists were also for the most part funny and they kept the session very light and entertaining.
At night I went out with my friend from EA and met one of his bosses. His boss was very cool and really amsuing to talk to and also extremely important. While waiting for him to finish up a conversation Phil Harrison walked up to him to say hi. That night I also got to have my first "oh, you made that game moment". In class our teacher showed us a flash game to demonstrate how powerful flash is and what you can do with it. I met the dev of the game my teacher demonstrated and talked to him for a big part of the night (he made Fancy Pants). After meeting up with his boss we went to another bar for a bit, got dinner, and went to party that'd ran out of beer.
Cyaz
Today I spent the day in the career pavilion. I brought my resumes today and went to all the booths that would collect them and others that were just giving advice. I did my only real fanboy move and started at the Blizzard booth even though I knew they didn't have a position open for me. After that I went to several more booths and either gave my resume or got feedback. All of the feedback was positive and usually mentioning that it was good that I'd gotten an internship last summer. The one thing I can really appreciate from being a business student is that I know how to make a good resume.
A lot of the companies didn't have a position open for me but still seemed enthusiastic about taking my resume or meeting me. I'm not sure I made much of an impression on anyone but I think I tried my best. I never went up and said here's my resume, please hire me but I also never managed to start a long conversation with anyone. I would generally go up and ask about open positions then ask if they'd give me advice on my resume. This seemed to work but there are probably other ways to go about it.
For lunch I went to the annual IGDA meeting where they supplied free lunch (I knew my IGDA membership was worth more than a ribbon!). The meeting was really intereseting for someone not currently in the industry. I am up to date on all the public news released by developers but a lot of the more private/industry insider was what was discussed. The IGDA seems to be in a state of change and is working on becoming more effective at protecting people already in the industry, providing more information to everyone, and helping people break into the industry. In the next few years I see IGDA becoming even more powerful or losing a significant member base.
Afterwards I went back to the career pavillion where I basically ended up wandering around since I'd been to almost every booth. While wandering I ran into my old internship boss who I got to talk to for a while. I finally learned when the game I worked on is being released and what parts I worked on are actually going into the game. It will definitely be an exciting moment when I get to see my name in the credits.
At the end of the day I went to a session with several former video game writers who now have jobs in the industry. The session was not really informative in a specific way but I did find it interesting. The panelists were also for the most part funny and they kept the session very light and entertaining.
At night I went out with my friend from EA and met one of his bosses. His boss was very cool and really amsuing to talk to and also extremely important. While waiting for him to finish up a conversation Phil Harrison walked up to him to say hi. That night I also got to have my first "oh, you made that game moment". In class our teacher showed us a flash game to demonstrate how powerful flash is and what you can do with it. I met the dev of the game my teacher demonstrated and talked to him for a big part of the night (he made Fancy Pants). After meeting up with his boss we went to another bar for a bit, got dinner, and went to party that'd ran out of beer.
Cyaz
Thursday, March 26, 2009
GDC: Day 1
Hey,
Since I only purchased an Expo pass I could not attend the majority of the sessions at GDC. They did allow us to attend 1 session each in each discipline and one of them was a session on using Microsoft Project. I have very little experience with Microsoft Project but I wanted to go to the session anyways to at least get a small introduction to it. The session was very informative and well put together. The speaker clearly knew what he was talking about and had come up with proven techniques that helped make using Microsoft Project easier and more efficient. At the session I met an engineer who works at a small development house that makes games for the iPhone. He got his start in the industry right after he graduated college and has been making games ever since. He talked about how he really likes working at a small developer because he gets to fill many different roles since they have such a small staff.
The next session I attended was about running a development house with as little money as possible. The session was proposed/written over 6 months ago and acknowledged that fact that many things have changed since then. They explained how to keep costs low and that growing your company might not always be the safest route to take. They also emphasized seeing the code of a game they might work on before taking a new contract. During this session I only met some students who were exhausted after having driven all night to make it to the conference.
In between the sessions I went to the career pavilion to start getting acclimated and look to see which companies were there. I spent most of the day observing but I did talk to several graduate schools who had booths. I'm still not sure whether graduate school is the right choice for me but I looked anyways. Finding a graduate school that teaches video games and has a production track is very rare and in the end I only found 2 that had them. The companies I did talk to were not taking resumes so I felt that it didn't matter if I talked to them then or the next day when I had my resumes. I was not really good at starting up a conversation when I went up and would basically just ask about the job then move on to the next booth. I need to practice and come up with some questions that I can ask just to get a conversation started.
After being in the career pavilion for a few hours I went over to the expo/booth crawl. This is where all the game engines/new technology/anyone who wants a booth go to show off their products/give presentationts/answer questions. The highlights for me were this giant touch screen that had floating windows on it. You could throw them across the screen or resize them similar to an iPhone. It was just really cool to play with but had no real purpose. The other interesting thing was when I was walking around I saw a game I had played before on addictinggames.com called Castle Defender. I stood and watched the preview on the tv for a few minutes before being asked if I needed anything. I responded that I simply recognized the game and before I knew it I was talking to the developers. I was so in shock that I was talking to the developers that I completely failed to talk about myself and only asked a few questions about the game and moved on. I wish I had talked to the developers more and at the very least asked a few questions about breaking in.
After the expo were the Game Developer Choice awards. My friend was going out for his birthday with his girlfriend so I was alone for the night again. I found a group of what looked like students and sat down and started up a conversation with them. They ended up going to being in a video game program in Minnesota and were interesting to talk to. They had a very different view of college and seemed rather limited because of their very specific majors. They are probably more knowledgeable in the technical areas of game creation but they had no knowledge of anything else. I think you want a mix of both specific knowledge and general knowledge in order to be able to succeed in anything besides an entry level position. It'll be interesting to see the dispersion of video game majors and other majors once I get my first job in the industry.
The award ceremonies were very entertaining and exciting to be at. It was a cool experience to actually be there when they announced the winners rather than sitting at home reading gamasutra the next day. I'm not sure if I would necessarilly go again unless I had something in the running or someone I knew did. It was a good experience though and am happy I went.
Cyaz
Since I only purchased an Expo pass I could not attend the majority of the sessions at GDC. They did allow us to attend 1 session each in each discipline and one of them was a session on using Microsoft Project. I have very little experience with Microsoft Project but I wanted to go to the session anyways to at least get a small introduction to it. The session was very informative and well put together. The speaker clearly knew what he was talking about and had come up with proven techniques that helped make using Microsoft Project easier and more efficient. At the session I met an engineer who works at a small development house that makes games for the iPhone. He got his start in the industry right after he graduated college and has been making games ever since. He talked about how he really likes working at a small developer because he gets to fill many different roles since they have such a small staff.
The next session I attended was about running a development house with as little money as possible. The session was proposed/written over 6 months ago and acknowledged that fact that many things have changed since then. They explained how to keep costs low and that growing your company might not always be the safest route to take. They also emphasized seeing the code of a game they might work on before taking a new contract. During this session I only met some students who were exhausted after having driven all night to make it to the conference.
In between the sessions I went to the career pavilion to start getting acclimated and look to see which companies were there. I spent most of the day observing but I did talk to several graduate schools who had booths. I'm still not sure whether graduate school is the right choice for me but I looked anyways. Finding a graduate school that teaches video games and has a production track is very rare and in the end I only found 2 that had them. The companies I did talk to were not taking resumes so I felt that it didn't matter if I talked to them then or the next day when I had my resumes. I was not really good at starting up a conversation when I went up and would basically just ask about the job then move on to the next booth. I need to practice and come up with some questions that I can ask just to get a conversation started.
After being in the career pavilion for a few hours I went over to the expo/booth crawl. This is where all the game engines/new technology/anyone who wants a booth go to show off their products/give presentationts/answer questions. The highlights for me were this giant touch screen that had floating windows on it. You could throw them across the screen or resize them similar to an iPhone. It was just really cool to play with but had no real purpose. The other interesting thing was when I was walking around I saw a game I had played before on addictinggames.com called Castle Defender. I stood and watched the preview on the tv for a few minutes before being asked if I needed anything. I responded that I simply recognized the game and before I knew it I was talking to the developers. I was so in shock that I was talking to the developers that I completely failed to talk about myself and only asked a few questions about the game and moved on. I wish I had talked to the developers more and at the very least asked a few questions about breaking in.
After the expo were the Game Developer Choice awards. My friend was going out for his birthday with his girlfriend so I was alone for the night again. I found a group of what looked like students and sat down and started up a conversation with them. They ended up going to being in a video game program in Minnesota and were interesting to talk to. They had a very different view of college and seemed rather limited because of their very specific majors. They are probably more knowledgeable in the technical areas of game creation but they had no knowledge of anything else. I think you want a mix of both specific knowledge and general knowledge in order to be able to succeed in anything besides an entry level position. It'll be interesting to see the dispersion of video game majors and other majors once I get my first job in the industry.
The award ceremonies were very entertaining and exciting to be at. It was a cool experience to actually be there when they announced the winners rather than sitting at home reading gamasutra the next day. I'm not sure if I would necessarilly go again unless I had something in the running or someone I knew did. It was a good experience though and am happy I went.
Cyaz
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
GDC: The First Night
Hey,
I haven't written in a while but I'm at GDC and feel like what I'm learning/doing should be recorded somewhere. In the past I've kept my posts mainly to what I've read but I'm going to do several entries about each of my days at GDC. At first they will be in outline form as notes for myself. Once I get back to school I will go back and add more detail, descriptions, etc.
Once I got to San Francisco I dropped my stuff off and went a casual games party hosted by Zynga. My friend who I was staying with was at another party so I had to go alone which was pretty intimidating. I did finally start talking to people and received some interesting insights. The first person I talked to was a designer at a start up who I asked what advice he could give an aspiring producer. He told me that being able to talk to each part of development (art, programmers, design, etc) and then translate to other departments is one of the most important skills for a producer. He introduced me to a senior level employee at Microsoft who repeated much of the same thing to me.
I started wandering again at this point and met an artist at EA. He told me about how when he applied to EA he didn't have a college education and his portfolio was nowhere near today's standards. The times have clearly changed a lot and breaking into the industry is much more competitive. He also talked about the structure of the production department at EA. The production department is split between project managers and producers. The producers work with the development team and help with game play etc. The project managers work on the schedules and budgets for the games. He said that because of the split it creates a lot of "discussion" between each side but in the end having the powers seperated is beneficial. I can see how it can work effectively but I think that in certain situations it can cause large rifts between each of the sides. My friend finally arrived and i followed him around the room as he said Hi to everyone that he knew. I met a few flash developers bujt didn't get a chance to have a full conversation with them.
At the end of the event I was satisfied even though I didn't meet as many people as I would have liked. It is really hard going to an event like that without knowing anyone and in the future I'm going to try to always have someone there I know.
Cyaz
I haven't written in a while but I'm at GDC and feel like what I'm learning/doing should be recorded somewhere. In the past I've kept my posts mainly to what I've read but I'm going to do several entries about each of my days at GDC. At first they will be in outline form as notes for myself. Once I get back to school I will go back and add more detail, descriptions, etc.
Once I got to San Francisco I dropped my stuff off and went a casual games party hosted by Zynga. My friend who I was staying with was at another party so I had to go alone which was pretty intimidating. I did finally start talking to people and received some interesting insights. The first person I talked to was a designer at a start up who I asked what advice he could give an aspiring producer. He told me that being able to talk to each part of development (art, programmers, design, etc) and then translate to other departments is one of the most important skills for a producer. He introduced me to a senior level employee at Microsoft who repeated much of the same thing to me.
I started wandering again at this point and met an artist at EA. He told me about how when he applied to EA he didn't have a college education and his portfolio was nowhere near today's standards. The times have clearly changed a lot and breaking into the industry is much more competitive. He also talked about the structure of the production department at EA. The production department is split between project managers and producers. The producers work with the development team and help with game play etc. The project managers work on the schedules and budgets for the games. He said that because of the split it creates a lot of "discussion" between each side but in the end having the powers seperated is beneficial. I can see how it can work effectively but I think that in certain situations it can cause large rifts between each of the sides. My friend finally arrived and i followed him around the room as he said Hi to everyone that he knew. I met a few flash developers bujt didn't get a chance to have a full conversation with them.
At the end of the event I was satisfied even though I didn't meet as many people as I would have liked. It is really hard going to an event like that without knowing anyone and in the future I'm going to try to always have someone there I know.
Cyaz
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Response to Reshaping the Game Industry
Hey,
I read this article last week on Gamasutra and wanted to talk about it. The article is very wordy but was a really interesting read. The author basically says that the video game industry needs to change the way it operates. He suggests that rather than having development studios that keep the same staff project to project instead new teams should be put together for each project. This is similar to the current movie industry format.
I think that this format could work and would help some of the weaker studios. It would also help for projects with a lot of potential get the skilled development team they often lack. My main argument against it is why fix something that isn't broken. While there are studios that seem to peeter out after releasing a few successful games there are also studios that manage to keep producing great games with the same teams. Blizzard, Valve, and Bioware all come to mind when I think of succesful studios that have become known for consistently releasing high quality AAA titles. They have no incentive of sharing their talent with other studios when they have proven they can be successful using the same people. I understand that it could help the industry overall I just don't see studios letting their proven talent get away.
I also find the idea that developers would be willing to be out of a job after every production cycle unrealistic. Although the video game industry is not known for its job stability changing to the new format would be an extreme. Developers would demand much more pay and game prices would soar.
I think that the idea is an interesting one but I don't think it will come into existence anytime soon.
Cyaz
I read this article last week on Gamasutra and wanted to talk about it. The article is very wordy but was a really interesting read. The author basically says that the video game industry needs to change the way it operates. He suggests that rather than having development studios that keep the same staff project to project instead new teams should be put together for each project. This is similar to the current movie industry format.
I think that this format could work and would help some of the weaker studios. It would also help for projects with a lot of potential get the skilled development team they often lack. My main argument against it is why fix something that isn't broken. While there are studios that seem to peeter out after releasing a few successful games there are also studios that manage to keep producing great games with the same teams. Blizzard, Valve, and Bioware all come to mind when I think of succesful studios that have become known for consistently releasing high quality AAA titles. They have no incentive of sharing their talent with other studios when they have proven they can be successful using the same people. I understand that it could help the industry overall I just don't see studios letting their proven talent get away.
I also find the idea that developers would be willing to be out of a job after every production cycle unrealistic. Although the video game industry is not known for its job stability changing to the new format would be an extreme. Developers would demand much more pay and game prices would soar.
I think that the idea is an interesting one but I don't think it will come into existence anytime soon.
Cyaz
Sunday, January 25, 2009
PC Game Development
Hey,
I read an interesting article over at Gamasutra and wanted to write a bit about it. You can find the article here. The article covers 3 different issues facing PC games: accepting the differences between consoles and the PC, team size and returns, and myths about big budgets.
Each point hits key issues facing PC gaming and need to start being taken into account. Large NPD driven publishers put out AAA title after AAA title and churn out iterations for each console and the PC. Games like this barely ever fulfill expectations and often give the company a bad reputation. All of the consoles and the PC have something that they are better at than the others. This fact should be embraced by developers rather than fought with.
When a developer decides to put a game onto the PC they should look at all of the strengths of the PC and decide if it really is the appropriate place to develop. If you're a game that has a really complex interface and lots of differnt commands the PC is a great place to play it. There are other instances where developing for one or more of the consoles might be the best choice.
I think a lot of people underestimates the amount of people that play or even prefer playing computer games. Obviously the price stops a lot of peoplebut it does not stop everyone. The combined benefits of the PC being easy to develop on and the ability to have smaller teams makes the lack of as large an audience okay. As the article states some of the largest PC developers have the smallest teams.
One of the largest points thae article missed but was mentioned in the comments was personalization. The consoles are starting to realize that people love personalizing their space. The new interfaces for the Xb0x 360 and the PS3 are proof of this. Even with all that personalization the PC trumps them. The PC is an intimate experienceand gives you almost limitless options. Most PC games allow the player to edit the UI and customize it to their liking. This personalization is something unique to the PC and should be added to developer's lists when deciding to develop on the PC.
Cyaz
I read an interesting article over at Gamasutra and wanted to write a bit about it. You can find the article here. The article covers 3 different issues facing PC games: accepting the differences between consoles and the PC, team size and returns, and myths about big budgets.
Each point hits key issues facing PC gaming and need to start being taken into account. Large NPD driven publishers put out AAA title after AAA title and churn out iterations for each console and the PC. Games like this barely ever fulfill expectations and often give the company a bad reputation. All of the consoles and the PC have something that they are better at than the others. This fact should be embraced by developers rather than fought with.
When a developer decides to put a game onto the PC they should look at all of the strengths of the PC and decide if it really is the appropriate place to develop. If you're a game that has a really complex interface and lots of differnt commands the PC is a great place to play it. There are other instances where developing for one or more of the consoles might be the best choice.
I think a lot of people underestimates the amount of people that play or even prefer playing computer games. Obviously the price stops a lot of peoplebut it does not stop everyone. The combined benefits of the PC being easy to develop on and the ability to have smaller teams makes the lack of as large an audience okay. As the article states some of the largest PC developers have the smallest teams.
One of the largest points thae article missed but was mentioned in the comments was personalization. The consoles are starting to realize that people love personalizing their space. The new interfaces for the Xb0x 360 and the PS3 are proof of this. Even with all that personalization the PC trumps them. The PC is an intimate experienceand gives you almost limitless options. Most PC games allow the player to edit the UI and customize it to their liking. This personalization is something unique to the PC and should be added to developer's lists when deciding to develop on the PC.
Cyaz
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Portal (spoiler alert)
Hey,
I know I'm around a year behind but I finally played and beat Portal. I'm really bad at sitting down and completing a game so it took me a while before I finally got around to Portal. After completing the game I fully understand why it won so many awards. They managed to merge a great story with an innovative mechanic making an excellent game. Obviously I'd heard a lot about the game before getting a chance to play it but the game still managed to surprise me.
The start of the game made it seem like the game would be short and quick and simply show off the portal mechanic and mock you as you move through each floor. The only really surprising thing I ran into was the companion cube. I knew you had to kill it and maybe that made me feel no attachment but everyone else who has played the game felt bad about it. For me as soon as I realized I had to kill the companion cube I did it.
The supposed end of the game was when the real game began for me. I had no idea that the game wasn't supposed to end and I thought I had just found a cool secret area that led nowhere. It was perfectly done and accomplished a great balance of player skill and reward. I was completely confused and didn't understand why the game kept letting me explore. I eventually realized that I was supposed to keep going and quickly realized the great depth of the game.
I loved the ending and thought it wrapped the game up great. Hearing Glados telling me not to kill her and having her voice change as each piece was destroyed was great. The song that was rolling during the credits was even better. The story was very simplistic but it had this great comedic quality to it that made the game very endearing. You somehow feel connected to the game world and feel like your actions affect what is going on.
Although the game is very short it is a very hard experience to recreate. Most games can hold the quality that Portal does for short bursts but it never encompasses the whole experience. In WoW the quests often alude to other games or are easter eggs and you get the same feeling that Portal does. Figuring out how to create this experience in a full rpg should be a goal for designers.
Cyaz
I know I'm around a year behind but I finally played and beat Portal. I'm really bad at sitting down and completing a game so it took me a while before I finally got around to Portal. After completing the game I fully understand why it won so many awards. They managed to merge a great story with an innovative mechanic making an excellent game. Obviously I'd heard a lot about the game before getting a chance to play it but the game still managed to surprise me.
The start of the game made it seem like the game would be short and quick and simply show off the portal mechanic and mock you as you move through each floor. The only really surprising thing I ran into was the companion cube. I knew you had to kill it and maybe that made me feel no attachment but everyone else who has played the game felt bad about it. For me as soon as I realized I had to kill the companion cube I did it.
The supposed end of the game was when the real game began for me. I had no idea that the game wasn't supposed to end and I thought I had just found a cool secret area that led nowhere. It was perfectly done and accomplished a great balance of player skill and reward. I was completely confused and didn't understand why the game kept letting me explore. I eventually realized that I was supposed to keep going and quickly realized the great depth of the game.
I loved the ending and thought it wrapped the game up great. Hearing Glados telling me not to kill her and having her voice change as each piece was destroyed was great. The song that was rolling during the credits was even better. The story was very simplistic but it had this great comedic quality to it that made the game very endearing. You somehow feel connected to the game world and feel like your actions affect what is going on.
Although the game is very short it is a very hard experience to recreate. Most games can hold the quality that Portal does for short bursts but it never encompasses the whole experience. In WoW the quests often alude to other games or are easter eggs and you get the same feeling that Portal does. Figuring out how to create this experience in a full rpg should be a goal for designers.
Cyaz
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
The Game Pitch
Hey,
My last post really focused on pitching my game idea to my class and coincidentally Game Career Guide also had an article about pitching a game idea. http://www.gamecareerguide.com/news/21322/gamecraft_teaches_students_art_of_.php
The article really hit home on the problem with the majority of the pitches including my own. We all had the mindset that words could acurately describe our games. This was completely the wrong approach to pitching a game. Instead we should have found as many visuals as possible and used these to sell our game idea for us. Visuals are very easily understood and would have communicated our idea across much more strongly. The idea of designing the box for the game while designing it is a great one for getting the team to make the game concept into something understandable.
The other difficulty in pitching our games was that we did not have any prototype to show. Over the summer during my internship my boss was preparing for the green light of the project we were working on. This is different than the initial proposal but still similar in a few ways. She had to prove that the game was actually worth continuing to produce. She prepared sales figures of past games in the franchise, had a complete rough draft of the game design document, concept art for each scene, and a short playable demo. This is way too much to have expected from us in our class but shows that having a prototype available is invaluable to showing off a project.
Next time I have to give a proposal I will focus on making my game idea more understandable and increase the amount of excitement surrounding it. Looking back I realize that although my game idea was easily understood the game was not as exciting as some of the other less understandable games.
Cyaz
My last post really focused on pitching my game idea to my class and coincidentally Game Career Guide also had an article about pitching a game idea. http://www.gamecareerguide.com/news/21322/gamecraft_teaches_students_art_of_.php
The article really hit home on the problem with the majority of the pitches including my own. We all had the mindset that words could acurately describe our games. This was completely the wrong approach to pitching a game. Instead we should have found as many visuals as possible and used these to sell our game idea for us. Visuals are very easily understood and would have communicated our idea across much more strongly. The idea of designing the box for the game while designing it is a great one for getting the team to make the game concept into something understandable.
The other difficulty in pitching our games was that we did not have any prototype to show. Over the summer during my internship my boss was preparing for the green light of the project we were working on. This is different than the initial proposal but still similar in a few ways. She had to prove that the game was actually worth continuing to produce. She prepared sales figures of past games in the franchise, had a complete rough draft of the game design document, concept art for each scene, and a short playable demo. This is way too much to have expected from us in our class but shows that having a prototype available is invaluable to showing off a project.
Next time I have to give a proposal I will focus on making my game idea more understandable and increase the amount of excitement surrounding it. Looking back I realize that although my game idea was easily understood the game was not as exciting as some of the other less understandable games.
Cyaz
Monday, December 1, 2008
The Human Body Presentation and Rambling
Hey,
Today my group got to presented our game to a panel. The first day of presentations our class had a developer from EA with a few years experience and a video game analyst who has studied the industry for many years and has years of experience. The second day of presentations we were supposed to get a past editor of Computer Gaming World and been a part of the video game industry for a lot of his professional life. He was unfortunately unable to make it and instead two graduate students sat in for him.
The project is very similar to one I have done before so I had some experience before we started it. The assignment is to write up a concept document for an original video game idea then to pitch the idea to a group of panelists. My past experience was a good one. I enjoyed working on an original video game idea with a group of people but not everyone was excited and enthusiastic as I was. Also during the pitch I realized how hard it was to explain a full AAA title to a group of people who had not participated in the design process. It was even harder because the game was not even fully fleshed out in our minds, the actual designers! For this time around I decided to design a flash game with a significantly smaller scope and planned it as a student developed project.
I feel like the concept document came out better this time then it did the last. The handicap of having students who are not as excited and enthusiastic as me was significantly lessened because I made the game design one that anyone could understand. It was very easily translated into a language that a non-video game player. I did this with the thought in mind that for the presentation I would easily be able to explain our idea making it hard for the panel to find faults in our core concept.
On the first day of presentations the core concept is exactly what the panelists focused on. They might have commented on the details but they focused on the core concepts. One of the panelists went so far as to award the game that he thought was the worst simply because they did the best job of communicating their core concept across. He brought up a very stark fact, of the video game industry, that a lot of the executives in charge, of deciding which games are made, are not gamers.
On the second day of presentations the graduate students did not focus on the core concepts. They focused on the details and the flimsy details of what the games would be. I've heard all of the pitches twice and still had only vague ideas of what the core game play was for some of the games. The graduate students have the same optimism as many of the students and did not focus on the fact that the game play was never really explained. It was really frustrating to watch and to deal with. At the end the other two games were chosen as better presentations and better games.
I've been trying to take an outside approach as to why my game was not liked. The only conclusion that I have made is the one I made before. The difference between an experienced game developer and an unexperienced one is that an experienced developer knows the reality of the video game industry. They realize that good game play is the core of making good games. They also realize that explaining what game they are making is the most important skill to have. I am still extremely optimistic for the video game industry but I accept and am excited to work to overcome the harsh realities. The other students that understand this are the ones I like talking to and enjoy working with.
Cyaz
Today my group got to presented our game to a panel. The first day of presentations our class had a developer from EA with a few years experience and a video game analyst who has studied the industry for many years and has years of experience. The second day of presentations we were supposed to get a past editor of Computer Gaming World and been a part of the video game industry for a lot of his professional life. He was unfortunately unable to make it and instead two graduate students sat in for him.
The project is very similar to one I have done before so I had some experience before we started it. The assignment is to write up a concept document for an original video game idea then to pitch the idea to a group of panelists. My past experience was a good one. I enjoyed working on an original video game idea with a group of people but not everyone was excited and enthusiastic as I was. Also during the pitch I realized how hard it was to explain a full AAA title to a group of people who had not participated in the design process. It was even harder because the game was not even fully fleshed out in our minds, the actual designers! For this time around I decided to design a flash game with a significantly smaller scope and planned it as a student developed project.
I feel like the concept document came out better this time then it did the last. The handicap of having students who are not as excited and enthusiastic as me was significantly lessened because I made the game design one that anyone could understand. It was very easily translated into a language that a non-video game player. I did this with the thought in mind that for the presentation I would easily be able to explain our idea making it hard for the panel to find faults in our core concept.
On the first day of presentations the core concept is exactly what the panelists focused on. They might have commented on the details but they focused on the core concepts. One of the panelists went so far as to award the game that he thought was the worst simply because they did the best job of communicating their core concept across. He brought up a very stark fact, of the video game industry, that a lot of the executives in charge, of deciding which games are made, are not gamers.
On the second day of presentations the graduate students did not focus on the core concepts. They focused on the details and the flimsy details of what the games would be. I've heard all of the pitches twice and still had only vague ideas of what the core game play was for some of the games. The graduate students have the same optimism as many of the students and did not focus on the fact that the game play was never really explained. It was really frustrating to watch and to deal with. At the end the other two games were chosen as better presentations and better games.
I've been trying to take an outside approach as to why my game was not liked. The only conclusion that I have made is the one I made before. The difference between an experienced game developer and an unexperienced one is that an experienced developer knows the reality of the video game industry. They realize that good game play is the core of making good games. They also realize that explaining what game they are making is the most important skill to have. I am still extremely optimistic for the video game industry but I accept and am excited to work to overcome the harsh realities. The other students that understand this are the ones I like talking to and enjoy working with.
Cyaz
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Human Body
Hey,
I came to the realization the other day that this is a great place to write about current projects. I am not allowed to talk about much of anything concerning LondonTown but I am also working on a project for one of my classes. The assignment was to write up a concept document for an original video game idea. The teacher had everyone in the class propose their ideas then the class voted on which ones they wanted to work on. Out of the 30 or so proposed ideas mine was chosen.
I had taken a class taught by this professor previously and wanted to design a game that actually fell into the scope of a student project. In the previous class I took we designed another game design a came up with that was supposed to be a AAA title and was unsatisfied with the outcome. For this project I designed a Flash based game that was within the scope of a student project. I really want to try and make this game after we finish the concept document.
Writing the concept document with 4 other people was really difficult for me. The idea was mine and letting go and accepting others input is very hard. I think that I did a good job letting everyone give their opinion and that everyone can point to something they contributed. I tried to just focus on maintaining the vision I had but letting the details be created by whoever had the best idea.
At first I think that some of the members of my group were not sure about how I was running things but as time went on I think they liked it. It is always interesting working in groups while in school because everyone has a different agenda. Some students want to get the best grades possible, some students are just there because they were told to be, and others fall somewhere in the middle. In order to properly lead a group you have to figure out how motivated each person is and what their skill set is. It is fun figuring it out and trying to make it work.
The next step in the project is to find other students to actually make the game. I would take on the producer and designer roles on it and would need to find a programming, sound, and art team. I think the game is within the scope of making within a semester. We'll see if I can get this project moving forward and I'll try and keep posting back on progress.
Cyaz
I came to the realization the other day that this is a great place to write about current projects. I am not allowed to talk about much of anything concerning LondonTown but I am also working on a project for one of my classes. The assignment was to write up a concept document for an original video game idea. The teacher had everyone in the class propose their ideas then the class voted on which ones they wanted to work on. Out of the 30 or so proposed ideas mine was chosen.
I had taken a class taught by this professor previously and wanted to design a game that actually fell into the scope of a student project. In the previous class I took we designed another game design a came up with that was supposed to be a AAA title and was unsatisfied with the outcome. For this project I designed a Flash based game that was within the scope of a student project. I really want to try and make this game after we finish the concept document.
Writing the concept document with 4 other people was really difficult for me. The idea was mine and letting go and accepting others input is very hard. I think that I did a good job letting everyone give their opinion and that everyone can point to something they contributed. I tried to just focus on maintaining the vision I had but letting the details be created by whoever had the best idea.
At first I think that some of the members of my group were not sure about how I was running things but as time went on I think they liked it. It is always interesting working in groups while in school because everyone has a different agenda. Some students want to get the best grades possible, some students are just there because they were told to be, and others fall somewhere in the middle. In order to properly lead a group you have to figure out how motivated each person is and what their skill set is. It is fun figuring it out and trying to make it work.
The next step in the project is to find other students to actually make the game. I would take on the producer and designer roles on it and would need to find a programming, sound, and art team. I think the game is within the scope of making within a semester. We'll see if I can get this project moving forward and I'll try and keep posting back on progress.
Cyaz
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
PC Gaming Rigs
Hey,
I believe that the biggest factor holding back PC gaming is the cost. Even a mediocre PC costs around $800. You can build a decent rig or get a pretty good deal on a custom made PC for around $1,500. Then there are the high end rigs that can cost upwards of $5,000. A PS3, the most expensive of the consoles from this generation, costs only $400 making it much more attractive to most consumers.
The thing about a console is that it really only lasts for the current generation. After the next generation comes out your console is no longer supported by the majority of developers. The good games are still good but you will never get anything new and the console has no other purpose than to play games. A PC does thousands of different things.
My gaming rig is around 5-6 years old. I have had one hard drive failure and I upgraded the ram and graphics card 2 summers ago for $200. When I bought the computer it cost $1,500 with a monitor. I already had speakers and I have purchased a new monitor for $500 3 years ago. So in total I have spent around $2,200 on a piece of equipment that I mainly use to play video games. This seems a little ridiculous considering I could spend significantly less and get basically the same experience.
Yet for some reason there are thousands of people out there that continue to play video games on their computers. Some exclusively play video games on their computers and some play on both consoles and computers. I am strong proponent of PC gaming but also have a strong respect for consoles. The PC gaming market lately has been struggling on though despite all the odds.
I think that the gaming rig has a certain allure to it, especially if you build it yourself. You start to feel attached to it and you can really customize it. Every PC you turn on is just slightly different while every console is almost completely identical. Having a fast PC is also a hobby similar to cars. Some people constantly mod and upgrade different parts to see how far they can push their machine.
I'm not really sure where I wanted this post to go when I started writing it. It kind of ended up being a short summary of PC gaming rigs without any real insights into anything. I guess my point was that PC gaming does exist regardless of any real rational reasoning. It will probably go on forever as a hobby but it could shrink to insignificance. MMOs right now are almost solely played on PCs but eventually they will be adapted for console play. RTS's and FPS have already made the transition.
That was more of a ramble than anything very insightful but my rambling thoughts count as thoughts too.
Cyaz
I believe that the biggest factor holding back PC gaming is the cost. Even a mediocre PC costs around $800. You can build a decent rig or get a pretty good deal on a custom made PC for around $1,500. Then there are the high end rigs that can cost upwards of $5,000. A PS3, the most expensive of the consoles from this generation, costs only $400 making it much more attractive to most consumers.
The thing about a console is that it really only lasts for the current generation. After the next generation comes out your console is no longer supported by the majority of developers. The good games are still good but you will never get anything new and the console has no other purpose than to play games. A PC does thousands of different things.
My gaming rig is around 5-6 years old. I have had one hard drive failure and I upgraded the ram and graphics card 2 summers ago for $200. When I bought the computer it cost $1,500 with a monitor. I already had speakers and I have purchased a new monitor for $500 3 years ago. So in total I have spent around $2,200 on a piece of equipment that I mainly use to play video games. This seems a little ridiculous considering I could spend significantly less and get basically the same experience.
Yet for some reason there are thousands of people out there that continue to play video games on their computers. Some exclusively play video games on their computers and some play on both consoles and computers. I am strong proponent of PC gaming but also have a strong respect for consoles. The PC gaming market lately has been struggling on though despite all the odds.
I think that the gaming rig has a certain allure to it, especially if you build it yourself. You start to feel attached to it and you can really customize it. Every PC you turn on is just slightly different while every console is almost completely identical. Having a fast PC is also a hobby similar to cars. Some people constantly mod and upgrade different parts to see how far they can push their machine.
I'm not really sure where I wanted this post to go when I started writing it. It kind of ended up being a short summary of PC gaming rigs without any real insights into anything. I guess my point was that PC gaming does exist regardless of any real rational reasoning. It will probably go on forever as a hobby but it could shrink to insignificance. MMOs right now are almost solely played on PCs but eventually they will be adapted for console play. RTS's and FPS have already made the transition.
That was more of a ramble than anything very insightful but my rambling thoughts count as thoughts too.
Cyaz
Monday, November 3, 2008
Response to Email and New Conclusions on Casual Gaming
Hey,
I never got around to writing a response to the emails and my last post on casual gamers due to being sick all week. Better late than never though.
I've read over my email, my previous post, and thought about all I learned during my internship and come up with some new ideas. In the emails I described the mass market and how people are starting to realize the existence of it. I still think that the idea of a mass market needs to be spread around and that we need to stop dividing the market solely between core and casual. By simply splitting the market between casual and core a divide is created that keeps gamers from trying to cross the divide. A core gamer will not play casual games because he gets the impression they are boring and a casual gamer will not play core games for fear they are too difficult. The mass market creates a middle ground that both groups can play in where they learn that the divide between the two is not as impassable as they originally believed.
The mass market meets the criteria I proposed in my older post. Mass market games give the same experience to both casual gamers as it does to core gamers. Guitar Hero is the best example of this. Both core gamers and casual gamers get the same experience out of the game, playing rock and roll as though they are on stage at a rock concert.
The time commitment of mass market games is completely up to the player. Players can play as long as they want and they will generally get the same experience. I don't agree anymore that time alone defines the difference between a casual gamer and a core gamer. They really are completely different markets. But they are not the only two markets. The mass market is where time commitment loses its affect on who plays. I believe that the mass market games is where the majority of the industry growth will come from in the next couple of years.
I don't know if that really was a response to the emails or just rambling but it is something.
Cyaz
I never got around to writing a response to the emails and my last post on casual gamers due to being sick all week. Better late than never though.
I've read over my email, my previous post, and thought about all I learned during my internship and come up with some new ideas. In the emails I described the mass market and how people are starting to realize the existence of it. I still think that the idea of a mass market needs to be spread around and that we need to stop dividing the market solely between core and casual. By simply splitting the market between casual and core a divide is created that keeps gamers from trying to cross the divide. A core gamer will not play casual games because he gets the impression they are boring and a casual gamer will not play core games for fear they are too difficult. The mass market creates a middle ground that both groups can play in where they learn that the divide between the two is not as impassable as they originally believed.
The mass market meets the criteria I proposed in my older post. Mass market games give the same experience to both casual gamers as it does to core gamers. Guitar Hero is the best example of this. Both core gamers and casual gamers get the same experience out of the game, playing rock and roll as though they are on stage at a rock concert.
The time commitment of mass market games is completely up to the player. Players can play as long as they want and they will generally get the same experience. I don't agree anymore that time alone defines the difference between a casual gamer and a core gamer. They really are completely different markets. But they are not the only two markets. The mass market is where time commitment loses its affect on who plays. I believe that the mass market games is where the majority of the industry growth will come from in the next couple of years.
I don't know if that really was a response to the emails or just rambling but it is something.
Cyaz
Monday, October 27, 2008
Email Discussion on Casual Gamers
Hey,
Over the summer I received an email from someone who read the casual gamer post in my blog and wanted my opinion on casual gamers buying a gaming laptop. Here are the email transcripts.
------------------------------------
Hi Doug,
i am from germany and i am currently interested in thoughts and opinions related to gaming. I just read your article on casual gamers and i think you are absolutely right with what you said about the differences between casual and core gamers. That is why i would like to ask you whether you can tell your opinion on this topic:
Do you think that a casual gamer (in your definiton) would ever buy a "gamer laptop" (like the ones "alienware" sells)?
Your answer will be treated in strict confidence and will not be passed on to third parties. This is not for selling purposes.
Thank you very much for your help!
"Reader"
------------------------------------------
Hi "Reader",
I'm in total shock that someone else besides myself actually read my blog. I obviously have been slacking and haven't posted to it in a while. Right now I'm currently a production intern at a casual game company so I have a lot more knowledge then I did when I wrote that article. My opinion has changed a lot since then and I really should go and write some more posts now that I have some insider information.
To your question, I would say that a casual gamer would never buy a gamer laptop. The company I'm currently at has a goal of making sure their games will run on a computer 5 years old. This is because casual gamers are not technologically inclined and won't upgrade their computers until basic functions stop working. They have no need to have the newest and fastest graphics card because all they are really doing is word processing and checking their email.
I say all of this with the definition in mind that there is a three-way split in the video game industry consumer. There is the core gamer, generally male, who plays games 20 hours a week. There is the casual gamer who is, generally an older female, who plays games only a few hours a week. Then there is this new category that I have just learned about and agree with called the mass market consumer. This is where I would put consumers who like games like Guitar Hero or Rock Band but are not core or casual gamers. Clearly both of those games are not core AAA titles like Halo or Call of Duty, they are just as popular but they are not played solely by the core gamer. These mass market consumers are kind of the middle ground between core and casual gamers. The mass market consumer actually might buy a gamer laptop because they want to become more of a core gamer or are just interested in the technology.
From a completely personal standpoint, I would never buy a gamer laptop even as a core gamer. I know that laptops can now almost match desktop speeds but to get there you pay almost twice as much. I also don't plan on playing a core game while I'm traveling. I would rather have a solid desktop to play on that costs less and is faster. That is not to say that I don't own a laptop that is a little bit faster than is really needed but I would not buy a full on gamer laptop. I bought a laptop that is fast enough so that I could potentially play a game if I really felt the need to but it won't run well and might not run at all.
I rambled a little bit there but I think I answered your question.
------------------------
Hi Doug,
thank you very much for your help! Currently we are really trying to find a word for these gamers that are somewhere inbetween casual gamers and hardcore gamers. So your answer was a great help. So in the end your blog will have an influence on the video game industry!! Hope to read some more interesting things from you in the future.
I wish you the best
"Reader"
----------------------
I'll write a followup later this week more thoroughly discussing the video game markets. I'll also respond to my earlier post about casual gamers.
Cyaz
Monday, October 20, 2008
Improvement and Innovation
Hey,
The progression of video games has generally followed a very steady upward slope where games get more complex and more design elements are added as technology and player skill increases. People tend to complain that some new game is just like a game that came out the year before and that the game from the year before is just like the game the year before that. This is because games are normally between 60-80% improvement and 20% innovation. The creation of video games is no longer done by someone in their basement in their free time. It costs millions of dollars and oftentimes a large dedicated team. Doing something completely different is so rare because the cost of failure is so high.
Games with that type of balance have proven to be successful. Halo although innovative for the console and a good game was simply moving the first person shooter to the console. There is no huge innovation in the game play. The game is extremely successful though and has had 2 sequels. The developers simply made the first first person shooter to work on consoles. That was the innovation the rest is just improvement on the first person shooter genre.
Another example of a successful game like this is WoW. A lot of the game play is not new or innovative but it is better than its predecessors. Blizzard took what they knew worked in past games improved it and then put it in their game. They did innovate with instances, battlegrounds, etc too but a lot of the game is simply improvement.
The innovation in these games is just as important as the improvements. If the game only had improvements the game would be boring. The innovations do make the game but they shouldn't be the sole focus of the design.
The video game industry needs to study these unique cases of simple improvement and small innovation and learn to create it on a regular basis. Making a complete copycat where all the developers do is improve the last game is generally not successful. Making a game that is completely innovative and untested is also generally unsuccessful. That is not to say that they never succeed just that the chance of success is much less. I think that being able to tell these two types of games apart and specifically classify each aspect will help make better games.
Too often games are made that are copycats that are boring or innovations that players simply don't understand. A balance is necessary. Game design seems to be based on that balance.
Cyaz
The progression of video games has generally followed a very steady upward slope where games get more complex and more design elements are added as technology and player skill increases. People tend to complain that some new game is just like a game that came out the year before and that the game from the year before is just like the game the year before that. This is because games are normally between 60-80% improvement and 20% innovation. The creation of video games is no longer done by someone in their basement in their free time. It costs millions of dollars and oftentimes a large dedicated team. Doing something completely different is so rare because the cost of failure is so high.
Games with that type of balance have proven to be successful. Halo although innovative for the console and a good game was simply moving the first person shooter to the console. There is no huge innovation in the game play. The game is extremely successful though and has had 2 sequels. The developers simply made the first first person shooter to work on consoles. That was the innovation the rest is just improvement on the first person shooter genre.
Another example of a successful game like this is WoW. A lot of the game play is not new or innovative but it is better than its predecessors. Blizzard took what they knew worked in past games improved it and then put it in their game. They did innovate with instances, battlegrounds, etc too but a lot of the game is simply improvement.
The innovation in these games is just as important as the improvements. If the game only had improvements the game would be boring. The innovations do make the game but they shouldn't be the sole focus of the design.
The video game industry needs to study these unique cases of simple improvement and small innovation and learn to create it on a regular basis. Making a complete copycat where all the developers do is improve the last game is generally not successful. Making a game that is completely innovative and untested is also generally unsuccessful. That is not to say that they never succeed just that the chance of success is much less. I think that being able to tell these two types of games apart and specifically classify each aspect will help make better games.
Too often games are made that are copycats that are boring or innovations that players simply don't understand. A balance is necessary. Game design seems to be based on that balance.
Cyaz
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
New Start...etc
Hi,
I've been pretty bad at posting anything here and by pretty bad I mean not for several months. A lot has happened in that time and most of my old views about the video game industry I no longer agree with. That is the point of a blog though. To state my opinion on something at the time and get other people's comments. The comments part has not been happening so far but hopefully by actually posting I'll get some attention at some point. Anyways.....
Over the summer I managed to get an internship through a family friend at a casual video game company. It was the best learning experience I have ever had. Learning how to be a producer is incredibly hard to do while in school. It is very much a hands on kind of job and the only real way to learn while in school is to make games. Making games is exactly what I got to do.
I was ready to get an internship where all I did all day was follow a producer around and basically do busy work. This was not the case at all. I was a full assistant producer on a game. The producer I was working under tried very hard to give me an entire section that I could work on during the seven weeks that I was there. The game I was working on was in pre-production and all of the sound had yet to be worked out. By the end of the internship I had set up all of the sound for pre-production. The game I was working on was the first at the company to use voice over and I had to work with the 3rd party sound design studio and the game designers to gather all of the information necessary. I got an initial estimate for voice over and then added it into the schedule so that the producer could move forward with it after I left. I also did a preliminary revision of the sound request form adding in all the new sound effects we would need.
All of the sound work was only half the work I did over the summer but I it was the most significant. Near the end of my internship I realized that I had really worked on a making a video game and there was tangible evidence of the work I did. It was one of the coolest experiences I've ever had.
All of the work I did over the summer was a great learning experience but also just simply working in a video game company gave me insights that would have been impossible to get otherwise. That is one of the main reasons I want to start writing here again. This will be an exercise in seeing what I now think compared to before my internship and just a general way to track my thoughts. In the future my posts will hopefully be less about me and more about opinions about other people and the video game industry. We'll see what happens.
Cyaz
I've been pretty bad at posting anything here and by pretty bad I mean not for several months. A lot has happened in that time and most of my old views about the video game industry I no longer agree with. That is the point of a blog though. To state my opinion on something at the time and get other people's comments. The comments part has not been happening so far but hopefully by actually posting I'll get some attention at some point. Anyways.....
Over the summer I managed to get an internship through a family friend at a casual video game company. It was the best learning experience I have ever had. Learning how to be a producer is incredibly hard to do while in school. It is very much a hands on kind of job and the only real way to learn while in school is to make games. Making games is exactly what I got to do.
I was ready to get an internship where all I did all day was follow a producer around and basically do busy work. This was not the case at all. I was a full assistant producer on a game. The producer I was working under tried very hard to give me an entire section that I could work on during the seven weeks that I was there. The game I was working on was in pre-production and all of the sound had yet to be worked out. By the end of the internship I had set up all of the sound for pre-production. The game I was working on was the first at the company to use voice over and I had to work with the 3rd party sound design studio and the game designers to gather all of the information necessary. I got an initial estimate for voice over and then added it into the schedule so that the producer could move forward with it after I left. I also did a preliminary revision of the sound request form adding in all the new sound effects we would need.
All of the sound work was only half the work I did over the summer but I it was the most significant. Near the end of my internship I realized that I had really worked on a making a video game and there was tangible evidence of the work I did. It was one of the coolest experiences I've ever had.
All of the work I did over the summer was a great learning experience but also just simply working in a video game company gave me insights that would have been impossible to get otherwise. That is one of the main reasons I want to start writing here again. This will be an exercise in seeing what I now think compared to before my internship and just a general way to track my thoughts. In the future my posts will hopefully be less about me and more about opinions about other people and the video game industry. We'll see what happens.
Cyaz
Monday, February 4, 2008
Nintendo's Seal of Quality
There was a feature article posted on Gamasutra a couple of weeks ago that talked about Analyze This's opinion on whether or not Nintendo should bring back their seal of quality. Their opinion was that the seal of quality was really only created to stop piracy and ensure the game was suitable for the whole family. I agree that the seal of quality did those things but it also ensured that games made for the Nintendo were decent games. They would not let in games that they thought were bad. Nintendo forced companies to let them do a final review of their game and if they didn't like it Nintendo would tell them how to change their game. I'm not saying Nintendo should start such stringent monitoring of games that they allow on their system but they should do something if the publics opinion is that there are a lot of bad games. Even if the opinion is not correct Nintendo needs to do something besides putting out great 1st party titles which only makes the problem seem worse.
Cyaz
Cyaz
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Why Casual? What Direction?
I haven't posted in a while because I've been busy with school and life. I also just haven't seen anything that has compelled me to right a response to. I finally read a feature on Gamasutra to that was an interview with one of the developers of Twisted Metal and God of War, David Jaffe. Twisted Metal was one of my favorite games on the Playstation and I was really excited to read the interview. The interview went through the normal steps and asked what he was working on and what he had done in the past but at some point Jaffe started talking about where he thought the industry was going. He kind of started talking about it when he was asked what he was working on now.
He mentioned that he was one of the youngest people working at the new development studio he just started at age 36. To me at age 20 that seems really old and although I know it is not that old I still have the perception from society that at some point I should stop playing video games. When I think about myself I hope to be playing games all my life but society says otherwise. He then mentions that at age 36 he no longer has as much time to play games anymore and that the mainstream titles are just not in his realm anymore. That is not to say that at his age he doesn't enjoy them anymore he just no longer has the time and can't devote the time needed to really enjoy the game. (Examples: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Call of Duty 4) Because he can no longer play these kind of AAA titles anymore he doesn't really want to make that type of game anymore. What does this say of the direction of the video game industry?
This is why there is this sudden boom in casual games. The developers that used to be making the hardcore games are now older and making casual games. The casual market is not a new thing, just no one wanted to create games for it. This is also probably why a lot of the great recent titles have come from smaller studios that are still taking in new and young talent. Studios that are older and have an older age employees are starting to move into the casual market. This is not to say that all studios are falling into this just that it is a trend that I have noticed. I think the industry will survive but for a while the focus will be on casual games until the gap that is being created in the hardcore market is filled again.
Cyaz
He mentioned that he was one of the youngest people working at the new development studio he just started at age 36. To me at age 20 that seems really old and although I know it is not that old I still have the perception from society that at some point I should stop playing video games. When I think about myself I hope to be playing games all my life but society says otherwise. He then mentions that at age 36 he no longer has as much time to play games anymore and that the mainstream titles are just not in his realm anymore. That is not to say that at his age he doesn't enjoy them anymore he just no longer has the time and can't devote the time needed to really enjoy the game. (Examples: Bioshock, Mass Effect, Call of Duty 4) Because he can no longer play these kind of AAA titles anymore he doesn't really want to make that type of game anymore. What does this say of the direction of the video game industry?
This is why there is this sudden boom in casual games. The developers that used to be making the hardcore games are now older and making casual games. The casual market is not a new thing, just no one wanted to create games for it. This is also probably why a lot of the great recent titles have come from smaller studios that are still taking in new and young talent. Studios that are older and have an older age employees are starting to move into the casual market. This is not to say that all studios are falling into this just that it is a trend that I have noticed. I think the industry will survive but for a while the focus will be on casual games until the gap that is being created in the hardcore market is filled again.
Cyaz
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
What Is a Casual Gamer?
I read an article posted today on gamasutra, it was an opinion piece about what are casual gamers. It was written by Russell Carroll who started righting a weekly column on casual games. I basically agreed with everything she said in the article except when he listed the reasons casual gamers play games versus the reasons core gamers play games.
I consider myself part of the core gamer category. I easily play 20 hours a week when I have a game to play. In the article he states that the core gamer plays games for entertainment purposes but that is not enough for casual gamers. I think that some casual gamers do play games just for entertainment. Entertainment is defined as "amusement or diversion provided especially by performers or something diverting or engaging" on Webster. All video games give you some sort of diversion from life meaning that all games are forms of entertainment. Core and casual gamers may be looking for different amounts of entertainments but I believe one of the main reasons anyone plays video games is for entertainment.
The other part of the article I disagreed with was what the different types of gamers expect out of a game in terms of reasons to play the game. The article says, "they may be looking for stress relief, learning, distraction, self-improvement, or simply a pleasant way to spend time with friends. Instead of looking for excitement, adventure or competition like the core gamer, casual gamers often want to feel that their time is being used beneficially." I don't agree that you can really separate the differences between casual and core gamers besides for time constraints. The biggest difference between casual and core gamers is that core gamers will spend more time playing games than casual gamers. Both types of gamers like playing the same types of games they just play at different skill levels and get different things out of playing. There are some games that are just too difficult for a casual gamer to play because they don't have enough time to practice but most games both types of gamers can play.
There seems to be a large stereotype that games for casual gamers need to be a certain way in order to appeal to them. But if you take a step back you can see that casual gamers are casual gamers because of time commitment not because of a particular preference for a certain type of game. The day someone figures out the way to make it so both casual and core gamers are able to get the same experience out of a game the game industry will go through a revolution...
Cyaz
I consider myself part of the core gamer category. I easily play 20 hours a week when I have a game to play. In the article he states that the core gamer plays games for entertainment purposes but that is not enough for casual gamers. I think that some casual gamers do play games just for entertainment. Entertainment is defined as "amusement or diversion provided especially by performers or something diverting or engaging" on Webster. All video games give you some sort of diversion from life meaning that all games are forms of entertainment. Core and casual gamers may be looking for different amounts of entertainments but I believe one of the main reasons anyone plays video games is for entertainment.
The other part of the article I disagreed with was what the different types of gamers expect out of a game in terms of reasons to play the game. The article says, "they may be looking for stress relief, learning, distraction, self-improvement, or simply a pleasant way to spend time with friends. Instead of looking for excitement, adventure or competition like the core gamer, casual gamers often want to feel that their time is being used beneficially." I don't agree that you can really separate the differences between casual and core gamers besides for time constraints. The biggest difference between casual and core gamers is that core gamers will spend more time playing games than casual gamers. Both types of gamers like playing the same types of games they just play at different skill levels and get different things out of playing. There are some games that are just too difficult for a casual gamer to play because they don't have enough time to practice but most games both types of gamers can play.
There seems to be a large stereotype that games for casual gamers need to be a certain way in order to appeal to them. But if you take a step back you can see that casual gamers are casual gamers because of time commitment not because of a particular preference for a certain type of game. The day someone figures out the way to make it so both casual and core gamers are able to get the same experience out of a game the game industry will go through a revolution...
Cyaz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
