That's a lot to take in, but I think you disregard the independent market a little too much:
Mom and Pop game shops do exist, if you look hard enough, and while they might not have the pre-order power that Gamestop has, sometimes they hold fantastic deals on older games, used games, and sometimes newer stuff as well. They somehow manage to stay in business, and if you really want to help stop Gamestop, find and support these little guys.
Furthermore, it sounds like you think Indie games and studios are irrelevant and can't compete with the big guys (That's what I'm gathering, anyway). Indie games are actually on the rise right now (Considering development costs are actually going DOWN if you aren't aiming to make something that looks like Skyrim), and no better example of that is Steam. Steam supports hundreds of independent games and developers, and is a pretty open platform when you compare it to something like XBLA or the PSN.
Long and the short: I don't think it's as bleak as you think it is. There's still hope out there, and it seems like every day gamers are getting more and more frustrated with all the problems you've stated. One day, we'll all get sick of it, I assure you, and some change within the industry will happen.
Until then, and when that happens, I will keep buying games I enjoy, from wherever they come from.
Mom and Pop game shops do exist, if you look hard enough, and while they might not have the pre-order power that Gamestop has, sometimes they hold fantastic deals on older games, used games, and sometimes newer stuff as well. They somehow manage to stay in business, and if you really want to help stop Gamestop, find and support these little guys.
Furthermore, it sounds like you think Indie games and studios are irrelevant and can't compete with the big guys (That's what I'm gathering, anyway). Indie games are actually on the rise right now (Considering development costs are actually going DOWN if you aren't aiming to make something that looks like Skyrim), and no better example of that is Steam. Steam supports hundreds of independent games and developers, and is a pretty open platform when you compare it to something like XBLA or the PSN.
Long and the short: I don't think it's as bleak as you think it is. There's still hope out there, and it seems like every day gamers are getting more and more frustrated with all the problems you've stated. One day, we'll all get sick of it, I assure you, and some change within the industry will happen.
Until then, and when that happens, I will keep buying games I enjoy, from wherever they come from.
The problem is that those independent operations cannot make a big enough dent, or have enough influence or market share, to offer enough of an alternative to make the rest of the market change their behavior. Which goes back to concentration ratios.
It's not that I discount them. They just don't have enough influence because these publishers swing their clubs around without no care or worry.
It's not that I discount them. They just don't have enough influence because these publishers swing their clubs around without no care or worry.
You're being waaaaay too mathematical in your approach. Influence and Market Share? That's not what the games industry is about.
The industry at large be damned: If Indie developers start producing better games than the mainstream big guys, gamers will buy their games. We're not in a market like food where you literally have to buy some form of food to survive. Gaming is big, but it's all a luxury, and we can all afford to be picky.
Big companies will not be able to stomp out Indie developers, because that's not how it works. Whoever makes the best games will bubble to the surface. It just so happens that a lot of the big names make games that a lot of people like...And that's generally how they got there in the first place.
I think you're just taking out the human variable.
The industry at large be damned: If Indie developers start producing better games than the mainstream big guys, gamers will buy their games. We're not in a market like food where you literally have to buy some form of food to survive. Gaming is big, but it's all a luxury, and we can all afford to be picky.
Big companies will not be able to stomp out Indie developers, because that's not how it works. Whoever makes the best games will bubble to the surface. It just so happens that a lot of the big names make games that a lot of people like...And that's generally how they got there in the first place.
I think you're just taking out the human variable.
Of course I'm being mathematical. This article is entirely an economics approach and perspective.
People can't buy indie games if they're not in the most easily accessible platform. You say it like big companies don't already stomp on them. You're taking this as an attack on indie games, as though they deserve it. These are simply empirical statements. To suggest that an indie game, and the latest game from Activision, have the same opportunity for the same level of success, is somewhat off base. It's like saying this article has the same potential for exposure for something published on the front page.
Maybe on an ideal, theoretical, philosophical level. But not likely in practice.
They do not have that same opportunity because of these barriers and structures.
The human variable has enough coverage. This is a business. To ignore the business aspects, and how they influence and effect the human variable, is detrimental.
People can't buy indie games if they're not in the most easily accessible platform. You say it like big companies don't already stomp on them. You're taking this as an attack on indie games, as though they deserve it. These are simply empirical statements. To suggest that an indie game, and the latest game from Activision, have the same opportunity for the same level of success, is somewhat off base. It's like saying this article has the same potential for exposure for something published on the front page.
Maybe on an ideal, theoretical, philosophical level. But not likely in practice.
They do not have that same opportunity because of these barriers and structures.
The human variable has enough coverage. This is a business. To ignore the business aspects, and how they influence and effect the human variable, is detrimental.
Too mathematical? Not really. We aren't discussing culture here; we're discussing horrible business practices and how everyone - producers (devs and publishers) and consumers (journalism and gamers) alike - are simply OK with this.
I think you make some pretty good points, Rev. Although I do agree that the indie game scene is a big player as well. But frankly, I *want* highly polished games with beautiful graphics sometimes, but I don't want to support this kind of thing. Not to mention the efforts AAA gaming does go to to stamp out indies.
I think you make some pretty good points, Rev. Although I do agree that the indie game scene is a big player as well. But frankly, I *want* highly polished games with beautiful graphics sometimes, but I don't want to support this kind of thing. Not to mention the efforts AAA gaming does go to to stamp out indies.
Well, I think if you include portable and mobile markets, then indie strength and influence increases.
But, people often ask me why I don't include portables in my analysis. Part of it is that I don't largely play portable games, but it's mostly because those markets so vastly and wildly different. It's not an attempt to dismiss them per se, as I'd prefer if consoles were more like them.
The App Store is a great example. It is the mirror image of everything I just described. No one really has a large influence on there, because the barriers to entry are so low. Anyone can make a successful game on there, and there's only so much people are willing to spend on a game there, which cripples the publishers who normally dominate the other markets, and limits their influence and ability to price gouge. Though they still try.
The problem though is that, like I stated, consoles take so much money to develop for. Those high barriers to entry are somewhat a part of that market unfortunately, though the big publishers go out of the way to pile them even taller.
So I think if you were to include those markets, I'd agree they're a big player. But outside of that, in the larger markets, I'd say their influence is near insignificant.
Of course, mobile apps are a large market themselves, and might even be bigger than the console market. But because there is so much competition, no developer is going to be able to make the same kind of money they could in consoles, despite it being harder to be successful in.
But, people often ask me why I don't include portables in my analysis. Part of it is that I don't largely play portable games, but it's mostly because those markets so vastly and wildly different. It's not an attempt to dismiss them per se, as I'd prefer if consoles were more like them.
The App Store is a great example. It is the mirror image of everything I just described. No one really has a large influence on there, because the barriers to entry are so low. Anyone can make a successful game on there, and there's only so much people are willing to spend on a game there, which cripples the publishers who normally dominate the other markets, and limits their influence and ability to price gouge. Though they still try.
The problem though is that, like I stated, consoles take so much money to develop for. Those high barriers to entry are somewhat a part of that market unfortunately, though the big publishers go out of the way to pile them even taller.
So I think if you were to include those markets, I'd agree they're a big player. But outside of that, in the larger markets, I'd say their influence is near insignificant.
Of course, mobile apps are a large market themselves, and might even be bigger than the console market. But because there is so much competition, no developer is going to be able to make the same kind of money they could in consoles, despite it being harder to be successful in.
Dag boy, you really are a lawyer! I was just thinking about some of these issues today when talking to Trev about what game we should play - we both had about 5 games in common, but his were for PS3 and mine for 360. I've never been one to "pledge allegiance" to one company (well, except when I was 8 and thought Sega was the shit) but regardless, favorites are going to be played and I'm going to end up buying most of my games for one system, hence one company. Le sigh.
@Caitlin - Yeah, I'm at that point with a lot of my friends when I used to have a 360. "Damnit...come play PS3 games with me!!!"
Then they're like, "Get a 360 again, why'd you get rid of it!?"
But it really doesn't make economical sense to buy both, considering they pretty much share the same exact games.
Frustrating, to say the least.
Then they're like, "Get a 360 again, why'd you get rid of it!?"
But it really doesn't make economical sense to buy both, considering they pretty much share the same exact games.
Frustrating, to say the least.
Also, fun fact: This article was entirely written to Depeche Mode songs over the course of two days.
Oh the discussion's been happening. It just always ends in "Well, whatcha gonna do?" (And I think the general answer to that endcap should be "Go Indie.")
I think the One Console theory can only devolve into becoming One Console +Nvidia, One console minus hard drive, One Console + Blast Processing. If its not one person making the One Console hardware, its bound to sluce itself back down to specialized fragmentation. With DVD players, there's not much room to get an edge on a competitor. Its essentially the same product in that disc slot, with a different skin. There's always going to be someone that wants to do more, and I don't understand how anyone would be able to stop arms races in gaming hardware.
What I can see is a "Steam Console", which would be an OS or a game client that runs on any PC, effectively standardizing things like controller interaction, network play (on and Xbox live level of service). The consumer controls the hardware, but the experience of just playing a game is upheld from the console experience... at least just far enough not to stymy the arms race. You'll have to upgrade you box at the whim of developers any minute, as opposed to current consoles every few years. Which, enh, its really the PC problem all over again: keeping up with the Unreal Jones's.
For the opportunity to be offered or experience different and potentially better ways of gaming on a console, I think I can be fine with a three party system.
An then there's OnLive. shoot. I guess that would be a thing too. If all the world had amazing internet speeds.
Whatcha gonna do? :)
I think the One Console theory can only devolve into becoming One Console +Nvidia, One console minus hard drive, One Console + Blast Processing. If its not one person making the One Console hardware, its bound to sluce itself back down to specialized fragmentation. With DVD players, there's not much room to get an edge on a competitor. Its essentially the same product in that disc slot, with a different skin. There's always going to be someone that wants to do more, and I don't understand how anyone would be able to stop arms races in gaming hardware.
What I can see is a "Steam Console", which would be an OS or a game client that runs on any PC, effectively standardizing things like controller interaction, network play (on and Xbox live level of service). The consumer controls the hardware, but the experience of just playing a game is upheld from the console experience... at least just far enough not to stymy the arms race. You'll have to upgrade you box at the whim of developers any minute, as opposed to current consoles every few years. Which, enh, its really the PC problem all over again: keeping up with the Unreal Jones's.
For the opportunity to be offered or experience different and potentially better ways of gaming on a console, I think I can be fine with a three party system.
An then there's OnLive. shoot. I guess that would be a thing too. If all the world had amazing internet speeds.
Whatcha gonna do? :)
It's interesting, but I think the monopolies are gradually decreasing. I think that game streaming services will gradually offer competition - Onlive, Gamestop's upcoming streaming game service and others that are arising. Exclusive games will still exist... likely to sell specific consoles, but exclusive games are really much more similar to what is offered by cable companies selling us TV packages - they offer access to services or content not offered by other cable companies (often these services now include free "watch anywhere" packages that use smart phones and tablets, or they offer free exclusiveVOD content).
In terms of retail... again, Gamestop isn't the only game in town any longer... I do most of my game buying (and trading) at Futureshop or Best Buy - which locally offer better trade in deals than Gamestop/EB Games. For new games, there are many options including Walmart and Costco. Mom and Pop gaming stores still exist and have a loyal customer base.
As the industry grows, it does seem that there is a generalizing of the industry. If I want to play a 3rd party game I often have multiple options - PC, Xbox, PS3, Onlive... and sometimes Wii. In the future there will likely be Onlive competitors. Certainly in the journalism field there are so many resources they are almost uncountable - with new gaming sites springing up daily. The retail sector is opening up, with more options.
Gamers are also getting smarter. The whole "pre order bonus" thing is no longer a sure seller. Many gamers such as myself are tired of getting beta-games that require 6 months of patching to get a decent game. I think increasingly people are realizing that they don't need to pre-order and they can just waltz into a retail store if they decide to buy the game - chances are pretty good it will be in stock.
Just like the music industry, big changes are coming to the gaming industry. We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg now, but in the coming years I do think that monopolies will decrease and competition will rise as gaming grows.
Great blog and yes, you do cover much of the current state of gaming, but it's changing and will continue to change. In particular, Gamestop is already much less of a monopoly than it ever was. Steam has stolen most of their PC market and the advent of digitial distribution is a threat. The rise of big competitiors like FutureShop/Best Buy getting into the used game market (and even Blockbuster a few years ago) has also had it's impact.
Change... it's coming... and likely for the better.
In terms of retail... again, Gamestop isn't the only game in town any longer... I do most of my game buying (and trading) at Futureshop or Best Buy - which locally offer better trade in deals than Gamestop/EB Games. For new games, there are many options including Walmart and Costco. Mom and Pop gaming stores still exist and have a loyal customer base.
As the industry grows, it does seem that there is a generalizing of the industry. If I want to play a 3rd party game I often have multiple options - PC, Xbox, PS3, Onlive... and sometimes Wii. In the future there will likely be Onlive competitors. Certainly in the journalism field there are so many resources they are almost uncountable - with new gaming sites springing up daily. The retail sector is opening up, with more options.
Gamers are also getting smarter. The whole "pre order bonus" thing is no longer a sure seller. Many gamers such as myself are tired of getting beta-games that require 6 months of patching to get a decent game. I think increasingly people are realizing that they don't need to pre-order and they can just waltz into a retail store if they decide to buy the game - chances are pretty good it will be in stock.
Just like the music industry, big changes are coming to the gaming industry. We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg now, but in the coming years I do think that monopolies will decrease and competition will rise as gaming grows.
Great blog and yes, you do cover much of the current state of gaming, but it's changing and will continue to change. In particular, Gamestop is already much less of a monopoly than it ever was. Steam has stolen most of their PC market and the advent of digitial distribution is a threat. The rise of big competitiors like FutureShop/Best Buy getting into the used game market (and even Blockbuster a few years ago) has also had it's impact.
Change... it's coming... and likely for the better.
Man, this was a pretty great read!! I have nothing to add to the discussion but it really made me think.
I briefly read over this awhile ago and gave it a fap, but now that I've returned to give it the attention it deserves I felt the need to say great blog! While we may not always agree (I'll forget about Bob) your time and effort with this deserves recognition. Kudos.
Great blog. Here comes my unfocused stream of consciousness that may not even be relevant.
Convergence is the way of the future, both for hardware and retail. I buy most of my stuff from Amazon and spend most of my time playing snes games on my Xperia Play. In a decade or two, Home automation and servers will become popular, and dedicated hardware will face a new, foreign competition that is unlike any precedent. There will definitely be a paradigm shift in how this "industry" operates.
The lines about Mom and Pop stores existing, though, I think is a decade late. I'm sure they do. I don't know of any in my hometown or where I live. There were at least five Game Stops within 3sq miles in my city, though; I guess there used to be independent stores before, but they were driven off and there are only 3 GSs now.
As long as something sells well enough, it won't go away, and like you said, the exposure to the less-than-ideal aspects of our hobby are getting all the (both literal and proverbial) shelf space. It will take a major change before it gets removed from that top shelf.
Convergence is the way of the future, both for hardware and retail. I buy most of my stuff from Amazon and spend most of my time playing snes games on my Xperia Play. In a decade or two, Home automation and servers will become popular, and dedicated hardware will face a new, foreign competition that is unlike any precedent. There will definitely be a paradigm shift in how this "industry" operates.
The lines about Mom and Pop stores existing, though, I think is a decade late. I'm sure they do. I don't know of any in my hometown or where I live. There were at least five Game Stops within 3sq miles in my city, though; I guess there used to be independent stores before, but they were driven off and there are only 3 GSs now.
As long as something sells well enough, it won't go away, and like you said, the exposure to the less-than-ideal aspects of our hobby are getting all the (both literal and proverbial) shelf space. It will take a major change before it gets removed from that top shelf.

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow


send message
follow
followers





