Life After The Video Game Crash... of 2005

[PoolMan]

Wow. If you follow the industry of videogames, or have a healthy interest in the subject in general, this article is a must-read:

Life after the next video game crash.

I can't tell you how strongly I agree with this piece, and it's going to be interesting to see whether it pans out as predicted.

What do you guys think?

[duckie]

Thanks for sharing that. While I don't consider the following to apply to me:

"You cannot play games at 35 or 40 and seem like anything but an intellectually-stunted manchild, there in your sweater vest, the control pad tangled in your long, gray, drool-soaked beard."

simply because I no longer own any sweater vests, I do agree with what he had to say in general. My PS2 will probably be the last game system I buy, mainly because I've got too many other things to do in my life, which rank above memorizing the sequences in the latest FPS game. Plus, the $50 per game is just too much to drop on the latest version of NCAA football 2004, especially when Penn State isn't shown to be a powerhouse

I do see the decline coming, it'll be interesting to see how the industry moves forward.

[Head Mutant]

Well. It's very impressive how he bolds statements (the journalistic equivelent of a guy conversing really loud with you so as to not have you question him) in order to look right.

Really, it's a joke of an article. He's making wonderful sweeping statements with statistics that are deceiving and just plain wrong.

"LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Challenging the stereotype that video gaming is the domain of teenage boys, an industry group Tuesday reported that more women over 18 than young boys are playing games and the average age of players has risen to 29."

Particularly about #4, where he says that gamers aren't growing old, they're ditching their love of games. You know what the average age of a gamer is, right now? It's 27 or 28. I'm not making that up, I've read surveys on that, and the video game industry is quite shocked that they aren't losing as many of my generation's gamers as they thought; quite the opposite. The industry has new kids and teens swelling into it all the time, but there's also the older gamers who might play different games on more sophisticated platforms, but who are still playing very strong and refusing to give it up. Even if there was some magical age when a person would suddenly give up games, numbers of new video gamers are on the side of the video game industry. There are simply more kids at age 12 right now then there were when I was age 12.

I almost don't have the heart to respond to this guy because it's just so idiotic. He sees flaws in the industry and thus proclaims a crash. Good for him. It won't happen. I've been following games as long as he has, and I know the two sacred truths of video games is that (1) the trends will always surprise you as to make predicting the future near-impossible, and (2) people will always be playing games. Even during the crash of the early 80's, people didn't just walk away from games and say, "Well, that's it!" The market crashed due to saturation and some poor business decisions, but no one I knew stopped playing games from 83-85 because of it. And since then, naysayers have predicted crashes and rises and falls of various systems, and they've almost all been proven wrong.

Is the market saturated right now? I'm not sure, but probably. I think time's shown us that two TV-based platforms are about the sustainable limit for the video game population out there. More than two, and one usually fails. But people aren't going to stop playing games -- they'll switch to whatever platform has the most and best games, and all their friends are playing.

His main beef, I suspect from the content of his ramblings, is that he's one of many who whine about how video games were more innovative "back in the day", and now they're just carbon clones of each other. Yes, because they NEVER used to clone games and run game genres into the ground back in the 80's and 90's. You know how many Pac-Man clones there were? Space Invader clones? Super Mario Brothers? Zelda? Doom? It's the nature of the beast. There's always some small, tiny percentage of games that are truly innovative and well-polished for their time, and then there's a massive percentage of copy-cats.

And to say that video game innovation has peaked because we've gotten to some high level of graphical perfection is... small-minded. Is innovation limited to how things look? I would say, it's more how they play, but that's just my opinion. And each and every year, without fail, we do see a small number of titles achieve the next innovative leap.

He's also trying to predict the failure of online gaming right at the beginning of online gaming's history here. Sure, whatever. One less jerk I'll have to play with online.

There are more gamers now than there ever were. The video game industry rakes in far more money than Hollywood every year. If he -- and Nintendo, who has been actively running their product into the ground over the last decade -- wants to predict the crash of games, let him. I've heard it so many times before it's not even funny.

Now systems WILL crash, and new ones will rise to take their place, which is how the industry keeps the edge sharp. If a product becomes stale or makes poor marketing decisions, then survival of the fittest, and we gamers end usually end up on top because of it.

[PoolMan]

Heh... writing techniques aside, I still think the guy makes a good set of points.

Maybe it's because I'm in a different lifestyle than you J, but I notice Duckie's right there with me, being slightly older and a bit more married. There will be exceptions, sure, but I don't honestly think most adults will play into their 40's. I already see the end for me, too. I may buy one console further, maybe, but if I do, that'd be it.

I'm entering a period in my life where my free time is no longer simply my own. That's not a spiteful statement, it's simply the truth. And the old disposable income just isn't looking quite so disposable anymore. Homes to buy, hitmen to hire, and whatnot.

Head said:

Is the market saturated right now? I'm not sure, but probably. I think time's shown us that two TV-based platforms are about the sustainable limit for the video game population out there. More than two, and one usually fails.

I agree completely. A three way battle is not going to bode well for any length of time. I suspect over a long enough timeline, Nintendo will "pull a Sega", regardless of their war chest (it's been long argued that Nintendo will always be a hardware company because they've got the money to do it... I can't say I agree). Microsoft and Sony will continue to battle each other for top spot.

Head said:

His main beef, I suspect from the content of his ramblings, is that he's one of many who whine about how video games were more innovative "back in the day", and now they're just carbon clones of each other.

You can't possibly tell me videogames are more innovative NOW than 25 years ago. The mere concept of putting user-controlled images on a TV screen in the early 80's was just this far short of miraculous. Now kids grow up with this stuff as a given technology. Old news. And it'll only get older until someone creates a TRULY new way of presenting games.

And to his point about current games being minor evolutions of one another, I think he's right. Sports games are an easy target, because they're guilty of it in the worst degree, but it's all over the industry. For example, Everquest succeeds like crazy, so it follows that every company worth their long johns will be scrambling to create every possible permutation of the MMORPG as quickly as possible. That one is still playing itself out.

Head said:

Is innovation limited to how things look? I would say, it's more how they play, but that's just my opinion.

I agree. So what was the last honest-to-God-there's-never-been-anything-like-this-before innovative game you played? Mine would be Pikmin. And that was two years ago.

Head said:

Nintendo, who has been actively running their product into the ground over the last decade

Nintendo is an amazing creature. You're absolutely right, they're idiots. They can produce amazing games, to be certain, but they routinely make the most stupid possible marketing decisions at every possible junction.

And with any luck, there'll be no crash. But I'm pretty confident that by the time either of us is proved right or wrong, I won't care anymore.

[Head Mutant]

I know plenty of married people who are still gamers, most of my friends from college, too. I'll be a gamer for life, and I have no problem with that. Definitely, your tastes in games change, and we all know I've long since abandoned console buying. And it's fine and dandy to place a priority on your family, I think you should. But I don't plan on giving up reading, or watching movies when I get hitched, and I'm surely not giving up gaming either. That's a personal choice, tho.

I think more adults in their 40s play games right now than you think do. I know a lot of dads in our church who love playing on a PS2 with their kids... or without them

My point about innovation is that it wasn't like they were taking giant leaps in the 70's and 80's with video games. It seems like it now, but just like today, it was a series of baby steps (as you describe it). They inched forward. They put out a sheer truckload of crappy games for every one that made any progress.

When it was innovative, and when the right product came along that not only had a spark of originality to it, but was also marketed right, it had the potential to take the world by storm unlike so many of its brethren. There are still innovative companies, particularly on the PC, who are making strides in breaking out of the familiar cloned genres to bring something new(ish) to gaming. Look at The Sims, or Kohan, or The Movies, or Homeworld, or ICO, or GTA III, or KOTOR, or A Tale In The Desert... it's not like companies have been sitting on their butts just making copies of Deer Hunter IV all day long. None of those are 100% original, but pretty much no game ever is, ever. You can always trace an idea back to a spiritual ancestor, at least, and back on from there.

I'm just saying I've heard his argument pretty much every year, like clockwork, for the past decade and a half. Games have reached a plateau. There are no more new innovative games. There's no where to go in this industry, now that we're able to do [name of technological feat] in games. It's easy to look at gaming now and say we've hit some sort of threshold, because we can't see the future and disprove it right away. But, honestly, people felt that way two years ago. And four. And eight.

I'm also wise enough to recognize that the gaming industry does not swing upon whatever I consider cool or useless right now. I don't play console games any more, but I'm fairly sure they're still being played by a rare few. Even if I got to your point -- God willing, will never happen -- where I get burned out and disillusioned with gaming, my personal experience and view of gaming won't change the way things are.

I'm very much for innovation, and gaming companies taking risks (which is now in the hands of the smaller fry, as the big boys play it too safe), and new genres and ideas. I hope it happens. If you say that gaming can only become good again if there's some whole different revolution in how we play games and what games are... then that's kind of elitist. Like saying cars will only become good when they make hover cars and we can fly them with our minds, but until then, they're not worth using. This guy wants some massive leap forward, but that's not how things work. They've never worked that way, even though our beer goggles of time seem to trick us into thinking that leaps came faster and more incredible way back when than they do now.

[PoolMan]

Head said:

I don't plan on giving up reading, or watching movies when I get hitched, and I'm surely not giving up gaming either. That's a personal choice, tho.

I think it's easier said than done. And it's great you know adults who play games with their kids. I do too. I just think they're the exception, not the rule. I will probably play video games with my kids, but by the time they'd be old enough to do so, I fully expect I'll be pretty out of the loop.

Head said:

Look at The Sims, or Kohan, or The Movies, or Homeworld, or ICO, or GTA III, or KOTOR, or A Tale In The Desert... it's not like companies have been sitting on their butts just making copies of Deer Hunter IV all day long.

The Sims and A Tale in the Desert I'd give you (and I don't know Kohan or The Movies) but GTA III, KOTOR, and Homeworld are ALL just 3D evolutions of previously established (and well-worn) games (respectively, I'm thinking GTA I/II, Baldur's Gate, and any one of a ZILLION RTS games). ICO, in as much as I'm not familiar with it in depth, seems to me to be an evolution of the old Zelda games where you'd end up with a second character following you around. Yes, that's gross oversimplification, but it's just that these games were done well, not that they were startling new concepts.

Head said:

I'm just saying I've heard his argument pretty much every year, like clockwork, for the past decade and a half.

Me too. And in the past, I've always scoffed it off. But at the moment, I think he makes good points. It still may not happen now, it may not happen ever, but it could. The conditions he sites are quite valid, in my opinion.

Head said:

Even if I got to your point -- God willing, will never happen -- where I get burned out and disillusioned with gaming, my personal experience and view of gaming won't change the way things are.

I'm not "burned out" on games. I play them very regularly. I still love 'em. But I've taken an interest in the industry over the last few years, and it's growing, but approaching the point of saturation.

Head said:

Like saying cars will only become good when they make hover cars and we can fly them with our minds, but until then, they're not worth using.

The difference in your analogy, however, is that videogames are a luxury, pure and simple. (I believe cars are a luxury too, actually, but one that most people rely upon to live. I couldn't possibly get to my job without my car on a regular basis.) So it doesn't matter if cars revert to handcranked clunkers with steel tires, they will always sell, because the world has evolved such that we need them. Videogames are an expensive pastime, nothing more. If they fail to meet the needs of a fickle audience, you bet your cute lil' behind they'll suffer.

[Hucklebubba]

PoolMan said:

...you bet your cute lil' behind they'll suffer.

Exchanges between you two are, at times, disquieting.

'Fraid I'm going to have to side with Justin on this one. Not that I have any sort of substantiation for my position, I just like it better than the alternative.

There's no need to bother with facts when you can just pick the side you prefer, I always say.

[DocD83]

Don't forget that games have been around a lot longer than video games. Chess was invented...when? It's still popular today. Look at board games in general--they've been around (in the modern form) for decades, and if you go to yard sales you can find enough old, utterly moronic games from the fifties that you might think the industry was headed for collapse then. But we all know it survived, and is doing quite well.

The video game industry will continue to grow*, I think, for the same reason board games are still around today: kids won't care that what they're seeing for the first time is what you grew tired of 20 years ago. I think the author of that article has a too high opinion of his own generation. I can assure you, finding replacement customers will not be hard.

Furthermore, since this next generation of parents are the ones who grew up on video games, the age where the majority of people hang up their controllers for good will rise. That's simply because parents won't pester their kids or cut them off from video games at age 13 like the older generation of parents so often did. We're seeing that already, though it may or may not be statistically significant yet. This is the kind of thing that snowballs.

One last reason I think the industry will grow: the cost. Sure, a console system with games now costs hundreds of dollars, but this technological wall that has the author so worked up will operate in favor of the game industry. When there are no more technological barriers to break down (when people realize that digital eyelash rendering doesn't really affect the game at all) the cost of game systems and games should behave the same way as computer costs today. That is, of course, to go down. Sure you can spend as much as you want making the most badass computer on the block, but in general you can do most of what you need nowdays with a sub-$1000 computer. I paid $500** for my first non-Frankenstein computer and I could play most any game on the market then. The big problem is whether the console makers will allow the price to drop, or if they'll rely on installing the most expensive thing possible to make it sound good in press releases. If they choose one, the console may survive; if they choose the other, the indudtry will simply shift over to computer games, since most people in the target demographic will have a computer anyway.

* Of course, the occasional industry recession is unavoidable.

** That may seem low, but it is correct. I had the monitor already, I bought it at a computer trade show, and it had the cheaper K6-2 processor.

[DARTHMADLER]

Greetings one and all.
Just rebrowsing the site and I must say I have to agree with his first point. The biggest improvement these days in games seems to be in the graphics and details. I recall when the Fall of Max Payne came out, the biggest thrill seemed to be how realistic his coat looked when you jumped around. So what? It's still an FPS with the usual assortment of weapons. Ditto for RTS, you still have everything ranging from infantry to special weapons (change to workers/pawns to Wizards/Heroes if your playing the D&D variety). Only they look neater.

His 2nd & 3rd point I think are only one point which is attacking the replayability of games. Well, I think that's part of what makes a good game a good game. I compare it with books. There are some books that I can pick up and read over and over and still enjoy everytime, same with movies <beetlejuice>"I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT"</beetlejuice>. And then there are those that I've read/seen and that's it. I've noticed on some gaming sites that they actually take that into account in their reviews.

On his point of age, I'm almost thirty and don't worry about mortgages, job stress or go coffin shopping. I think it matters more the situation than the age. I can't really say whether or not I'll be playing video games when I'm married and have a house, I know people who are they still play games, not as much but they still do.

I'm not sure that better processors will do anything to make a game better, faster perhaps but I don't know that that's an improvement. My response time isn't going to get any better.

In regards to convergence it sounds like they're just trying to turn a console into a computer. The point of a console is that it's supposed to be a device dedicated to playing games. If you want to have a machine that does more than play video games, buy a computer. It already can play DVDs, act like a TiVO, play mp3s and surf the web.

I definitely disagree with his notion that online playing is a bad thing. For me, playing online against other humans is what has increased the replayability of many games (Command & Conquer and Jedi Outcast for example). I love the unpredictability of playing against another person. As the states, in single player it eventually becomes a matter of memorizing the AIs strategy and using it against them.

In my opinion, if there is anything that would prevent or put off another crash it is the fact that we can now play against other people without the need of having them physically present in order to do so.

As for his last point, see my point about convergence.

These are my 2 cents worth, fire away at them.

[PoolMan]

Aw, you guys are all so sensitive.

Look, I'm not saying the article is correct, and the market will crash. I'm not saying Justin is wrong. I hope Justin is right. I really do. But the truth is, behind this overgrown and saturated industry is a driving mentality that faster and prettier is better. And it isn't. The early video games were popular because they were new. They offered something fresh.

Now yes, everyone's gotten in on the act, and suddenly it's not the social suicide it used to be to admit you play video games, and suddenly the market's glutted with console manufacturers (and for that matter, consoles) and "me too" games that do nothing for the medium as a creative form. There are still innovative games, but they are horribly outnumbered by their jackal clone cousins, anxious for a piece of the pie someone else's brilliant idea spawned.

Look at Tetris. When it debuted, it was a smash hit, in every sense of the term. Since 1988, how many games have been designed where you either line things up as they fall from the sky, or you match colours and shapes so they disappear? As a result, it's not exactly a mindblowing event these days when a new puzzle game is released... heck, you can play 'em on the web for free now.

Switching gears entirely, I just had a small additional point to make. I enjoy playing online games with Madler. I'd still LOVE to form a MRFH Jedi Outcast League. Y'know why? Because I KNOW you guys. You won't bail on a game early. You won't type mispelled obscenities onto my screen. It would the equivalent of hanging out with your buddies in your living room, only your living room is miles and miles from mine. I have NEVER failed to be utterly dismayed with the jackholes who inhabit the anonymous online gaming community.

Maybe it would be more accurate to say I hope the market collapse doesn't ever happen, but that I'm really sorry that the state of the industry is as it is. Kind of like the comic book movies, once it's no longer for pleasantly balanced geeks anymore, it kind of loses its luster a bit.

[DocD83]

Now yes, everyone's gotten in on the act, [...] suddenly the market's glutted with console manufacturers (and for that matter, consoles) and "me too" games that do nothing for the medium as a creative form. There are still innovative games, but they are horribly outnumbered by their jackal clone cousins, anxious for a piece of the pie someone else's brilliant idea spawned.

True, but as I said it's not a new phenomenon to have a market glutted this badly. Conversely, it isn't going to be the death knell of the entire industry, even a "luxury" industry. Just about any industry will have its ups and downs, but it's hardly something to panic over. Unless you're heavily invested and impatient.

[Head Mutant]

I think what the author wanted wasn't so much of a crash to prove - ha ha - that he's right, but to just see a revolution in video gaming in general. There's a loose parallel here with the movie industry. Every year we complain how many stale, repetative, predictable clones come out (and we attack them), bemoaning how Hollywood's just saturating itself stupid with boring flicks. But if we're honest, every year we see a good handful of well-done and imaginative movies, and if we're lucky, one or two really revolutionary titles that turn the rules for how movies are done on their head.

The movie industry, by nature, evolves more slowly than the video game industry... but we can learn a thing or two. One of the last great hopes of movies is in the Indie market, which is everything that big budget studio pictures aren't -- and have the freedom to go with it. Sometimes we do see massive leaps forward, in technology and technique and storytelling style, but these come at a much slower pace. Still, our growing disquiet for the bulk of crappy movies that are churned out make us welcome a revolution (whether it's a good or bad change is another question).

I think, while we all may disagree on various smaller points, we simply want to see fun, playable, replayable and creative games out there. If the big boys are getting stale, then by all means should we have a revolution and see someone new give it a go with a better and bolder concept. But the view that we've somehow achieved an apex of creativity and there's nowhere left to go in gaming is overly pessimistic and not very realistic. I just know that when I'm looking for games to break out of the mold, I've long since stopped looking at EA or Microsoft to accomplish that -- instead, I'm all about the little guys, like Strategy First (who give all sorts of smaller gaming ventures a good home), for my hope.

[DarthToad]

Head said:

The movie industry, by nature, evolves more slowly than the video game industry... but we can learn a thing or two. One of the last great hopes of movies is in the Indie market, which is everything that big budget studio pictures aren't -- and have the freedom to go with it. Sometimes we do see massive leaps forward, in technology and technique and storytelling style, but these come at a much slower pace. Still, our growing disquiet for the bulk of crappy movies that are churned out make us welcome a revolution (whether it's a good or bad change is another question).

I think, while we all may disagree on various smaller points, we simply want to see fun, playable, replayable and creative games out there. If the big boys are getting stale, then by all means should we have a revolution and see someone new give it a go with a better and bolder concept. But the view that we've somehow achieved an apex of creativity and there's nowhere left to go in gaming is overly pessimistic and not very realistic. I just know that when I'm looking for games to break out of the mold, I've long since stopped looking at EA or Microsoft to accomplish that -- instead, I'm all about the little guys, like Strategy First (who give all sorts of smaller gaming ventures a good home), for my hope.

The whole thing with the mainstream not being as good as the indie is also true with the music industry. There's the same parrallels there. Oh, and if I get City of Heroes, I'm betting I'll ask you guys every day to go on missions with me.

[bladestarr]

Oh, you want an Indie Game that is fresh in concept? Check this action out:

www.rtsoft.com/dink/

It has RPG elements, it has bad guys to kill, it has "zelda-like isometric" fun! Oh wait, I think I'm proving the author's point. Oops. However, how many games can you play where you can chop off a ducks head and watch it run around bleeding to death, and how many games can you hit on your hot aunt or try to pet a Wizard because he's so "cute and tiny"?? I'm tellin you, video games are not dead, they're just going to the dogs. And the most wily mutt is going to win, just as they have always done:

www.the-underdogs.org/about.php

BladeStarr, your local Cuisinart of Doom, singing off. ;D

[druidGirl]

So you like playing Jedi Outcast on-line eh, Pooly?

*rubs hands together*

[mumbles]must find Jedi Outcast for cheap so I can kill Poolman's on-line 'toon.[/mumbles]