Opinion: Death to blockbuster AAA video game titles!
Wednesday, January 30th, 2008 at 2:06pm by Jack
It doesn’t take much of a search of the Infendo archives to discover where I stand on big, bloated blockbuster titles like Halo 3 or Metal Gear Solid 4.
To summarize, I think they’re pretty much the worst thing to happen to gaming since the Virtual Boy.
This isn’t to say these games aren’t good or going to be good, not in the least. Halo 3 was an great addition to the series and I’d be insane to state otherwise. Grand Theft Auto 3 was pretty much on autopilot for most of my college career, and I own the collector’s CD set for Vice City because, well, it’s the cat’s pajamas.
It’s just that, well, from here on out hardcore AAA $20 million titles will be good but not good enough.
Helping me out today will be Bruce Everiss over at Seeking Alpha. He compiled a pretty good list about this topic in a post today.
The gold standard in the games industry is currently the AAA blockbuster console title. An investment of perhaps $10-20 million or even more from a big publisher on a big team over a couple of years. The global marketing costs run into the millions as well. The result is games like Grand Theft Auto, Halo and Assassin’s Creed, all well crafted global best sellers. They can make a lot of money, but often they don’t.
Basically, as the video game industry continues to mature, which it will, hardcore games will increasingly be attributed to hardcore losses.
Why? First off, the cost. There’s a reason two out of the three systems on the market today have games that cost $60+, but then again there is also no good reason why they should cost that much. Many people believe video games should be more in line with movies, which cost much, much more than a game to produce, market and distribute. Can anyone out there tell me why the Waterworld DVD, when it came out, was only about $20, when it cost more than $200 million to make? Now, on the other hand, how much did it take to do the same with Halo 3? Even with all that silly Gamer Fuel and YouTube viral wartime video stuff (which was pretty interesting, by the way), the two numbers don’t really compare. As the audience expands the price point will stabilize. $50 is good, but why not lower?
Unfortunately for that point, it may be too late to change pricing in any significant way; already when a $20 game hits shelves it’s automatically labeled cheap or “a rental” not because of quality, but on price alone (Link’s super inexpensive $20 Crossbow Training was reviewed positively, etc).
Also related to cost is the fact that when compared to the movie industry, the video game gurus have it ass-backwards. In movies, a studio will create a blockbuster, sure, and pump millions upon millions into it, yes, but they will also make sure that this kind of movie appeals to the widest audience possible. Spiderman, Mission Impossible, Harry Potter — these are all based upon niches from other industries (comics, TV and fantasy books, respectively), but they have been watered down, adapted and polished in such a way that they will appeal to men, women, boys and girls, while still maintaining some of the essence of what made them popular with their original fans. In gaming, this dynamic is on its head. The niche gets the millions while the cas-core gets the shaft.
Second, the development cycle itself. In what has become yet another hypocritical trend in an industry now ripe with them, people have taken to attacking certain systems for having a lack of quality games while at the same time they will gladly turn a blind eye to the fact that we really only get one or two top quality AAA blockbuster hardcore titles per year. And even then, it’s “top quality” to who, exactly?
Third, the one/two game AAA game a year trend means that both developer attention and media attention are now tied to a handful of points throughout the year. When those points do arrive, we’re often left scratching our heads as to why we and the media gave these games and their events so much attention. Please see: Halo 3 megalaunch events. When this happens, we often lose sight of those indie projects or AA titles that are the legitimate “best games of the year” but never receive the attention they deserve. Who knows? Maybe when CAPCOM told everyone that they did market Zack & Wiki they were telling the truth. Maybe it was just that the media was too focused — or was trained like little lapdogs to focus — on some AAA title due out *maybe* Q4 of 2008. Another side effect of this trend is that we’re positively surprised out of our socks when a game does well in a month like August (Strikers Charged) or March (inevitably, Smash Bros. Brawl). I, for one, welcome buying games at times other than Xmas.
That’s a pretty pessimistic little diatribe I have up up there, but I think there’s hope because money trumps everything.
Said Everiss:
But now the winds of change are blowing through the industry. Nintendo, casual gaming, free MMOs, handhelds, social networking. All of these, and more, are changing the way the public look at games. The industry, eventually, will have to follow the customer.
Quite simply, a publisher will find that they can get a better return with less risk by not doing traditional AAA blockbusters. They will see that they can use their finance and development resources in ways that are better for their business.
The film industry learned this a long, long time ago. If you are going to invest a lot of money in a film make sure it appeals to a very wide audience. Don’t spend the big money on art house movies. We will follow suit and the current generation of AAA titles will be looked back at as an anomalous growing pain of the video gaming industry… and less aliens will be shot.
It’s simple math really. When a $20 million dollar game doesn’t sell 5 million copies like it might have 3-5 years ago, publishers will stop making as many of them, or, please oh please, they’ll start to create AAA multi-million dollar games for a wider audience. This isn’t to say mature titles should or will die out, but they will certainly assume their rightful place in the indie section where they belong.
Everiss’ list:
It could be argued that these games are actually a big part of what is wrong with the games industry:
* They use up a disproportionate amount of the available development talent and finance.
* They hold the focus of the media when, in fact, there is a lot more going on that doesn’t get the media attention it deserves.
* They usually only appeal to a narrow demographic, thwarting the wider acceptance of gaming.
* They are usually difficult and are inaccessible for a non gamer to get into.
* Their genres and subject material are usually limited and intellectually and emotionally stunted. Let’s make another alien shooting game.
* They are far, far too expensive for customers to buy. A factor of their high development costs, their limited appeal, their high risk and the large slice the platform holders take out of each one. Most games would still be too expensive at half the price.
* They use the limiting distribution model of cardboard and plastic.
* Usually they have no room for user generated and/or episodic content.
Now, what better place to build, market and profit from a multi-million dollar AAA title than a console that boasts the most diverse audience on the planet right now?
January 30th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
*grumble*grumble*
January 30th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
(doesn’t take bait- yet- plays more hl2 ep2 instead)
January 30th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Was the Orange box a AAA blockbuster though?
January 30th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Great article. To me the biggest problem with the gaming industry is the FPS genre. My first game of this type was Red Faction for PS2. Well that’s not true if you count DOOM. But when FPS met dual-analog an entire industry was born. Red Faction was a great game. Many nights of lost sleep blowing up friends and the destructable environments. But now some years later the FPS has been milked to the extreme. First of all there is no functional difference play wise than there was forever ago. Run, turn, jump, shoot, don’t get killed, switch weapons, take cover, sniper rifle, grenade, maybe some vehicles if your lucky…and all this with 2 little thumbsticks and a few buttons. Don’t get me wrong, there have been some great FPS’s over the years, and I have enjoyed my share of them, but damn enough is enough. The only thing better about them after day one is graphics.
I gave up on these games last gen with guess what?…DOOM 3 of all games…and the only current gen system I have (and want) is Wii. The FPS engine has been written for years and they’re spending all that time and millions of dollars making better graphics for a genre that in my eyes is old and boring…mainly because they are all the same and have been for too long. I refuse to spend another dime on any FPS cuz I’ve played them all before…with 2 thumbsticks and a few buttons. I did however purchase Metroid Prime 3 for Wii and it was a breath of fresh air.
Maybe the real problem is young kids who rave about graphics. I know I used to (before there ever even was a FPS), but I’m 29 now. Wii has GREAT graphics in the right games. Yes, young kids and their graphics who continue to eat up the only genre that seems to push those graphics…FPWar. So just continue to shove it down their throats…social conditioning for what is to come to mankind. Unfortunately it won’t be a war fought with buttons and 2 little thumbsticks.
Or maybe the problem is that after playing Wii, I find it damn near impossible to get any enjoyment out of ANY game played with dual analog. Sorry PS3 and 360, but you have failed to impress me.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“Was the Orange box a AAA blockbuster though?”
Which game in Orange Box are you referring to? I’d argue that Half Life 2 was, Portal was not, and everything else is somewhere in between.
But, as deepthought said, I’m not taking the bait. This is not a thread for Andrew-MG.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Hmm… A lot of the very best games were and are AAA blockbusters. At the same time, the points particularly in that last quote box are quite valid.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
So, no Uncharted for you then!
January 30th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
@ the price comment; everyone in the world sees movies. but the fraction that plays/buys more than one video game a year is significantly smaller…charging $20/piece would not make very much money.
January 30th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
right on right on… its kinda sad though… i HATE paying more than 40 dollars for a game
January 30th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Just look at Ut3 sales. The HD market is bloated and Ut3 is easily better than halo. It’s the first time user made content was allowed on a console also. We would have killed for that during the quake 3 days! Now more than ever it seems as if you must be the first game out before the me too games come out also. Example : gears of war sales compared to UT3.
Just look at what is happening though. Remember when art really made a game stand out. Well now every thing looks realistic regardless if it’s a good game or not. So your art gets muted by realism since you spend so much time making your shaders look real instead of taking artistic liberties. This may even eat into the game plays frame rate.
The price thing makes more since when you start to look at how much these game are actually replayed. I remember paying for SF2, 70 dollars and enjoyed every penny of it. I can not say that about most of the so called AAA games though.
Another thing is Halo3 actually costs more than 50-60 dollar once you add in the head set and live. Then you have the chance that a new halo killer will come out… (which is almost COD4)… which will cause lots of people to leave the servers which then actual devalues your game.
It’s a lot harder for people to choose what to buy now because lots of people are buying games based on screen shots also. In a world where every one can just throw some shaders on some thing and just wow console gamers it will become even more of a me too market. I actually think gamers and reviewers are having a harder time of judging quality because they just have not gotten use to these graphics yet. Some games that got high scores do not actually play well or either end up more gimmicky and get boring as a result.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Movies have more markets. Lots of movies make a profit well before they come out on video, then when they are on video they make even more money, plus rentals, tv, pay per view etc. Not that I think you’re wrong, you’re example is just bad.
Personally I jave gotten much more enjoyment out of the hundereds pf great indie titles on pc, most of them being free. ILots of them I’d be more than willing to pay $5-$15 for.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
The Orange Box is not a AAA game. It’s basically a Half Life 2 ValuPak. Half Life 2 was a AAA game… in 2004. But we learned a while ago that old games don’t count for anything.
Old games are now also non-gaming casual grandma fests. The only games that count are the ones EGM and IGN preview for the following year only on consoles they deem fit.
The gamer has no say in what games are games.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Big AAA blockbuster titles are absolutely , positively, great.
Halo , Zelda, Metal Gear etc are wonderful games. All AAA blockbusters.
Video game paying would not be the same without them.
They are needed.
They are enjoyed.
They are Welcomed.
Casual games, small titles, independent games have an important place, but blockbusters have an important place as well. And that is at the top.
Nice rant here =)
January 30th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
I don’t really have anything unique to add to the conversation, but I thought it was very perceptive and fair, Jack, to point out the hypocrisy in “attacking certain systems for having a lack of quality games.”
I do point out that the deciding factor them becomes the number of “lower tier” games that attract a consumer, but that’s more common sense than anything.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:14 am
My favorite word is Variety. So I’m not against any kind of videogame. But I see a problem here, and the root is Everiss’ first point: “They [big AAA titles] use up a disproportionate amount of the available DEVELOPMENT TALENT and finance.” Then we have high quality AAA titles, and kind of low quality on the rest of games.
I think we need more quality in games that appeal to everyone, and erradicate the idea that only AAA titles can be good, quality games.
January 31st, 2008 at 9:25 am
You talked about Link’s Crossbow Training, yes it is reviewed positively but pretty much every review I read made it clear it was little more than a demo/time waster. The reason it has been called a rental is not because it’s only $20, it’s because the game has very little depth and for a decent player, you can do pretty much everything you can in the game in a few hours. That was my experience, and I’ve not picked it up since.
Did I get my $20 worth? I guess so, but at the same time, I’ve gotten my money’s worth out of pretty much every AAA title that’s come out in the past year and a half.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“Can anyone out there tell me why the Waterworld DVD, when it came out, was only about $20, when it cost more than $200 million to make?”
Yeah, simple. Market economy. The sales price of an item is not dictated by its cost (which is what most people erroniously believe), but rather by what the market will bear. Because of that, companies usually set “production cost targets”. That means they reverse engineer a production cost based on how many they think they can sell at what price. Waterworld is a poor example because it was way over budget, but lets assume they came in right on budget of 200 million. That means their bean counters calculated that enough people would see the movies in theaters and buy the DVD to make them their desired level of profits. Thats why games or movies lose money because when they calculated their cost of production, they overestimated the numbers of sales.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
The main problem with games is that we have no true equivalent for movies in the U.S. anymore. Our equivalent was arcades, most of todays games should released at arcades so that everyone can have a low cost chance to experiment and have fun with video games in a public/semi-private setting. Japanese arcades are designed for many people to be seated comfortably playing. The few American machines are all the stand-up, geeky variety that don’t encourage people to stay play for nearly as long as their Japanese counterparts.
There are different ways to rent or even demo games, but that means you need the hardware. People may continually complain about the theatre experience of today, but without the move industry would suffer quite a bit. If there wasn’t cable/satellite tv it would almost completely suffer as people don’t want to take a step in dark. Arcades are the missed opportunity for extra advertising, we need them to rejuvenate if we truly want games to excel. There may be an ongoing boom now, but without arcades it’s simply not as large as it should be.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Great article.
I live in Brazil, and it’s quite interesting to see how people here still play older games heavily, such as Counter Strike or Ragnarok Online.
The most successful console in Brazil is the PS2, it still sells huge around here and no one really cares about the current gen consoles, like the XBox360 and the PS3.
The problem is that everything is too pricey. I would never spend my money in a game like Halo 3, for example. In Brazil, it would be too much money for nothing.
Besides, the condition of the video game market nowadays is pathetic, in my opinion. Developers are not aware about what route to follow and hardcore gamers complain all the time about the lack of epic games.
I consider myself a hardcore gamer. However, I spend most of my time playing games like Picross DS or Flash Focus instead of Call of Duty 4 or Final Fantasy 3. It’s not that CoD4 or FF3 are bad games. The problem is that I’ve done it all before. It’s like TWhite says, I don’t care about fancy graphics if I’ve done all that before! Development is stagnant. Developers need to be more creative, it’s not just a matter of new consumers not liking hardcore games, it’s that hardcore games are more and more dull and uninspired.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:04 am
Thiagos,
You make a few very good points.
You mention that the PS3 and 360 are failing to capture a lot of interest in Brazil. Is it your experience that the Wii is having as much difficulty? How about the DS in that market?
Also you say, “hardcore gamers complain all the time”. While I’ve certainly found this to be true in my experience, I find it telling that I hear the same thing from a completely different market. I recall reading one of the “iwata asks” segments a while back where they were talking about the future direction of the Wii and that one of the reasons they did what they did was because they perceived that the hardcore market was one that was so difficult to satisfy that it was increasingly a less desirable space. To paraphrase, they basically said, no matter how many polys/shaders/effects you give them, they want more, no matter how much content is in the game, they want more. Basically, the impression I got was that the hardcore gamer drove Nintendo away with their constant vocal dissatisfaction. Now humorously, its the hardcore gamers that decry Nintendo for abandoning them.
To put this more on topic, I think the AAA title and its the lack of its draw for people like you and Jack is the result of this mindset. The AAA title has stopped being great games for large audiences, but has become fan service for the hardcore, the gamers who want more of the same with better graphics and more content. I’m not saying this is a bad thing, just that Nintendo has concluded that its a market space that is too challenging and too costly. I can’t say I blame them, even if I do wish to see a bit more from the the Wii in this regard at times.
However, I wouldn’t wish it if it meant coming at the cost of the wild west development environment that is shaking out on the Wii right now where you have no idea what game might come next.
I’m pretty excited for the upcoming exclusive Fatal Frame. I hope the Wii helps inspire them to take the franchise to interesting new places.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:01 am
@used cisco
My experience shows that people see the the Wii as an awesome, fun machine, but still too expensive to be worth it. Videogames in Brazil are heavily taxed because according to the law they fall into the gambling category. The Xbox 360 is sold for around 1,500 reais (850 US dollars) and the Wii for 1,300 reais (735 dollars). This is a shame.
Microsoft is the only company that decided to officially release its console in Brazil. However, the only people who buy the Xbox 360 are hardcore gamers. We can’t blame Microsoft for not trying: some games, like Halo and Viva Piñata were translated and dubbed to Portuguese. The problem is that the Xbox 360 is just not appealing enough to everybody. And the hardware problems also scare a lot of people.
There is an unbelievably huge market for piracy here. Sony never released the PS1 or the PS2 officially in Brazil, yet these are the most sold consoles here. Virtually every PS2 game sold here is pirated and every PS1 game sold before the PS2 was also pirated. The PSP is only popular among hardcore gamers.
The DS also suffers a lot with piracy. Nintendo retired from Brazil in 2002, I think. The GameBoy Advance is still very popular among children and young teenagers. The Nintendo DS is by far the most popular portable console nowadays, but again everybody uses flash carts like the R4. It’s freely sold on the internet through mercadolivre.com (Brazil’s ebay).
It looks like there is a market for the Wii in Brazil, though, if the prices dropped. Casual gamers and people who never played videogames are usually impressed with the Wii. The visuals are not a problem for these people. The vast majority of Brazilians do not have HD sets at home, so there is no use for HD visuals at all at the moment.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:16 am
@thiago,
Thats a shame. I have similar problems breaking into the Brazilian market selling Cisco equipment. There are some very high taxes for importing used goods.
Well, I don’t know if it would work or not in your region, but I’m willing to help out a fellow infendoite. So if you are interested in getting a Wii from the states, let me know. I would gladly pick one up and ship it for you if you wanted to pay me via paypal or something. Obviously I wouldn’t mark up the price at all.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Hey, used cisco, thanks for the support. I’ll probably not be able to get a Wii anytime soon, but thanks anyway!
Best regards.