Discussion About the relationship between Developers/Producers and Consumers/Fans in the Global Entertainment Market

[Jazzmaster 716]

It's been a growing issue lately, at least from what I've seen. Fans are becoming more and more aggressive and forward with producers when they don't like something. We need only to look to things like Mass Effect 3's Ending and the upcoming SimCity '13 to realize this.

To an extent, I can understand fan frustration and disappointment. However, it's quite inevitable that somebody will dislike a piece of art because art is subjective. I don't really think that we're entitled to influencing every aspect of a piece of work or entire franchise just because we like it. Imagine a world where we told the developers what to do entirely; we wouldn't be surprised, because we would be the writers.

Developers could stand to be a little more aware of their fans, but I still feel that we get a little too entitled and start complaining about nearly everything left and right because it's a little bit different. Facebook changed their layout?

Oh dear, it's the end of the world, now my notifications moved to a different sector of the page. It's an outrage! How dare they do something that I don't appreciate!

Anyways, what do you all think? Are we a little too entitled when we attach ourselves to things we really enjoy such as certain games, books, movies or musicians, and get out of control when we send out such a backlash to changes...or are we completely justified in doing so, and do the artists have an obligation to the fans to always be mindful of their best interests, if nothing else?

Also, let's please not talk about pirating in this topic. It's not allowed on the site, even if you cite it as a factor in this discussion. Just don't do it.

  Edited April 5, 2012 by Yoshiisland  

[jacksunny 741]

"You can't please everyone"

[Ion_Cannon 677]

I think we have every right to be concerned if for example a beloved franchise changes direction or changes to appeal to a different audience cough* Dragon Age 2 *cough. I showed my concern by not buying it and telling everyone I knew to do the same.

The problem lies in the games industry itself, alot of developers are at the whim of big publishers, who are in turn controlled by shareholders with no clue about the games industry. This results in changes to games to make them appeal to more people, and usually it doesn't work. Shareholders and investors have this mythical concept of the COD market - almost as if any game can get as many players as COD if it just changes this, tweaks that, removes this level of complexity, make element X easier - the quintessential "dumbing down". Of course if those investors were savvy and knew anything about the games market they would realise that alot of COD players only play COD, only have an interest in COD and will probably only ever play COD. Therefore by making XZY more appealing to this crowd all they do is piss off the fans of XZY franchise, while not gaining the COD players, because they are to busy playing COD.

I have a feeling you meant this more in terms of the recent mass effect debacle, but again I think people are justified to be angry at the shitty ending (Which I won't spoil, though most of you should have heard of it by now anyway). The thing is ME was a unique experiment in games, a trilogy with persistent characters, and the power to influence alot of which happens in the game, and the next. This is why people became so angry, they had invested hours in creating their Shepard, in making the choices they wanted to make through all 3 games and then at the end, none of it really mattered. Something as simple as the DAO endings, where you found out how all your decisions affected the characters and the world around you have would sufficed, but they didn't even bother with that.

The other point is that TV, music, books are all non dynamic, you cannot influence how a book ends, you can't kill off a major character in a TV series just because you dislike him (Joffrey Baratheon springs to mind) But in a game, you can, you have power. Bottom line I think people are perfectly justified to be a little angry, but this is the internet so things will be worse than it would otherwise.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I believe that developers/producers should first issue a Request For Comment (RFC) at the beginning of a project once the basic model has been developed. Willing persons should comment and make suggestions.

The development team should then disappear into its shell until:

Beta testing. Those who responded to the RFC should be invited to test the product in its more or less debugged state. A non-disclosure agreement may be necessary. Testers should have the debug tables available, and any dumps should be sent in. It is not necessary for testers to have the source code. As bugs are found and fixed, new binaries should be downloaded to the testers until the Beta period is deemed successful by the producer/developer. Part of the agreement with the testers should be that the material is to be destroyed when the testing cycle completes.

The exposure testing by a large enough group of testers should remove any obvious bugs, especially if the testing period is long enough for all facets of the application to be tested completely. Only the most arcane problems may be undetectable by the Beta group, but the likelihood is small if the group is large enough.

There is a considerable amount of bug tracking software available across the Internet that is public domain. The only cost of the testing should be the cost of the time and administration for the effort. It is a part of the cost of doing business. The resulting application, being widely tested, should gain ready acceptance.

As a matter of interest, I am currently participating in a Beta test of the new Ubuntu verion 12.04 Desktop. Since the source of this product is public, no non-disclosure nor other secrecy measures are taken.

[Duke87 1,070]

The problem is that the business has entered an oliglopoly state. A few large companies control nearly everything. Smaller companies really can't edge their way into the market, and if they do, a larger company just buys them up. This has the effect of making it such that the big players can turn a profit whether they make a good game or not since gamers lack alternatives. And since making a good game is not important, effort isn't put into doing so.

What needs to happen in order for this to change is another player needs to enter the field with something fresh and great to offer, which then does not let themselves get bought out and instead forces the existing big players to shape up in order to compete with them. Said company also needs to be able to withstand the big players' vicious attempts to run them off the road through lawsuits, lobbying, etc.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The problem is that the business has entered an oliglopoly state. A few large companies control nearly everything. Smaller companies really can't edge their way into the market, and if they do, a larger company just buys them up. This has the effect of making it such that the big players can turn a profit whether they make a good game or not since gamers lack alternatives. And since making a good game is not important, effort isn't put into doing so.

What needs to happen in order for this to change is another player needs to enter the field with something fresh and great to offer, which then does not let themselves get bought out and instead forces the existing big players to shape up in order to compete with them. Said company also needs to be able to withstand the big players' vicious attempts to run them off the road through lawsuits, lobbying, etc.

Boy, is that ever a pessimistic outlook. You should stop your world and get off. Maybe you can find someplace that you can land where free enterprise really operates.

[Duke87 1,070]

Boy, is that ever a pessimistic outlook.

But do you deny that it's true?

The music industry is somewhat suffering from the same problem, where marketing has replaced talent. It's cheaper and easier to make crap and convince people that it isn't crap than it is to make something which actually isn't crap.

Fortunately, there are still some good artists out there. But most of them aren't producing top 40 hits.

[jacksunny 741]

To say the video game market is only controlled by a few companies is ridiculous. Take a look at this list. If all but a few of these companies couldn't edge there way into the market, there wouldn't be so many that operate independently.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Boy, is that ever a pessimistic outlook.

But do you deny that it's true?

The music industry is somewhat suffering from the same problem, where marketing has replaced talent. It's cheaper and easier to make crap and convince people that it isn't crap than it is to make something which actually isn't crap.

Fortunately, there are still some good artists out there. But most of them aren't producing top 40 hits.

Why do you suppose that lately I've been hearing a lot of acoustic guitars on the air?

[Duke87 1,070]

To say the video game market is only controlled by a few companies is ridiculous. Take a look at this list. If all but a few of these companies couldn't edge there way into the market, there wouldn't be so many that operate independently.

That list belies the actual situation. Any company on that list highlighted in blue or yellow doesn't count since it's bought out or gone. Most of the foreign publishers don't count since they aren't active in the US. And also, note how many companies on that list don't have any "notable games" listed - in other words, the company isn't notable. The point is that most of the market share is occupied by large developers.

[Yuu Caa Sim 55]

I wanted to get a better sense of the data in that wiki article, so I decided to put the table into Excel and applied some filters / sorting. You can download the Excel 2007/2010 file {here} if you want to have a go at it yourself (click the green "download" button at the top right to actually download the file, not just view it). Use the dropdown arrow for the "Sort & Filter" button at the top right of the screen, and select "clear" to reset all the filters. You can filter out colors by selecting the filter button for the "Company" column, choosing "filter by color", and select the color white.

If we are to go by Duke's criteria of being an active, independent company in the US with notable games, then that would result in only 17 companies, out of the 409 on the list. However, not all companies that are notable have notable games listed (e.g. Electronic Arts & Activision Blizzard, who I believe are the two largest gaming companies at the moment). Of course, the article is about game developers, not publishers, so that may have been why.

At any rate, I added a new column (Notable), and made entries in that column for companies that I felt had notable games (I don't play many games or follow gaming news so much, so I feel if I can recognize a company, it's probably notable ). Filtering so that only non-blank entries in that column are shown, there are 67 active, independent, and notable companies worldwide, although I think some of them aren't so notable at the moment due to past mistakes and the such. There are 34 such companies in the US.

Of course, I would argue that we should consider market capitalization to be much more important than notability. Which company sells more units? Which company has a higher average of units per game? And how much revenue does each company have?

And yes I'm sorry for only having an Excel 07/10 document. I don't have a copy of Excel 2003 or OpenOffice to see if the spreadsheet is rendered correctly.

  Edited April 7, 2012 by yunxiang  

[Easy Bakes 253]

To say the video game market is only controlled by a few companies is ridiculous. Take a look at this list. If all but a few of these companies couldn't edge there way into the market, there wouldn't be so many that operate independently.

That list belies the actual situation. Any company on that list highlighted in blue or yellow doesn't count since it's bought out or gone. Most of the foreign publishers don't count since they aren't active in the US. And also, note how many companies on that list don't have any "notable games" listed - in other words, the company isn't notable. The point is that most of the market share is occupied by large developers.

this is exactly what happened to the Strong Hold franchise ( since 1999, a castle building/war/siege simulation game)

SH3 was released before Christmas last year to the rabid fans if this game.It was not even close to being ready for release.

Firefly Studios was the developer.But the new publisher ( South peak?) released the game with no beta testing. 2k was the previous publisher i dont think it would have been released in this shape by 2k games.Its just recently become playable with out crashing.

  Edited April 7, 2012 by Easy Bakes  

[hamsterTK 93]

IMO it's a VERY long overdue disruptive change, that comes from everyone having broadband internet and accepting things like online content platforms, DRM, etc. DLC is normal, having a unique player account is ubiquitous, and there is pressure to incorporate multiplayer, leaderboards, and social features even if they do absolutely nothing for the kind of game you are making. I do think that these trends are making new games in certain genres less fun than old ones, even if they make more money for the company that made them.

Call being disappointed "entitled" if you wish, but I think being "entitled" is normal consumer behavior. You desire the best product for the least money.

Part of the resentment comes from the way that games get people hooked, as fans you might feel obligated to buy a game and then it only sinks in later that sorry, you'll never get any more out of this game than whatever lame mass-marketed schlock they want to give. No mods, and you're just going to like how we've ended this epic game in a terrible way or made you play multiplayer to finish single player. It's like how people felt watching an old TV series called St. Elsewhere, where at the end the writers decided to troll their audience and make everything the dream of a mentally handicapped kid playing with a snowglobe. Fans will get over it in time, though I also think fewer people will call themselves "fans" to begin with and just consume game after disposable game.

  Edited April 8, 2012 by hamsterTK  

[Duke87 1,070]

There's multiplayer and then there's multiplayer. Multiplayer against other players in the room on a console is one thing. Multiplayer online where all you need is two people with copies of the game and a network connection is also "one thing". But the instant you require players to log onto a dedicated server for online functionality which is key to the game, you make the game perishable, since that online support will not be around forever (and even while it is around, it will be subject to blackouts, etc.). Game makers of course only think about now when they're looking to sell the game, but what about 15-20 years from now (or more, even), when people are getting nostalgic and want to fire the old game up? If part of the game isn't "in the box" and requires external input that is no longer available, then the game is dead.

[hamsterTK 93]

Exactly

We are entering a kind of "dark" era similar to TV before the 1980s where'd they'd reuse the same reel of quad videotape over and over to save money, and literally there is no trace of much of what the BBC or CBS made up to about 40 years ago. Games coming out today will probably be lost to history. Ones before now won't, just as we have old 16mm Kinescope recordings of ancient programs and movies. In the distant future orphaned content might hang around in "the cloud" and be archiveable by hackers, who will considered heroes by future generations of historians.

Not to mention, that of all places, China is writing for the first time in their history a comprehensive legal framework for copyright, and it's extraordinarily liberal and time-limited. So maybe in the future if the US loses it's pop culture clout, at least our rivals won't throw away their culture to make some greedy lawyers happy.

Also at least a few companies and publishers do recognize the value or retro or nostalgic gaming. Nintendo being one, and a lot of old console games you'd use to need an emulator for can now be obtained legally through various services and played across more devices. It would be amazing if stuff people our age grew up with was available for our future children. The way things are going, they'll still have Pokemon I'm sure :/ There will be at least 3244312 by then, gotta catch em all, right?

  Edited April 9, 2012 by hamsterTK