Does this generation of platform gaming need a facelift?

[PlatformPlight]

Upon discussing the state of the video game industry with a good friend, I wanted to pose the question of, "What next?"

I believe that this generation of platform gaming is at risk for a gradual plateauing of creativity and imagination. Think about it...How many sequels and reboots will get developed over fresh new IPs...new source material. I am not demonizing the entirety of sequels and reboots, because there are some amazing franchises that persist this gen. However, I am growing tired of the lack of new titles. It seems that the PS3/ Xbox 360 generation explored new frontiers of plot development, character development, art styles, etc and that is a characteristic missing from the heart and soul of this generation.

I am tired of being excited about a 3rd, 4th, or 5th installment of a title. I want to see more risks taken...boldness and originality.

I actually believe there is a spectrum to the industry which, when polarized, can lead to an unproductive and dissatisfying atmosphere surrounding platform gaming. On one hand there is pure market economics: Here the numbers are crunched, the survey and poll data informs the marketability and profit returns of a product. This is important to the logistics and infrastructure of a game developer. On the other hand there is the art form of creating a game...like cinematic entertainment, the beauty and the craftsmanship behind the production embed works in history just as a masterful painting or a classic car.

When the industry polarizes towards either of these fronts too favorably there are negative consequences. Some of these consequences are long development cycles, un-optimized games, cancellations, release delays, lay-offs, lack of funding, and in general empty promises.

The question I pose to you, as fellow gamers, is this:

Where must the industry go from here in order to create more creative diversity and the energy to match it?

 

[MakaiOokami]

Well the issue is, Saints Row Gat out of Hell isn't GTA. Hell Saints Row isn't GTA but Gat out of Hell is a freaking trip down to Hell with Satan, and his daughter, and there's a musical number and everything. It's as far away from GTA as you can get.

But that's not considered a New IP is it?

The games that are better than Call of Duty, even as the quality in Call of Duty plummets, those don't get the hype and the praise or the numbers. Why? Because you can't spend 500 million dollars on marketing like you can. Apparently there was something like 500 million dollars budgeted to marketing Destiny. Which is why it took off so well even though the 1.0 is considered a horrible game, by Taken King Standards.

There have been plenty of companies trying to make AAA games with Indie Budgets. One example is GriN making Woolfe the Red Hood Diaries.

Then you have Mighty Number 9. I guess that can't be considered a New IP really can it? It's made by the creator of Megaman to give people Megaman like gameplay to scratch the itch of Megaman left by Capcom kinda not doing anything with the franchise...

They have the game made, it's finished but they are having problems with the online coding because they are a small developer and the networking engine is no longer supported. If they take the multiplayer out it will still be delayed, so they either have to ship with the broken multiplayer features, or delay the game and fix it, to prevent having to go through all of the QA submission process from scratch.

If they were Sony exclusive it probably wouldn't have been an issue bu they made it for Steam, Wii U, Xbox, PC, 3DS and they all have different certification processes, the net code has to be tweaked individually...

 

[MakaiOokami]

Then there's the whole financial side, argument which I haven't gotten into about games costing 100s of millions to make, and indie games being ignored because they only have 5-10 million dollar budgets not 100 millions of dollars for their budgets, and twice that for marketing.

Then there's Virtual Reality which will offer all new ways of experiences in this medium... but it's going to take a while for adoption to be high enough for AAA integration, then there's all the people who will want to play COD on their new $400 VR unit.

I don't think that gaming has stagnated, I don't think that we aren't innovating, I just think that people are ignoring it all because they are more scared of risking their $10-15 dollars on a weird new game, than big companies are on risking 40 million dollar on a sub AAA game that is a new experience...

Wasn't move last gen's facelift? Before that it was the Eyetoy. Now we have VR. Let's just hope that VR moves way more numbers.

Not really talking about Oculus because it's way too expensive and way too "hackey" and "hokey" of an experience.

 

[PlatformPlight]

I don't think that gaming has stagnated, I don't think that we aren't innovating, I just think that people are ignoring it all because they are more scared of risking their $10-15 dollars on a weird new game, than big companies are on risking 40 million dollar on a sub AAA game that is a new experience...

Great point man!

 

[PlatformPlight]

Wasn't move last gen's facelift? Before that it was the Eyetoy. Now we have VR. Let's just hope that VR moves way more numbers.

I don't think VR will move the numbers early on in its lifespan. This is partly why I believe that there is a stagnation. There is so much energy being allocated to these flagship models that it could easily detract from the current mediums of gaming.

I suppose what I truly wish to see is risk.

High Risk = High Reward

This is easy for me to say because I am not the finance guy for these development titans, but I feel that the variety of genres has shrunk and that the diversity that was prevalent in previous generations of platforms has, to a large extent, faded.

 

[PlatformPlight]

Then there's the whole financial side, argument which I haven't gotten into about games costing 100s of millions to make, and indie games being ignored because they only have 5-10 million dollar budgets not 100 millions of dollars for their budgets, and twice that for marketing.

Then there's Virtual Reality which will offer all new ways of experiences in this medium... but it's going to take a while for adoption to be high enough for AAA integration, then there's all the people who will want to play COD on their new $400 VR unit.

I don't think that gaming has stagnated, I don't think that we aren't innovating, I just think that people are ignoring it all because they are more scared of risking their $10-15 dollars on a weird new game, than big companies are on risking 40 million dollar on a sub AAA game that is a new experience...

Wasn't move last gen's facelift? Before that it was the Eyetoy. Now we have VR. Let's just hope that VR moves way more numbers.

Not really talking about Oculus because it's way too expensive and way too "hackey" and "hokey" of an experience.

I was satisfied to see this article pop up on the PSLS:

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2016/02/22/mainstream-games-2016-warren-spector/

check it out! Let me know what you think

 

[MakaiOokami]

Puzzles and dragons makes an estimated 50-70 million dollars a month in Japan.

50-75 million a month.

Mobile games can cost a few million and make hundreds of million in profit. You have to sell 2-5 million copies of most AAA games to make your money back.

There is no

"High Risk = High Reward"

It's "Low Risk = a chance at High Reward"

When was the last time a risky game had a high reward? Can you name any?

Destiny is one. Does that count?

 

[sergann]

Puzzles and dragons makes an estimated 50-70 million dollars a month in Japan.











Adam4adam TutuApp AppValley