 |
Virtuos is one of the world's largest providers of digital production services to the game and movie industries, specializing in 3D art and game co-development. Virtuos has over 600 staff across its production centers in Shanghai and Chengdu, and offices in Paris, Vancouver and Tokyo.
Serving 15 of the top 20 games publishers worldwide, as well as renowned developers, Virtuos has developed full games on PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, NDS and PSP for leading publishers.
Visit us today at virtuosgames.com
|
|
|
| |
GDC: EA's Cousins Talks Social Gaming's Wal-Mart Parallel
by Frank Cifaldi [PC, Console/PC, GDC, Exclusive]
|
|
| |
|
March 13, 2010
|
| |
|
The shift of the game-playing population to internet-based games is analogous to the growth of the American supermarket, according to EA's Ben Cousins.
In a talk at the Game Developers Conference, Cousins (Battlefield Heroes) explained how studying the history of the American retail experience solidifies his somewhat controversial theory that quick, convenient, internet-based gaming will overtake traditional retail-based products completely.
According to cousins, the retail dynamic at the turn of the 20th century was a high-quality, boutique experience - consumers would interact directly with an expert behind the counter, who would suggest and personally package up products. It was expensive, inconvenient, and slow.
With the rapid adoption of automobiles and growth of paved roads, what we call "supermarkets" became the norm, and consumers gravitated toward the convenience, speed and lower prices they offered.
Cousins argued that traditional packaged retail games are going the way of the old-fashioned market, pointing as many GDC speakers have this year to FarmVille as his primary example. FarmVille's 80 million users make it the most popular game in the history of the Western world, despite the experience not being as high quality as a traditional, high definition retail game. Consumers, he said, are willing to look past a game's quality if the game is free, quick, and easy to access.
"Online distribution cost is falling almost at the same rate as Moore's Law is increasing computational power," said Cousins. "As it drops, at some point someone is going to do your game for free."
Cousins demonstrated that quality increases don't necessarily generate more revenue by showing a revenue graph of Battlefield Heroes. The graph showed three spikes. The first revenue spike happened when the game became more accessible, and no longer required a code to play. The second, significantly larger spike occurred when EA started selling in-game weapons and introduced new ways to pay.
"The game actually got worse during this spike for some gamers," said Cousins, saying that the availability of purchasable upgrades changed the quality of the game.
The third spike, which was minimal and very short-lived, was when EA improved the game by adding a new map, new abilities, and gameplay balances. According to Cousins, this demonstrated that a quality improvement did not necessarily generate more revenue.
"As developers we can't afford to be arrogant and ignore the online game world," said Cousins. "I think as developers working in the packaged games business we need to understand this shift to a world of convenience. Let's work on making online game more convenient and cheaper."
|
| |
|
|
Why? I don't like the idea of working solely to feed the mass populace's desire for cheap and easy instant gratification, or maximizing revenue by adding in easy ways for users to upgrade their game at the expense of balance and the overall quality of the game.
I'd rather create a meaningful experience that inspires or emotionally touches the player in some way. If it's something they can look back at and say was a worthwhile experience, then it was worthwhile to create.
Phones and web-based games are here to stay ... and make more and more money. We all need to learn the words: "platform agnostic" "no prejudice" "there-is-no-hardcore-gamer" etc ...? ;)
The main point is that there is no need to stop creating games that are not "convenient" or "cheap" per se, just as there is no need to stop making games that are free and easy (or easier) to use. Frankly, I do not find as much appeal in portable games for several reasons, nor do I find much appeal in web-based games. That being said, I would certainly argue that there is a place for them and that they can fill specific needs in the industry as well as amongst the consumer population. Not every book needs to be an epic novel of 1000+ pages, but it would be silly to claim that we should get rid of epic literature such as The Tale of Genji (the earliest novel we know of, by the way, and one of the most epic works ever written).
Actually, it would probably be more accurate if the focus of this discussion would have been on the fact that too many game products that have content that indicates they should be mass market "free" (or very inexpensive anyway) and "convenient" are published and marketed as though they were super high quality (which they are not, in many cases). There's simply no way that a game like Gears of War has the same overall value as a game like Fallout 3, for example. The cost versus playtime ratio is far in favor of the latter, and the technical factors with respect to elements such as graphic detail, music, acting, etc can be evaluated as being roughly similar. However, mass market packaged games (and even the downloadable versions) are all sold at the same price, or nearly the same price. In my view, this is where the biggest problem lies, and why you have various consumers getting rather irate due to feeling "ripped off" (with some justification, after all).
Of course, I suppose one could argue that my example isn't the best comparison due to GoW having multi-player. First... whoopee. If that is what's important, then offer the single and multiplayer separate (with single player being very cheap or free) so that customers who couldn't care less about multiplayer are not ripped off. However, such a concern misses the point that I was simply offering a single example of two major, popular titles of the past couple years (in the North American market, anyway). I could certainly find other single player examples to compare to Fallout 3, or to compare between other single player products (or compare multiplayer products, for that matter). The point is that not all games have equal value as far as the content they offer and its overall technical qualities, presentation, etc, but the products continue to be offered at the same (or nearly the same) price regardless of the content. In my view, that's really where the problem is.
I'm not saying you can't have meaningful experiences with quick and easy-to-access games, I'm saying I don't like the idea of developing games that are meant to be nothing more than a pointless distraction from reality.
Supermarket goods aren't necessarily cheap and boutiques don't always mean quality. Big chains cater to more people, so their margins don't have to be as high as the boutique stores. There is a difference.
The point I get out of all of this is that people know that they don't need to pay for a super computer or a console to get a good game anymore; just like how you don't need to order your clothes out of a catalog to get unique fashions. But, we can't overlook that Farmville doesn't happen without Facebook. Everyone can't rely on Facebook to make profitable games. That would be a huge risk considering that it's not in the business of making good games and that making profits for game makers isn't a huge priority to them.
I'm starting to consider "social games" and "AAA HD games" to be as indirect competitors as say, "cable TV" and "books". They appeal to mostly very different demographics, different time usage, different purposes, etc.