Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Less games or better games

Despite the size of the video game market - it outpaced Hollywood for the first time in 2008, then posted an estimated $57 billion in worldwide revenues in 2009 - there are only a few game companies that are actually making a regular profit, usually

Despite the size of the video game market - it outpaced Hollywood for the first time in 2008, then posted an estimated $57 billion in worldwide revenues in 2009 - there are only a few game companies that are actually making a regular profit, usually only a few titles that cover the cost of all their other flops. More than 80 per cent of games lose money.

One of the tricks to making a regular profit is to franchise every popular game by following up with endless sequels and spin-offs and cashing in on name recognition and a familiar gameplay mechanic. But it only works for a little while and there is a risk that you could taint the franchise with one bad title.

In the same way recreational athletes can be forgiven for not going out and purchasing the latest gear every single year, plopping down $65 year after year for slightly better graphics, a few extra features and updated team rosters is prohibitive.

All this underlies the fact that the game industry, despite the revenues, is in trouble in a lot of ways. There are too many companies pumping out too many titles for too many consoles. Releases are too close together. The economy has limited how many games people can purchase. The opinions of critics - many of them jaded - carry a lot of weight with consumers. The audience is too diverse to please and development costs are through the roof.

As a result the industry churns out the same games over and over to sometimes diminishing returns.

In reply, two recent articles on video games sum up the issue pretty succinctly:

Item One is a column by comedian Michael Drucker on GameSpy.com, titled "Dear Videogame Industry, Please Stop Making Videogames for a Year." Among other things, Drucker complains that there are just too many "amazing titles worth playing to completion."

He has a point: movie studios are savvy enough not to release every single summer blockbuster on the same weekend, spacing them out so people aren't overwhelmed and their movies aren't in direct competition with other blockbusters. They do that despite the fact that movies are two to three hours in length and cost about $12 to see. By way of comparison it takes 30 or more hours to play a video game to completion and most new titles are between $65 and $70. As a result, the spacing between blockbuster games should be a little wider, but instead we are seeing four or five top tier titles every few weeks.

"Videogame Industry, you're literally releasing too many good games," complains Drucker, attaching a list of 46 games he's currently playing but hasn't had time to complete. He's literally paralyzed by having too many choices.

But while I don't think the game industry can stop making games, I think it's in everyone's interest that they take a breath and slow down.

Item Two is a complimentary article on Wired.com, titled "21 st Century Shooters Are No Country for Old Men." Author Gus Mastrapa makes the case that all the fun is being sucked out of online video games by demographics - younger players have faster reflexes and more hours to spend playing games, while older players - and I'm talking 20s and 30s - just don't have the time required to master games.

"Am I getting too old for this crap?" asks Mastrapa.

According to Mastrapa the top kid on the Halo 3 leader boards right now is 14. The top players in Quake are between 16 and 20. David Walsh is the oldest player in Major League Gaming and has earned the nickname "Grandpa Walsh," despite the fact that he's all of 25 years old.

Mastrapa asks whether it's even worth it any more and decides that it all depends on how much abuse you can put up with.

In my case it's not that much - if I only have a few hours a week to spend playing games, I'm not going to spend it getting killed and sworn at in Halo 3.

It's a disaster waiting to happen for the gaming industry. According to the most recent study of demographics about half of all gamers are between the ages of 18 and 49, with an average age of 35. A quarter of all gamers were 50 or older, which is roughly the same percentage of gamers who are under the age of 18 and causing a disproportionate amount of grief.

The fact that Mastrapa (and I) can't enjoy online gaming anymore is a serious problem, because older gamers are the ones with the disposable income to buy consoles and games, who pay the bills for broadband access, who purchase accessories like headsets. If we stopped enjoying ourselves and moved onto something else then the industry would crash.

I'll admit it, younger gamers do have faster reflexes and, when it comes down to it, faster wits as well when it comes to talking trash on their headsets.

I've made the case before that gamers should be better grouped based on skills and experience, rather than throwing everyone into the same game together. We should be placed in amateur and recreational gaming groups, and promoted only when we reach certain milestones.

And maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to start grouping online gamers by age and gender as well (given 40 per cent of gamers are women). Right now the gaming industry can't afford to do business as usual.