Opinion: The Hardcore Niche
[In an impassioned editorial from the June-July 2008 issue of GSW sister publication Game Developer magazine, EIC Brandon Sheffield tackles the realities of the changing video game industry, as online social worlds such as Club Penguin and Habbo Hotel start to surpass traditional gaming in reach.]
The video game market is changing incredibly quickly right now, probably at the fastest rate since the big crash of the mid-1980s.
Not only is the market expanding to include women and casual gamers once again, the definition of what constitutes a game is expanding. I wouldn't say it’s expanding within the minds of game developers, but it is expanding in the context of the mass media and mass consumers, and that’s who drives the market in the first place.
As sick to death as we all are of talking about microtransactions, free-to-play MMOs, and casual online spaces, the advent of these things is changing the game landscape for good, whether we like it or not.
Interactive Media - At Face Value
The lines between an online community portal and an MMO are blurred to the point of being indistinguishable. Consider the numbers — Audition Online has tens of millions of users worldwide, and a dedicated TV show in Vietnam. Kart Rider has tens of millions of users. Ditto Habbo Hotel and Club Penguin.
Traditional games - like most people reading this are developing today - may never be able to reach that large of an audience. Our games are too focused, too hardcore, and bear too much of the stereotype of “gamer.”
Right now, Halo 3, Grand Theft Auto IV, and World of Warcraft are considered our blockbuster titles, and flagships for the industry in popular culture. But when you think about it, it’s still just shooting aliens, playing gang banger, and swinging your sword in the forest.
Boiled down to their essentials those things appeal to a very limited group of people, and the complexity of game controls prevents even blockbuster movie attendees, whom we should be attracting, from playing these things.
At least, that’s the common line. But is that really the case? Do aliens, wizards, and soldiers really make a piece of entertainment inaccessible? Many millions of people went to see the Iron Man movie over the past two months, and a large percentage of them have probably never picked up a comic book in their lives.
Why is it that people will go see The Lord of the Rings' movies, but many of them will not play the games?
The Real Mass Market
It’s common knowledge that game controllers are intimidating, that consoles have a certain stigma to them, and that most mass market consumers consider games to be either a waste of time, or actively detrimental.
These can all be debated until the end of time, but the perception exists, and either that has to change (Nintendo is doing good work there), or we have to change. Otherwise we’ll end up with a comparatively small fraction of a growing market.
Will it be possible to make a game like Assassin’s Creed or BioShock in 2015? It’s already becoming difficult to justify large budgets for single-player experiences, and it stands to reason that it will get more difficult as time goes on. What does that mean for developers of these games? What happens to the concept of a game auteur?
One possibility is for these hardcore games to essentially become the art-house cinema of the video game world, which would be odd, as that’s a role currently filled by indie titles.
Interestingly, never has the film/game analogy worked less well than it does currently. In the PS2 era, you could correlate Grand Theft Auto III with a movie blockbuster, and Ico with an art-house film.
But now, in terms of scope, money, and global social impact, Kart Rider or Club Penguin would be that blockbuster, and Call of Duty 4 would be the art-house equivalent, though content- and budget-wise Call of Duty 4 is much more your traditional blockbuster material. Something seems awry there.
The fact is, these simple-to-play social experiences are here. They’re growing in popularity, they’re dwarfing our multi-million dollar projects that sell through to 5 million people at max, and they cost a fraction of the price to make.
With the market expanding as it is, and the dollars going where they’re going, the $20 million budget bestselling console title of today is going to be the hardcore niche title of tomorrow, art-house or not. Unless development costs get significantly lower, it seems we have an online future to look forward to.
New Things Are Stupid
To wit: online games are taking over, and I, curmudgeon that I am, don’t really like it.
Certainly there will always be the hardcore players that will want that deeper experience. There’s no doubt about that. But the question is: in an industry where we’re getting our asses kicked financially by web developers, of all people, who will pay us to make it?
Comments
We make games.
Everything we do that is smart and challenging is completely blanked out.
Everything we do that is dumb and retarded is lapped up.
Don't blame us; blame the gamers.
Posted by: shi | July 5, 2008 6:04 AM
What's so disturbing about this is that it's as if the majority of people are illiterate, and "See Spot Run" (and other grade-1-reading-level books) are the only thing on the New York Times bestseller list. This is the world we live in! It's disgusting.
I think proper game developers need to stop being so silent and acknowledge how depraved and revolting all the people pandering to the hopelessly illiterate "ignoranti" are.
Controls are definitely beyond ridiculous though, NES controllers should be the standard.
If there were more games like Pacman:CE being made, maybe we could start to pull some of the non-gamers out of the casual ghetto and into civilized society.
Posted by: raigan | July 5, 2008 9:05 AM
Can we all be done with the casual/hardcore debate already?
Or how about this, we make simple casual games that appeal to everyone, rake in millions of dollars, and use that to pay for the bigger, more complex hardcore games that many game designers actually want to make?
Posted by: The Guy | July 5, 2008 1:35 PM
not until more people realize that "appeals to everyone" is EXACTLY a description of mediocrity.
Posted by: raigan | July 5, 2008 7:48 PM
I think Brandon Sheffield is being deliberately disingenuous here. There are several false dichotomies presented: the success of Habbo Hotel does NOT in any way affect the financial success of future hardcore games. The existence of casual gamers does not preclude or harm the existing population of hardcore gamers. The growth of the casual market is not demonstrably at the cost of the hardcore market; the casual market is a different market. And to call online game developers "web developers" is just plain insulting. Just as much game design, production and polish go into those community games as into many of the "art games" we're supposed to love.
As for the focus on niche hardware games, look at the game magazines: Play, Edge, GamePro, etc. focus their covers exclusively on hardcore niche titles. When was the last time Habbo Hotel made a magazine cover? Instead, we get cover stories of games that are almost 2 years away from shipping (recent covers include Aliens, Brutal Fate, Damnation, Prototype -- totally hardcore games which have no ship date) which just extend and deepen the nich-ey nature of the game market and actively prevent those new casual gamers from crossing over to being more serious gamers.
The idea that casual gamers are "illiterate" and hardcore gamers are somehow the educated, Renaissance members of game society is just silly. Look at the DS, a platform full of casual games, niche games and nostalgia remakes all co-existing together. The idea that one market will eclipse and shut out the other doesn't take into account that there are a lot of gamers with a foot in both worlds (liking Halo 3 makes it impossible for me to like Dofus?) and that the two audiences are very distinct and don't fight for the same sources of money.
Posted by: Michael Eilers | July 6, 2008 2:01 PM
On the controller angle I think there is much to be said for how 'active' a blockbuster title like GTA IV or COD4 is in comparison to simply watching a film that portrays similar themes. While a game's content may be analogous to that of a blockbuster movieviewed by tens of millions due to the 'active' nature of playing a game an enormous part of the potential market is shut out. I'm not suggesting that controls need to be simpler to help mitigate this. I think there is in fact a limited market for video games of all types simply because they require 'active' participation to enjoy. Even the most basic free-to-play browser-based games require some input from the player (hence the definition of a game). For this reason, that gaming is an active pursuit much like a sport I believe that the market will in fact peak at a certain point and not continually expand as other people do. Because of the time- and effort-intensive nature of interactive games I believe that there is a definite ceiling on potential customers. Should that be the case then there will always be a hardcore niche who should still provide the profits necessary to ensure games continue to be made catering to them.
Posted by: Patrick Turner | July 6, 2008 7:33 PM
"The existence of casual gamers does not preclude or harm the existing population of hardcore gamers"
Yes it does.
Developers are shifting resources that used to be used on us, to the casual market. Dead Rising 2 was delayed cause Capcom switched resources to the Wii. Manufacturers of 360s switched to making Wiis. Every minute spent developing a casual game is a minute not spent developing a hardcore game.
And that is harming us.
Posted by: Tahiri | July 7, 2008 11:57 PM
Tahiri, you're just wrong here. There is no evidence for any of your statements. Dead Rising sold less than a million sales when you combine all three territories; no reason to rush on a sequel. "very minute spent developing a casual game is a minute not spent developing a hardcore game." That's just idiocy. That's like saying every minute someone makes bicycles is a minute not spent on making Ferraris.
Posted by: Michael Eilers | July 9, 2008 9:06 PM
"Tahiri, you're just wrong here. There is no evidence for any of your statements. Dead Rising sold less than a million sales when you combine all three territories;"
Actually it did sell more than a million, hence why it's a "Platinum hit"
How is there no evidence to the statement "Every minute spent developing a casual game is a minute not spent developing a hardcore game"? It's basic math. The developers who are making Wii games would be making hardcore/normal games if it weren't for that pos.
Posted by: Tahiri | July 10, 2008 9:54 PM
http://kotaku.com/5025707/dead-risingfor-the-wii
Absolute proof Dead Rising 2 was delayed cause of the POS Wii, a remake of Dead Rising 1 was announced for the Wii.
I have been proven absolutely, undeniably correct. Wii hurts hard core gamers.
Posted by: Tahiri | July 16, 2008 5:53 PM