One of the biggest reasons for stagnation in the mainstream gaming
market is the tendency of big publishers to focus on the large, blockbuster
titles. With the current model of huge, multi-million dollar releases every
year, there are clearly signs of fatigue in the gaming market. As such big
titles compete for the tightening consumer wallet, the question should be asked
whether such a model is sustainable and what could be done to fix the
situation.
This is where mid-tier games could fit comfortably in the
niche; Jim Sterling has recently championed the use of such titles, citing the
practice as a boost to creativity in the industry, especially during the peak
times of the PS2 era. Jim is indeed correct that mid-tier games could produce a
more sustainable niche for big publishers.
With the costs of development skyrocketing, many game
publishers have engaged in shady practices to boost their profits. Imagine how
much better games would be if hundreds of millions of dollars and the fate of
the developers themselves didn’t hinge on their profitability; there would
certainly be more creative risks taken, as well as fewer implementations of
anti-consumer ‘features’ such as loot boxes.
There is a need for more ‘useful’ games; ones that may not
make all the money all the time but don’t need to be so big to be profitable.
Given the tightness of customer wallets, this model would arguably be more
sustainable; there’s a lot more room for someone to buy a couple of £20-to-£30
games on top of a big budget £60 blockbuster, rather than expecting them to pay
for three or four such ‘must-have’ titles (representing nearly a £240 outlay –
almost as much investment as buying a whole new console!). In this way,
mid-tier games could be the bread and butter of a mainstream gaming industry
that currently stands on unstable footing.
While some may argue that game dev costs are spiralling out
of control as technology is pushed further and further with each yearly
release, the question should be asked as to whether such costly development is
always the way to go. Surely for a risk-averse big company, smaller and less
costly games could represent a salvation for creativity. Instead of risking
hundreds of millions on a single title, and the jobs that come with those big
bucks, surely it would be more sustainable to have a varied portfolio where games
can make profit at all levels of the market. This practice also represents an
insurance policy against disaster; if your big, AAA blockbuster falls by the
wayside one year and suffers from terrible sales, then you can fall back on a
portfolio of smaller, profitable titles to shore up the earnings before the
next instalment.
As mainstream gaming continues into the next generation, big
companies will undoubtedly need to review their strategies and cost-efficiency.
If a game doesn’t need to have the best graphics, why bother spending so much
and then push that cost onto the consumers? Many such players will be content
with paying a little less while getting a slightly less graphically-intense
game, and in fact will probably be more likely to buy the game ‘on-top-of’ a
AAA £60 purchase. Mid-tier games represent an interesting avenue for a more
sustainable, more creative gaming future, so hopefully these will be utilized
correctly and more often in the coming years.
No comments:
Post a Comment