There is a word, it connects to the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czeg2p3wjy1o) where we are treated to ‘Why so many games are failing right now – and why others are breakout hits’ the word in this is ‘game’ the definition is “an activity that one engages in for amusement or fun”. The problem is that most ‘game designers’ have no clue on games. The bulk of these ‘designers’ are setting the bar ridiculously low. Their version is to create some version that reflects a game and lace it with advertisements. You see 100K ‘customers’ implies that the designer gets 100K times a few cents. So that implies 100,000 times $0.04-$0.07 gives us $4000-$7000 per advertisement and take that 3 times then whomever downloads the game has handed their achievement towards the $7000. The world (Google, Apple et al) likes this, because they get their larger share of the cash, but that doesn’t make a game, it doesn’t even resemble a game. And mobiles and tablets are overgrown with that trash. In the years that I have seen these junk providers I have perhaps seen a dozen games at best and they are still around, the rest is easily forgotten. So the article gives us “There’s also evidence people have been spending less money on new games, choosing to stick with long-running online games like Fortnite or yearly franchises including Call of Duty and EA Sports FC. Despite that, more games than ever are getting released.” As such we see Fortnite, Call of Duty and EA sports. I like merely one of them, but these are all games. We don’t all like the same thing and as such the designers of an actual game get into a much larger predicament.
I have met the greats Richard Garriott, Sid Meier and Peter Molyneux (and a few more). They have a different mindset and that shows. They created games that are close to timeless. Even now I could get my thrills from Ultimate 3-8, Alpha Centauri, Civilisation, Dungeon Keeper, Magic Carpet. These games let us enjoy actual gaming and they would still entice gamers today. That makes for a real game designer. There are more designers of course. As I personally see it game designer made Horizon Zero Dawn a game of near perfection. There are of course more designers. Yet as I see it, we are given “That’s not only affected premium releases – smaller studios, whose games tend to be more affordable, have also struggled to find an audience.
It’s often difficult to pinpoint why, but quality isn’t a guarantee of success.” In response I give you Hello Games, a smaller studio that game is all “No Man’s Sky”, they gave it to us in 2016 and is till debated, played and loved 8 years later. I do agree that quality is no guarantee of success. There have been these games going back to 1985. We had games like The Sentinel, Paradroid, Eye of the Beholder, Tower of Babel. The list goes on. Some become success, some do not. There is another cog in that wheel. In those days the press illuminated games that THEY liked, the game population was small. Now everyone calls themselves a gamer and that is where the plot thickens. It becomes about the advertisements and the fountain of replication. For example there are dozens of match 3 games and they all advertise. And as they all advertise to the same people the advertisers see their money bags fill up. That is not gaming. So now we get to another setting. We see it “As well as battling for player’s attention, new games are increasingly battling for their time. According to analytics firm Newzoo, annual series such as Call of Duty and online titles such as Fortnite took up 92% of gaming time, with just 8% remaining for new releases.” I have doubts about this data. I for one have never touched Fortnite and I know a few more people who did that. There will be an offset of course, like the platform in use. Tablet, Mobile, Consoles and PC/MAC. The final part I needed to look at is ““Factors like a strong IP, strong marketing campaign, community fostering, and timing can help, but the fact is that there is luck involved,” he says. Right place, right time is a big part of gaming’s surprise successes. “But gameplay matters, and innovation, so great games often stand out and find their market.”” I can agree in part with this. IP is essential, and in that setting the Horizon games stand out. A new IP is essential and Guerrilla has the goods. Still the IP was not enough. The first game gives us a storyline that is quite literally out of this world. And these two are essential to a success. Graphics snd sounds count, but without the first two graphics and sound don’t stand a chance. We can debate IP, but without it dozens will copy what you have or they will copy it as well. That sets your pool to a much smaller population. And as statistics go, consider that “14,000 games have been published on the platform this year, with 2024 already overtaking 2023’s tally” do you know what it takes to produce 14,000 games? It comes down to 39 games each day. Take the timeline and you get something unsustainable. A setting that Advertisers love, but do the gamers? And when you consider the number of games. It seems to me that the bulk of designers are set to appease advertisement funds. The red currency that dwindles on the gullibility of gamers and the BBC seemingly overlooked that small fact. They know statistics? They know the top-line of involved data? So why didn’t they see this? I know because I have been involved with games and gaming since 1985 and I have seen several iterations of gaming whilst taking the advertiser out of the loop. It is time for a better dimension of gaming and the BBC story merely confirms what I have known for several years. And in all this the BBC has been unaware of what they missed from the very beginning.
Have a lovely day.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 