Let’s ask a semi-philosophical question based around the games industry: What use is hardware innovation if software does not innovate alongside it?
Ex-Microsoft executive Ed Fries shared his concerns about potential video game software stagnation in a May interview with GamesIndustry. While game hardware is evolving in exciting new ways–controller-free game interaction, 3D, touch-screens–developers of big budget games are in danger of relying too heavily on sequels as a “sure thing” sales-wise.
“I worry [...] about innovation on the software side, honestly,” he told GI.Biz. “I worry about too many sequels. The problem when budgets and teams get really big is that it just gets too risky for publishers to go out and do new things. I think the heart and soul of entertainment is surprising the audience. Doing something new and different.
“You see that in the movies, right? You can only go on making sequels for so long. Viewers decline. People want something new. They want something different and surprising.”
Fries’ outlook on the games industry is a little pessimistic. Going back to the earliest days of home console gaming, there were twenty imitators (or blatant rip-offs) for every Atari 2600 hit. And does anyone remember the side-scrolling rodent explosion that invaded 16-bit consoles after Sonic the Hedgehog made it huge on the Sega Genesis? (If we’ve unearthed a terrible memory, take a second to pour yourself a strong drink.)
However, Fries’ main point is still an excellent one: Hardware innovation is impotent unless innovative games make good use of the new technology. We can go one step further: Innovative games trump cutting edge hardware every time. A great degree of Nintendo’s success is built on this very philosophy, the “lateral thinking of withered technology.” In 1999, the hottest gaming sensation involved trading and battling trained monsters on ten-year-old piece of technology. Moreover, the color screens from Sega’ Game Gear and Atari’s Lynx couldn’t touch the popularity of a brick-thick black-and-white Game Boy running Tetris.
Even today, people are far more concerned about the games that are available to play than the technology they run on. The Wii hit a sweet spot because it was innovative and affordable. And what’s currently more popular than Zynga’s games, which likewise present a new way to play (through social networks) despite being pretty low-tech and therefore accessible to almost everyone?
But nothing stays in one spot for long, least of all technology. E3 2011 will reveal a whole bunch of new ways to play, courtesy of Nintendo’s Project Cafe and Sony’s NGP. Will developers’ gears start to turn as the men and women behind game creation think of ideas to match up with the new gaming tech? Or will stagnation prove inevitable as developers cringe from new ideas and stick to sequels?
Cool games that turn a genre on its head or invent a whole new one are rare, and they always have been. But every console generation has a handful of devs who are capable of executing their vision on any console from any time period. New technology matters, but the people behind the games matter even more.
Loading ...
Scott Steinberg is the CEO of video game consulting firm TechSavvy Global, and founder of GameExec magazine and Game Industry TV. Hailed as a top technology and video game expert by dozens of publications from USA Today to Forbes and NPR, he’s covered the field for 400+ outlets from Playboy to Rolling Stone. A frequent on-air analyst for networks like ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, he’s also the author of Video Game Marketing and PR.
I think the hardware technology is about to hit a point where upgrading to the next generation of console becomes less and less compelling.
Graphics are hitting a point of diminishing returns where they will improve marginally but are not worth the extra cost of development, New Controller inputs can be added rather easily since its all wireless connections now, and load times and frame rates could be improved.
But, other than those small hardware improvements the most compelling thing about new hardware is the new software that actually utilizes it. Which is going to be “limited” due to development budget constraints.
I say that with quotes because more developers really need to focus on making creative original experiences rather than focusing on metrics driven game design and technical prowess of games. Sequels are fine every now and then, but more often they should be made because it will be a new experience rather than more of the same.
Fact is people get burnt out on too much of the same after a while, there needs to be a lot more new IPs and a focus on significantly reducing costs to the developers so they can take those risks.
If there was a way to reduce game development costs 80% or more that would be a real break through in technology. Which, in every way currently known is technically unfeasible until AI can program our game concepts for us.