Video game market could collapse according to this article.

[BricatSegaFan]

It makes a lot of valid points

http://www.cracked.com/article_20727...-to-crash.html

[Rickstilwell1]

Yeah definitely. There's a few third party companies I'd like to see lose their limelight so some of the once popular, now niche ones can regain their lost thrones. And also make way for new ones.

If EA hadn't bought out so many studios we'd still have more companies and creativity.

[Collector_Gaming]

Yeah definitely. There's a few third party companies I'd like to see lose their limelight so some of the once popular, now niche ones can regain their lost thrones. And also make way for new ones.

If EA hadn't bought out so many studios we'd still have more companies and creativity.

See thats the problem. EA is what i think we can say a "video game sweat shop" they just want the money. So thier theory is to eliminate all competition by buying them out and letting them collapse on themselves so they get all the profit. Wouldn't surprise me if EA has tried to buy out other mega hit companies like valve and such

[Neb6]

Good article.

Mentions a lot of important issues:

- project budgets spiraling out of control, coupled with the pressure to sell tons of product in order to recover costs.
- the wrong people making the creative decisions/too many cooks in the kitchen.
- falling back on 'what sold last time' comfort zone advice from investors (this is what's plaguing the film industry right now).
- biased reviews (not all that different from the payola system that influences what music gets played on commercial radio).

I think scaling projects down to smaller budgets with smaller teams could help. Of course then there'd be the argument of. "Can we still sell it at the price of a bigger/badder game?" Question is, do they HAVE to sell it at the $60.00 introductory price to make a profit if the budget was lower and the game was good enough? I suppose it then enters the realm of marketing budgets. Distribution is a pain too. Ugh. It seems they've worked themselves into a corner.

For me though, there are a lot of things that cost money that I don't need in my games. So if they need so save money, they can:
- model less cars for racing games (I only need a maximum of ten vehicles to choose from).
- skip the elaborate intros and cut scenes for racing and flight games (I don't need these either).

The shotgun approach to game development might be a smart approach for some studios. Same idea as Sundance Studios for motion pictures. Fund four smaller projects with what you'd normally fund one and if two out of four do well, then you're okay. If one does amazingly well, then you're still okay. That would also give the designers more flexibility and take some of the pressure off of them.

[Bojay1997]

Good article.

Mentions a lot of important issues:

- project budgets spiraling out of control, coupled with the pressure to sell tons of product in order to recover costs.
- the wrong people making the creative decisions/too many cooks in the kitchen.
- falling back on 'what sold last time' comfort zone advice from investors (this is what's plaguing the film industry right now).
- biased reviews (not all that different from the payola system that influences what music gets played on commercial radio).

I think scaling projects down to smaller budgets with smaller teams could help. Of course then there'd be the argument of. "Can we still sell it at the price of a bigger/badder game?" Question is, do they HAVE to sell it at the $60.00 introductory price to make a profit if the budget was lower and the game was good enough? I suppose it then enters the realm of marketing budgets. Distribution is a pain too. Ugh. It seems they've worked themselves into a corner.

For me though, there are a lot of things that cost money that I don't need in my games. So if they need so save money, they can:
- model less cars for racing games (I only need a maximum of ten vehicles to choose from).
- skip the elaborate intros and cut scenes for racing and flight games (I don't need these either).

The shotgun approach to game development might be a smart approach for some studios. Same idea as Sundance Studios for motion pictures. Fund four smaller projects with what you'd normally fund one and if two out of four do well, then you're okay. If one does amazingly well, then you're still okay. That would also give the designers more flexibility and take some of the pressure off of them.

While I think the article raises some interesting points, it's the same basic points that gamers and industry analysts have been debating for well over a decade now. Frankly, people were claiming the same things about budgets, the same movies or sequels year after year, biased critics and non-creative decision makers in the movie industry in the 1970s and 80s and yet the movie industry continues to make increasing profits year after year by raising ticket prices and pushing premium experiences like 3D and IMAX. The same thing will happen in games.

Sure, there may be some massive failures and some publishers that go under in the coming years, but in an industry where games with hundreds of millions of dollars in development and marketing costs (i.e. COD, GTA, etc...) recoup that within a day or two of launch, the financial incentives are far too great for these large developer/publishers to change what they are doing. I think if anything you will continue to see more and more smaller and mid-size developers either fold completely or be absorbed into these larger companies and in a few years there will only be massive developer/publishers like Activision, Ubisoft and EA and tiny publishers doing mobile and download games on a true shoestring. The sad thing is that unlike digital low budget film-making, there is a certain level of technical expertise needed to make games, so it's not exactly as open as other forms of creative expression.

[Greg2600]

Given the sheer numbers of PS4/One consoles sold this month, I kind of doubt any crash is coming.

[TonyTheTiger]

While I think the article raises some interesting points, it's the same basic points that gamers and industry analysts have been debating for well over a decade now. Frankly, people were claiming the same things about budgets, the same movies or sequels year after year, biased critics and non-creative decision makers in the movie industry in the 1970s and 80s and yet the movie industry continues to make increasing profits year after year by raising ticket prices and pushing premium experiences like 3D and IMAX. The same thing will happen in games.

The difference is that when a movie is completed it can keep making money for years and even decades. Back to the Future is still a viable moneymaker for Universal. Even films that flop at the box office can earn money through various means. When movies age they don't lose their relevance. People will watch A Christmas Story on TBS or buy a Blu-ray of Terminator 2. Video games, though, age like computer software. After a few months they've essentially exhausted their entire revenue stream. And they generally can't be resold or repackaged as-is unless it's bona fide classic like Super Mario Bros. 3, and even then it won't sell for more than $5 or so. Budgets need to reflect this reality.

It's specifically because games are competing with Hollywood that this mess started. Back in the mid-90s a budget could only be so big, regardless of what a game's vision was. A flop could only do so much damage under these circumstances. But the shackles came off and the beast ran loose. With those technical limitations no longer an issue and 15 years worth of unchecked growth, here we are in a state of unstable equilibrium in which the majority of publishers are operating under the constant threat of total collapse. It's unsustainable.