Starfield: Can this Game Survive?
Bethesda, a now wholly owned Microsoft game development studio division, stands poised to release its new space role-playing game (RPG) entitled Starfield on September 6, 2023.
Starfield’s release has already been delayed once by nearly a year, when it was formerly slated for release on November 11, 2022. Starfield’s nearly year long delay along with being made exclusively available to the Microsoft’s gaming platforms, coupled with its Game Pass inclusion might not signal great things for this upcoming game release. It might not even signal great things for Bethesda as a company. Microsoft is definitely not doing any favors for Bethesda. Let’s explore.
PlayStation 5’s Banner Launch
According to Kotaku, Sony is now seeing banner sales with its PS5. It can be difficult tell what’s boastful speculation around such sales, but one thing is certain, getting your hands onto a PS5 console can still be difficult nearly 3 years after the PS5’s November 2020 launch. For nearly 2 years, the PS5 was almost impossible to find on store shelves. When they did manage to appear, they were gone within hours. Going into the third year, it’s become somewhat easier to find as the demand has somewhat eased, that or Sony has drastically increased production or both. “Somewhat”, doesn’t imply that the PS5’s sales are in any way slowing, however. For Sony, the bristling sales of the PS5 continue.
Because this sales fact means Sony’s console is shaping up to be the banner console of this decade, one has to question both Bethesda and Microsoft’s decision to keep a game like Starfield exclusive to Microsoft’s platforms alone. One thing is certain, cutting off sales to a massively growing gaming segment is probably not the brightest of ideas. For Microsoft, Starfield may not become an overall major problem for Microsoft on the whole, but why intentionally tank part of your company when you don’t have to? For Bethesda, on the other hand, these mounting problems could end this division.
Exclusivity and Sales
Prior to the digital download explosion, the primary way that video games had always made bank was by selling physical game copies. Physical copies would show up at retailers like Amazon, Best Buy and Gamestop. Once the digital download explosion began, not only could retailers sell boxed copies, they could also sometimes sell digital codes for online digital stores.
Because both the PlayStation and the Xbox are the primary two video game consoles on the market for a game like Starfield, this meant sales from both platforms play fully into both the success and the revenue of that video game title. So as not to exclude the Nintendo Switch from this conversation, know that this console also exists and some “adult” style games do eventually make it to the Nintendo Switch console. Whether Starfield would have been tapped for the Switch is questionable. As of Starfield (and likely many future Bethesda game titles), though, producing availability across all non-Microsoft platforms has halted.
Bethesda (likely at Microsoft’s prompting) has made the dubious decision of making Starfield (and likely most new Bethesda games) available exclusively on the Xbox and on Windows-based PCs (Microsoft’s platforms). You might have thought that Microsoft’s Bethesda would have stopped there and just accepted the loss of half of the video game market in revenue, but no. It gets worse for Bethesda.
According to Forbes, the PS5 has also sold the fastest amount of consoles since its launch that Sony has ever sold in its history. That means that the PS5 appears to be on-track to outsell the PS4. Considering that the number of PS4 consoles exceeds 117 million today combined with the over 38 million PS5’s sold so far, that’s a huge number of potential buyers to exclude from a video game’s sales. I did say it would get worse.
Game Pass
For video game players, an all-inclusive monthly game subscription service like Game Pass is a huge win. For video game developers, not so much. Let’s understand why. Video game buyers can, for a relatively small monthly fee, instantly buy into a massive library of games that can all be downloaded and played immediately. A single game that formerly cost each buyer $60 to purchase new, now costs a game player $9.99/mo for 30 days of play! That $10 doesn’t just cover one game, though. That monthly fee covers hundreds or maybe thousands of games available in the Game Pass library all unlocked the instant the subscription starts. No trips to the store. No game discs to scratch up. No wasted plastic. Quick and easy access over the Internet.
Sony has a similar subscription product called PlayStation Plus Essential. It’s effectively Sony’s burgeoning version of Game Pass, with a similarly growing library of games all accessible at a flat monthly rate.
With these subscription services, the monthly costs can be reduced if you’re willing buy into 24 months of Game Pass service. Unfortunately, this bundled deal is only available if you buy an Xbox console at the same time. Still, not a bad deal. If you already have an Xbox console or are looking to extend your existing subscription past the 24 months, the only option is the $9.99 per month deal.
Game Pass versus PlayStation Plus Essential
This article would be remiss without discussing an important aspect around buying into Game Pass versus Sony’s PlayStation Plus Essential. The $10/mo Game Pass plan DOES NOT include Xbox Live Gold, the service needed to play online multiplayer games. This means that in addition to the $10/mo, you’ll need to buy or have Xbox Live separately. However, with Sony PlayStation Plus Essential, this plan offers both access to the PlayStation Network along with a limited library of games. Essentially, Sony’s lowest tier plan is equivalent to having Xbox Live Gold and Game Pass together at Sony’s lowest monthly price tag. While Sony gives you both services together, Sony only allows limited access to games with the Essential tier. You’ll have to pay up into Sony’s larger PlayStation Plus tiers to gain access to more games from Sony’s game library.
To get Xbox Live combined with Game Pass for your Xbox, you’ll need to buy into the Game Pass Ultimate edition, which is priced at $15 a month ($5 more than the base Game Pass edition without Xbox Live). However, that’s still a savings of $5 a month when paying for Xbox Live Gold monthly, which is priced at $10 a month separately.
Why is having access to Xbox Live and PSN important? These services are required to allow you to play online multiplayer games. Because many games these days require Xbox Live and PSN to function, buying into the lowest edition of Game Pass alone won’t allow you to play games that require Xbox Live. You’d need to pay up to the $15/mo edition to buy Game Pass Ultimate to enable play of online multiplayer games along with gaining access to the Game Pass library of games.
Having Xbox Live is not required when buying into the Game Pass $10/mo edition. However, without Xbox Live, you will be limited to playing only Game Pass library games that do not require Xbox Live, which consist of offline single player games. There are fewer and fewer of these games released every year.
Subscription Services vs Profits
The one thing that hasn’t been discussed much with these gaming subscription services is exactly how developers will make money. Right now, $9.99 a month is great for a gamer who immediately gains access to perhaps thousands of games, including many day-one releases.
For the game developer, Microsoft cannot afford to hand that game developer $60 for each downloaded game from Game Pass. Same for Sony. This means that developers see drastically reduced revenue from games on Game Pass.
What this means is that for each download from Game Pass, the developer will receive a tiny fraction of money in a monthly payment tallied up for each gamer who downloads a specific game title. No download = No money. Simply because a game has been listed in Game Pass doesn’t mean the developer gets money. Developers are only likely to get paid IF a player downloads and plays the game. Even then, once a player deletes the game after installing it, the monthly revenues stop.
Let’s do the Math
Console Physical Disc Model
If there are 117 million PS4 consoles and if just 10% of those console owners buy a game at $60, that’s 60 * 11.7 million = $702 million in total revenue from that game’s sales. Of course, that’s what the retailers get. The wholesale price for a video game is around $50 paid by the retailer to the game studio. That’s 50 * 11.7 million = $585 million in sales that went directly to the game studio. Clearly, other fees will need to be paid out of that revenue by the developer who might net $200-300 million or so. This revenue windfall occurs within a month of two of a video game’s launch.
Game Pass Model
There is no revenue windfall, at least not for the developer. As stated above, a video game placed into the Game Pass library means drastically lower income. Instead of the $200-300 million windfall in physical disc sales nearly all at once, now developers must live on a much lower fraction of revenue that gets spread out over many months.
If 11.7 million players subscribe to Game Pass, in one month that equates to $10 * 11.7 million subscribers = $117 million per month (assuming that the number remains steady). This next part assumes that ALL 11.7 million decide to download the Starfield game. We know that’s not likely, but let’s assume this anyway.
If a game developer drops a brand new day-one game onto Game Pass, like Starfield, the game’s revenue will be a tiny, tiny fraction of that $117 million per month. Where a game developer receives 100% of the wholesale revenue from physical box sales, subscription based sales might receive 1% (probably way less) in total revenue from the revenues brought in by Game Pass’s monthly subscription fees. Why $1 million? That’s ~1% of $117 million. Keep in mind that $117 million is already fractionally less than the $585 million the developer could have received by selling boxed copies.
Instead of the $200-300 million for boxed sales for a single game, the game’s developer might now receive $1 million in that first 30 days after release, possibly not even that much. Keep in mind that the monthly revenue collected by Microsoft for the monthly Game Pass subscriptions must be shared amongst ALL video games that are being played and downloaded that month. The more games being played, the more developers must share in that revenue. That means that the more wide diversity of games that are being downloaded and played, the less revenue there is to go around to all of these developers. That $1 million mentioned might actually become $100k because of the revenue sharing and the wide diversity of games being played at any given month.
Revenue paid to developers who place games into Game Pass library is only for actively played games. Once gamers play the game fully, then each deletes the game from their console, the revenue stops the instant the game is deleted from the console. The game developer will only be paid as long as the player keeps the game installed and likely only if the game is launched and used periodically. If the game can be beaten in under 30 days, then the developer will be paid for only the days the player has actively played the game. If many players beat the game in 10 days, that’s only 10 days of revenue paid out for each specific player.
What all of this means is that it offers Microsoft ways of reducing payments to developers based on how often and how long a player plays a game. In other words, instead of the pay-$60 model where the revenue is locked in as long as a sale is made, developers are now under a much stricter, lower revenue model. It is also a model that can see Microsoft reduce payments because of revenue sharing and lower use. If two games were the only games played on Game Pass in a month, that means that Microsoft would only need to pay out revenue to 2 developers from that $117.5 million pool of income. If 100 games from 100 different developers suddenly become active, Microsoft must now share revenue amongst those 100 developers from that same $117.5 million pool of income.
Microsoft must also determine which of the Game Pass games deserves a larger portion of revenue than the others so that the most often played games get the most revenue. Meaning, of those 100 game developers some might only see .01% of the sales while some might see as much as 1% or 2% of total revenues from monthly subscribers. As stated, the point here is that $117.5 million in subscriber fees is a mere fraction of money that could have been had using the $60 per disc price.
It only gets worse from here. Microsoft itself also instantly skims revenue off the top of the Game Pass subscriber fees to cover its own service management costs (hosting, managing listings, paying out revenue, etc). Only after Microsoft skims its own Game Pass revenue is any remaining money left over to cover developer game use payments.
Assuming there’s $117.5 million in total Game Pass revenue (as exampled above), there might only be $20-50 million left (after Microsoft skims its expenses) to pay developers for their games. This ultimately means there’s fractionally less than you might think to pay off developers for the inclusion of their games on Game Pass.
For Starfield, this game’s revenue may fare even worse. Because Microsoft wholly owns Bethesda, Microsoft may have chosen Starfield to become a loss leader. In the sales world, that ultimately means that the product is intended to be a “giveaway”. In other words, Microsoft may require Bethesda to forgo receiving any payments from Game Pass. Thus, Starfield may not make ANY revenue from its day one release on Game Pass. Under this loss leader strategy, the only money Bethesda may make would be from the tiny amount of boxed copy sales from stores like Amazon and Best Buy. Considering the price of Game Pass and its current popularity, not many players are likely to opt to pay $60 for boxed copies.
Digital Sales
While you might be thinking that some people might opt to buy the game digitally, like boxed copy sales, a few will opt for this approach. Some don’t want to invest in Game Pass and be saddled with a monthly expense to keep track of. This means that some digital sales will occur. However, the benefit of gaining access to thousands of game titles usually wins when it comes to these types of sales. Like physical boxed copies, digital sales are also likely to be limited and few. I fully expect the vast majority of Starfield players to play via Game Pass (both on the Xbox and on the PC).
Sleazy Game Pass Sales Strategy
One sleazy strategy which Microsoft has used with Game Pass and which attempts to force gamers to buy a game outright is when Microsoft removes a game title from Game Pass library 30 days after its release. This limited time release followed by speedy removal is solely an attempt to prey on the consumer’s wallet. Many gamers do fall for this tactic and opt to buy a digital copy over a boxed copy. Digital purchases offer instant access and allows the gamer to continue playing once the game is downloaded. No trips to the store looking for a physical copy.
This Game Pass sales strategy is extremely sleazy and is also worth noting because Microsoft could pull this stunt with Starfield; tease players with a 30 day Game Pass limited availability, then pull the plug and force all players to purchase the game full price to continue playing. Because of the purported scale and size of the questing within Starfield, a player likely cannot fully complete Starfield within 30 days. Be wary of this sleazy sales tactic when buying into Game Pass. Personally, I’d consider this tactic as a form of bait and switch, which is illegal in the United States under federal law.
If you’re concerned that this could happen with Starfield in Game Pass (it has a reasonably high chance), you should opt to buy the game outright either a physical boxed copy or a digital copy at full price and forgo using Game Pass to play Starfield. This will allow you to continue playing the game should Game Pass decided to pull the game quickly. Of course, you can opt to play under Game Pass until the game is pulled from the library at which point you’ll need to decide whether you want to buy it to continue. If the game is as potentially buggy as I expect it to be, many Game Pass players may choose not to buy it after only a few days of play. This sleazy sales tactic has a high probability of backfiring on Bethesda and Microsoft if the game launches with as many problems as Fallout 76.
Starfield Sales Cannibalized?
Why spend $60 for a single game when you can pay $10 and gain access to perhaps thousands of games, along with day-one releases like Starfield? While a few physical disc sales might be forthcoming, the vast majority of players are savvy enough to realize the usefulness of buying into a large library of games under Game Pass all for $10.
For Starfield, the revenue handwriting is on the wall… and it’s doesn’t paint a rosy picture. Voluntarily cutting revenues by less than half via excluding the Sony PlayStation – fractional amounts of revenue by placing Starfield on Game Pass day one = drastically reduced income for Bethesda. Instead of the potential for nearly a billion in sales by tapping the overall video game market (Xbox + PS + PC + Switch) by forcing boxed sales only, Microsoft has made the dubious decision to reduce Starfield’s potential revenue down to perhaps at most $100 million in Day One Game Pass downloads. That number is if Bethesda is very, very lucky. If Starfield is considered a “loss leader” on release then it will receive zero in revenue from Game Pass.
You might be saying, “But what about physical disc sales?” What about them? With the Starfield game being released onto Game Pass day one, what incentive is there to run out and buy a physical disc copy at $60 when you can save $50 and instantly sign up for Game Pass at $10, download and play the game on release day sans disc? For that matter, what incentive is there to buy a digital copy at $60? Sure, Starfield may see a smattering of physical box and digital sales, but the total revenue for these sales might not even exceed $10 million. Game Pass is most definitely cannibalizing boxed and digital video game sales. This Game Pass idea is actually one of the strategies that Microsoft wanted prior to the introduction of the Xbox One; basically, an all digital universe of games. Microsoft is moving in this direction rapidly, clearly at the expense of the developers.
Keep in mind that subscriptions can be cancelled at any time. This means that a player can pay $10, play and beat the game in 30 days and then cancel their Game Pass subscription. Instead of paying $60 to own the game, they’ve now paid only $10 to play the game. That’s a whopping $50 savings for the gamer and a massive amount of lost revenue for both the game developer and Microsoft.
While the release of Starfield might see a temporary boost in Game Pass subscribers and in Xbox hardware sales (this is the hope Microsoft has for Starfield), that boost still won’t be any where near enough for Microsoft to cough up the nearly $1 billion in revenue that Bethesda could have had by including all consoles and by releasing only boxed copies day one. Instead, Microsoft has relegated Bethesda’s Starfield to becoming one of the least profitable AAA game titles to be released by a major developer.
Revenue over Time
Subscription models gain revenue slowly over time. You might be thinking that maybe Bethesda can reach the $1 billion revenue mark in 12 months. Video game sales don’t work like that. Video games see a surge in play until many players play the game out. One the game has been played out, it’s dropped and forgotten. The only games which can see continued revenue models are massively multiplayer online (MMO) style games like Call of Duty, Fallout 76, Fortnite and even Destiny. Even then, these MMO style games see dwindling subscribers over time until eventually there aren’t enough playing to support the game financially. When that happens, the MMO game shuts down.
Starfield as an MMO?
We don’t yet know enough about Starfield to know if it even contains an MMO component. Only when the game is released will we know if Starfield is designed like Fallout 4, a completely offline single player experience… OR if it is similar to Fallout 76, a completely online MMO. Maybe it’s like Grand Theft Auto and offers both an offline gaming experience and has a separate online MMO map. Until the game releases, there’s also no way to know if Starfield has been built to support an ongoing revenue model.
It’s clear, the sales revenue for Starfield (as a game) will not be had by day-one game sales. That means that Bethesda must make up for the severely cannibalized day-one game sales by compensating for that major loss in revenue in some other way. With Fallout 76, that’s done by using the Fallout 1st subscription and the sale of Atomic Shop “Atoms.”
For Starfield, I’d expect Bethesda’s team to make up for that loss in day one game sales by forcing an in-game monthly subscription plan. This separate in-game monthly subscription will likely unlock downloadable content (DLC) and other required add-ons. With Fallout 76, Fallout 1st is not required to play the game. However for Starfield, Bethesda may be forced to make this change. Starfield might offer up a very basic and limited gaming experience included in the base price, then require paying into a monthly subscription plan to unlock the entirety of the game. At least, this is one avenue that could be taken. Even the $60 full disc buyers might be forced to pony up for these extras to continue playing.
This avenue may end up the primary means that Bethesda utilizes to make back the amount of lost revenue required to cover its multi-year game development expenses when producing Starfield. As described above, Game Pass revenue alone will not be enough to cover these incurred expenses. Keep in mind that Starfield had been in development before Microsoft bought Bethesda. After Bethesda was purchased, Microsoft has seemingly tied Bethesda’s hands by forcing exclusivity to the Xbox and PC and by also forcing Bethesda to release the Starfield game through Game Pass on day one. It’s possible that Microsoft might rollback the decision of a day one Game Pass release for Starfield. It’s also entirely possible that to play the game via Game Pass, a separate second subscription might be required.
For Bethesda, that means that once each player enters the Starfield game world, revenue will need to be found separately by Bethesda inside the game… and that likely means a separate monthly subscription for Starfield itself. It may also mean paying for a separate currency, like Atoms, to unlock in-game features, spaceships, outfits, consumables and so on. If you buy into Starfield, expect to be hit in the wallet at every turn within the game’s universe.
Can’t progress? Pay up. Can’t fly into a new solar system? Pay up. Need a special outfit to complete a mission? Pay up. Even though Microsoft has seemingly tied Bethesda’s hands for how the game gets sold initially, Microsoft likely can’t tie Bethesda’s hands once the gamer enters the game’s universe.
Inside of a game’s universe, Bethesda has seemingly complete control. It can force subscriptions, microtransactions and a whole slew of other for-pay options to draw in more revenue. As a direct result of Game Pass’s near non-existent revenue, expect Starfield’s game world to be chock full of microtransactions using your credit card almost incessantly. It’s honestly the only way Bethesda can recoup the money it took to develop this game over several years, even if Bethesda can’t control how the game gets into the consumer’s hands.
PlayStation Plus Essential
For all of the reasons as Game Pass above, all of the revenue and low developer payment arguments will apply to the PlayStation Plus Essential service. With that said, let’s hope that Sony will change the PlayStation Plus Essential service name, though. This current naming is completely clumsy and does not in any way state what it is. Even re-using the PlayStation Now brand would have been a better choice in naming for this game library service, as the “Now” indicates instant access.
Bugs, Bugs and more Bugs
One thing Bethesda has not been good at is writing solid, bug free games. It doesn’t matter what game it is, the affectionate moniker of Bugthesda has been given and it is more than just for humor’s sake. This moniker is at once both truthful and problematic. It says that bugs are inevitable with any game released by Bethesda. Bethesda’s Todd Howard chooses to laugh this off as not a problem at all, as if Bethesda’s products are truly bug free. Sorry to disappoint you, Todd. Every Bethesda game I’ve ever experienced has had myriads of bugs and still contain many bugs to this day. Fallout 76 STILL contains day-one release bugs nearly 6 years later!
Starfield won’t fare any better. Starfield will release day-one with a massive number of bugs. That’s not a prediction. That’s a fact. If you go into Starfield on day-one, expect it to be chock full of bugs. Some of the bugs might be minor and cosmetic (lights don’t work right, 3D characters standing and moving in T-poses, weapons don’t render properly, etc). However, there will also be at least one showstopper bug where mission progress cannot move forward. Oblivion had them, Skyrim had them, Fallout 3 had them, Fallout 4 had them and, yes, even Fallout 76 STILL has them.
There has not been a single Bethesda game released that has not had showstoppers. I expect Starfield to have at least one, but probably more than that. I also expect Starfield to have crashing bugs; bugs that see you play for an hour, then the entire game crashes back to the OS… possibly losing progress.
Why mention bugs at all here? Bugs have become the bane of the video game industry. In the 1990s, video game developers took pride in shaking out nearly every single bug before placing their games onto cartridges. When the Internet wasn’t the “thing” that it is today, game developers had to make their games function 100% before sending it out to the consumer. Unfortunately, using the Internet as a crutch, revisionism has allowed video game developers to become extremely lazy. This allows developers to release horrible, bug-laden experiences, then begin shaking out the bugs along the way with one, two or even hundreds of releases… all while using paying players as beta testers.
Unfortunately, games like 2020’s Cyberpunk 2077 initially released to incredibly bad reviews over its horrible bugs. While Cyberpunk’s developer, CD Projekt RED, has ironed out many of the bugs since its 2020 release, that doesn’t make the game’s overall reviews better. Once those reviews are there, they’re there for the life of the game. Those low reviews will remain and taint the review system regardless of whether the developer shores up the game. If you release a bad buggy game initially, your initial reviews stay there to impact the game’s rating long into the future. Those bad reviews, thus, impact that game’s sales forever.
Was Cyberpunk 2077 able to recoup from its initially bad launch? In some small way, perhaps. Maybe through word of mouth, but definitely not via its Metacritic scores.
For Starfield, the first 3 months after its launch will become crucial to its success or failure. Starfield’s release date is set for September 6, 2023. Bethesda’s developers are now all working at a feverish pace to complete this game in time for that September launch date. Yet, we know it won’t be complete even after a year’s delay. If it was delayed a year, that means its bugs were major and the game was as yet unfinished. It is doubtful a year will buy them enough time to fix all of that.
What this means for Starfield is that its initial reviews will make or break it. It also means that game players are becoming intolerant of being taken advantage of by game developers. Game players are not beta testers, yet more and more game studios are treating game players as tertiary beta testers. Instead of hiring actual beta testers, game developers forgo those expenses and expect paying players to report the bugs. Worse, they do. More than ever, this is the wrong choice and it is a choice that can doom a game. We pay to PLAY the game, not BETA TEST it.
Overall
Considering the massive loss in revenue due to Game Pass, the high probability for the inclusion of pay-for-play micro-transaction features, the probable need for a separate subscription, Starfield seems poised to become one of the worst games ever released by Bethesda. Unfortunately, Bethesda has too many “fanboys”; “fanboys” who are willing to buy anything released by Bethesda regardless of its useful state. For the purposes of this article, “fanboy” is used in a gender neutral capacity, encapsulating both males and females alike. For the same reason, Apple has too many of these same “fanboys” type buyers willing to buy anything Apple releases, good or bad. Bethesda’s “fanboys” are just as avid and ravenous and, for whatever misguided reason, believe Bethesda can do no wrong. To them I say, enjoy being exploited.
The purpose of this article is to call out all of the problems that Bethesda faces with the release of Starfield. Because Microsoft has strongly tied Bethesda’s hands in very specific ways, that leaves Bethesda employing other not-so-favorable options to gain that lost revenue back. As a result, I fully expect Starfield to be a poor gaming experience overall, mostly because of the compromises required for Bethesda to make back the revenue it ultimately lost as a result of Microsoft’s exclusivity and Game Pass release decisions. That and Microsoft isn’t likely to allow Bethesda to delay Starfield any longer. Whatever state Starfield is in come September is how it will launch.
How does this make a difference to me as a gamer?
Good question. For you as a gamer, you might not care much overall. That is, unless you’re really looking for a new high quality gaming experience. Though, while the incessant micro-transactions designed to bilk you for money exist at every turn, the rest of the game might seem still like a benefit to you. Game Pass itself was designed to be a huge benefit to gamers, giving them access to a huge library of games. If you don’t like Starfield, you move on and try another. In the hundreds or thousands of games out there, there may be some that work for you. If Starfield bombs, it will simply be relegated to a game on Game Pass that no one plays.
For Starfield, it doesn’t mean good things. For Bethesda, it means even worse things. For Microsoft, it means great things. Well, maybe not great, but definitely something Microsoft can ignore. If Bethesda is forced to continue down this path by Microsoft, as a developer it may cease to exist inside of Microsoft… ultimately being folded into other game studios. Microsoft doesn’t care about exactly who does what as long as someone does it. Does that mean Fallout or Starfield or other Bethesda franchises disappear? No.
Like Halo before it, Microsoft will hand Bethesda’s intellectual property to another developer to continue building new games under those franchises (or not). Microsoft doesn’t actually care who develops any given franchise as long as they’re willing to do it and what they create sells more of Microsoft’s goods and services. Once a franchise runs its course and it’s done, Microsoft is also willing to shelve the franchise indefinitely, like it did with Fable. If Bethesda as a developer fades into oblivion, Bethesda’s IP may or may not live on depending entirely on Microsoft.
That’s why all of this might (or might not) matter to you.
↩︎
Video game designers stuck in a rut
Video game consoles, such as the PS3, Wii and Xbox 360 (and even PC’s) have gotten more complex and provide impressive 3D capabilities and 5.1 sound. Yet, video games have not. There was a time many years ago when video game designers would take chances and create unique and unusual titles. Games that challenge the mind and challenge the video gamer’s thought processes. Games used to be fun to play.
In recent years…
Today, most games fall into a very small subset of genres: First/Third Person Shooter, Fighting, RPG, Simulation, Sports or Music (with a few lesser genres appearing occasionally). While the innovation in the hardware continues to progress, the video game designers are not progressing. Sure, it takes time to get actors into a studio to record tracks. Sure, it takes time to build and rig up 3D models. Sure, it takes time to motion capture realistic action to plug into those 3D models. Yes, it takes time to program all of those complex algorithms to make it all work as a whole. I understand all of that. But that’s the process, not the innovation. These are the tools necessary to get the job done. They are a means to an end and not the end in itself.
Design considerations
For whatever reason, big video game executives have it in their heads that the tried-and-true model sells a video game. That may be true to some degree, but you can also wear-out-your-welcome with overused techniques. In other words, when a game title sucks, the word spreads FAST in the video game community. That can stop a video game’s sales dead.
When starting a new game project, the producer and creative staff need to decide whether or not they are planning on introducing something new and innovative. First and third person shooters (FPS/TPS) have already been done and done and done and done again ad nauseam. That’s not to say that yet another TPS or FPS can’t be successful. It can.. IF there’s something compelling to the game… and that’s a big IF.
Sure, there are video gamers who will play anything they can get their hands on (known as video game fanatics). But, as a game developer, you can’t rely on these gamers to carry your title to success. These gamers do not necessarily make up the majority of the game buying public. As far as myself, I am an much more discriminating buyer. I simply won’t buy every title that comes along. I pick and choose the titles based on the styles of games I know that I like to play. For example, I do not buy turn-based games of any sort. I don’t care if it’s based on dice rolls or card draws whether in a fighting, FPS or RPG game. I won’t buy them because turn-based games get in the way of actual playing. Turn-based games also tend to be antiquated. I understand where turn-based play came from (i.e., board games). But, it has no place in a 3D world based video game.
Again, choosing to add turn-based play into your game is your decision as a developer. But, by doing so, you automatically exclude gamers who won’t buy turn-based games, like myself. There are gamers who do enjoy turn-based games, but I don’t know of any gamers who won’t buy real-time play styles and buy only turn-based. So, you automatically limit those who purchase your game to those who buy turn based. But, by making your game real-time, you include a much bigger audience.
These are up-front design considerations that, as a developer and producer, you need to understand about gamer buying habits. These are decisions that can directly affect the success of your video game title.
Previous innovations
In the early days of 3D console games (mid-80s through mid-90s), game developers were willing to try new and unusual things. Of course, these were the days when 3D was limited to flat untextured surfaces. We’ve come a long way in the graphics arena. But, even as far as we’ve come in producing complex and unusual 3D worlds within the games, the play styles have become firmly stagnant. For example, most First/Third person shooters today rely on a very linear story to get from point A to point B. Driving the game along is an invisible path. So, while the complex 3D world is wonderfully constructed, the character can only see the world from a limited vantage point. The cameras are usually forced to be in one spot (near or behind the character). The character is forced to traverse the world through a specific path with invisible boundaries. So, exploration of the world is limited to what the game designer and story allow you to do.
This style of game is very confining. It forces the gamer to play the game on the programmer’s terms rather than on the gamer’s terms. Worse, when this play style is combined with checkpoint saves, health meters and other confining aspects, these games can easily become tedious and frustrating. So, what a game developer may consider to be ‘challenging’, in reality becomes frustration.
A shot of new innovation
The video game development world needs is to open is collective eyes. Don’t rely on the tried-and-true. Don’t relay on formulas. Don’t assume that because a previous game worked that your next game will also work. What works is what video gamers like. What doesn’t work is what video gamers don’t like. The video game community is very vocal, so listen to your audience and learn. Most of all, try new things… and by that I don’t mean tweaking an existing formula. I mean, take a risk. Try something new. Let gamers explore the world. Produce worlds that are open and complete. Let gamers build things. Let gamers take the game to whole new levels. Build in construction sets to allow gamers to create things you have never thought of. Build in ways to save the constructions to web sites and allow gamers to monetize the things they’ve built.
These are innovations that lead to progress. These are innovations that instill addictiveness into the game. These are innovations that keep your game alive for years to come. You only need to look at the popularity of Second Life, World of Warcraft and even the Elder Scrolls series to understand that an unlimited world with construction kits allow gamers to take the game into directions you’ve never even thought of.
Most games play through in only a few weeks (sometimes less than 1 week). The gamer buys it, plays it through and then trades it in never to touch it again. This is effectively a movie rental. So, once the gamers have had their fill, the game is effectively dead. This style of game does not provide your company with a continued stream of revenue from that title. Only titles that have open ends, that offer expansion packs, and that allow gamers to construct things on their own are the games that keep a title alive for years rather than a few weeks.
That may require a slightly bigger cash outlay in the beginning (to support a title that has a longer lifespan), but if done correctly, should also provide much more income for that game company. This is why titles like Fallout 3, Oblivion: Elder Scrolls IV and World of Warcraft are talked about months (and even years) after the game’s initial release. But, forgettable games like Fracture, Too Human or even Force Unleashed have no extra play value after the game ends.
Gaming elements incorrectly used
In too many game designs, programming elements are used incorrectly to ‘challenge’ the gamer. Game challenges should come in the form of story elements, puzzles, clues and riddles. Game challenge elements should not involve game saving, turn-based play, checkpoints, character deaths, camera movement, controller button sequences, or anything dealing with the real-world physicality of the gaming system. In other words, challenges should not be tied to something outside of the video game or outside of the story. So, as a designer.. you should always ask yourself: Does this challenge progress the game story forward? If the answer is no, the challenge is a failure. If yes, then the story becomes better by the challenge.
Button Sequences
For example, requiring the gamer to respond to a sequence of button presses in a very specific real-world time limit is not challenging. This is frustrating. This means the gamer needs to trial-and-error this section until they can make it through the timed sequence of buttons. This is a failed and incorrectly used ‘challenge’ event. This section does not challenge. Instead, this sequence requires the gamer to ‘get through’ that section. Note that ‘getting through’ is not a positive gaming aspect. Worse, if this game section comes in a FPS game, but only occasionally (only to fight a boss), this is also incorrectly used. If this play style is used regularly and consistently throughout the game, then the gamer knows that it’s coming. If it’s used only at certain undisclosed points rarely, then the gamer has to fumble to realize what’s going on when there is no warning.
Death Sequences
Another common, but also incorrectly used gaming element is the character death sequence. For some reason, recent games have promoted the use of character deaths as part of the challenge element. So, there are sections of some games where the designers specifically designed the level so the gamer has to ‘die’ his way through the level. These trial and error sequences, again, are incorrectly used and do not aid in moving the story or the game forward. These also tend to promote deaths as a way to solve problems. This is not appropriate.
Games should always promote the positive aspects of life and not promote death as a means to an end. Worse, games like Too Human take the death sequence to an extreme and make the gamer wait through an excruciatingly long cinematic each time the character dies. This, again, is an inappropriate use of a gaming element. The game should be designed for the GAMER and not for the game designer. Long death sequences such as what’s in Too Human overly emphasizes death. This is, again, not appropriate.
Health Meters
Health meters are another common gaming element that are incorrectly used, or lack thereof. Every game that allows the character to ‘die’ needs to have a visible health meter. Games that use the Unreal engine do not have this. Instead, when your character takes enough ‘damage’, the screen will become red with a halo. The problem with this system (and this is also why its incorrectly used) is that the gamer doesn’t know how far from ‘death’ the character is. This is not a challenge. This is annoying and frustrating. This leaves the gamer wondering just how much health they have.
Game Saves
Again, story elements move the game forward. Having the gamer stop and reload a game takes the gamer OUT of the game and forces them to restart from some arbitrary point. Checkpoint games are particularly bad about this. When checkpoints are the only way to save a game, this means the gamer must waste their real-world time through trial-and-error gaming. This means, the user must wait through character deaths and then the subsequent reload of the level to restart at the checkpoint. Again, this is not a challenge… it’s simply a waste of time. When levels are designed such that the gamer’s character will die at least once to get through the level, the level has failed. This forces a reload of a previous save. This element, again, is misued as a challenge element. Taking the gamer out of the game by forcing a reload ruins the game experience and disrupts the story you, as a developer, worked so hard to make cohesive.
Future of Gaming
Even as game developers are now stuck in the genre rut, they do have the power to break out of it. They do have the means to produce games with more compelling and addictive content. Instead of using old formulas that used to work, designers need to look for new ways to innovate, monetize and bring video gamers into their game worlds and keep them there. Games shouldn’t be viewed as a short term point A to B entity. Games need to move to open ended and free exploration worlds. Worlds that let the gamer play on the gamer’s terms. Sure, there can be story elements that tie the game together like Fallout 3 and Oblivion. In fact, I’d expect that. But, these game threads should start and end inside the game as quests. You can play them when you want to and you can leave them hanging if you don’t want to complete it.
Game elements like checkpoints, saves and button sequences need to be rethought. Some of these elements can be successfully used, like checkpoints if implemented thoughtfully. However, allowing the gamer to save anywhere lets the gamer save and start at their leisure. But, that manual save process leaves it up to the gamer to remember to save. For this reason, checkpoints when combined with save-anywhere is the best alternative when gaming. After all, the game was supposed to be produced for the gamer.
Designers, creators and developers need to challenge the notion of what is a video game. They need to use the 3D worlds in creative NEW ways. Let the users explore the worlds on their terms, not on some dictated path and story. Designers need to take a page from Bethesda’s book on free-roaming RPGs and expand on this. Closed ended, path based games have limited playability and definitely no replay value. Monetarily, developers need to understand that open ended construction based games let gamers take ownership of the game and make it their own. Closed, narrow pathed games do not.
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment